4 ms·

You are very wrong about Steve Jobs. It's easy to be wrong about Jobs, because he was iconoclastic and idiosyncratic. And very very public. And he did some pe

by quesera 7mo ago

You are very wrong about Steve Jobs. It's easy to be wrong about Jobs, because he was iconoclastic and idiosyncratic. And very very public. And he did some personally, individually, shameful things. Especially in his 20s when he hadn't learned how to be an adult, much less a billionaire. And the latter protected him from needing to be the former for a while! But if you believe for a second that Jobs would have tolerated Trump's wholesale ignorance and cruelty, you are making a huge mistake of understanding. That was never in Steve Jobs' personality -- in fact he was very outspoken about the excesses of power over people. He was an anti-establishment Californian by birth, not a xenophobic RealAmerican™. These streams do not cross. If you do not understand the difference, you cannot possibly understand Steve Jobs.

bigyabai 7mo ago
This comment confuses me. You call Jobs idiosyncratic, but then try to backwards-justify his political stance with stereotypes about anti-establishment politics and Californian ideals. What makes you convinced that he'd resist neoreactionary politicking any better than Cook? Jobs was fickle, I agree with you there. I just don't think that a fickle iconoclast would last more than two weeks fighting against Trump, especially if he was threatened with an FTC antitrust probe. The only difference with Cook is that he's not as coy, and recognized that there was no way for a monopoly like Apple to fight the fed and win. Trump can disembowel Apple's profit margins, and neither Cook nor Jobs nor Jesus of Nazarath could convince the shareholders that morality is worth more than $AAPL. 2016 Jobs would be retired by the board of directors before he even threatened to make a conscientious objection, reality distortion be damned. I have no love for the sitting administration, but it is a fantasy to pretend that a FAANG business could resist federal coercion. Just because Apple enjoys a moral halo-effect does not mean they're better positioned than Microsoft or AWS to do the "right" thing. Apple's inability to prosecute NSO Group is a recurring example of how heavily the US can muzzle them.
- quesera 7mo ago
  I'm saying that personality-wise, Jobs would absolutely not have any tolerance whatsoever for Trumpism and its associated bozos. Of course Apple would observe US law. But the comment I responded to was calling Jobs a monster and likely pedophile. This is unhinged and ugly.
  - frumplestlatz 7mo ago
    Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else here, can reasonably make such a claim.
    - quesera 7mo ago
      Which claim? That Jobs was not a monster or pedophile? I'm on absolutely solid ground there. Assuming you mean whether Jobs would intensely dislike Trump, then -- what can I say? You clearly don't know anything about the guy and that's fine. But if you doubt it, you're wrong. We were far from personal confidantes, but I had several candid conversations with him over the decades. His personal politics were never in doubt, or far from the surface. He held a special revulsion for warmongering, dishonest, scapegoating, and authoritarian-leaning US candidates and administrations. He was always at least a bit frustrated with US economic policy. He would abhor Trump for all of the above reasons and more.
      - joe_mamba 7mo ago
        https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fself-proclaimed-lib-left-rights-when-you-say-anything-bad-v0-w4mjkr01e8rd1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D932fa63b16822d79bebe250d3d9236fc460bb597 https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....
  - bigyabai 7mo ago
    I'd say that personality-wise, you probably don't know Jobs well enough to serve as a character witness. I'm not aware of any recorded interview where he explains how far he'd go to defend his business from unfair government treatment. He never saw a preview of the 2016 election or cast a ballot in the vote. He didn't live the interceding years leading up to the election, or form an opinion on the politics dominating the polls. I think Jobs would have been blindsided by Trump just as much as we all were. On a personal level I can believe that he's offended just like Cook is. But neither Cook nor Jobs' conscience has really ever stopped them from making a profitable business decision that they can take credit for. Even if it means building a meaningless gold trophy or somesuch, to appease the ego in charge.

by quesera 7mo ago

bigyabai 7mo ago

This comment confuses me. You call Jobs idiosyncratic, but then try to backwards-justify his political stance with stereotypes about anti-establishment politics and Californian ideals. What makes you convinced that he'd resist neoreactionary politicking any better than Cook? Jobs was fickle, I agree with you there. I just don't think that a fickle iconoclast would last more than two weeks fighting against Trump, especially if he was threatened with an FTC antitrust probe. The only difference with Cook is that he's not as coy, and recognized that there was no way for a monopoly like Apple to fight the fed and win. Trump can disembowel Apple's profit margins, and neither Cook nor Jobs nor Jesus of Nazarath could convince the shareholders that morality is worth more than $AAPL. 2016 Jobs would be retired by the board of directors before he even threatened to make a conscientious objection, reality distortion be damned. I have no love for the sitting administration, but it is a fantasy to pretend that a FAANG business could resist federal coercion. Just because Apple enjoys a moral halo-effect does not mean they're better positioned than Microsoft or AWS to do the "right" thing. Apple's inability to prosecute NSO Group is a recurring example of how heavily the US can muzzle them.

quesera 7mo ago
I'm saying that personality-wise, Jobs would absolutely not have any tolerance whatsoever for Trumpism and its associated bozos. Of course Apple would observe US law. But the comment I responded to was calling Jobs a monster and likely pedophile. This is unhinged and ugly.
- frumplestlatz 7mo ago
  Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else here, can reasonably make such a claim.
  - quesera 7mo ago
    Which claim? That Jobs was not a monster or pedophile? I'm on absolutely solid ground there. Assuming you mean whether Jobs would intensely dislike Trump, then -- what can I say? You clearly don't know anything about the guy and that's fine. But if you doubt it, you're wrong. We were far from personal confidantes, but I had several candid conversations with him over the decades. His personal politics were never in doubt, or far from the surface. He held a special revulsion for warmongering, dishonest, scapegoating, and authoritarian-leaning US candidates and administrations. He was always at least a bit frustrated with US economic policy. He would abhor Trump for all of the above reasons and more.
    - joe_mamba 7mo ago
      https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fself-proclaimed-lib-left-rights-when-you-say-anything-bad-v0-w4mjkr01e8rd1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D932fa63b16822d79bebe250d3d9236fc460bb597 https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....
- bigyabai 7mo ago
  I'd say that personality-wise, you probably don't know Jobs well enough to serve as a character witness. I'm not aware of any recorded interview where he explains how far he'd go to defend his business from unfair government treatment. He never saw a preview of the 2016 election or cast a ballot in the vote. He didn't live the interceding years leading up to the election, or form an opinion on the politics dominating the polls. I think Jobs would have been blindsided by Trump just as much as we all were. On a personal level I can believe that he's offended just like Cook is. But neither Cook nor Jobs' conscience has really ever stopped them from making a profitable business decision that they can take credit for. Even if it means building a meaningless gold trophy or somesuch, to appease the ego in charge.