91–100 of 314 posts
> Woz: And when Jobs (in the movie, but really a board does this) denied stock to the early garage team (some not even shown) I'm surprised that they chose not to show me giving about $10M of my own stock to them because it was the right thing. And $10M was a lot in that time. I have to say: That speaks volumes. And Woz, if you ever happen to read this: It's still a pile of dough in the year 2014.
Sidenote: You can tell Woz is an amazing genuinely good person with no hint of pretension or self importance. A lot can be discerned about famous personalities by who they choose to follow. For example, you can tell whether the person has little utility for social networks but maybe started out following a scattering of experts relevant to their interests. Usually though, the personality is using their handful of fol…
Lord Vishnu ?
The ideal name for a movie about Steve Wozniak, given how often he's misrepresented in the whole Jobs/Apple story: Woz/Not Woz .
> Woz: And when Jobs (in the movie, but really a board does this) denied stock to the early garage team (some not even shown) I'm surprised that they chose not to show me giving about $10M of my own stock to them because it was the right thing. And $10M was a lot in that time. I have to say: That speaks volumes. And Woz, if you ever happen to read this: It's still a pile of dough in the year 2014.
[Not that Sorkin would ever produce anything other than a stellar script, anyway]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edison invented a practical light bulb. He also invented the industry that was able to deliver power to homes so they could use those light bulbs.
Which is what I said and my point stands: how many people can actually give the correct answer to who created the first light bulb? Edison was attributed all of the credit when he built off the work of others, which isn't to say that's a bad thing but that this is usually how breakthroughs usually come about.
Me, I tend to give the credit for the invention to Edison, while acknowledging that he stood on the shoulders of others. It's how credit is done for most inventions.
> Woz: And when Jobs (in the movie, but really a board does this) denied stock to the early garage team (some not even shown) I'm surprised that they chose not to show me giving about $10M of my own stock to them because it was the right thing. And $10M was a lot in that time. I have to say: That speaks volumes. And Woz, if you ever happen to read this: It's still a pile of dough in the year 2014.
It is also conceivable that Woz seems distant from this huge financial figure not because of his being a successful "one-percenter" but due to a fundamental disinterest in money.
> Woz: And when Jobs (in the movie, but really a board does this) denied stock to the early garage team (some not even shown) I'm surprised that they chose not to show me giving about $10M of my own stock to them because it was the right thing. And $10M was a lot in that time. I have to say: That speaks volumes. And Woz, if you ever happen to read this: It's still a pile of dough in the year 2014.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me they are the quintessential yin-yang startup duo. You don't have to pick a favorite. You don't need to figure out which one pulled more weight. It seems likely that if you removed one, the other would have failed. edit: chill out folks, I don't mean either guy would have been a penniless itinerant without the other. I'm saying they were much more successful together than apart. I know it's popular here to hate…
You should read or reread Woz's comment from OP. He was already quite successful, and widely respected. He may not have ended up being a billionaire without Jobs, but he wouldn't have been a failure. Jobs on the other hand struggled in nearly every aspect of his life, he couldn't stick with college, he got a job at Atari based on someone else's work, he was such a giant douche to everyone there that they wanted to fi…
I'm a Jobs fan in many - but a fan of what he actually did (minus being a douche), not the myth.