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

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#71

Post by joppa_road »

rbanffy wrote: post #42
catfish wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is working on a cure for Malaria. Jobs did what?

Actually, he's funding the work, not curing Malaria himself. And he's doing that in order to redeem his legacy, something that wouldn't be necessary (redeeming his legacy, not curing Malaria) had he not made Microsoft in the first place. And, BTW, he didn't invent this idea of amassing vast resources with shady deals and then becoming a philanthropist and redeem himself with this. Andrew Carnegie did it first.

thank gawd steve jobs never did shady deals read up on supply chain manipulation by apple and foxconn suicides, it will give you a chance to catch your breath...

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#72

Post by yannickt »

angersock wrote: post #18

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…

> All of these are tweaks

The word "tweak" does not mean the same thing to hackers as it does to the general public. To the average person, "tweaking" means making minor modifications to an essentially finished product. This of course would do a huge disservice to Apple's accomplishments, and I think that's what Gruber is trying to fight, considering Gladwell and Isaacson write for a general audience.

To put it another way, it took Microsoft and others several years to tweak the Macintosh operating system, and this despite Apple essentially resting on their laurels until the return of Steve Jobs.

There were tons of MP3 players before the iPod, and they were pretty much decimated. iTunes is not just music on the Internet, it is also the first music service that got the music majors and labels on board. Where are the iPod/iTunes tweaks? Microsoft failed twice with PlaysForSure and Zune. Amazon, Google and Spotify are doing interesting things in this space, yet most people are still going to listen to music they download from them... on their iPod.

Similarly, the iPhone is much more than a pre-2007 smartphone without buttons, and the iPad is much more than a Dynabook or a pre-2010 tablet with no stylus.

And I think you are mischaracterizing his observations about Gates.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#73

Post by bnycum »

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'm glad that I'm not the only one to feel that way about the book being poorly written. I got the book the week it came out and read maybe 4-5 chapters, I haven't touched it since then. There was one paragraph that I must have read 5 times before I could understand it completely with the poor choice of words.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#74

Post by alexwolfe »

"The visionary starts with a clean sheet of paper, and re-imagines the world. The tweaker inherits things as they are, and has to push and pull them toward some more nearly perfect solution."

Malcom fails to realize by his definition everyone would be a tweaker. Henry Ford - tweaker, Einstein - tweaker, Jobs - tweaker...

I think its clear who the tweaker is and it isn't Einstein, Ford, or Jobs.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#75

Post by zlotty »

The sentiment in this post reflects a larger frustration with Malcolm Gladwell's oversimplified, reductionist writing in which complex systems are dumbed down into highly marketable archetypes.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#76

Post by metalsahu »

You will find that Steve Jobs (aka Apple's) path to success aligns itself very well to Gladwell's 10,000hour rule. Gladwell proposed that it takes almost 10year to become an expert as you go through the do, learn, tweak cycle. Steve Jobs took something which was existing but questioned a lot of assumptions to come up with new inventions (an approach which Elon Musk mentions in his "Reasoning from First Principles" interview). On the other end of the spectrum are people like Einstein who clearly wrote the first principle because there was none before that. I am personally encouraged that Steve Jobs was able to bring about massive change in the world with this approach....the valuable lesson for budding entrepreneurs like me is that given time, identification of good ideas and persistence, we could also do something similar though on a smaller scale without being born with an IQ > 140.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#77

Post by jeremymcanally »

iletina wrote: post #41

This is really a silly article. I would really recommend that you guys read Gladwell's piece as it is at least well written. Gruber's Fireball is mostly thrown at straw-men. Gladwell makes a distinction between "visionaries" who invent new things and "tweakers" who refine, perfect and make new inventions work. Gladwell proceeds to argue that Jobs falls into the tweaker category. Gruber keeps talking about "innovation…

The Gladwell article was a travesty. It was hastily written piece, basically copied and pasted from the Isaacson biography with a thin layer of crappy pop psychology on top.

The whole time I was reading it I was wondering why Gladwell didn't refer to any other material than the biography since they offered a deeper, more balanced picture of his work, but then I remembered they were probably trying to cash in on the Steve Jobs aura by putting his article on the cover.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#78

Post by catfish »

wizzard wrote: post #45
catfish wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Correct. And Yes.

If its not effective for all, forever, its just a blip on the time line. A thousand years from now we will remember Einstein.

Jobs? Not so much...

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#79

Post by tjmc »

lurker17 wrote: post #56
freyrs3 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In 200 years you think we'll have moved past the light bulb? Or AC electricity?

AC electricity was Tesla. Edison killed an elephant trying to discredit it.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#80

Post by slowpoke »

TetOn wrote: post #17
burgerbrain wrote: post #15

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.

The iPad isn't a computer, it's a toy. A kid quickly learning how to use a toy is neither new nor outstanding, and least of all a contribution to society.
Post reply on HN