4 ms·

True, but a technology is only a means to an end, not an end itself. What sells is product. You may have the finest tech on the planet—and that means precisely

by hhas01 7y ago

True, but a technology is only a means to an end, not an end itself. What sells is product. You may have the finest tech on the planet—and that means precisely squat. What counts is putting bums on seats. Your seats. And keeping them there. Limps of tech are just a vehicle for that; to be used, abused, chewed up, and/or discarded on the road(s) to that end. Apple could have done better; they certainly did plenty worse (Copland, Taligent, the first Mac OS). As it turned out, NeXTSTEP proved it was indeed “good enough” to fit a pressing need at the time; and the rest was just hammering till it looked lickable enough for consumers to bite. All it was needed was a salesman to shift it—and Steve 2.0 proved to be one of the greatest salesman in modern marketing history. That’s what made the difference between selling a tech to a million dyed-in-the-wirewool nerds, and selling tech to a billion everyday consumers. And then up-selling all of those customers to completely new worlds of products and services invented just for the purpose. .. Want to created a whole new device? Hire Steve Wozniak. Want to create a whole new world? Oh, but that is the real trick. And Steve Jobs gave us the masterclass. .. Had Steve started Be and Jean-Louis built NeXT, we would still be in the exact same situation today, and the only difference would be chunks of BeOS as the iPhone’s bones instead. Funny old world, eh? :)

kbenson 7y ago
I'm not sure I've ever encountered someone so invested in the "great man" theory of history. Jobs was obviously talented, but assuming no matter where he went he would have had the same level of success is discounting a lot of luck in how everything lined up,and who was available to help bring all the things to market jobs is famous for. There's no guarantee the hundreds or thousands of people that were also essential to the major successes of Apple would have been around jobs had he stayed at Next. Those people deserve respect and recognition too.
- ngcc_hk 7y ago
  You forgot his family had been the largest share holder of Disney not because Steve got apple. He is VERY successful to the point he even gave up getting anything but an private jet. That is billion of course but that is not success. What is. And unlike v1 v2 seems better on human level as well. We do not need saint. He still parked in space for hadicapped only I guess. But let us admit, it is not just one for all. But all for one.
  - hhas01 7y ago
    ISTR a tale of Legal keeping a large slush fund from which to pay off all the ex-Apple-employees that Steve 2.0 would straight tell to their face to fuck off. Just because that is what worked best for him†. :) “But let us admit, it is not just one for all. But all for one.” Damn straight. Epically focused leadership. -- († For all others who aspire to build their own businesses, there is HR procedure and askamanager.org—and do not for the life of you ever bypass either!)
    - machinecoffee 7y ago
      >Epically focused leadership. Just to support that, I remember hearing a story told by Larry Elison (they were apparently neighbours for a while), where he would pop over to see Steve, and would be subjected to the 100th viewing of Toy Story where Jobs was obsessively pointing out every new tiny improvement they'd made in the story or graphics. Epically focused indeed.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- hhas01 7y ago
  “Those people deserve respect and recognition too.” ORLY? Name them. -- Not “great man”. Great vision. Geeks tend massively to overrate the importance technical aptitude, which is what they’re good at, and underrate everything else—business experience, sales skills, market savvy, and other soft skills—which they’re not. Contrast someone like Jobs, who understood the technical side well enough to be able to surround himself with high-quality technical people and communicate effectively with them, but make no mistake: they were there to deliver his vision, not their own. Tech-exclusive geeks a useful resource, but they have to be kept on a zero-length leash lest they start thinking that they should be the ones in charge since they know more about tech than anyone else. And the moment they’re allowed to get away with it, and you end up with the tails-wagging-the-dog internecine malfunction that plagued Sculley’s Apple in the 90s and has to some extent resurfaced under Cook. Lots of things happened under Jobs 2.0. That was NEVER one of them. .. Case in point: Just take the endless gushing geek love for Cook-Apple’s Swift language. And then look at how little the iOS platform itself has moved forward over the 10 years, it’s taken to [partly] replace ObjC with the only incrementally improved Swift. When NeXT created what is now AppKit, it was 20 years ahead of its time. Now it’s a good ten behind, and massively devalued to boot by the rotten impedance-mismatch between ObjC/Cococa’s Smalltalk-inspired model and Swift’s C++-like semantics. Had Jobs not passed, I seriously doubt Lattner’s pet project would ever have advanced to the point of daylight. Steve would’ve looked at it and asked: How can it add to Apple’s existing investments? And then told Lattner to chuck it, and create an “Objective-C 3.0”; that is, the smallest delta between what they already had (ObjC 2.0) and the modern, safe, easy-to-use (type-inferred, no-nonsense) language they so pressingly needed. .. Look, I don’t doubt eventually Apple will migrate all but the large legacy productivity apps like Office and CC away from AppKit and ObjC and onto Swift and SwiftUI. But whose interest does that really serve? The ten million geeks who get paid for writing and rewriting all that code, and have huge fun squandering millions of development-hours doing so? Or the billion users, who for years see minimal progress or improvement in their iOS app experience? Not to put too a fine a point on it: if Google Android is failing to capitalize on iPhone’s Swift-induced stall-out by charging ahead in that time, it’s only because it has the same geek-serving internal dysfunction undermining its own ability to innovate and advance the USER product experience. -- TL;DR: I’ve launched a tech startup, [mis]run it, and cratered it. And that was with with a genuinely unique, groundbreaking, and already working tech with the product potential to revolutionize a major chunk of trillion-dollar global industry, saving and generating customers billions of dollars a year. It’s an experience that has given me a whole new appreciation for what another nobody person starting out of his garage, and with his own false starts and failures, was ultimately able to build. And I would trade 20 years of programming process for just one day of salesmanship from Steve Jobs’ left toe, and know I’d got the best deal by far. Like I say, this is not about a person. It is about having the larger vision and having the skills to deliver it.
nickik 7y ago
> You may have the finest tech on the planet—and that means precisely squat. You shouldn't talk about Sun like that.
ianamartin 7y ago
I think Steve Jobs The Marketing and Sales Genius is an incorrect myth. Jobs was an outstanding product manager who sweated all the details for his products. And in contrast to Tim Cook, Jobs was a passionate user of actual desktop and laptop computers. He sweated the details of the iPhone too, but his daily driver was a mac, not an iPad. Cook is less into the product aspect, and it really really shows. Cook is a numbers and logistics guy, but not really into the product. That's a thing I think Apple has fixed recently with some reshuffling and putting a product person (Jeff Williams) in the COO role. The COO role is also a signal that he'll be the next CEO when Tim Cook retires. To be clear, I don't disagree that Jobs was a great marketer. But that stemmed from his own personal involvement with the product design of the mac--and later the iOS devices--rather than some weirdly prodigious knack for marketing.

by hhas01 7y ago

kbenson 7y ago

I'm not sure I've ever encountered someone so invested in the "great man" theory of history. Jobs was obviously talented, but assuming no matter where he went he would have had the same level of success is discounting a lot of luck in how everything lined up,and who was available to help bring all the things to market jobs is famous for. There's no guarantee the hundreds or thousands of people that were also essential to the major successes of Apple would have been around jobs had he stayed at Next. Those people deserve respect and recognition too.

ngcc_hk 7y ago
You forgot his family had been the largest share holder of Disney not because Steve got apple. He is VERY successful to the point he even gave up getting anything but an private jet. That is billion of course but that is not success. What is. And unlike v1 v2 seems better on human level as well. We do not need saint. He still parked in space for hadicapped only I guess. But let us admit, it is not just one for all. But all for one.
- hhas01 7y ago
  ISTR a tale of Legal keeping a large slush fund from which to pay off all the ex-Apple-employees that Steve 2.0 would straight tell to their face to fuck off. Just because that is what worked best for him†. :) “But let us admit, it is not just one for all. But all for one.” Damn straight. Epically focused leadership. -- († For all others who aspire to build their own businesses, there is HR procedure and askamanager.org—and do not for the life of you ever bypass either!)
  - machinecoffee 7y ago
    >Epically focused leadership. Just to support that, I remember hearing a story told by Larry Elison (they were apparently neighbours for a while), where he would pop over to see Steve, and would be subjected to the 100th viewing of Toy Story where Jobs was obsessively pointing out every new tiny improvement they'd made in the story or graphics. Epically focused indeed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
hhas01 7y ago
“Those people deserve respect and recognition too.” ORLY? Name them. -- Not “great man”. Great vision. Geeks tend massively to overrate the importance technical aptitude, which is what they’re good at, and underrate everything else—business experience, sales skills, market savvy, and other soft skills—which they’re not. Contrast someone like Jobs, who understood the technical side well enough to be able to surround himself with high-quality technical people and communicate effectively with them, but make no mistake: they were there to deliver his vision, not their own. Tech-exclusive geeks a useful resource, but they have to be kept on a zero-length leash lest they start thinking that they should be the ones in charge since they know more about tech than anyone else. And the moment they’re allowed to get away with it, and you end up with the tails-wagging-the-dog internecine malfunction that plagued Sculley’s Apple in the 90s and has to some extent resurfaced under Cook. Lots of things happened under Jobs 2.0. That was NEVER one of them. .. Case in point: Just take the endless gushing geek love for Cook-Apple’s Swift language. And then look at how little the iOS platform itself has moved forward over the 10 years, it’s taken to [partly] replace ObjC with the only incrementally improved Swift. When NeXT created what is now AppKit, it was 20 years ahead of its time. Now it’s a good ten behind, and massively devalued to boot by the rotten impedance-mismatch between ObjC/Cococa’s Smalltalk-inspired model and Swift’s C++-like semantics. Had Jobs not passed, I seriously doubt Lattner’s pet project would ever have advanced to the point of daylight. Steve would’ve looked at it and asked: How can it add to Apple’s existing investments? And then told Lattner to chuck it, and create an “Objective-C 3.0”; that is, the smallest delta between what they already had (ObjC 2.0) and the modern, safe, easy-to-use (type-inferred, no-nonsense) language they so pressingly needed. .. Look, I don’t doubt eventually Apple will migrate all but the large legacy productivity apps like Office and CC away from AppKit and ObjC and onto Swift and SwiftUI. But whose interest does that really serve? The ten million geeks who get paid for writing and rewriting all that code, and have huge fun squandering millions of development-hours doing so? Or the billion users, who for years see minimal progress or improvement in their iOS app experience? Not to put too a fine a point on it: if Google Android is failing to capitalize on iPhone’s Swift-induced stall-out by charging ahead in that time, it’s only because it has the same geek-serving internal dysfunction undermining its own ability to innovate and advance the USER product experience. -- TL;DR: I’ve launched a tech startup, [mis]run it, and cratered it. And that was with with a genuinely unique, groundbreaking, and already working tech with the product potential to revolutionize a major chunk of trillion-dollar global industry, saving and generating customers billions of dollars a year. It’s an experience that has given me a whole new appreciation for what another nobody person starting out of his garage, and with his own false starts and failures, was ultimately able to build. And I would trade 20 years of programming process for just one day of salesmanship from Steve Jobs’ left toe, and know I’d got the best deal by far. Like I say, this is not about a person. It is about having the larger vision and having the skills to deliver it.

nickik 7y ago

> You may have the finest tech on the planet—and that means precisely squat. You shouldn't talk about Sun like that.

ianamartin 7y ago

I think Steve Jobs The Marketing and Sales Genius is an incorrect myth. Jobs was an outstanding product manager who sweated all the details for his products. And in contrast to Tim Cook, Jobs was a passionate user of actual desktop and laptop computers. He sweated the details of the iPhone too, but his daily driver was a mac, not an iPad. Cook is less into the product aspect, and it really really shows. Cook is a numbers and logistics guy, but not really into the product. That's a thing I think Apple has fixed recently with some reshuffling and putting a product person (Jeff Williams) in the COO role. The COO role is also a signal that he'll be the next CEO when Tim Cook retires. To be clear, I don't disagree that Jobs was a great marketer. But that stemmed from his own personal involvement with the product design of the mac--and later the iOS devices--rather than some weirdly prodigious knack for marketing.