8 ms·

This is also my impression after reading Isaacson's biography and Creativity, Inc. At Pixar, he behaved like a feudal lord because he pretty much owned the plac

This is also my impression after reading Isaacson's biography and Creativity, Inc. At Pixar, he behaved like a feudal lord because he pretty much owned the place and they relied on his money to keep the lights on.

mshake2 4y ago
Seems like a small price to pay to assemble the most innovative animation studio that would bring joy to millions of people for decades.
- ggm 4y ago
  You're saying serfdom and bullying is justified by .. art?
  - mshake2 4y ago
    Why did you substitute "art" for "bringing joy to millions of people for decades"?
    - ggm 4y ago
      Why does it matter? Is pixar selling drugs now? Or do you not place cartoons in art, alongside Salvador dali who worked with Walt Disney?
      - mshake2 4y ago
        It matters because whether or not I take your question in good faith is dependent on how much you distort my words in the asking of it.
        ggm 4y ago
        Your words speak for themselves. No distortion needed. The question stands.
        mshake2 4y ago
        If the question is "Is the limited bullying and serfdom of 40 people (the original Pixar team size) justified by bringing joy to billions of people (more accurate than millions) for decades (and likely a lot longer)?" Then I answer yes. I think that's a small price to pay.
        hawski 4y ago
        I think you overestimate net joy brought by Pixar. Some people watched a movie and were entertained for the duration of the movie, some were moved by it and it lead to a couple of hours worth of joy more. Some did not understand the message in the movie and just liked colorful pictures. Yes, there were a couple of movies, but not like tens or hundreds. In the end those movies would not have the success they enjoyed without powerful marketing and distribution machine. Those movies were also used as a vehicle to sell overpriced toys. I prefer not to mythologize (very good) products of billion dollar companies too much, even if they could stand on their own.
    - hawski 4y ago
      Would "very good art" suffice then?
    - ilyt 4y ago
      Isn't that worse ? "We exploit the few for amusement of many, where option of just making them work less and pay CEOs less and remains unexplored"?
  - fractallyte 4y ago
    It worked with Daffy Duck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Yeggs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Yeggs In the cartoon, a gun was pointed at Daffy's head - and he managed to lay a golden egg. Can a miracle be justified?
    - ggm 4y ago
      We're talking about life limitating life, not life imitating art. The thing about daffy is.. he wasn't real
      - fractallyte 4y ago
        The joke was that under extreme duress, and individual (or a team) might produce a miracle. The ethical question is: if it's a genuine miracle (say, a discovery or invention that breaks new ground or was previously thought to be impossible), can the duress be justified?
  - bumby 4y ago
    I’ve noticed that a lot of HN comments tend to be utilitarian, in an “ends justify the means” sort of way. This can lead to all sorts of ethical quandaries but it seems prevalent in business.
- endorphine 4y ago
  Whether it's "a small price to pay" depends on each and every individual that paid the price. I don't think it makes any sense for 1 single person to decide if the price paid was small, simply because they don't know what actual price was paid (in terms of suffering). Also, it sounds to me that's you're assuming that's a necessitated price to pay, which I don't believe is true (but I don't have any examples either).
  - mshake2 4y ago
    If the two options are "Pixar exists, but some employees were treated unfairly" or "Pixar never exists", I will choose the first. Whether or not there are other options is not a hypothetical I care about, I am interested in thinking about the morality of ends vs means of this scenario.
    - endorphine 4y ago
      I don't understand how this dichotomy can be useful to you. Even for "ends vs means" the answer isn't always white-or-black. I see what you're saying, I just don't understand how it promotes a healthy discussion here.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      You're suggesting an unreal scenario, so the thought experiment isn't going to do much good, IMO. Each employee gets to make that call themselves, "do I want to be treated badly?" Fresh graduates may not realise they are being treated badly, lacking a frame of reference. Immigrants may be on a visa where they have no choice but to put up with it or leave the country. Locals who've been around a bit, who know their discipline, the proven (local) best of the best? They don't stay on teams led by bullies.
      - mshake2 4y ago
        It's not an unreal scenario at all. It's entirely plausible that a company falls apart when lacking the specific motivators and pressures that Jobs brought, and therefore never really exists in the first place. What's unreal about that?
- vanviegen 4y ago
  ”Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
  - mshake2 4y ago
    That's Dreamworks, not Pixar, but nice reference
- breck 4y ago
  Amen brother. He was not a "bully". He was a coach. A tough coach. Anyone could have walked away. No one was being forced to work at a top .1% company in the world. If you were there it's because you wanted to be do your best work and be part of the best. You wanted to make the world a better place. You believed in the power of these devices to do good, and to fight evil. Jobs wasn't out there hurting civilians on the streets. You want to see a real bully, go to Ukraine and see what Putin is doing to civilians.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - breck 4y ago
      [flagged]
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    You talk as if Jobs brought us innovation that never would have arrived without him. In reality, he was able to get it to us a year or two earlier and maybe with a little more style. Being slightly earlier to market and with a little more style is what made him a business juggernaut. But I don't think being first really means all that much when it comes to an ends justifying the means conversation. Given the choice, I'll take the product not made under duress, even if I have to wait a bit longer.
    - breck 4y ago
      > You talk as if Jobs brought us innovation that never would have arrived without him. In reality, he was able to get it to us a year or two earlier and maybe with a little more style. I think this is a reasonable perspective, and you could be right, but you could be wrong too. We don't get to run an experiment on this one. There are obviously huge things Jobs did that I take issue with (I hate the copyright and DRM crap in Apple Music, for example, and the whole patent war with Samsung was terrible), but at the same time, he grew up decades before me and I got the privilege of living in a world he helped created. Who knows where the world would be without him pushing it. > Given the choice, I'll take the product not made under duress, even if I have to wait a bit longer. I think we may be able to get to a world where we can have that, but not in today's world, IMO. There's still far too much evil and not enough infra for truth, that if the good people don't push much harder than the bad and indifferent, we may never get there. Of course, not something we can test, just have to discuss and place our bets.
- causi 4y ago
  It being worth it does not determine whether he was an asshole, just whether you are glad he was.
  - mshake2 4y ago
    Why wouldn't I be glad for something that I thought was worth it? Not really sure what you're trying to say.
- blitzar 4y ago
  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Unless you are the one of course.
  - bumby 4y ago
    Are you healthy? Lets harvest your organs to save so many more people for the small cost of one life.
    - blitzar 4y ago
      I am not, lets harvest someone elses organs to make me healthy.
      - camgunz 4y ago
        I mean, I could be healthier and I'm a high income individual. Let's harvest the organs of someone else who's unproven to make me healthy.
        blitzar 4y ago
        You + me the many ... some poor schmuck that few.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
metaphor 4y ago
> At Pixar, he behaved like a feudal lord because he pretty much owned the place and they relied on his money to keep the lights on. How do you mean by "behaved like a feudal lord"? Admittedly not read up on Jobs (sacrilege in this venue, I know), so I'm struggling to understand why he who pays the piper calls the tune is somehow objectionable.
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  Being a jerk is always bad. The only difference is that people who aren't "paying the piper" don't get away with it for very long before someone throws them out. Just because you can get away with it doesn't mean it's ok.
  - michaelcampbell 4y ago
    I've never been a fan of Jobs or Jobs' Cultists for exactly that reason, but... there is room for jerks. If everyone got along, no progress would ever be made. I forget the author, but someone famous once noted, "The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to him. Therefore, all progress is made by unreasonable men." Like any quote, there's a hint of truth to it and also not applicable in ALL situations.
  - metaphor 4y ago
    Playing devil's advocate, I'm honestly not sure how I'd behave if I dropped a $10 million personal fortune[1] (1986 dollars; $27.2 million buying power today) for controlling stake in a venture and execution wasn't going as I had envisioned. Being a "jerk" might strike me as an acceptable trade-off if that meant it got targeted impediments out of the way without irreparable damage to the whole. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.com/Pixar/default.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.co...
    - sobkas 4y ago
      > Playing devil's advocate, I'm honestly not sure how I'd behave if I dropped a $10 million personal fortune[1] (1986 dollars; $27.2 million buying power today) for controlling stake in a venture and execution wasn't going as I had envisioned. Being a "jerk" might strike me as an acceptable trade-off if that meant it got targeted impediments out of the way without irreparable damage to the whole. > [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.co https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.co... So if someone spent for example 44*10^9 dollars on some venture, would it still be ok to be jerk, or would it be counterproductive to viability of such investment?
tabtab 4y ago
I remember Isaacson's interview of Woznick, and The Woz stated he felt Jobs could have done most of the great things he did without being a jerk. In other words, the jerkiness appeared to be a quirk and not a business tool from Woz's perspective. But then again, the Woz often didn't understand the marketing side of things, according to some of his critics.
- tabtab 4y ago
  Spelling correction: "Wozniak", that is Steve Wozniak.

mshake2 4y ago

Seems like a small price to pay to assemble the most innovative animation studio that would bring joy to millions of people for decades.

ggm 4y ago
You're saying serfdom and bullying is justified by .. art?
- mshake2 4y ago
  Why did you substitute "art" for "bringing joy to millions of people for decades"?
  - ggm 4y ago
    Why does it matter? Is pixar selling drugs now? Or do you not place cartoons in art, alongside Salvador dali who worked with Walt Disney?
    - mshake2 4y ago
      It matters because whether or not I take your question in good faith is dependent on how much you distort my words in the asking of it.
      - ggm 4y ago
        Your words speak for themselves. No distortion needed. The question stands.
        mshake2 4y ago
        If the question is "Is the limited bullying and serfdom of 40 people (the original Pixar team size) justified by bringing joy to billions of people (more accurate than millions) for decades (and likely a lot longer)?" Then I answer yes. I think that's a small price to pay.
        hawski 4y ago
        I think you overestimate net joy brought by Pixar. Some people watched a movie and were entertained for the duration of the movie, some were moved by it and it lead to a couple of hours worth of joy more. Some did not understand the message in the movie and just liked colorful pictures. Yes, there were a couple of movies, but not like tens or hundreds. In the end those movies would not have the success they enjoyed without powerful marketing and distribution machine. Those movies were also used as a vehicle to sell overpriced toys. I prefer not to mythologize (very good) products of billion dollar companies too much, even if they could stand on their own.
  - hawski 4y ago
    Would "very good art" suffice then?
  - ilyt 4y ago
    Isn't that worse ? "We exploit the few for amusement of many, where option of just making them work less and pay CEOs less and remains unexplored"?
- fractallyte 4y ago
  It worked with Daffy Duck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Yeggs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Yeggs In the cartoon, a gun was pointed at Daffy's head - and he managed to lay a golden egg. Can a miracle be justified?
  - ggm 4y ago
    We're talking about life limitating life, not life imitating art. The thing about daffy is.. he wasn't real
    - fractallyte 4y ago
      The joke was that under extreme duress, and individual (or a team) might produce a miracle. The ethical question is: if it's a genuine miracle (say, a discovery or invention that breaks new ground or was previously thought to be impossible), can the duress be justified?
- bumby 4y ago
  I’ve noticed that a lot of HN comments tend to be utilitarian, in an “ends justify the means” sort of way. This can lead to all sorts of ethical quandaries but it seems prevalent in business.
endorphine 4y ago
Whether it's "a small price to pay" depends on each and every individual that paid the price. I don't think it makes any sense for 1 single person to decide if the price paid was small, simply because they don't know what actual price was paid (in terms of suffering). Also, it sounds to me that's you're assuming that's a necessitated price to pay, which I don't believe is true (but I don't have any examples either).
- mshake2 4y ago
  If the two options are "Pixar exists, but some employees were treated unfairly" or "Pixar never exists", I will choose the first. Whether or not there are other options is not a hypothetical I care about, I am interested in thinking about the morality of ends vs means of this scenario.
  - endorphine 4y ago
    I don't understand how this dichotomy can be useful to you. Even for "ends vs means" the answer isn't always white-or-black. I see what you're saying, I just don't understand how it promotes a healthy discussion here.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    You're suggesting an unreal scenario, so the thought experiment isn't going to do much good, IMO. Each employee gets to make that call themselves, "do I want to be treated badly?" Fresh graduates may not realise they are being treated badly, lacking a frame of reference. Immigrants may be on a visa where they have no choice but to put up with it or leave the country. Locals who've been around a bit, who know their discipline, the proven (local) best of the best? They don't stay on teams led by bullies.
    - mshake2 4y ago
      It's not an unreal scenario at all. It's entirely plausible that a company falls apart when lacking the specific motivators and pressures that Jobs brought, and therefore never really exists in the first place. What's unreal about that?
vanviegen 4y ago
”Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
- mshake2 4y ago
  That's Dreamworks, not Pixar, but nice reference
breck 4y ago
Amen brother. He was not a "bully". He was a coach. A tough coach. Anyone could have walked away. No one was being forced to work at a top .1% company in the world. If you were there it's because you wanted to be do your best work and be part of the best. You wanted to make the world a better place. You believed in the power of these devices to do good, and to fight evil. Jobs wasn't out there hurting civilians on the streets. You want to see a real bully, go to Ukraine and see what Putin is doing to civilians.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - breck 4y ago
    [flagged]
- jjeaff 4y ago
  You talk as if Jobs brought us innovation that never would have arrived without him. In reality, he was able to get it to us a year or two earlier and maybe with a little more style. Being slightly earlier to market and with a little more style is what made him a business juggernaut. But I don't think being first really means all that much when it comes to an ends justifying the means conversation. Given the choice, I'll take the product not made under duress, even if I have to wait a bit longer.
  - breck 4y ago
    > You talk as if Jobs brought us innovation that never would have arrived without him. In reality, he was able to get it to us a year or two earlier and maybe with a little more style. I think this is a reasonable perspective, and you could be right, but you could be wrong too. We don't get to run an experiment on this one. There are obviously huge things Jobs did that I take issue with (I hate the copyright and DRM crap in Apple Music, for example, and the whole patent war with Samsung was terrible), but at the same time, he grew up decades before me and I got the privilege of living in a world he helped created. Who knows where the world would be without him pushing it. > Given the choice, I'll take the product not made under duress, even if I have to wait a bit longer. I think we may be able to get to a world where we can have that, but not in today's world, IMO. There's still far too much evil and not enough infra for truth, that if the good people don't push much harder than the bad and indifferent, we may never get there. Of course, not something we can test, just have to discuss and place our bets.
causi 4y ago
It being worth it does not determine whether he was an asshole, just whether you are glad he was.
- mshake2 4y ago
  Why wouldn't I be glad for something that I thought was worth it? Not really sure what you're trying to say.
blitzar 4y ago
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Unless you are the one of course.
- bumby 4y ago
  Are you healthy? Lets harvest your organs to save so many more people for the small cost of one life.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    I am not, lets harvest someone elses organs to make me healthy.
    - camgunz 4y ago
      I mean, I could be healthier and I'm a high income individual. Let's harvest the organs of someone else who's unproven to make me healthy.
      - blitzar 4y ago
        You + me the many ... some poor schmuck that few.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

metaphor 4y ago

> At Pixar, he behaved like a feudal lord because he pretty much owned the place and they relied on his money to keep the lights on. How do you mean by "behaved like a feudal lord"? Admittedly not read up on Jobs (sacrilege in this venue, I know), so I'm struggling to understand why he who pays the piper calls the tune is somehow objectionable.

andrewflnr 4y ago
Being a jerk is always bad. The only difference is that people who aren't "paying the piper" don't get away with it for very long before someone throws them out. Just because you can get away with it doesn't mean it's ok.
- michaelcampbell 4y ago
  I've never been a fan of Jobs or Jobs' Cultists for exactly that reason, but... there is room for jerks. If everyone got along, no progress would ever be made. I forget the author, but someone famous once noted, "The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to him. Therefore, all progress is made by unreasonable men." Like any quote, there's a hint of truth to it and also not applicable in ALL situations.
- metaphor 4y ago
  Playing devil's advocate, I'm honestly not sure how I'd behave if I dropped a $10 million personal fortune[1] (1986 dollars; $27.2 million buying power today) for controlling stake in a venture and execution wasn't going as I had envisioned. Being a "jerk" might strike me as an acceptable trade-off if that meant it got targeted impediments out of the way without irreparable damage to the whole. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.com/Pixar/default.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.co...
  - sobkas 4y ago
    > Playing devil's advocate, I'm honestly not sure how I'd behave if I dropped a $10 million personal fortune[1] (1986 dollars; $27.2 million buying power today) for controlling stake in a venture and execution wasn't going as I had envisioned. Being a "jerk" might strike me as an acceptable trade-off if that meant it got targeted impediments out of the way without irreparable damage to the whole. > [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.co https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.co... So if someone spent for example 44*10^9 dollars on some venture, would it still be ok to be jerk, or would it be counterproductive to viability of such investment?

tabtab 4y ago

I remember Isaacson's interview of Woznick, and The Woz stated he felt Jobs could have done most of the great things he did without being a jerk. In other words, the jerkiness appeared to be a quirk and not a business tool from Woz's perspective. But then again, the Woz often didn't understand the marketing side of things, according to some of his critics.

tabtab 4y ago
Spelling correction: "Wozniak", that is Steve Wozniak.