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

Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#61

Post by icebraining »

catfish wrote: post #39
TetOn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO a computer that is usable within the hour by a one year old goes far beyond "wow factor" and well into contribution realm.

Cost 600 bucks. How does that help civilization. Oh maybe a few well pampered hipster's children get access to it, but how does that work for the rest of the world that averages 2 bucks a day income levels?

While I'm hardly an Apple apologist, I just wanted to remind that technology that is initially only available to the top-of-the-line models ends up on cheap models a few years from now, but only because its development was paid for by the relatively rich early adopters.

In Ghana, more than 60% of people have a mobile phone, but that wouldn't be possible if the development of the hardware (both for the actual devices and the network infrastructure) hadn't been made cheap by years of development paid by the rich countries.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#62

Post by ChuckMcM »

diogenescynic wrote: post #60
ChuckMcM wrote: post #53

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 '…

>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'. The second sentence: Jobs was neither. These men make for a poor comparison to Jobs because Jobs didn’t really “invent” anything

Yes, twice actually.

Gruber's rebuttal that Gladwell's comparison is invalid is itself a fallacy. Gruber claims that Steve Jobs wasn't an inventor but his use of the term is different [1] than Gladwell's use. If you read Gladwell's comments (both the excerpted parts and the entire thing) you will see that Gladwell equates Job's 'vision' for the iPod (as an example) which he was very much in control of, as having both 'invented' the iPod (creative force behind it) and 'tweaked' in the sense that it was a refinement of a previous invention (product).

[1] It's called an amphiboly. http://blekko.com/ws/?q=define+amphiboly

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#63

Post by [deleted] »

arctangent wrote: post #24
n8agrin wrote: post #8

Theories on Jobs' character aside, the Jobs biography is an utter mess. Some sentences feel like they were pulled from a 6th grade book report. It's riddled with obvious statements and reads like it should have been published in People magazine. I realize I'm probably being too harsh, but I wish that I felt like Isaacson had invested into this biography, this once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity, the way Jobs likely invest…

It might come across as simplistic because it wasn't really written for people like you and me - it was written for non-technical consumers of apple products and the general public.

[deleted]

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#64

Post by burgerbrain »

mikeklaas wrote: post #59
burgerbrain wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thomas Edison did not invent electric lighting.

He made it ubiquitous.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#65

Post by pinwale »

warmfuzzykitten wrote: post #50
lukifer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the iPad was because of the dinner he had at some MSFT employee's house. I call bullshit. Steve was interested in tablets since learning about Alan Kay's DynaBook concept in the 70's. The MSFT engineer angered him into pursuing the concept sooner, nothing more.

Not quite. Steve liked DynaBook, but he thought it was a laptop computer. If he'd taken the job as head of Apple Research, that's what he would have produced. Apple had a tablet - the Newton - and Steve killed it when he came back. It turned out what he hated about tablets was the need for a stylus, which was the Microsoft approach (like the Newton), and that's what he wanted to prove wrong.

It should be noted that Apple was interested in smart pens rather than styluses. Apple has at least 13 patents relating to smart pens.

source: http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2011/09/apple-wi...

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#66

Post by LaGrange »

steve8918 wrote: post #40
n8agrin wrote: post #8

Theories on Jobs' character aside, the Jobs biography is an utter mess. Some sentences feel like they were pulled from a 6th grade book report. It's riddled with obvious statements and reads like it should have been published in People magazine. I realize I'm probably being too harsh, but I wish that I felt like Isaacson had invested into this biography, this once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity, the way Jobs likely invest…

I 100% agree. I'm basically finished the book (2 more chapters to go, but I skipped ahead to the last 2 chapters out of boredom). It reads like 2 different books: before coming back to Apple the second time, and after. The first half really makes him look like an utter wretch, and almost suggests that his success was a mistake. It basically talks about what an asshole Jobs was, and how he would yell at everyone, etc,…

I know the book is poorly (like, very poorly) edited, so maybe it's not that clear, but I think the actual idea is that Jobs became less of an asshole over time — at least partially thanks to realizing he's not invulnerable. Also, for me the first half doesn't feel like luck at all. Sociopathic con man, yes, but not luck.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#67

Post by amartya916 »

n8agrin wrote: post #8

Theories on Jobs' character aside, the Jobs biography is an utter mess. Some sentences feel like they were pulled from a 6th grade book report. It's riddled with obvious statements and reads like it should have been published in People magazine. I realize I'm probably being too harsh, but I wish that I felt like Isaacson had invested into this biography, this once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity, the way Jobs likely invest…

The biography is a complete disaster. After I finished reading it, I found that there was nothing to take away. Actually, I highly recommend John Siracusa's point-by-point dissection of the biography at 5by5, the show is called Hypercritical and listen to episodes 42 and 43. Link: http://5by5.tv/hypercritical

Siracusa pulls no punches and each and every one of his criticisms is well thought through.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#69

Post by burgerbrain »

mikeklaas wrote: post #68
burgerbrain wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He made it ubiquitous.

…kinda like how Jobs makes all the ideas he's accused of 'tweaking' ubiquitous?

I will repeat myself and again state that I am not saying that Jobs did not have an effect on society.

I am saying it is not on the same order of magnitude as fucking electric lighting.

Why must this be difficult?

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#70

Post by joppa_road »

joejohnson wrote: post #49

Oh my god. John Gruber is really showing his true fanboy colors here again and again. He is going to cry about these "misrepresentations" of the great visionary Steve Jobs until people stop listening to him (and posting this garbage on HN). I understand why people are so drawn to studying a successful individual's life, but we must accept that every story must make some educated assumptions. Ultimately, who cares?!

seriously, when will the daring fireball links end? here, i'll sum all of them up forever: apple rules, others drools...
Post reply on HN