Getting Steve Jobs Wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#81

Post by mturmon » Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 4:43 AM UTC

amartya916 wrote: post #67

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.

I read Isaacson's long-ago book The Wise Men (written with a coauthor) and found it masterful, engaging, and comprehensive.

One of Siracusa's main objections to the Jobs bio is that Isaacson does not understand technology enough to separate the important from the trivial.

Isaacson has faced this kind of problem begore. It seems from this review that he had advice from Brian Greene on his Einstein bio:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/books/09masl.html

I wonder if Isaacson did not have enough help with the tech on the Jobs book?

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#82

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 5:08 AM UTC

alexwolfe wrote: post #74

"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.

I don't think Einstein was a tweaker. His theories came completely out of left field.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#83

Post by georgieporgie » Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 5:37 AM UTC

Ugh. Short of, perhaps, Tesla, I don't think I've ever read about any inventor or innovator whose contributions weren't the results of countless iterations to both their own and others' work.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#84

Post by canes123456 » Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 5:59 AM UTC

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 think you are going to like this: http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/42 http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/43

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#85

Post by cwp » Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 6:09 AM UTC

qdog wrote: post #28

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 don't think Isaacson could yell at Jobs to come back with four different answers to a question so Isaacson could choose the one he liked, and keep requesting new answers until he was satisfied. I think it's a little funny that people who don't personally know Steve Jobs have so many strong opinions on what he exactly was, and don't seem to want to give much credit to Isaacson for writing down what Jobs "chose" to s…

Of course he could keep requesting answers until he was satisfied. That's called "interviewing."

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#86

Post by canes123456 » Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 6:17 AM UTC

robterrell wrote: post #12

pohl wrote: post #4

Another great take on the extent to which Walter Isaacson biography misses the mark is John Siracusa's criticisms on the "Hypercritical" podcast. Skip to about 17 minutes and 45 seconds in, which is when they start discussing it. It looks to be part 1 of an epic two-fer. http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/42

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…

I disagree. Siracusa didn't take the time to sell it but there could have been personal drama in the acquisition. His main point was why mention it without getting into the interesting parts.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#87

Post by canes123456 » Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 6:20 AM UTC

slowpoke wrote: post #80

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.

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.

So was a mac...

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#88

Post by meric » Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 8:24 AM UTC

alexwolfe wrote: post #74

"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.

Those people took existing concepts and rearranged them in a way not previously done before. It is up to you to call that tweaking or inventing.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#89

Post by iletina » Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 9:18 AM UTC

jeremymcanally wrote: post #77

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 S…

Jeremy, as far as I could notice, Gladwell's article had no pop psychology. It's interpretation of "tweakers" was based on a paper by two economists, "The Rate and Direction of Invention in the British Industrial Revolution: Incentives and Institutions." Gladwell then argues that Jobs' contribution fall more in the "tweaking" category, which is not meant as a criticism or denigration. Remember that in this interpretation it is the tweakers who brought us the Industrial Revolution, not the visionary inventors.

Re: Getting Steve Jobs Wrong

#90

Post by evanlong » Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 10:00 AM UTC

I guess I don't fully understand the idea that the biography is a "mess" or "flawed." Keep in mind, Jobs wanted Walter Isaacson to write his biography. Don't blame the author. Blame Jobs. You all so easily give him credit when he stands on the shoulders of giants. This seems like a logical leap. Give him credit for this too because it was actually genius.

More seriously, what points make the biography flawed or a mess? A biography isn't meant to be enjoyed. Its meant to inform the reader. Jobs defined technology but more than just technology defined him. The point was to capture that.

I guess most of you truly are shallow. You appreciated the icon of Steve Jobs. Jobs as the man that brought you computing power to your desk, your lap and your hand. Most of you look up to him. Followed him. Admired him. Felt your work inspired by him. But you all failed to understand his final stroke of genius. He wanted to be remember beyond a set of products.

Jobs understood biography. You all obviously don't.