3 ms·

> or a congressional hearing Interesting: He was never summoned by Congress. All the other technical directors have been: Zuckerberg, Gates, Dorsey, even Larry

> or a congressional hearing Interesting: He was never summoned by Congress. All the other technical directors have been: Zuckerberg, Gates, Dorsey, even Larry Ellison from Oracle. Maybe having the upper hand in being well-understood and well-spoken, goes as far as to have a smoother relationship with the general public?

saalweachter 6y ago
Apple spent most of its existence as a well-known but not particularly dominant company in its fields, which goes a long way to explaining why Congress never took an interest in it. Think back to 2008-9, when Jobs had to step back for health reasons. While Apple had made a solid turn-around and most of the pieces of its future were in place, it was far from the juggernaut it became. The iPhone was coming on like gangbusters, but Blackberry and Nokia were still a thing, Zunes were still a thing...
- simonh 6y ago
  It was an interesting time. The iPod was a phenomenal success, iPod launch events were media circuses and the cultural as well as commercial success was huge. Yet iPods themselves were really just music players. A more sophisticated Walkman. The iPhone combined the computing flexibility and utility of an Apple computer with the convenience and user friendliness of an iPod. But by 2009 they were still just getting started with it.
Jugurtha 6y ago
Tim Cook has been. On a related note, I am convinced that Zuckerberg would have an easier time with these matters with a different haircut.. This is not a personal attack on Zuckerberg, but I think the haircut is damaging his image and makes him less trustworthy than he may be. Joel Kaplan, Myriah Jordan, and their teams may have prepped him well for these hearings (and the famous picture of the talking points left open accidentally-on-purpose is just funny), but he seems to provoke a visceral reaction in people that others do not. Many see Gates, Dorsey, Ellison, etc as CEOs with certain traits, like nerdy, charming, well-spoken, funny/outspoken/brash, etc, but I don't think they assume they are evil. I don't think people would see him and think evil on a video like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--APdD6vejI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--APdD6vejI Again, this is not an attack on physique or on the person, but an observation based on what a lot of comments on these hearings are about. They mostly are about him, not others, drawing comparisons to animals or robots, dehumanizing him, etc. This leads me to think it's a matter of perception and image and I'm wondering what impact the latter would have on the former.
- laurent92 6y ago
  > Many see Gates, Dorsey, Ellison, etc as CEOs with certain traits, like nerdy, charming, well-spoken, funny/outspoken/brash, etc, but I don't think they assume they are evil. I’m really from the other side of the world, then ;) Gates’ 1998 hearings made him look extremely bad; the modern Gates is charming, but so charming it’s made up (people are used to PR stunts, teenage now distinguish ads hiding as memes very quickly, same goes for any PR stunt); Dorsey is seen as quite evil for those who know him in my circles, rather like a Taliban in his last congressional hearing, reminding of Bin Laden: https://media-vanityfair-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/media.vanityfair.com/photos/5f99cdf2faf1b82d3425a8d2/master/w_900,c_limit/jack-dorsey-congress.jpg https://media-vanityfair-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/media.va... I reckon beautiful hair can have a lot of impact on perception. Philosophers have long hair. I’ve also read somewhere that we intuitively estimate people’s intelligence to the size of the displayed forehead (Some Slavic haircuts with hair down, have negative prejudices associated), and maybe a part of your point about Zuckerberg’s haircut is doesn’t display a large enough forehead. Superficial, but masses have collective behaviors.
  - Jugurtha 6y ago
    I'm wondering about the perception of the majority of people who are privy to nothing other than the public image of these executives, not those who do have information on how Gates did/does business, or those who know Dorsey in your circles. If you were to see them through the eyes of that majority, what would you see?
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    > "Dorsey is seen as quite evil for those who know him in my circles, rather like a Taliban in his last congressional hearing" Do you mean people who know of him, not know him personally? That's the only way that makes sense because if they knew him personally I don't see what his looks in the hearing have anything to do with it. Personally I'm surprised Dorsey isn't received better. He's clearly the most social mission oriented. Gave away 28% of his Square equity, Twitter is barely profitable, and his SF lifestyle is fairly modest in comparison to these other super-CEO's. He just doesn't strike me as one who cares much about personal wealth. But I guess the distaste comes from his tweeting for leftist causes.
gumby 6y ago
He died before congress/tech press cared much about the big tech companies. And during a previous wave in the 90s (e.g. CDA era) Apple was just a hardware company.

saalweachter 6y ago

Apple spent most of its existence as a well-known but not particularly dominant company in its fields, which goes a long way to explaining why Congress never took an interest in it. Think back to 2008-9, when Jobs had to step back for health reasons. While Apple had made a solid turn-around and most of the pieces of its future were in place, it was far from the juggernaut it became. The iPhone was coming on like gangbusters, but Blackberry and Nokia were still a thing, Zunes were still a thing...

simonh 6y ago
It was an interesting time. The iPod was a phenomenal success, iPod launch events were media circuses and the cultural as well as commercial success was huge. Yet iPods themselves were really just music players. A more sophisticated Walkman. The iPhone combined the computing flexibility and utility of an Apple computer with the convenience and user friendliness of an iPod. But by 2009 they were still just getting started with it.

Jugurtha 6y ago

Tim Cook has been. On a related note, I am convinced that Zuckerberg would have an easier time with these matters with a different haircut.. This is not a personal attack on Zuckerberg, but I think the haircut is damaging his image and makes him less trustworthy than he may be. Joel Kaplan, Myriah Jordan, and their teams may have prepped him well for these hearings (and the famous picture of the talking points left open accidentally-on-purpose is just funny), but he seems to provoke a visceral reaction in people that others do not. Many see Gates, Dorsey, Ellison, etc as CEOs with certain traits, like nerdy, charming, well-spoken, funny/outspoken/brash, etc, but I don't think they assume they are evil. I don't think people would see him and think evil on a video like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--APdD6vejI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--APdD6vejI Again, this is not an attack on physique or on the person, but an observation based on what a lot of comments on these hearings are about. They mostly are about him, not others, drawing comparisons to animals or robots, dehumanizing him, etc. This leads me to think it's a matter of perception and image and I'm wondering what impact the latter would have on the former.

laurent92 6y ago
> Many see Gates, Dorsey, Ellison, etc as CEOs with certain traits, like nerdy, charming, well-spoken, funny/outspoken/brash, etc, but I don't think they assume they are evil. I’m really from the other side of the world, then ;) Gates’ 1998 hearings made him look extremely bad; the modern Gates is charming, but so charming it’s made up (people are used to PR stunts, teenage now distinguish ads hiding as memes very quickly, same goes for any PR stunt); Dorsey is seen as quite evil for those who know him in my circles, rather like a Taliban in his last congressional hearing, reminding of Bin Laden: https://media-vanityfair-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/media.vanityfair.com/photos/5f99cdf2faf1b82d3425a8d2/master/w_900,c_limit/jack-dorsey-congress.jpg https://media-vanityfair-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/media.va... I reckon beautiful hair can have a lot of impact on perception. Philosophers have long hair. I’ve also read somewhere that we intuitively estimate people’s intelligence to the size of the displayed forehead (Some Slavic haircuts with hair down, have negative prejudices associated), and maybe a part of your point about Zuckerberg’s haircut is doesn’t display a large enough forehead. Superficial, but masses have collective behaviors.
- Jugurtha 6y ago
  I'm wondering about the perception of the majority of people who are privy to nothing other than the public image of these executives, not those who do have information on how Gates did/does business, or those who know Dorsey in your circles. If you were to see them through the eyes of that majority, what would you see?
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  > "Dorsey is seen as quite evil for those who know him in my circles, rather like a Taliban in his last congressional hearing" Do you mean people who know of him, not know him personally? That's the only way that makes sense because if they knew him personally I don't see what his looks in the hearing have anything to do with it. Personally I'm surprised Dorsey isn't received better. He's clearly the most social mission oriented. Gave away 28% of his Square equity, Twitter is barely profitable, and his SF lifestyle is fairly modest in comparison to these other super-CEO's. He just doesn't strike me as one who cares much about personal wealth. But I guess the distaste comes from his tweeting for leftist causes.

gumby 6y ago

He died before congress/tech press cared much about the big tech companies. And during a previous wave in the 90s (e.g. CDA era) Apple was just a hardware company.