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

Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs

trevorowens.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs

#51

Post by trevor99 »

ssharp wrote: post #43
trevor99 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I noted that Jobs's hustling was important. His product vision, design aesthetic, and RDF were not, which is where most founders go wrong. Not sure you read the book carefully--many investors laughed in Jobs's face not because it was a bad idea, but because he had BO and they couldn't stand him. Also--Steve was lucky to be Wozniak's best friend, whom most talented engineers came to Apple because of. Mike Scott (the C…

You can't create the Apple potion without Jobs or Wozniak. By all accounts in the book, Woz would have just given his designs away. It was Jobs who realized the market potential of Wozniak's designs. But founders shouldn't be emulating anyone. They should be doing what they're best at doing. And Apple's founders did this. Woz was best at engineering and Jobs was best at building a company. Woz was very skeptical of A…

You're right that they both needed each other. You're wrong that Jobs was best at building a company. Markkula and Scott built the company. But I agree Apple would have failed without Jobs.

Re: Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs

#52

Post by trevor99 »

kstenerud wrote: post #36
trevor99 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree failure is important. It's easy to start with a large fortune and end with a smaller one though.

Basically what I'm getting at is: He had greater means and so could take higher value risks, but the basic mechanism is the same; it's just at a different scale. In the end it comes down to having the vision and taking the risk. And one of his risks finally paid off. That is the essence of entrepreneurship, and something to emulate.

Your stretching pretty far here. "Vision" was what led Steve Jobs wrong for 20 years of his life. Markkula knew the industry and knew what would work, Wozniak had the best engineering ability of anyone. This was the magic combination and what founders should try to emulate.

It's not just scale either. Jobs was also famous and perceived as successful. He could be a complete asshole to people and they would still work with him. You should try that in your next startup...

Re: Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs

#53

Post by pg »

Sadly, this is not one of the honeypots Wesley Tansey recently suggested I set up (http://www.nashcoding.com/2011/10/28/hackernews-needs-honeyp...).

As someone who has seen dozens of Woz-founder-only startups march into the meatgrinder of obscurity, I can tell you that if you have to be one or the other, you're better off being Jobs.

Not that you have much choice about it though. If you're a natural Jobs you're not going to have much luck trying to turn yourself into a Woz. And vice versa.

More generally, I'm tired of these articles where people make up a straw man version of Steve Jobs and then attack him. I feel like I know more about Jobs than nearly everyone who writes this stuff, and I don't feel confident making generalizations about his character.

Re: Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs

#54

Post by saturdaysaint »

trevor99 wrote: post #26
bradleyland wrote: post #19

I cannot understand how you could read this biography and arrive at the conclusion that any one person should be "emulated". What I took away was that all components of Apple's success were mutually inclusive. It's unlikely that it could have happened any other way. You can pick a thousand points along the line wherein the events might have not come together as they did, and you do not end up with the Apple that exis…

Article is just trying to expel the misconceptions around Jobs and say that brilliant engineering is more important than design & reality distortion field in a startup.

You can't separate Jobs' and Wozniak's contributions like that. Jobs deserves great credit for helping to motivate Wozniak's great feats in the early days (look how much effort it took to convince Woz to leave HP, even after Apple's initial successes), handling practical considerations and component issues, and forming the early Apple leadership team which eventually lead to Markulla's involvement. PG has spoken many times about how "scrapiness" is perhaps the most crucial sign of a successful startup; almost all of Apple's came from Jobs.

Re: Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs

#55

Post by jonhendry »

trevor99 wrote: post #30
far33d wrote: post #25

Jobs without Woz would have found another company to run and another great idea to build. Woz without Jobs would just be some really good engineer inside some gigantic company no one has ever heard of. He even is quoted in the book as having aspired to that.

First statement is completely up for debate. Jobs did continue without Wozniak and he failed every product in the next 18 years and spent millions of dollars. Not something founders here can emulate.

"he failed every product in the next 18 years and spent millions of dollars."

The Mac failed?

NeXTSTEP failed, when it's running the millions of Mac, iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Apple TVs today?

Pixar failed?

Jobs' record has more successes than Wozniak's.

Re: Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs

#56

Post by comedian »

trevor99 wrote: post #48
comedian wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woz was the engineering genius. Jobs was the visionary entrepreneur. They both needed each other.

He was not a visionary entrepreneur, that's the whole point. His vision led him to create product flops for 20 years. Markkula on the other hand got it correct with the Apple II from having the right industry knowledge.

Let's see. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Barack Obama, Bob Iger, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Dell, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Steve Spielberg, Michael Bloomberg, Stephen Wolfram, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Dick Costolo, Steve Case, Marc Andressen, etc. They all think he's a visionary. Should I believe them or you?

Re: Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs

#57

Post by absconditus »

trevor99 wrote: post #26
bradleyland wrote: post #19

I cannot understand how you could read this biography and arrive at the conclusion that any one person should be "emulated". What I took away was that all components of Apple's success were mutually inclusive. It's unlikely that it could have happened any other way. You can pick a thousand points along the line wherein the events might have not come together as they did, and you do not end up with the Apple that exis…

Article is just trying to expel the misconceptions around Jobs and say that brilliant engineering is more important than design & reality distortion field in a startup.

This theory is not supported by reality. Companies succeed just as often with lousy engineering.

Re: Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs

#58

Post by shareme »

pg wrote: post #53

Sadly, this is not one of the honeypots Wesley Tansey recently suggested I set up ( http://www.nashcoding.com/2011/10/28/hackernews-needs-honeyp... ). As someone who has seen dozens of Woz-founder-only startups march into the meatgrinder of obscurity, I can tell you that if you have to be one or the other, you're better off being Jobs. Not that you have much choice about it though. If you're a natural Jobs you're not…

Not to mention that Woz had an equal amount of failures..

What we have is really several different Founder styles:

1. Young Woz 2. Old Woz 3. Young Jobs 4 Old Jobs

Re: Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs

#59

Post by trevor99 »

pg wrote: post #53

Sadly, this is not one of the honeypots Wesley Tansey recently suggested I set up ( http://www.nashcoding.com/2011/10/28/hackernews-needs-honeyp... ). As someone who has seen dozens of Woz-founder-only startups march into the meatgrinder of obscurity, I can tell you that if you have to be one or the other, you're better off being Jobs. Not that you have much choice about it though. If you're a natural Jobs you're not…

Thanks pg.

My intent was not to bash Jobs, quite the opposite as I called him "one of the best CEOs ever to live" in the conclusion.

My goal is to reflect on what skills are really important in an early startup. The Apple II wasn't a success because of Jobs's leadership or because of his design focus like with the iPhone. Founders don't think about Markkula's role in getting the Apple II mainstream. Furthermore, Jobs had to fail over and over, wasting millions of dollars, before he tamed his bad habits and realized what would work. Then again, I only know what I'm talking about from reading Isaacson's biography and doing my own research. Thought this would make an interesting discussion.

Re: Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs

#60

Post by akkartik »

pg wrote: post #53

Sadly, this is not one of the honeypots Wesley Tansey recently suggested I set up ( http://www.nashcoding.com/2011/10/28/hackernews-needs-honeyp... ). As someone who has seen dozens of Woz-founder-only startups march into the meatgrinder of obscurity, I can tell you that if you have to be one or the other, you're better off being Jobs. Not that you have much choice about it though. If you're a natural Jobs you're not…

I think I'm going to start flagging every Jobs story from now on. This has gone on long enough.
Post reply on HN