3 ms·
I've read the book in its entirety, and while I don't refute the inaccuracies on some of the technical details covered, I don't really this it's all that import
by SeoxyS 15y ago
I've read the book in its entirety, and while I don't refute the inaccuracies on some of the technical details covered, I don't really this it's all that important. As a reader, I was not interested in the technology aspect and technical details: that is already well documented. If this is what you're looking for as a reader, then this is not the book for you.
Isaacson was the perfect writer for this biography, in my opinion, thanks to his lack of technical knowledge. When you know the technology, it's easy to get lost in the things that don't matter. Isaacson has a fresh and often more objective perspective than any tech writer could. The details surrounding which kernel was used in Mac OS X and how much NeXT was responsible for really does not bring much value to me as a reader. Like I said, if I cared deeply about this, it's well documented already and easy to get from other sources.
What I got out of the book was a remarkably intimate look at the man himself: What made him tick, what his philosophies were, what the politics were and what the major obstacles were that he had to overcome. All of this, wrapped in an enthralling narrative and surprisingly intimate detail.
Isaacson may not have understood the technology, but he definitely understood Jobs' humanity, or sometimes lack thereof.
- icarus_drowning 15y agoThis strikes me as a bit hand-wavey. ("Don't pay attention to the glaring technical inaccuracies that have somehow made it into the "official" biography of a technical icon, focus on the human story). It is certainly possible that Isaacson got the "human" side right, but when you're talking about a human who's iconic achievements are inseparable from the technologies he created, that's a pretty weak defense.
- gnaffle 15y agoBut why couldn't we have had _both_? The technological history of Apple post Steves return is very poorly documented due to its secretive nature. Even so, Isaacson did a really poor job of analyzing Steves personality, and never really confronts him about it. The closest we really get is Steve saying "well, that's just who I am", and a theory by Ive (or Hertzfeld?) about Steves motivations for being so cruel at times. Couldn't Isaacson have confronted Steve about this theory? How about asking him how this fits in with his relation to Buddhism? Or maybe that would be too technical..? Isacsson said that the book "wrote itself". As someone else pointed out, books rarely make good authors.