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

Steve Jobs's Real Genius

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#111

Post by rayiner »

vannevar wrote: post #104
chubot wrote: post #29

It has some truth to it, but ignores a lot of salient facts in favor of a cute argument (insert Gladwell dig here). Steve Jobs' had many parts to his genius. Tweaking products until they were really finished was one. But I would say the most important (and impressive) part of his genius was holistic thinking . He wasn't a programmer, a hardware engineer, an industrial designer, an advertising copywriter, or an archit…

Also, the use of the word "tweaker" is a stupid rhetorical trick... Can anyone name a single product that Jobs released that had not already been proven in the marketplace by another company, in substantially the same form? I can only think of one: the Newton. And Jobs never made that mistake again. 'Tweaker' sounds perjorative, but in fact that was exactly Jobs' genius: recognizing the design details that others mis…

I mean I suppose it depends on your definition of "substantially the same form" and "proven."

I'd argue that the Zen Jukebox did not prove that HDD MP3 players could be successful, and that Treos and other smartphones, though proven successful, were not substantially in the same form as an iPhone, and that previous tablets were proven failures and also not substantially in the same form as iPad's.

I think the iPad is really the best example of Jobs' talent being used in a capacity that wasn't just tweaking. Stylus input and finger input are just completely different ways to approach the user interface. An iPad isn't a tweak of previous failed Windows tablets, it's throwing out the basic premise of the machine ("a tablet is just like your computer but in the palm of your hand") and starting from scratch ("what is the purpose of a tablet?").

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#112

Post by bluekeybox »

bloggergirl wrote: post #100
bluekeybox wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an iterative process of tweaking, then stepping back to take a wider view, then tweaking some more, then stepping back again to evaluate, etc... until either (1) you're intuitively happy with the result or (2) your result conforms to some objective standard, or (3) both. It requires introspection and knowing how to "hack" your intuition. Different people hack their intuition in different ways, here is one way to…

Sorry that Gladwell has sullied your opinion of writers... but all the good writers (emphasis on "good") I've known and currently know are insanely good at the creative process and lead the way in creative development. It's the copywriter who produces the creative concepts in an advertising agency. Those commercials you see and those taglines/slogans you remember? Those were the brainchild of a copywriter sitting at…

I apologize; I may have used a wrong term. I should have said, "intellectuals who write opinions for dubious reasons," not creative writers.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#113

Post by vannevar »

siglesias wrote: post #105
vannevar wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the use of the word "tweaker" is a stupid rhetorical trick... Can anyone name a single product that Jobs released that had not already been proven in the marketplace by another company, in substantially the same form? I can only think of one: the Newton. And Jobs never made that mistake again. 'Tweaker' sounds perjorative, but in fact that was exactly Jobs' genius: recognizing the design details that others mis…

Tablet--not at all proven in the marketplace, and largely considered a failed product category before the iPad.

A failed consumer product category, yes. But tablets have been in routine use in business for many years, and have been a profitable niche product. Jobs correctly surmised that the tweaks he'd made to the PDA to make the iPhone a big success could translate in a larger form factor to make a successful consumer tablet. But tablets were already a familiar product to millions of people when the iPad hit the market.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#114

Post by rayiner »

smutticus wrote: post #35

I guess Steve Jobs' real genius is that people here are still talking about him so long after he's dead. A bunch of self proscribed hackers find him more interesting than either John McCarthy or Dennis Ritchie. When in fact he was just more successful monetarily. And better at getting you lot to talk about him.

Apples and oranges. There is something refreshing about someone who is willing to throw away a fundamental precept of tablet PCs (they have a stylus) because it sucks. I think every engineering team needs someone with some level of "wait why are we doing things this way?" (see P.G.'s essay on onions).

In a way Ritchie was the exact opposite. A lot of the answers to questions of the form "why does C do things this way?" are "because BCPL did them that way." Which is a perfectly good attitude for an engineer as well ("don't fix what isn't broken") but also a more typical one.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#115

Post by zeteo »

chubot wrote: post #108
zeteo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Gladwell [...] adds this marginally related story about tweakers so the entire article isn't regurgitating [...] anecdotes I think you're missing the main point here. The computer revolution, as a large scale technological and social transformation, does bear comparison to the Industrial Revolution. Where does someone like Steve Jobs stand in this comparison? He was obviously neither the inventor of a fundamental te…

I said as much -- there is some truth to it. However, there are thousands/millions of people that are "tweakers". That isn't Jobs' only talent or even his most salient characteristic. (The title of the article is "Steve Job's real genius".) Did any of the tweakers mentioned in the article start 3 companies and make billions doing it? I think it is backlash for giving Jobs all the credit for everything, which is a mis…

Here's a PDF of the Meisenzahl, Mokyr paper:

http://www.uc3m.es/portal/page/portal/dpto_historia_economic...

Yes, many of the "tweakers" discussed did achieve success in multiple business ventures (and took patents).

It's not a disparaging term, so there's no reason to call it backlash. This is simply an observation that there is a (often overlooked) class of people who are 1. technically competent 2. very good at polishing and perfecting others' ideas, rather than coming up with them de novo.

The paper credits these people with playing the main part in the Industrial Revolution, and it's actually quite creditable to say Steve Jobs might have been among the best of them.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#116

Post by siglesias »

vannevar wrote: post #113
siglesias wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tablet--not at all proven in the marketplace, and largely considered a failed product category before the iPad.

A failed consumer product category, yes. But tablets have been in routine use in business for many years, and have been a profitable niche product. Jobs correctly surmised that the tweaks he'd made to the PDA to make the iPhone a big success could translate in a larger form factor to make a successful consumer tablet. But tablets were already a familiar product to millions of people when the iPad hit the market.

Not to be pedantic, but the iPad preceded the iPhone as a concept. Jobs requested a prototype multi-touch display that you could type on, saw inertial scrolling, and decided that the phone should come first. There's very little about the tablet product category that he "tweaked." He threw out the stylus and built a touch OS from scratch.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#117

Post by code_duck »

This reminds me a lot of my business partner, who will not rest until our projects are perfect. She's driven me nuts the entire time I've worked with her, but this has brought our output to a much higher level than I would have achieved without such an influence.

You have to love and hate someone who has such obsessive attention to detail. The key to making this mindset positive is knowing when it matters and when it doesn't.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#118

Post by vannevar »

chubot wrote: post #109
vannevar wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the use of the word "tweaker" is a stupid rhetorical trick... Can anyone name a single product that Jobs released that had not already been proven in the marketplace by another company, in substantially the same form? I can only think of one: the Newton. And Jobs never made that mistake again. 'Tweaker' sounds perjorative, but in fact that was exactly Jobs' genius: recognizing the design details that others mis…

The iPhone wasn't merely a "tweak" on existing cell phones, or even the Palm Pilot. What's your standard? Name a few products. The Walkman? If the Walkman qualifies as an innovation, then surely the iPhone does. Calling the Macintosh a tweak on the Xerox Alto I think is also hardly fair. If that is true, then all products ever released have been tweaks, which makes the distinction meaningless.

The iPhone wasn't merely a "tweak" on existing cell phones, or even the Palm Pilot.

Are you kidding? It was clearly a tweak of the Palm Pilot and the Treo phone. Same form factor, same 'one app open at a time' philosophy, same launch screen. The key tweak was eliminating the stylus.

Calling the Macintosh a tweak on the Xerox Alto I think is also hardly fair.

Why? It was certainly similar enough to litigate the issue. I'd agree though that the Mac was probably the riskiest product Jobs produced, in terms of predecessors in the market.

If that is true, then all products ever released have been tweaks...

Every once in awhile there is a real innovation. The aforementioned Newton, say, or the Wii-mote. The Walkman seems more like a tweak, there were already portable tape recorders in wide use.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#119

Post by vannevar »

rayiner wrote: post #111
vannevar wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the use of the word "tweaker" is a stupid rhetorical trick... Can anyone name a single product that Jobs released that had not already been proven in the marketplace by another company, in substantially the same form? I can only think of one: the Newton. And Jobs never made that mistake again. 'Tweaker' sounds perjorative, but in fact that was exactly Jobs' genius: recognizing the design details that others mis…

I mean I suppose it depends on your definition of "substantially the same form" and "proven." I'd argue that the Zen Jukebox did not prove that HDD MP3 players could be successful, and that Treos and other smartphones, though proven successful, were not substantially in the same form as an iPhone, and that previous tablets were proven failures and also not substantially in the same form as iPad's. I think the iPad is…

Stylus input and finger input are just completely different ways to approach the user interface.

I agree that getting finger input right was the critical factor, but I don't think it was at all obvious that it would produce a completely different user experience. Looking forward from five years ago, I don't think you could call it anything but a tweak---it's only with the benefit of hindsight (unless you share Jobs' unique talent) that you can see that a small design change (use your finger instead of a stylus!) could make such a big difference.

Re: Steve Jobs's Real Genius

#120

Post by vannevar »

siglesias wrote: post #116
vannevar wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A failed consumer product category, yes. But tablets have been in routine use in business for many years, and have been a profitable niche product. Jobs correctly surmised that the tweaks he'd made to the PDA to make the iPhone a big success could translate in a larger form factor to make a successful consumer tablet. But tablets were already a familiar product to millions of people when the iPad hit the market.

Not to be pedantic, but the iPad preceded the iPhone as a concept. Jobs requested a prototype multi-touch display that you could type on, saw inertial scrolling, and decided that the phone should come first. There's very little about the tablet product category that he "tweaked." He threw out the stylus and built a touch OS from scratch.

Good point. I'd agree that the real innovation in both the iPhone and iPad was touch. It seems obvious now that touch is a completely different experience from the stylus, but it wasn't obvious enough that anybody else made the big investment to make it work, before Jobs.
Post reply on HN