Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

I think Siracusa's critique goes off the rails when he's complaining about things like the book missing the details in the PA Semi acquisition -- yes, that would have been interesting and ironic, I would have enjoyed reading it, but I bet my wife wouldn't. That's more appropriate for a book about Apple in general, not a personal bio of Jobs.

But I agree completely with Siracusa about the book's general laziness. Many early chapters are poorly-written (and poorly-understood) summaries of previous books and interviews.

Gruber, in this case, isn't saying Apple invented the keyboard less smart phone. Its that Apple really got behind a new interface paradigm.

For giggle though remember the first Android Emulator?

http://www.triviaburst.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-mati...

Here's the problem with Gruber's argument. He's using something Malcolm Gladwell wrote to criticize a book that Walter Isaacson wrote. Isaacson didn't say Steve Jobs was a tweaker.

Granted that Gladwell's article reveals how little he understands the nature of invention. As punishment, he should be forced to read every patent for paper clips. Nearly all invention is a change to an existing thing because the inventor thinks some (could be very small) aspect of it should be better. That's a pretty good description of Steve Jobs.

I'm only midway through the book, but frankly I don't see so far where the criticism is coming from.

This article was a bit annoying to read, as it was full of a lot of the deification of Jobs that's been around since his death.

"What it was that Jobs actually did is much of the mystery of his life and his work, and Isaacson, frustratingly, had seemingly little interest in that, or any recognition that there even was any sort of mystery as to just what Jobs’s gifts really were."

Why this insistence on mystery? Why this insistence that Jobs had some magical special sauce that all of us are lacking? I see this over and over in the article, as the author tries to complain that not enough lip service in the quotes he brings up is being paid to the Great and Mysterious Steven Paul Jobs.

We pride ourselves on all being innovative and hopeful engineers and business folks, right? So, why do we see so much praise for these unexplainable qualities? This has got to stop.

The article is particularly bad when quoting a definition of innovation and then simultaneously arguing that Jobs wasn't a mere "tweaker" and that innovation doesn't require completely original thought. Unless I completely misparsed that section, it appears that the author is trying to assert contradictory claims: if Jobs wasn't a tweaker, and he was innovative, then he must have been completely original--yet the author states that this need not be the case! This is crap rhetoric, and I'm bummed to see it appear in an otherwise good blog.

Some of the assertions made are also laughable:

"The Macintosh was no “tweak”. Pixar was no “tweak”. The iPod is maybe the closest thing among Jobs’s career highlights that one could call a “tweak” of that which preceded it — but it’s hard to separate the iPod, the device, from the entire iTunes ecosystem in terms of measuring its effect on our culture and the way everyone today listens to music. Does anyone really think Apple’s entry into the music industry was a “tweak”?"

All of these are tweaks, as substantiated by the quotes used by the author. The Mac was a "tweak" insofar as it was modification to cheaply make a Star. Pixar work prior to '86 was very much laying the groundwork for future CG--Job's purchase perhaps gave funding but likely little else. The contortions used to try and justify the iPod without calling it a "tweak" are hilarious. The online music aspect might get a pass, but still, it's basically just "RECORDS.... ON THE INTERNET!". None of the examples really address the "Jobs was a tweaker" argument.

"If anyone is the “tweaker” in the PC industry, a la Gladwell’s 18th century steam engine inventors, clearly it’s Bill Gates, not Steve Jobs."

And then this. It's completely extraneous, serving no other function than to scratch the fanboy "Fuck Microsoft" itch. It needn't have even been mentioned--and yet, here it is. No real attempt is even made to justify why it is there, nor to try and explain all of the damning with faint praise of senor Gates.

This article is a well-written but poorly justified. We deserve better.

<ethics