5 ms·

Many compare Altman to 1985 Jobs, but if we believe what's said about the conflict of mission, shouldn't he be the sugar water guy for money?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
But that's actually what Jobs turned out to be? Woz and others were the engineering genius at Apple, and Jobs turned out to be really good at finding and identifying really good sales and branding hooks. See-through colourful boxes, "lickable" UIs, neat-o minimalistic portable music players, flick-flick-flick touch screens, and "One More Thing" presentations. Jobs didn't invent the Lisa and Macintosh. Bill Atkinson, Andy Hertzfeld, Larry Tesler etc did. They were the tech visionaries. Some of them benefited from him promoting their efforts while others... (Tesler mainly) did not. Nothing "wrong" with any of that, if your vision of success is market success... but people need to be honest about what Jobs was... not a technology visionary, but a marketing visionary. (Though in fact the original Macintosh was a market failure for a long time) In any case comparing Altman with Jobs is dubious and a bit wanky. Why are people so eager to shower this guy with accolades?
- naasking 3y ago
  I do think Jobs' engineering skill is oversold, but he was also more than just marketing. He had a vision for how technology should integrate with people's lives that drove great ergonomic and UX choices with a kind of polish that was lacking everywhere else. Those alone revolutionized personal computing in many ways. It's hard for younger people to even imagine how difficult it was to get connected to the internet at one point, and iMacs made it easy.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    Well I'm not one of those "younger people" though not sure if you were aiming that at me or not. I think it's important to point out that Jobs could recognize nice UX choices, but he couldn't author them. He helped prune the branches of the bonsai tree, but couldn't grow it. On that he leaned on intellects far greater than his own, which he was pretty good at recognizing and cultivating. Though in fact he alienated and pushed away just as many as he cultivated. I think we could do better as an industry than going around looking for more of that.
    - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
      I'm curious at this perspective. Even from the Slashdot days (my age limit) techie types have hated Jobs, and showered Woz as the true genius. Tech culture has claimed this for a long time. Is your argument that tech people need more broad acclaim? And if so, does this come from a sense of being put down? I used to broadly believe that Jobs-types were over-fluffed charismatic magnets myself by hanging out in these places until I started working and found out how useful they were at doing things I couldn't or didn't want to do. I don't think they deserve more praise than the underlying technical folks, but that they deserve equal praise. Sort of like how in a two-parent households, different parents often end up shouldering different responsibilities but that doesn't make one parent with certain responsibilities the true parent.
      - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
        I guess it depends on what things you want to do, and how you define success, doesn't it? If we're stuck with the definitions of success and excellence that are dominant right now, then, sure, someone like a Jobs or a Zuck or whatever, I see why people would be enamored with them. But as an engineer I know I have different motivations than these people. And I think that's what people who make these kinds of arguments are drawing on. There is a class of person whose success comes from finding creative and smart people and finding ways to exploit and direct them for their own ends. There's a genius in that, for sure. I am just not sure I want to celebrate it. I just want to make things and help other people who make these things. To put it another way, I'd take, say, Smalltalk over MacOS, if I have to make the choice.
    - naasking 3y ago
      > I think it's important to point out that Jobs could recognize nice UX choices, but he couldn't author them. He helped prune the branches of the bonsai tree, but couldn't grow it. Engineers are great at solving problems given a set of constraints. They are not necessarily all that good at figuring out what constraints ought to be when they are given open-ended, unconstrained tasks. Jobs was great at defining good constraints. You might call this pruning, and if you intended that pejoratively then I think you're underselling the value of this skill.
  - etempleton 3y ago
    Yes, people love to be dismissive of Jobs and call him just a marketing guy, but that is incredibly reductive for a guy who was able to cofound Apple and then come back and bring it back from near death to become the biggest company in the world. Marketing alone can’t do that. Jobs had great instincts for products and a willingness to create new products that would eat established products and revenue streams. He was second to none at seeing what technology could be used for and putting teams in place that could create consumer products with those technologies and understanding when the technologies weren’t ready yet. Look at what Apple achieved under his leadership and what it didn’t achieve without his leadership. Being dismissive of Jobs contributions is either a bad faith argument or one out of ignorance.
- sashank_1509 3y ago
  It seems like people these days can’t even accurately describe what Steve Jobs was, he was a leader. He was a genius at managing people to work for him. Steve Wozniak was not, which was why Jobs could make Pixar, Next and of course Apple. Just because he didn’t have a hard skill of engineering, doesn’t mean he was useless. Rarely is anything impressive made by a single person, everything is almost always made by teams and generally large teams. Large teams especially can only function under a great leader and jobs was a great leader for a myriad of reasons which was why he achieved success at many multiples of magnitude compared to Steve Wozniak
bart_spoon 3y ago
Yes, this was my thought when seeing those comparisons as well.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

But that's actually what Jobs turned out to be? Woz and others were the engineering genius at Apple, and Jobs turned out to be really good at finding and identifying really good sales and branding hooks. See-through colourful boxes, "lickable" UIs, neat-o minimalistic portable music players, flick-flick-flick touch screens, and "One More Thing" presentations. Jobs didn't invent the Lisa and Macintosh. Bill Atkinson, Andy Hertzfeld, Larry Tesler etc did. They were the tech visionaries. Some of them benefited from him promoting their efforts while others... (Tesler mainly) did not. Nothing "wrong" with any of that, if your vision of success is market success... but people need to be honest about what Jobs was... not a technology visionary, but a marketing visionary. (Though in fact the original Macintosh was a market failure for a long time) In any case comparing Altman with Jobs is dubious and a bit wanky. Why are people so eager to shower this guy with accolades?

naasking 3y ago
I do think Jobs' engineering skill is oversold, but he was also more than just marketing. He had a vision for how technology should integrate with people's lives that drove great ergonomic and UX choices with a kind of polish that was lacking everywhere else. Those alone revolutionized personal computing in many ways. It's hard for younger people to even imagine how difficult it was to get connected to the internet at one point, and iMacs made it easy.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Well I'm not one of those "younger people" though not sure if you were aiming that at me or not. I think it's important to point out that Jobs could recognize nice UX choices, but he couldn't author them. He helped prune the branches of the bonsai tree, but couldn't grow it. On that he leaned on intellects far greater than his own, which he was pretty good at recognizing and cultivating. Though in fact he alienated and pushed away just as many as he cultivated. I think we could do better as an industry than going around looking for more of that.
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    I'm curious at this perspective. Even from the Slashdot days (my age limit) techie types have hated Jobs, and showered Woz as the true genius. Tech culture has claimed this for a long time. Is your argument that tech people need more broad acclaim? And if so, does this come from a sense of being put down? I used to broadly believe that Jobs-types were over-fluffed charismatic magnets myself by hanging out in these places until I started working and found out how useful they were at doing things I couldn't or didn't want to do. I don't think they deserve more praise than the underlying technical folks, but that they deserve equal praise. Sort of like how in a two-parent households, different parents often end up shouldering different responsibilities but that doesn't make one parent with certain responsibilities the true parent.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      I guess it depends on what things you want to do, and how you define success, doesn't it? If we're stuck with the definitions of success and excellence that are dominant right now, then, sure, someone like a Jobs or a Zuck or whatever, I see why people would be enamored with them. But as an engineer I know I have different motivations than these people. And I think that's what people who make these kinds of arguments are drawing on. There is a class of person whose success comes from finding creative and smart people and finding ways to exploit and direct them for their own ends. There's a genius in that, for sure. I am just not sure I want to celebrate it. I just want to make things and help other people who make these things. To put it another way, I'd take, say, Smalltalk over MacOS, if I have to make the choice.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > I think it's important to point out that Jobs could recognize nice UX choices, but he couldn't author them. He helped prune the branches of the bonsai tree, but couldn't grow it. Engineers are great at solving problems given a set of constraints. They are not necessarily all that good at figuring out what constraints ought to be when they are given open-ended, unconstrained tasks. Jobs was great at defining good constraints. You might call this pruning, and if you intended that pejoratively then I think you're underselling the value of this skill.
- etempleton 3y ago
  Yes, people love to be dismissive of Jobs and call him just a marketing guy, but that is incredibly reductive for a guy who was able to cofound Apple and then come back and bring it back from near death to become the biggest company in the world. Marketing alone can’t do that. Jobs had great instincts for products and a willingness to create new products that would eat established products and revenue streams. He was second to none at seeing what technology could be used for and putting teams in place that could create consumer products with those technologies and understanding when the technologies weren’t ready yet. Look at what Apple achieved under his leadership and what it didn’t achieve without his leadership. Being dismissive of Jobs contributions is either a bad faith argument or one out of ignorance.
sashank_1509 3y ago
It seems like people these days can’t even accurately describe what Steve Jobs was, he was a leader. He was a genius at managing people to work for him. Steve Wozniak was not, which was why Jobs could make Pixar, Next and of course Apple. Just because he didn’t have a hard skill of engineering, doesn’t mean he was useless. Rarely is anything impressive made by a single person, everything is almost always made by teams and generally large teams. Large teams especially can only function under a great leader and jobs was a great leader for a myriad of reasons which was why he achieved success at many multiples of magnitude compared to Steve Wozniak

bart_spoon 3y ago

Yes, this was my thought when seeing those comparisons as well.