Posts tagged with "Steve jobs"

Mar 3

I think what Wu and his brethren believe is not that companies win by being “open”, but that they win by offering choices.

Who is Apple to decide which apps are in the App Store? That no phone will have a hardware keyboard or removable battery? That modern devices are better off without Flash Player and Java?

Where others offer choices, Apple makes decisions. What some of us appreciate is what so rankles the others — that those decisions have so often and consistently been right.

Gruber

Probably the most relevant 88 words in a 3600+ word piece.

Its the same post we’ve read a thousand times already: somebody who thinks their opinion has value claims to know what they need to do to successfully run a computer company, despite the fact that they do not run a computer company, successful or not. Instead, they rather enjoy manipulating stock prices through arbitrary puff pieces like the one Gruber destroys here that say nothing while claiming to say everything.

And again, I say: if there were another Steve Jobs hiding among the tech industry CEOs, we’d know. If there were another Tim Cook, we’d know.

Perhaps time will produce one. Perhaps if they ever, for the love of all that is holy, evict Ballmer from his position, one will emerge at Microsoft (but I doubt it). Until then, these wild claims from nameless people who don’t matter stating they hold the keys to the castle in terms of profitability and making the Right Choices (or not, depending on which side of that argument you fall) for a tech company are just those, wild claims from nameless people.

So last month I posted this talking about why I agreed with the geek consensus that the Steve Jobs biography left a lot to be desired.

This video made me finally nail down one of the things nagging at me, and after a bit of reflection, I can see both sides of why (1. why it nags at me. 2. why it was left out).

This video was from 1997. Jobs looked at the tech available then, looked at what was on the horizon, and predicted the future, in a way that came eerily true. That was the year before Google was founded. Pentiums were the hot processor. 486DX’s were still the rage. Windows 98 hadn’t been released yet.

Three years after that, in 2000, video Apple introduced iTools, which became .Mac in 2002, which became MobileMe in 2008, which became iCloud in 2011. Everybody who says Apple just jumped into the “cloud” game hasn’t been paying attention. Everybody who says they weren’t very good at it, well, there is merit to that.

So back to the Isaacson book; the missing piece is represented by this video. The book gave no insight into The Vision.

Granted, biographies aren’t meant to be forward-looking, but when covering somebody like Steve Jobs, I mean come on. We didn’t get but small tastes of where he thought we were headed. Not just Apple, but technology in general. With his status in the technological community, he would have access and insight into areas of the industry that mere mortals like myself won’t get to see or ponder about for years. Combined with an obvious passion and, dare I say, refined genius, I can only dream at what would have crossed his mind as being the future.

Now, that’s not to say he didn’t share those visions. His closet lieutenants at Apple were undoubtedly burdened by ideas and concepts not yet attainable with today’s means, but they could be made possible with tomorrow’s. And given the culture of Apple, I really think we’re going to see awesome things coming from them in a multitude of markets over the next 20 years. And given that, it makes perfect sense why he would have withheld any and all of his vision from Isaacson, even if Isaacson had been willing to include The Future in a book chronicling The Past. Jobs gave Isaacson access to his past, but ever the showman, Jobs retained control of his (and Apple’s) future.

Link Gruber on Isaacson

Everybody asks what I thought of Steve Jobs’ biography, and my answer is usually not what they expected. I disliked it, but couldn’t really explain why, except to say that it didn’t seem to accurately convey anything more than that Jobs was an asshole, and we all knew that already. Gruber has shed more light and actually identified a few of the shortcomings; there are many more, I feel, but reading this would at least give you a sense of the types of things Isaacson missed completely when painting a historical picture of a technology legend.

Gruber’s mild obsession with the NeXT years is something that is entirely warranted. Those were arguably the most important years, the decisions made there ultimately shaped the direction Apple would take when Steve resumed the helm, and NeXT’s software formed the foundation on which not only Mac OS X and iOS is built, but also every single application that makes them into the giants they are. Many object classes inside Apple’s Objective-C API (called Cocoa), are prefixed to this day with NS, referring to the NeXTSTEP operating system. Yet, despite its importance, and its lasting impact on the industry, Isaacson chose instead to barely scratch the surface of the NeXT years. Instead, he focused an inordinate amount of attention on Pixar and Jobs’ relationship with Disney and the turmoil that resulted. Jobs’ was proud of Pixar, and rightfully so, but the story of Pixar deserves its own book, and NeXT shouldn’t be resorted to an expanded footnote in the biography of a technical revolutionary like Jobs.

I don’t remember much about the back half of the book, largely because of its focus on Pixar, then the jump to the Return to Apple story, which begat the iMac, which begat the iPod, which begat the iPhone, which begat the iPad, and suddenly the book was over. Whether or not that’s what it was, that’s what I took away, and I’m an Apple geek. I should have been engaged by that point, denying myself meals and sleep to read more. As it is, I can’t even bring myself to pick the book back up to identify where exactly I started to dislike it. But here’s a summary of what I remember, picking up when Jobs was ousted:

Jobs recruits talent from Apple and starts NeXT. Jobs buys Pixar from Lucasfilm. Pixar stops making rendering hardware. Pixar takes eons, lots of money, and lots of strife to make Toy Story. Disney almost ruins Toy Story. Pixar makes Toy Story better. Toy Story is wildly successful. NeXT is failing. Pixar and Disney fight about the future of both. Pixar continues to do well. NeXT continues to fail. Disney realizes they need Pixar to survive. NeXT, despite being an abysmal failure, is purchased by Apple over Be, Inc. Apple throws out NeXTSTEP, and uses the acquired talent to save the Mac OS.

Of course, as Gruber points out, the last line wasn’t true at all. But if you were to hand the book to somebody who didn’t already know that, that’s precisely how it reads.

Link Paul Krugman: Mitch Daniels Doesn't Read the New York Times

Jobs and jobs, not.

Steve would be so pissed right now, having his name used to fabricate such a lie.1

Wouldn’t it be great if Apple came out with a press release calling out the lie?

1 pure and unchecked speculation on my part.