Engaging Steve Jobs story/interview from 2005 [long]

Sounds like he failed to think different.

I've always had the impression (from afar) that while Jobs may enjoy and want the adoration, he doesn't want to deal directly with those that have this feeling. The rare exception that I've seen are children.

>"We're just who we are. Apple has values we care about; Apple cares about tolerance. We are not a political company, but a company with a set of values."

Some may consider it marketing but I think Jobs truly believes in this.

At the end of the day, I think Jobs just wants to simply be known as someone who made the world a better place than it was before or, more accurately, to make technology accessible to everyone.

I like "human interest" pieces and I like Steve Jobs. Ergo ...I liked this article. I don't have a problem with someone who is so famous and big that he doesn't have to pander and sell himself or his company, and that's the realm Jobs is in. He's not political -- end of story, next question. Apple's products are no less green than the competitors' -- what part of that answer didn't you understand, reporter? How does it feel to beat cancer and be back in control? Are you kidding me, impudent m'fer? You didn't get the memo about me and my personal life. Next question. One of the comments (at the posting site) said the reporter imposed his own psychobabble slant on the article. I don't have a problem with that. It was a good portrait photograph of Jobs done by a professional.

To reinterpret this reporter's vignette of Jobs, to me the encounter with him shows a man with an enormous level of intention and focus, and a brief view of the techniques he might use to deal with the hugely complex decisions and situations that must come with being Apple's CEO.

It seems certain that Jobs was meditating just prior to the interview, drawing deep within himself to clear his consciousness, re-center, and get back on track with his plans.

It's really poor journalistic work. It works better as a demonstration of pseudo-psychology than anything else. Every comment from the author about Jobs is riddled with a-priori, specious extrapolations and non-sequiturs.

It's interesting nonetheless.