111–120 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that 10 second pause I repeatedly learn this lesson just by being on accidental mute on Zoom calls.
Hmm… do I really want to repeat that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think some people are drawn to this video because they want others to think that Jobs made big changes that were painful and he was very successful, therefore when Musk makes big changes that are painful he will also be successful. I disagree and think the similarities are only superficial, but I can see why some might think that.
I also disagree with this. This implicitly assumes that anyone who makes big changes that are painful will be successful. But this is manifestly untrue. A big difference in what Jobs did and what Musk is doing is that Musk has fired people at Twitter pretty much indiscriminately. Jobs had a clear idea for a working product line. He brought NeXTSTEP with him to Apple, along with NeXT engineers. And he kept those teams…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love Apple products and have since childhood, and I have little doubt Jobs’ personality, thinking, and talent, are major factors in what I liked about Apple then and do now. And I detest Musk. That disclosure out of the way… Jobs was notoriously quick to anger, imperious in his internal role, very selectively rational, and generally… well, often kind of a jerk. I know all of that can overlap with coherence and pers…
That “poor soul” was a senior director of marketing, not some minimum wage assistant. And violence, a bit hyperbolic, it was an underhanded toss - no one calls that “chucking” where I’m from at least. Sure he had a temper but this is painting a misleading picture of that episode.
not disagreeing in substance, but a couple of quibbles: that absolutely does qualify as chucking--it's the way woodchucks chuck--but it does not qualify as chucking at someone; so as an underhand toss, it wasn't underhanded
That 10 second pause before he responds — 25 seconds if you don't count the reference to the famous quote, which buys him a bit more time — is amazing. What may be less well understood by people who weren't there is that he's addressing Apple employees just as much as he is Apple developers. Many Apple employees had the same question. [Source: Was at Apple at the time.] "You've got to start with the customer experien…
> "You've got to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. You can't start with the technology and try to figure out where you're going to try to sell it." Crypto still hasn't figured this out. The entire focus is on how to get people using the technology. If you start out being completely unwilling to use a database, that should be a red flag you're falling into this trap. Would a bloc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate? I don't understand the dude's question on a technical level.
To my mind it’s a bit of a trick question intended to bait Jobs into comparing apples to oranges. OpenDoc’s goal seems to be something of an early fediverse (shoot me if you disagree): a component framework that would allow applications to aggregate/compose/edit/display documents or subfragments thereof simultaneously from a federated network of sources, in an open standard that would allow anybody to roll their own…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate? I don't understand the dude's question on a technical level.
To my mind it’s a bit of a trick question intended to bait Jobs into comparing apples to oranges. OpenDoc’s goal seems to be something of an early fediverse (shoot me if you disagree): a component framework that would allow applications to aggregate/compose/edit/display documents or subfragments thereof simultaneously from a federated network of sources, in an open standard that would allow anybody to roll their own…
I really don’t see it that way. One is customer-focused and one is tech-focused.
I think Jobs is explaining that he killed OpenDoc because, regardless of how great the tech was, it didn’t lead to something great Apple could make for its customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "You've got to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. You can't start with the technology and try to figure out where you're going to try to sell it." Crypto still hasn't figured this out. The entire focus is on how to get people using the technology. If you start out being completely unwilling to use a database, that should be a red flag you're falling into this trap. Would a bloc…
Precisely. Crypto is a solution in search of a problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "You've got to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. You can't start with the technology and try to figure out where you're going to try to sell it." Crypto still hasn't figured this out. The entire focus is on how to get people using the technology. If you start out being completely unwilling to use a database, that should be a red flag you're falling into this trap. Would a bloc…
I think crypto just conveniently bypasses securities laws, that's the point, can't do that with a centralized db. It is sort of decentralized and you can issue tokens in different ways, and as the creator you "happened" to be an early adopter or have a foundation that got 10% of all supply.
(Also, all exchanges[1] use centralized dbs.)
[1] Except maybe FTX, it didn't seem much into bookkeeping of any sort.
Even though he says technology should not be in search of a solution, he does say that as soon as he saw the Canon printout, he realized it will sell itself. So his theme, with that nuance, seems to be that a technology should not be in search of a solution, unless it is so good as to sell itself.
One thing that's interesting here is how Jobs doesn't answer the specific technical question: How does Java address the ideas embodied in OpenDoc? Instead, Jobs answers the question behind the question: What role should new technologies play at Apple going forward? This is a very useful technique to practice. When asked a question whose premise you don't agree with, you can become confrontational on that point. Or yo…
This is the Robert McNamara strategy for answering questions: don't answer the question that was asked, instead answer the question you wanted to be asked, and by the end of it the asker will usually have forgotten that they actually asked a different question. It's pretty common, but I think few people were as explicit/honest about it as McNamara (later in life, that is).
Generally - in my experience - folks that genuinely want to answer or explain something will first rephrase the question, and/or ask more questions to understand what you are trying to ask, and then after their answer they open the dialogue with something akin to "does that answer your question?".