51–60 of 105 posts
This process is ingrained in every software company. There's nothing special or new about Apple (or Jobs) here.
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 t…
John Siracusa at Arstechnica also harshly criticized the biography on the most recent episode of the Hypercritical podcast. Much of the book's historical information is lifted from previously published books, and there are factual errors. Important questions are glossed over or outright unanswered.
Unlike Gruber's commentary, Gladwell's argument is both rational and self consistent. From the tone of this piece by Gruber it is clear he is strugging with the dissonance between the clarity of Gladwell's argument and a perception that the term 'tweaker' is somehow pejorative and thus demeaning of someone he idolizes.
Jobs was no Edison or Einstein. Hopper, Ritchie, Turing, and even Gates contributed more to our collective future...
They were able to find success across multiple products through superior business skills and by sticking to their insight.
Finally, they each lived in a time where a new technology was coming to the masses, and they the business leaders bringing this to them. Due to their methods, the masses really appreciated them for what they did.
"Iteration — steady incremental improvements, prototype after prototype, design after design, year after year, release after release — that process is ingrained in Apple’s (and I think Pixar’s) culture." This process is ingrained in every software company. There's nothing special or new about Apple (or Jobs) here.
That's the question I think Gruber wants answered, and where this huge Bio of Jobs, probably our best opportunity to find out, has fallen short.
I would take a guess that if someone were to really publish the "secret sauce" you might find it less like a recipe - i.e., "do this and you will win" - and more like a history of a company that found smart, productive people, made them focus, and then got the fk out of the way.
I'm not sure a Biography would illuminate this. But I think Gruber's right in that Jobs probably wasn't a "tweaker" in the sense of someone actually making a tech decision. He probably tweaked people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO You can't compare 'contribution to society' like that, as if you could make a 1-dimensional scale that rates people like the ones you mentioned. It's useless. In some ways Jobs contributions to society have definitely been bigger than Turing or Edison, in some other ways, they haven't. You can't average these things objectively.
Edison you could make case for. Turing, not by a long shot. In 200 years we'll still be talking about Turing machines and decidability. I don't think you can say the same for any of Edisons or Job's ventures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may seem more amazing to you, but I would argue that is only because you are not likely in a position to be amazed by the magnitude of the importance people like Edison and Turing had on this world. This is forgivable, but please note that he was talking about contribution to society, not "wow factor" .
IMHO a computer that is usable within the hour by a one year old goes far beyond "wow factor" and well into contribution realm.
At a new location, can they identify the correct wireless network to use, and enter the password?
Or do they just use an easy subset of what the ipad offers? We don't go "Wow! the toy piano is easy enough for a toddler to use!" and gush over it, because we know the toddler isn't using the piano like some virtuoso.
"Iteration — steady incremental improvements, prototype after prototype, design after design, year after year, release after release — that process is ingrained in Apple’s (and I think Pixar’s) culture." This process is ingrained in every software company. There's nothing special or new about Apple (or Jobs) here.
Microsoft & others tend to start with one version and constantly evolve that. The difference is you can get stuck at local maxima / evolutionary dead ends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if something doesn't help every single person in the world, rich or poor, it's not a contribution? Wow, you have some high standards.
If we're comparing it to things as ubiquitous as computer technology itself and electric lighting, then I don't think it is unreasonable to point out that the relatively exclusive nature of the ipad puts it at a disadvantage in such a contest.
tl;dr versions - Gruber thinks the title 'Tweaker' has less social value than 'Inventor' so he takes offense at Gladwell's argument which identifies Steve Jobs a 'tweaker'. Unlike Gruber's commentary, Gladwell's argument is both rational and self consistent. From the tone of this piece by Gruber it is clear he is strugging with the dissonance between the clarity of Gladwell's argument and a perception that the term '…
The second sentence: Jobs was neither. These men make for a poor comparison to Jobs because Jobs didn’t really “invent” anything