Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Steve Jobs's Real Genius

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 152 posts

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#91

Post by joezydeco »

tmsh wrote: post #13

I moderately disagree with Gladwell's conclusions, and fear he is trying to 'tweak' his own theories about 'tweakers' to fit Jobs. Jobs had faults and long-term insights. He liked what was beautiful. And he was really good at tweaking (and insisted on it until a kind of perfection). But the other thing he had was imagination, insight into what was important in the long run, and really good engineers who were attracte…

Was Pixar really a "tweak"?

Remember that Jobs bought Pixar because he thought the hardware that Pixar designed and sold had potential.

It wasn't until Lasseter's work in doing shorts (to show off the software) and commercials (to pay the bills) started taking off that the possibility of a feature movie came about. That's more like a "pivot".

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#92

Post by RyanMcGreal »

podperson wrote: post #54
chubot wrote: post #29

It has some truth to it, but ignores a lot of salient facts in favor of a cute argument (insert Gladwell dig here). Steve Jobs' had many parts to his genius. Tweaking products until they were really finished was one. But I would say the most important (and impressive) part of his genius was holistic thinking . He wasn't a programmer, a hardware engineer, an industrial designer, an advertising copywriter, or an archit…

I agree wholeheartedly. To compare, as Gladwell does, Microsoft's "copying" of Mac to make Windows to Apple's "copying" of Xerox PARC's half-assed UI to make Mac is completely missing the point. Jobs produced "copies" of things that transcended the things he copied (he "copied" an MP3 player with (a) a simpler but better MP3 player, (b) cross-platform software with automated ripping and an online store, (c) seamless…

> Jobs produced "copies" of things that transcended the things he copied

Er, that's precisely what Gladwell is arguing.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#93

Post by bluekeybox »

crazygringo wrote: post #87
bluekeybox wrote: post #40

Who is this Gladwell guy and what did he invent or made that is worth noting? Or did he simply take someone else's opinions using someone else's language and tweaked them a little bit to make them appear as his own?

Not sure if you're being serious or not... But this is probably the worst Gladwell article I've ever read. I just finished the Jobs biography, and Gladwell is just repeating parts of it. I know Gladwell has a set number of words he has to deliver to the New Yorker each year, but I'm actually kind of surprised the New Yorker accepted this article. It's practically just plagiarism.

I just finished reading the biography as well, and Gladwell's article gave me the same impression it gave you. Repeat a bunch of things from Isaacson, describe a false dichotomy between creators (the pious ones) and tweakers (the fallen ones), then position Jobs as a "false prophet" on the basis of the above false dichotomy. Next, set up yourself (Malcolm Gladwell) as being the only one enlightened enough to tell true prophets from false ones (a claim which would neatly place Gladwell's image next to the former ones). Oh and pick an opportune moment to say all this to generate enough publicity around yourself. Thinking goes: people have been talking too much about Jobs,; time for them to talk a bit more about Gladwell.

Isaacson is, in places, brutal on Jobs, but he doesn't resort to cheap tricks like this.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#94

Post by RyanMcGreal »

Fliko wrote: post #88
glenra wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it." The main problem with that analogy is that Jobs bought that TV set from Xerox. Xerox freely let Apple see what they were working on with the understanding that Apple would use some of these ideas. In exchange for this, Xerox got to profit from the resulting…

No, the analogy is perfect for what happened, and a killer comeback on Gate's part. I don't think Steve appreciated competition and tried to kill it with a shotgun instead of a better product, this is very evident with the attack on Android, and with the absolutely absurd patents that have been filed by Apple. Short term Steve Job's model of doing things has worked out really well, but if it was allowed to continue (…

> I don't think Steve appreciated competition and tried to kill it with a shotgun instead of a better product

In fairness, I think he did both.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#95

Post by aufreak3 »

ghshephard wrote: post #2

Insightful and highly accurate characterization of Issacson's Biography. I often wondered whether people like Jobs have any ability to see themselves (and others) objectively, and whether that lack of ability, that narcissism, is essential to their ability to ensure their vision comes out with the purity that we saw in the iPhone, iPad, Macbook Air, etc... I also appreciate this characterization's of Jobs' rant on Ga…

With due credit to Gates' intent behind the philanthropy he's undertaken, the relationship between good intent and good outcomes is by no means straightforward.

In the book "the logic of failure" by Dietrich Dorner, he presents simulation experiments with some disturbing results. In his simulations, people were tasked to better the lives of nomads with high mortality rates and tsetse fly infested cattle. This who first saw their mission as a humanitarian one - i.e. about fixing the health problems of nomads and their cattle - end up causing famines instead. Those who succeed manage to achieve a slow improvement in standard metrics.

I recommend that book to anyone who thinks solving the problems of a setup with many interdependent parts is a well understood thing or automatically apply thumb rules like "one problem at a time".

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#96

Post by [deleted] »

grayrest wrote: post #67

I'm annoyed that Gladwell classifies Jobs as a tweaker. He's not. He's a tastemaker. From TFA: > When Vincent shouted, “You’ve got to tell me what you want,” Jobs shot back, “You’ve got to show me some stuff, and I’ll know it when I see it.” Can you imagine one of the British hacker/tweakers in the article (or a hacker/tweaker you know) EVER saying something like that? The respect I have for role comes from them havi…

[deleted]

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#97

Post by Toady »

OoTheNigerian wrote: post #25

>When Vincent shouted, “You’ve got to tell me what you want,” Jobs shot back, “You’ve got to show me some stuff, and I’ll know it when I see it.” I too am like this. I know what I want when I see it. I also know good stuff. I am sure most people are the same way too. The main difference between us and Jobs is; we do not have the patience to wait until it it is right. The heart to tell 64 (!!!) nurses that they do not…

I hope entrepreneurs don't start confusing accountability with narcissism because of Steve Jobs. You don't have to be a rude, difficult, bully to get things right. Not only would Steve tell people that their work sucked, but when they finally produced something he approved of, he would often act as if it was his idea. His romanticized view of the world was also impractical, from the meaningless paint job of the NeXT factory to his refusal to have his body "invaded" by surgery. What point does it serve to go through 64 nurses or worry about the design of your oxygen mask? It's absurd and accomplishes nothing.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#98

Post by bloggergirl »

ghshephard wrote: post #34
chubot wrote: post #29

It has some truth to it, but ignores a lot of salient facts in favor of a cute argument (insert Gladwell dig here). Steve Jobs' had many parts to his genius. Tweaking products until they were really finished was one. But I would say the most important (and impressive) part of his genius was holistic thinking . He wasn't a programmer, a hardware engineer, an industrial designer, an advertising copywriter, or an archit…

It's also important not to leave out his ability to convince people of his vision. From Jurveston: "During this time, corporate partners came to appreciate Steve’s enthusiasm as the Reality Distortion Field. Sun Microsystems went so far as to have a policy that no contract could be agreed to while Steve was in the room. They needed to physically remove themselves from the mesmerizing magic to complete the negotiation…

That's a book I'd love to read: "How to Mesmerize Like Steve Jobs"

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#99

Post by shashashasha »

Jobs’s sensibility was more editorial than inventive. “I’ll know it when I see it,” he said.

This caption strikes me because my friend/professor in architecture just read Steve Jobs and said "Steve Jobs was an architect more than anything". We often collapse these things onto a domain more familiar to us, and the model of editor as Master Tweaker (and architect as Master Builder) seems to fit Gladwell's world of thinking.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#100

Post by bloggergirl »

bluekeybox wrote: post #71
makthrow wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on this creative process? Interested in learning more.

It's an iterative process of tweaking, then stepping back to take a wider view, then tweaking some more, then stepping back again to evaluate, etc... until either (1) you're intuitively happy with the result or (2) your result conforms to some objective standard, or (3) both. It requires introspection and knowing how to "hack" your intuition. Different people hack their intuition in different ways, here is one way to…

Sorry that Gladwell has sullied your opinion of writers... but all the good writers (emphasis on "good") I've known and currently know are insanely good at the creative process and lead the way in creative development.

It's the copywriter who produces the creative concepts in an advertising agency. Those commercials you see and those taglines/slogans you remember? Those were the brainchild of a copywriter sitting at a desk somewhere, mulling over ideas, soaking up culture and transforming it into a memorable view of that culture. The copywriter imagines. Then documents. Then edits. Then reimagines. Then lets a bunch of others give their opinions. Then edits some more.

Not sure what writers you've come across, but you might want to ease up on making sweeping statements about all - or even 80% of writers. Oh, and most working writers -- the ones who aren't starving -- are hard workers who don't believe in climbing the mystic mountain to seek out the Muse, as you describe.

Post reply on HN