24 ms·

This is a typical situation for most companies. I've been in the position of the "trusted engineer" several times where conversations with customers can very qu

• wpietri 8y ago
  Definitely. And my real issue with Jobs is more the ripple effect. So many people read stories of Jobs being an asshole and think, "Oh, this is how you success." Ignoring the many assholes who weren't as brilliant or as thoroughly lucky. Look at Theranos, for example. The CEO was practically a Jobs impersonator. From the turtlenecks and the air of brilliance to the controlling, abusive, and secrecy-oriented behaviors. How many people fell for the fraud? And I can't count the wantrepreneurs I've come across that had similar theories.
  • lowken10 8y ago
    I think Elizabeth Holmes belongs in prison. However, I read her bio and she was a genius on par with Jobs.
    • paulcole 8y ago
      For breaking what law(s)?
      • rpedela 8y ago
        Fraud? The kind of fraud that can get someone hurt or killed like the bogus diagnostic tests which could mean a patient ends up taking the wrong drug and/or dose which hurts them.
        • paulcole 8y ago
          Do you think Elon Musk should be in jail for the misleading content on this page: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
          • paulsutter 8y ago
            Human drivers kill over 1 million people per year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic...
          • rpedela 8y ago
            No because as far as I am aware Elon has not tried to actively hide the problems even if he sometimes paints a rosier picture than reality. That is very different from telling everyone, including regulators, that the diagnostic tests work great, safe, effective. And there are documents showing they knew it didn't work. Theranos is like Enron.
      • gameswithgo 8y ago
        Fraud, theft.
    • luddaite 8y ago
      Honest question: Is raw intelligence or wisdom more important for success in biotech? It seems to me that raw intelligence is useful when studying systems that are either designed rationally or can be understood easily from a mathematics perspective. On the flip side, I think experience is important when dealing with biology which is often messy and not easily understood because so much is still unknown and everything is the result of an accumulation of random variations.
      • aaavl2821 8y ago
        Most biologists I know are very high in raw intelligence. However there's a distinction between biology as a science and biotech as an industry. The key insight that starts development of a new drug often comes from pure molecular biology, but after that, a different type of biology, as well as chemistry and pharmacology quickly become very important. The industrial drug development process is one of the most technically complex, risky and highly regulated processes in industry. You basically need PhD level experience in almost a dozen distinct technical domains to get a drug approved. Most biotech VCs prefer CEOs with decades of drug dev experience because they know where the pitfalls are and how to execute better That said, Ive heard a very experienced biotech VC / former big pharma drug developer describe the process of developing a drug as "hanging on by your fingernails", and the traditional dyed in the wool drug industry strategy has pretty much put the industry on a long term declining trend, so maybe experience isnt as powerful as the industry tells itself
    • geezerjay 8y ago
      > However, I read her bio and she was a genius on par with Jobs. In short, why do you believe that Steve Jobs was remotely close to being a genius, and what made Elizabeth Holmes do to lead you to believe she also met you definition of a genius?
      • ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
        https://www.wsj.com/video/reporting-on-theranos-and-elizabeth-holmes/22C3F84E-0985-4EEE-8B74-256CD6D489D7.html https://www.wsj.com/video/reporting-on-theranos-and-elizabet... At 4:00 in this video they talk about Holmes fake "deep voice". I think its pretty clearly her fraud tendencies run really really deep. I don't think you could trust anything you think makes her a genius. The only things we actually know about her is that she could get into Standford, where she dropped out. She could also raise money really well. I don't think she is by any means dumb. But there is absolutely no evidence of genius.
        • rhizome 8y ago
          Funny, lowering the pitch of your voice is a tropey power move that gets zero criticism when practiced by men.
          • ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
            Any "tropey power move" should be criticized. Didn't you just criticize it by the category? When I was raising capital I definitely heard VC's making fun of men who spoke in a false voice, practiced their handshake, or artificially held eye contact way too long. I'm fine if you want to say my criticism of Holmes is influenced by sexism. But to make the statement that men speaking in a stupid fake voice get zero criticism... is hyperbole to point ridiculousness.
            • jrs95 8y ago
              This knee jerk reaction is part of why she was able to get away with it for so long.
    • jackhack 8y ago
      Genius isn't enough. In fact, it can be a detriment in the right (wrong?) environment resulting in stunted emotional and social development. The problem with geniuses is that they tend to think their aptitude is enough to grant them magical ability to be correct. It takes experience and humility to learn that it's not the same, but a life of being pampered and put on a pedestal limits the genius' opportunity to learn this life lesson. The self-serving genius is roughly equivalent to the pychopath. Once you begin to look for these antisocial behaviors among so-called geniuses you'll see a frightening pattern.
      • WalterBright 8y ago
        People thinking they are smarter than they are, and that this entitles them to run other peoples' lives, is hardly limited to geniuses.
    • gameswithgo 8y ago
      >I read her bio and she was a genius on par with Jobs. What were either of them geniuses at exactly? Psychology?
      • xenihn 8y ago
        Sure. People with certain personality disorders are extremely good at reading others, and convincing them to do what they want. Two common (and apt) terms I see thrown about are "social chameleon" and "reality distortion field". You can also learn how to do it if you don't have one by studying those who do. Regardless of how someone ends up with the ability, I don't think it's unfair to refer to it as genius, even if it's specifically based on emotional intelligence. They're just on a completely different level in comparison to the general population when it comes to bending others to their will and getting their way.
        • philwelch 8y ago
          I've unfortunately been very close to people with cluster B personality disorders, and I think "savant" is a better term than "genius". In many cases, these people don't even realize how manipulative they are; it's just an unconscious reflex.
  • whatshisface 8y ago
    There's a line beyond which Jobsian behaviors will ruin the productivity and happiness of the Woz. Holmes/Kissenger and friends flew over it and landed in "scientists are being forced (and encouraged) to lie to keep their jobs," territory.
    • rajeshpant 8y ago
      I googled her images after reading your comment and it is so funny to notice the impersonation. Also, every C level guy(also middle management wannabes) impersonates Jobs.
      • saagarjha 8y ago
        > I googled her images after reading your comment and it is so funny to notice the impersonation. Well, it's not like she made any effort to conceal it. In fact, she was very public about her desire to appear like Jobs.
  • WalterBright 8y ago
    > thoroughly lucky. Jobs made a huge success 3 times: 1. the Apple II 2. Pixar 3. return to Apple and transforming it from 90 days to bankruptcy to the biggest corporation in the world You can ascribe one of the above to luck, but faced with all three, Jobs was just that good, and made his own luck.
    • timr 8y ago
      You have to be able to separate the things that were good about Jobs (e.g. design sense, marketing instincts, etc.) from what was bad (i.e. being an asshole). It's the difference between being effective and being Cargo Cult Steve Jobs. Far too many baby entrepreneurs try to mimic Jobs' behaviors, but fail to couple it with any sort of skill or good taste.
    • talmand 8y ago
      1. Wozniak 2. Lasseter (and others) 3. Ive His success was being involved with people with genius and vision that were willing to put up with his shit.
      • badcede 8y ago
        That's in no way a counter-argument.
      • hellofunk 8y ago
        All three of those guys were/are clueless about business until Jobs made their ideas work.
        • talmand 8y ago
          I believe that I made that clear. He was a salesman, obviously a great one, for other people's ideas.
          • abritinthebay 8y ago
            No. He was a businessman and a product guy. He could sell, but as a side effect. I see this too often from fellow developers - anyone pushing business objectives and strategy instead of engineering choices is a "salesman". It's not true at all. Calling Jobs a salesman is like calling Einstein a Civil Rights campaigner. Certainly they both did that, and did it well, but it sort of misses the major thing they were good at.
  • mmsimanga 8y ago
    Look I see your point and I agree. However, having worked in a number of big companies I am really at a loss as to what is the right way to coerce a number of humans into the "right" direction. I have sat in meetings where ignorant executives have blabbered on and on about nothing because the company and CEO felt it was important to hear everyone out. This works if everyone at the table is knowledgeable and able to swallow their ego. You get people making ridiculous statements like we need to replace our database that runs the whole organisation. I have also worked in a company where the CEO cut people who were blabbering short, mostly rightly but rudely so. I think the two approaches have a time and place. There is probably no need to be rude but I don't know how one cuts someone off without being rude.
    • wpietri 8y ago
      What if there were right ways that don't involve coercion? What if we can't find them because we let coercive assholes run amok, seizing advantages and damaging people in ways that make it hard to create non-coercive structures that are also highly creative and productive?
      • mmsimanga 8y ago
        I wish I had an answer. It seems to be getting worse or I am just getting old. From where I am standing, management .i.e. "coercion" is considered a stand alone skill. I understand management but I don't buy that it is a standalone skill. Most IT people will not be able to manage a hospital well. I use the word most because I don't want to use the word all and derail this argument. There are off course exceptions, but these are very rare. The number of people who can effectively manage in an industry/business unit they do not understand is less than the number of people currently managing an industry/unit they do not understand. Money, ego, selfishness ... you name it, humna traits get in the way. We all have these one of these traits and we are all affected by these traits. One of the issues with modern world is that big talkers are rewarded over reserved more knowledgeable people. The more you appear online, the more you talk in meetings and the higher profile you appear the more likely you are to be promoted. It is the way of the world.
  • jrs95 8y ago
    A Jobs impersonator...but without the talent, taste for design, passion for products, or virtually any other positive quality that he had. IMO Holmes has more in common with Jordan Belfort than Steve Jobs.
• princekolt 8y ago
  Not disagreeing with you, but unless I misunderstood something, it seems Jobs sided with John because it was obvious that the design they were going for with MacOS Graphics was wrong, and Jobs was pissed that the Apple engineer tried to defend it. If you ask me that's a perfectly reasonable scenario to get pissed.
  • AdmiralAsshat 8y ago
    Except we have no idea WHY the engineer was trying to defend it. He might've been told previously by Jobs himself that their solution was "the" solution and that they wouldn't entertain alternatives. Imagine how the conversation could've gone if the engineer had agreed with Carmack and Jobs didn't. "Well, yeah, that approach could be better...". Jobs would've probably cut him off for not towing the company line and fired him.
    • privacypoller 8y ago
      THIS. there are countless stories of this happening inside Jobs' Apple. In fact it was a well known ploy that to get something contentious approved you presented it to Jobs who immediately torpedoed you, then let him stew on it until he later presented your idea back as his own.
• MBCook 8y ago
  Do they paint him in a bad light? I guess they all seem to match up to my internal image of who Jobs was. They don’t make him look worse, they just confirm how bad it was. I guess I kind of assume everyone knows Jobs was insufferable at this point.
• mentat 8y ago
  Can you clarify your point here? That Jobs shouldn't have listened to John?
  • m0skit0 8y ago
    Jobs could have made his point without shouting, i.e. being an asshole.
    • ShabbosGoy 8y ago
      That’s not really as effective though. Sometimes you need to be an asshole to get your point across. Civility will make you look like a weakling and you will be continually passed on promotions.
      • PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        > Sometimes you need to be an asshole to get your point across. That's certainly what all the assholes claim.
        • duncan_bayne 8y ago
          They're right, too. ... if the people you're trying to make a point to are also all assholes, because the assholes are in charge, and have exclusively promoted assholes to leadership roles.
• Razengan 8y ago
  > Honestly, all these recent stories about jobs really just paint him in a negative light. These tend to coincidentally crop up every year just before a WWDC and the September iPhone drop.
• tammer 8y ago
  There is a missing piece of complexity here and other comments regarding "asshole" behavior. The story recounted here is a concise demonstration of some aspects of leadership — decisiveness, fairness of discussion, and as mentioned the confidence to steer a large company. But in these stories the means by which those aspects are demonstrated are colored by toxic masculinity. The rage with which Steve is attributed, the combative or abusive belittling he was known for & demonstrated here is the the very same toxic interpersonal dominance normalized by mass culture as essential male behavior. There are emotionally supportive ways of doing exactly what Steve did. Perhaps his success could have been even greater had he executed what seems to have been an innate wellspring of leadership ability with a supportive disposition.
  • hart_russell 8y ago
    lol this is the first time I've heard toxic masculinity used seriously
    • chrisdhoover 8y ago
      It is stupid phrase. Men dont have exclusivity on toxicity. I’ve known plenty toxic people of all sexes. There is danger to accepting these kinds of terms that are associated with malformed world views.
      • klank 8y ago
        Not the OP, but "male toxicity" does not imply that men have an exclusivity on toxicity. If anything, it implicitly suggests the opposite. Otherwise the "male" adjective wouldn't be necessary.
      • rosser 8y ago
        It's neither stupid, nor indicative of a "malformed world view". It denotes the aspects of masculinity which are toxic. You can't even pretend to tell me that's the empty set. You're absolutely right there's toxicity everywhere. To infer from the presence of toxicity in a given domain — say, "masculinity" — that the phrase "toxic masculinity" somehow means "all masculinity is toxic" is, I submit, more reflective of your worldview than it is of the term's legitimate users' views.
• icelancer 8y ago
  >> Honestly, all these recent stories about jobs really just paint him in a negative light. Not really. That's not my interpretation of the story at all. People who judge others for being a jerk in isolation lose the fact that it often comes with the territory of being a visionary or extra-effective at their job. Sure, it'd be great if Jobs was nice. It'd also be nice if your middle manager who knows your dog's name and loves his family was as smart as Jobs. But skills are finite and scarce, and almost no one develops them all, a lesson many D&D players learn immediately after rolling a character. Jobs was a dick. But that was the price. If someone is a dick and half as smart and effective as Jobs, yeah, that's a negative. For someone like Jobs, Carmack (plenty of stories about him that are "negative" as you say, I might add), and other 4+ SD talents, it comes with the package. Expecting otherwise is folly.
  • freyir 8y ago
    Talent allows some people get away with being jerks. If you think talent and bad behavior go hand in hand, you should meet some new talented people.