81–90 of 132 posts
"With little emotion, speaking in his usual flat, robotic tone[...]As Page talked, he kept his gaze averted, resisting direct eye contact." Journalists have a tendency of portraying figures in tech circles as being on the spectrum, while very often that isn't the case.
Larry has paralysis of part of his voice box, which explains the tone of his voice.
> What’s less well understood is that Apple’s board and investors were absolutely right to fire Jobs. Early in his career, he was petulant, mean, and destructive
This idea (Jobs needed to be away from Apple to improve himself) gets mentioned a lot but I think it's nonsense.
First: Jobs was petulant, mean and destructive to people he disagreed with – for his whole life. He never dropped this trait. It might have appeared that he mellowed but he really just left an Apple that he no longer controlled and started another company where he had full control (he owned Pixar as well as NeXT but never exerted full control there).
Second: Was Apple really right to fire Jobs? In his first 7 years at Apple, Jobs oversaw (not designed or engineered) the only successful product lines in Apple's first 20 years: the Apple 2, the Mac and the Laserwriter. The latter two happened against the best wishes of the board who only wanted to focus on the Apple 2. In the 12 years after Jobs left, Apple never launched another successful hardware product line, it merely upgrading the existing products (Mac II, PPC Mac or unsuccessful ideas like the Newton). The early 90's at Apple's R&D in particular was completely chaotic and directionless sinking billions into Pink, Taligent, OpenDoc, CHRP and other doomed initiatives.
Jobs didn't need to leave Apple to fix himself. He left Apple because he disagreed with everyone (in hindsight: probably rightfully so) and he couldn't fire them. When he returned, he had the authority to fire everyone he disliked (and he did).
As for the comparison to Larry Page – I don't think they were as similar as the article implies. Jobs – for better and worse – was his own special brand of crazy.
In particular the whole "Larry as a visionary", "Larry is socially awkward", "Larry is not traditional" makes me feel more welcome in this world. I too am that kind of person (it is up for future to judge whether I am visionary :)). But this is the exact article I need to pursue my dream of making things "happening". If you want to carry out your vision, you need to delegate. You need to set the tone "this is what we do, and we do this this way."
Ideas just happen to come to us every minute but we are too caught up in fighting the current. That's the big Google problem: it is too huge too slow too bureaucratic to get things done, even after Larry is back as CEO. This is why I am more leading toward startup environment (I am about to graduate soon), this is why people leave big corporations. I wasn't appreicating why Google was moving in so many directions. But it is true. I long know Google is outside my tech tweets. Not enough hype for me to notice until special events. Nothing exciting. I hope one day they realize simplicity is the key (please fix your UX). Outside of privacy and security worries, I believe Google does have the collective power and sum to make a life-dependent integrated platform. It is up to Google executives to decide whether they will make such platform as open as possible, as friendly as possible, to both end users, sales and engineers.
I truly envy him being a genius and intelligent at making things. I hope one day I too will be recognized. Enough said, there is always an opportunity for everything. Only I can make that happen.
I realize that it's an aside in the article but I wanted to contradict something: > What’s less well understood is that Apple’s board and investors were absolutely right to fire Jobs. Early in his career, he was petulant, mean, and destructive This idea (Jobs needed to be away from Apple to improve himself) gets mentioned a lot but I think it's nonsense. First: Jobs was petulant, mean and destructive to people he dis…
I would argue that Jobs had any influence in the Apple II whatsoever, in fact according to Wozniak in iWoz, Jobs attempts to influence the Apple II originated the only fights the two of them ever had.
On the other hand, Apple II was originating the vast majority of the revenue and in comparison the original mac had a very limited success.
The last 4-5 tweets
1. Highly educated parents. His father has Ph.D. and is considered pioneer in computer science and artificial intelligence ( source : wikipedia) 2. Mother : Comp. Science professor 3. His brother Carl Page Jr. sold company called eGroups to Yahoo!. So when you consider all this facts together, with kind of upbringing he had it less surprise that he followed the suit and created search engine. I bet this sort of environment must have played crucial role when he went for VC capital. If you have read crossing the chasm it talks about how a company with few hundered people can go mainstream. Larry leveraged all his background, upbringing and knowledge he had to create one of great software product.
This is a great biography of Larry Page. Though there are some misreport facts and one-sided opinjon, the article captures my pulse. Only a few lengthy articles could ever retain my full attention till the end. In particular the whole "Larry as a visionary", "Larry is socially awkward", "Larry is not traditional" makes me feel more welcome in this world. I too am that kind of person (it is up for future to judge whet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with all of this, as I get to see it online even now. My concern is with the idea that there will yet be a "day of reckoning" when the rest of the ASDs must also be termed fad diagnoses, which seems to be the implication from the wording you used.
> My concern is with the idea that there will yet be a "day of reckoning" when the rest of the ASDs must also be termed fad diagnoses, which seems to be the implication from the wording you used. No, not possible. That would be as likely as schizophrenia being labeled a fad diagnosis, or seriously questioned as to its reality. The reason that cannot happen is there are a handful of real physical ailments, ailments ro…
I think I actually would argue that it should be possible for a neural net in an otherwise physically-fine human brain to form various psychoses but I can definitely seek how a brain injury or deformation would be considered something different.
I realize that it's an aside in the article but I wanted to contradict something: > What’s less well understood is that Apple’s board and investors were absolutely right to fire Jobs. Early in his career, he was petulant, mean, and destructive This idea (Jobs needed to be away from Apple to improve himself) gets mentioned a lot but I think it's nonsense. First: Jobs was petulant, mean and destructive to people he dis…
>"Second: Was Apple really right to fire Jobs? In his first 7 years at Apple, Jobs oversaw (not designed or engineered) the only successful product lines in Apple's first 20 years" I would argue that Jobs had any influence in the Apple II whatsoever, in fact according to Wozniak in iWoz, Jobs attempts to influence the Apple II originated the only fights the two of them ever had. On the other hand, Apple II was origin…