9 ms·

Absolutely. But also, as a species, we're such a fan of these narratives that lionize people like Steve jobs. A brief article written by a friend about a projec

Absolutely. But also, as a species, we're such a fan of these narratives that lionize people like Steve jobs. A brief article written by a friend about a project from their college years is much more humanizing than anything I've read about Steve Jobs. Sure, there's the "garage beginnings" part of the story but even that is very much lionized as "grind and hustle". I think the way the myth of Steve Jobs and his impact on the world is a great example to juxtapose against Linus\Linux in so many ways. Linux runs nearly everything and was given away for free and the broader public is totally unaware. Steve Jobs sells hardware and constantly played up the lion narrative as a push to make money and be important. Im more interested in the former than the lot. Inflammatory comment? Maybe. But I think we need to shift the values that we collectively encourage and this article is fantastic.

Dalewyn 3y ago
Steve Jobs was one of the greatest marketers in recent history, and from that perspective he really was "totally dependent on them for [his] life and well-being". Others did the work going from zero to one, he did the work of going from one to a hundred.
- oblio 3y ago
  The first ones put in an infinity units of effort and received maybe N units of recognition for it. Jobs put in 100 units of effort and received N billion units of recognition for it.
  - earthscienceman 3y ago
    While I do agree with you on the effort assessment, or certainly the "trailblazing" factor... (to me, writing a kernel and operating system that could be used by the entire world before there existed a notion of what that kernel and operating system might look do that is infinitely more impressive than being a salesman) .. I do think it's a red herring. To me it's not so much about effort than it is impact. If every person to ever write code was trying to sell a product, progress would have halted as it started. It's both the effort, the philosophy, and the philanthropy of it. Which is also what has made it thankless-ish.
  - gordian-mind 3y ago
    Popular recognition is usually balanced out by resentment and envy.
    - oblio 3y ago
      For Jobs? No way, that ratio is 100:1. The worst part is that he was a horrible human being. Much worse than Wozniak and probably even slightly worse than Gates.
  - wwweston 3y ago
    Jobs figured out how to collect and amplify the efforts of talented people into a industrial organization with products that have had a world-changing impact. I don't know how much of that is his talents and efforts and how much of that is luck of being with teams that succeeded at a time when industries he chose were rising. I wouldn't discount either the possibility that he was distinctly good and industrious... or that dozens/hundreds/thousands of people of equal distinctiveness didn't make it for arbitrary reasons. And anybody who isn't sure the rewards are equitably distributed is probably correct. But I do recognize that functioning in such a way that you can effectively collect and amplify the efforts of talented people is a non-trivial feat.
smoldesu 3y ago
> But I think we need to shift the values that we collectively encourage and this article is fantastic. Thank you for expressing that, I agree wholeheartedly. There's this increasing sentiment that everything is a product - something many people on HN are responsible for promoting. Where once was humility, there's now opportunism: Terminal emulator? Meet subscription service. In an industry defined by it's ability to generate hype cycles and profit off them, there's something brilliant and refreshing about FOSS and it's culture. Steve Jobs got the private jet and the flashy keynotes, but Linus Torvalds is undoubtedly the bigger rockstar.
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  Same with Woz, the actual brains behind Apple. Jobs was just a charismatic designer and salesman.
  - riceart 3y ago
    Woz had nothing to do with saving Apple in the 90s - and nothing for nearly 40 years - the only reason we talk about Apple today at all is because of Jobs and the small group he supported himself with in the late 90s. He was clearly smart enough to figure out how to save Apple. That’s more than “just” being a designer. 3 predecessors couldn’t figure it out and Gil Amelio wasn’t an idiot (Spindler wasn’t an idiot either - but oof talk about being out of your element) The Apple of Wozniak is a historical footnote. Apple of today is NeXT - Jobs’ company. A company doesn’t just succeed on technical prowess which is more where Woz’s skills lay. Trying to decide which one of them is more intelligent is pointless. Steve Jobs was smarter than the majority of the commenters here IMHO.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > the only reason we talk about Apple today at all is because of Jobs and the small group he supported himself with It's fair to say that success can be attributed to the Apple II, which without Woz wouldn't exist. Yes, he did not make the iPod - but he bolstered Steve when his technical council was empty and was content doing so for next-to-nothing. There's no need to belittle his actions, obviously nothing he did competed with the work Jobs was doing. The two operated in their own lanes. > Trying to decide which one of them is more intelligent is pointless. I mean, I agree. Suffice to say that Steve Jobs could have never turned in his first Atari contract if Woz didn't do the work for him, though.
killjoywashere 3y ago
I think most of these opinion threads about Steve Jobs should be unhooked and connected to a root thread that points to Walter Isaacson's biography. It's painfully obvious most people haven't read it.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  What makes it so obvious folks haven't read it? Why do you consider it a more trustworthy source than others?
  - KerrAvon 3y ago
    “all he did was hype” is a sure indicator that they don’t understand what Steve Jobs actually did
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  “Becoming Steve Jobs” is the book to read. Isaacson’s book is terrible.

Dalewyn 3y ago

Steve Jobs was one of the greatest marketers in recent history, and from that perspective he really was "totally dependent on them for [his] life and well-being". Others did the work going from zero to one, he did the work of going from one to a hundred.

oblio 3y ago
The first ones put in an infinity units of effort and received maybe N units of recognition for it. Jobs put in 100 units of effort and received N billion units of recognition for it.
- earthscienceman 3y ago
  While I do agree with you on the effort assessment, or certainly the "trailblazing" factor... (to me, writing a kernel and operating system that could be used by the entire world before there existed a notion of what that kernel and operating system might look do that is infinitely more impressive than being a salesman) .. I do think it's a red herring. To me it's not so much about effort than it is impact. If every person to ever write code was trying to sell a product, progress would have halted as it started. It's both the effort, the philosophy, and the philanthropy of it. Which is also what has made it thankless-ish.
- gordian-mind 3y ago
  Popular recognition is usually balanced out by resentment and envy.
  - oblio 3y ago
    For Jobs? No way, that ratio is 100:1. The worst part is that he was a horrible human being. Much worse than Wozniak and probably even slightly worse than Gates.
- wwweston 3y ago
  Jobs figured out how to collect and amplify the efforts of talented people into a industrial organization with products that have had a world-changing impact. I don't know how much of that is his talents and efforts and how much of that is luck of being with teams that succeeded at a time when industries he chose were rising. I wouldn't discount either the possibility that he was distinctly good and industrious... or that dozens/hundreds/thousands of people of equal distinctiveness didn't make it for arbitrary reasons. And anybody who isn't sure the rewards are equitably distributed is probably correct. But I do recognize that functioning in such a way that you can effectively collect and amplify the efforts of talented people is a non-trivial feat.

smoldesu 3y ago

> But I think we need to shift the values that we collectively encourage and this article is fantastic. Thank you for expressing that, I agree wholeheartedly. There's this increasing sentiment that everything is a product - something many people on HN are responsible for promoting. Where once was humility, there's now opportunism: Terminal emulator? Meet subscription service. In an industry defined by it's ability to generate hype cycles and profit off them, there's something brilliant and refreshing about FOSS and it's culture. Steve Jobs got the private jet and the flashy keynotes, but Linus Torvalds is undoubtedly the bigger rockstar.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago
Same with Woz, the actual brains behind Apple. Jobs was just a charismatic designer and salesman.
- riceart 3y ago
  Woz had nothing to do with saving Apple in the 90s - and nothing for nearly 40 years - the only reason we talk about Apple today at all is because of Jobs and the small group he supported himself with in the late 90s. He was clearly smart enough to figure out how to save Apple. That’s more than “just” being a designer. 3 predecessors couldn’t figure it out and Gil Amelio wasn’t an idiot (Spindler wasn’t an idiot either - but oof talk about being out of your element) The Apple of Wozniak is a historical footnote. Apple of today is NeXT - Jobs’ company. A company doesn’t just succeed on technical prowess which is more where Woz’s skills lay. Trying to decide which one of them is more intelligent is pointless. Steve Jobs was smarter than the majority of the commenters here IMHO.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > the only reason we talk about Apple today at all is because of Jobs and the small group he supported himself with It's fair to say that success can be attributed to the Apple II, which without Woz wouldn't exist. Yes, he did not make the iPod - but he bolstered Steve when his technical council was empty and was content doing so for next-to-nothing. There's no need to belittle his actions, obviously nothing he did competed with the work Jobs was doing. The two operated in their own lanes. > Trying to decide which one of them is more intelligent is pointless. I mean, I agree. Suffice to say that Steve Jobs could have never turned in his first Atari contract if Woz didn't do the work for him, though.

killjoywashere 3y ago

I think most of these opinion threads about Steve Jobs should be unhooked and connected to a root thread that points to Walter Isaacson's biography. It's painfully obvious most people haven't read it.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
What makes it so obvious folks haven't read it? Why do you consider it a more trustworthy source than others?
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  “all he did was hype” is a sure indicator that they don’t understand what Steve Jobs actually did
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
KerrAvon 3y ago
“Becoming Steve Jobs” is the book to read. Isaacson’s book is terrible.