8 ms·

What Would You Answer If Jobs Asked “What Have You Done That’s So Great …”?

13 points by bwaldorf 16y ago

AlexBlom 16y ago
I'd say "Well I got you to respond to my bloody e-mail"
- jbarciauskas 16y ago
  Brought to you by another episode of snide answers to snide questions. This kind of question doesn't merit serious response, it is not meant to engage in a serious discussion. It is meant to humiliate and deserves only a response in kind.
naner 16y ago
Well if it made sense I'd say something about the difference between critics and creators. Ebert is respected in his field even though he hasn't made any movies. In this case, however, I think Steve was just lashing out against this guy's sense of entitlement. Tate also had a narrative fallacy problem.
replicatorblog 16y ago
Two great quotes along this line: T. Roosevelt "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." Anton Ego from Ratatouille: "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new; an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking, is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook". But I realize - only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more."
- brandnewlow 16y ago
  I never liked how this monologue mischaractarizes the value of critics. The actual criticism itself may not be terribly valuable unto itself (though I argue that a great critic's ability to compare what's new to what's already come is very valuable), but when you combine the criticism with an audience, it becomes very valuable indeed. Ebert didn't just create a body of work, he also created a massive audience for that work that can't be ignored in assessing the value of a critic.
  - replicatorblog 16y ago
    I think your point has some merit, but what has Ebert really done? Has his criticism shaped film making in any tangible way? Has any critic in any field, maybe since John Ruskin? I know Ebert has had a rebirth in the tech community with his speech synthesizer and Twitter account, but really the guy opined on a syndicated basic cable and newspaper column for 25 years. His only significant innovation is the "Thumbs Up/Down" rating. Certainly famous, but influential or valuable? At least as it relates to a comparison with film makers of the day? As a thought experiment, think of all the movies you can for the last 25 years, good, bad, weird. Probably a fairly large list. Now think of all the insights, or "Thumbs" ratings you can remember from Ebert? Or any other critic? How do they match up?
    - derefr 16y ago
      The work of a modern critic is not in their individual opinions on individual works: rather, a single "Thumbs Up" is more like a single dance step in a ballet, an atomic element that works with others to create the actual art. What you get from a man like Ebert is a partial ordering of an infinite set; a way to overcome choice paralysis, by culling all but a finite number of the choices. Criticism is how we deal with the Information age, and critics are valuable because they willingly go out and spend their days drinking from the firehose, so we can get a rather more purified liquid from the other end.
    - brandnewlow 16y ago
      You need to read some of Ebert's Great Movies reviews. The man is one of our great living humanists.
jarek 16y ago
I found this message by Joe Clark when researching for another reply (guess on which topic): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2004JulSep/0237.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2004JulSep/02... "Actually, no, it is not the responsibility of the critic to solve the problem. Pauline Kael was not expected to rewrite and redirect the films she disliked." "[N]ot everybody who can spot a mistake can fix it (I know there's a leak in the ceiling; do you expect me to get up there with a ladder and a bucket o' tar?)" This doesn't excuse people who rip on everything they see. However, good, balanced criticism is very valuable, regardless of the critic's Maker™ credentials. Don't let others tell you otherwise.
_delirium 16y ago
I don't think there's an answer you could give that'd satisfy him, unless you're also a CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company. That's what his value system is, so if you really want to go toe-to-toe with him, it has to be by that measuring stick, which may not be a productive use of your time (unless you agree with it, and think you have a good way to get yourself into such a position). You can play that game on all sorts of fronts. For example, an elitist-feeling Nobel Prize in Physics winner might pick out some reasonably successful YC company and ask them, "well, you have a website, but what have you really done lately?" And regardless of how useful they think their startup is, they can't compete with the Nobel-prize winner on the prize-winner's terms (unless, perhaps, they actually do invent something field-changing).
- replicatorblog 16y ago
  I would broaden the criteria a bit. I think Jobs would accept the criticism of a Nobel Laureate, a Bob Dylan-esqe artistic figure, or any of the folks in the "Think Different" commercials. His point is fair enough. SJ has spent his life bringing new tech to the world and reshaping it in kind. He is a bad ass and knows it. The Gawker guy was making a 1/32 assed point, hasn't contributed anything of meaning to the culture (or even cultural debate) and was lucky to get a response from SJ considering. While he is milking the minor pageview spike this story generates, SJ is inventing the future.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
mwerty 16y ago
Most of this Apple nonsense would make a lot more sense if you imagined Apple had 1m dollars in annual revenue. Then, whatever Apple is doing would not seem so bad because they would be a struggling company. People feel entitled because Apple is successful and makes a lot of money. It's pretty disgusting.
thwarted 16y ago
That reminds me of this Fake Steve Jobs Crunchies Acceptance video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmfP6aXNSis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmfP6aXNSis
jodrellblank 16y ago
I predict that I would answer 'nothing' and then feel ashamed. It makes me wonder why the two go together and whether I can break that link so I could answer 'nothing' and be OK with that.
- lurch_mojoff 16y ago
  "Nothing" and shame will always go hand in hand. But you can always reevaluate what "nothing" means to you. "I created a great family and brought up great kids." "I helped the people in my community." "I managed to stay a decent person." These are all "somethings" one can be proud of, even if they are not things that have changed the world at large.
  - jodrellblank 16y ago
    > "Nothing" and shame will always go hand in hand. I dispute that. You wouldn't expect a monk, a hunter-gatherer tribesman, or a lion to be ashamed of doing "nothing great", would you?
blogimus 16y ago
I really wonder what would have become of Steve Jobs if he didn't have that opportunity to stand on the shoulders of Steve Wozniak.
- aresant 16y ago
  Or vice versa. Every ying needs its yang.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    True, but Woz doesn't go around writing snippy e-mails that ask "What have you done lately?"
    - lurch_mojoff 16y ago
      True, but Woz, after his initial contribution - Apple][, called it quits on the industry and dedicated his life to hobbies and personal projects. Jobs stayed in the industry and eventually returned to Apple to turn a dying company into one of the titans of technology.
chmike 16y ago
This "argument" was unfair and proves that Jobs was short of more pertinent arguments in this case. The recurrent successful experiences of Steve Jobs can and should be used as a heuristic that he has no "vision problems" ;). But the argument is unfair because the lack of successful experience proves nothing more that you didn't have YET a successful experience and certainly not that you might be wrong on the debated matter. As successful experiences won't prove that you will always be right, it's just a heuristic.

13 points by bwaldorf 16y ago

AlexBlom 16y ago

I'd say "Well I got you to respond to my bloody e-mail"

jbarciauskas 16y ago
Brought to you by another episode of snide answers to snide questions. This kind of question doesn't merit serious response, it is not meant to engage in a serious discussion. It is meant to humiliate and deserves only a response in kind.

naner 16y ago

Well if it made sense I'd say something about the difference between critics and creators. Ebert is respected in his field even though he hasn't made any movies. In this case, however, I think Steve was just lashing out against this guy's sense of entitlement. Tate also had a narrative fallacy problem.

replicatorblog 16y ago

Two great quotes along this line: T. Roosevelt "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." Anton Ego from Ratatouille: "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new; an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking, is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook". But I realize - only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more."

brandnewlow 16y ago
I never liked how this monologue mischaractarizes the value of critics. The actual criticism itself may not be terribly valuable unto itself (though I argue that a great critic's ability to compare what's new to what's already come is very valuable), but when you combine the criticism with an audience, it becomes very valuable indeed. Ebert didn't just create a body of work, he also created a massive audience for that work that can't be ignored in assessing the value of a critic.
- replicatorblog 16y ago
  I think your point has some merit, but what has Ebert really done? Has his criticism shaped film making in any tangible way? Has any critic in any field, maybe since John Ruskin? I know Ebert has had a rebirth in the tech community with his speech synthesizer and Twitter account, but really the guy opined on a syndicated basic cable and newspaper column for 25 years. His only significant innovation is the "Thumbs Up/Down" rating. Certainly famous, but influential or valuable? At least as it relates to a comparison with film makers of the day? As a thought experiment, think of all the movies you can for the last 25 years, good, bad, weird. Probably a fairly large list. Now think of all the insights, or "Thumbs" ratings you can remember from Ebert? Or any other critic? How do they match up?
  - derefr 16y ago
    The work of a modern critic is not in their individual opinions on individual works: rather, a single "Thumbs Up" is more like a single dance step in a ballet, an atomic element that works with others to create the actual art. What you get from a man like Ebert is a partial ordering of an infinite set; a way to overcome choice paralysis, by culling all but a finite number of the choices. Criticism is how we deal with the Information age, and critics are valuable because they willingly go out and spend their days drinking from the firehose, so we can get a rather more purified liquid from the other end.
  - brandnewlow 16y ago
    You need to read some of Ebert's Great Movies reviews. The man is one of our great living humanists.

jarek 16y ago

I found this message by Joe Clark when researching for another reply (guess on which topic): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2004JulSep/0237.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2004JulSep/02... "Actually, no, it is not the responsibility of the critic to solve the problem. Pauline Kael was not expected to rewrite and redirect the films she disliked." "[N]ot everybody who can spot a mistake can fix it (I know there's a leak in the ceiling; do you expect me to get up there with a ladder and a bucket o' tar?)" This doesn't excuse people who rip on everything they see. However, good, balanced criticism is very valuable, regardless of the critic's Maker™ credentials. Don't let others tell you otherwise.

_delirium 16y ago

I don't think there's an answer you could give that'd satisfy him, unless you're also a CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company. That's what his value system is, so if you really want to go toe-to-toe with him, it has to be by that measuring stick, which may not be a productive use of your time (unless you agree with it, and think you have a good way to get yourself into such a position). You can play that game on all sorts of fronts. For example, an elitist-feeling Nobel Prize in Physics winner might pick out some reasonably successful YC company and ask them, "well, you have a website, but what have you really done lately?" And regardless of how useful they think their startup is, they can't compete with the Nobel-prize winner on the prize-winner's terms (unless, perhaps, they actually do invent something field-changing).

replicatorblog 16y ago
I would broaden the criteria a bit. I think Jobs would accept the criticism of a Nobel Laureate, a Bob Dylan-esqe artistic figure, or any of the folks in the "Think Different" commercials. His point is fair enough. SJ has spent his life bringing new tech to the world and reshaping it in kind. He is a bad ass and knows it. The Gawker guy was making a 1/32 assed point, hasn't contributed anything of meaning to the culture (or even cultural debate) and was lucky to get a response from SJ considering. While he is milking the minor pageview spike this story generates, SJ is inventing the future.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

mwerty 16y ago

Most of this Apple nonsense would make a lot more sense if you imagined Apple had 1m dollars in annual revenue. Then, whatever Apple is doing would not seem so bad because they would be a struggling company. People feel entitled because Apple is successful and makes a lot of money. It's pretty disgusting.

thwarted 16y ago

That reminds me of this Fake Steve Jobs Crunchies Acceptance video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmfP6aXNSis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmfP6aXNSis

jodrellblank 16y ago

I predict that I would answer 'nothing' and then feel ashamed. It makes me wonder why the two go together and whether I can break that link so I could answer 'nothing' and be OK with that.

lurch_mojoff 16y ago
"Nothing" and shame will always go hand in hand. But you can always reevaluate what "nothing" means to you. "I created a great family and brought up great kids." "I helped the people in my community." "I managed to stay a decent person." These are all "somethings" one can be proud of, even if they are not things that have changed the world at large.
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  > "Nothing" and shame will always go hand in hand. I dispute that. You wouldn't expect a monk, a hunter-gatherer tribesman, or a lion to be ashamed of doing "nothing great", would you?

blogimus 16y ago

I really wonder what would have become of Steve Jobs if he didn't have that opportunity to stand on the shoulders of Steve Wozniak.

aresant 16y ago
Or vice versa. Every ying needs its yang.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  True, but Woz doesn't go around writing snippy e-mails that ask "What have you done lately?"
  - lurch_mojoff 16y ago
    True, but Woz, after his initial contribution - Apple][, called it quits on the industry and dedicated his life to hobbies and personal projects. Jobs stayed in the industry and eventually returned to Apple to turn a dying company into one of the titans of technology.

chmike 16y ago

This "argument" was unfair and proves that Jobs was short of more pertinent arguments in this case. The recurrent successful experiences of Steve Jobs can and should be used as a heuristic that he has no "vision problems" ;). But the argument is unfair because the lack of successful experience proves nothing more that you didn't have YET a successful experience and certainly not that you might be wrong on the debated matter. As successful experiences won't prove that you will always be right, it's just a heuristic.