4 ms·
I think it is pushing it to say Steve's approach (which would probably have been to say nothing, then back-track 3 weeks later) was a PR technique. Having read
by alpine 14y ago
I think it is pushing it to say Steve's approach (which would probably have been to say nothing, then back-track 3 weeks later) was a PR technique. Having read the Isaacson biography, it's clear Jobs was 100% sincere in his belief that he knew best and was surrounded by bozos who hadn't earned the right to question his decisions. That's the attitude that made Apple great - twice - and it could now be gone.
- zygen 14y agoIf you read the biography and came to that conclusion, then it's incredibly unfortunate because the opposite was true. Jobs surrounded himself with the best engineers and often flipped positions based on their arguments. If you read or hear any of his interviews, he always talks about the team and how foolish it is to think one person could do everything.
- jpxxx 14y agoI can buy that his convictions informed how and when Apple communicated with both customers and suppliers. His insistence on quality as he defined it certainly showed up in Apple's products and services. But I don't think it's the full story of how Apple achieved greatness, and his Indomitable Will hasn't always helped. Apple plays business hardball as hard as anyone ever has, but that trait can be found in any b-school. Steve's twist on that is that he truly, personally despised the bozos and he'd freely break decorum to let them know it. His only interest was in Apple and, arguably, Apple's customers. Every other entity lower on the totem pole could expect rock pelting or the silent treatment at any time and for any reason. Antennagate was an example of this: no apologia was ever offered, customer concerns were treated with patronizing kid gloves, and internally the design team for iPhone 4 got their clocks cleaned over the issue. "Fuck you" is costly, and I'm not sad to see less of it from Apple.