4 ms·

> that he was with Steve Wozniak when Apple 1 and 2 > were made This sound like Apple was happening at some garage and Jobs and Wozniak were just walking by.

> that he was with Steve Wozniak when Apple 1 and 2 > were made This sound like Apple was happening at some garage and Jobs and Wozniak were just walking by. Did the same happen with NeXT and Pixar? Jobs was responsible for Apple happening, and he was also responsible for Wozniak being at Apple. You may not like the guy, but denying that he had a visions is silly. Videos available online show that he envisioned what he have now back in 1995 or even 1987.

kamaal 14y ago
Book really gave a huge negative image to him, after which frankly I lost all respect for the man. You build impressions on what you read. What he was in reality I have no clue of.
msutherl 14y ago
To be fair, he looked at what was happening in research and thought "I can make this happen in the market" – all the ingredients were there in PARC, etc. That he was able to fixate on that goal and make it happen, however, is a triumph.
- interpol_p 14y ago
  I don't think that's quite it. It wasn't simply about taking it to market, it's seeing research that you know needs to be in a product because you want to use it right now. I get that feeling a lot from research, concepts, and so on. I end up building the products I want to use, and it turns out that's a really good way to build something people like. The way you word it makes it sound like it's all about selling things to other people — where I really believe that Steve Jobs under Apple and NeXT was designing the computers, devices and software that he personally wanted to exist. Selling them was a way to continue to fund that process.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
Catmull and Lasseter are the main geniuses behind Pixar. Jobs came in later and provided a lot of money to keep the dream alive (which shouldn't be underestimated) and apparently did some amazing negotiation with Disney but the initial spark of genius came from those two (and many other talented people they worked with).
- hilko 14y ago
  True, but genius is not enough. Jobs seemed to have a quality that acted as a catalyst for genius to do 'great' stuff (where 'great' is debatable, of course). Based on my personal experience with 'Jobsian' types, I have found this to be true as well. I've met many people who were brilliant at things, but under these types, even those with less brilliance often performed better. Anecdotal evidence, true, but still. My point is that it is fine to acknowledge their genius AND that he might have played a more important role than just money/power.

kamaal 14y ago

Book really gave a huge negative image to him, after which frankly I lost all respect for the man. You build impressions on what you read. What he was in reality I have no clue of.

msutherl 14y ago

To be fair, he looked at what was happening in research and thought "I can make this happen in the market" – all the ingredients were there in PARC, etc. That he was able to fixate on that goal and make it happen, however, is a triumph.

interpol_p 14y ago
I don't think that's quite it. It wasn't simply about taking it to market, it's seeing research that you know needs to be in a product because you want to use it right now. I get that feeling a lot from research, concepts, and so on. I end up building the products I want to use, and it turns out that's a really good way to build something people like. The way you word it makes it sound like it's all about selling things to other people — where I really believe that Steve Jobs under Apple and NeXT was designing the computers, devices and software that he personally wanted to exist. Selling them was a way to continue to fund that process.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago

Catmull and Lasseter are the main geniuses behind Pixar. Jobs came in later and provided a lot of money to keep the dream alive (which shouldn't be underestimated) and apparently did some amazing negotiation with Disney but the initial spark of genius came from those two (and many other talented people they worked with).

hilko 14y ago
True, but genius is not enough. Jobs seemed to have a quality that acted as a catalyst for genius to do 'great' stuff (where 'great' is debatable, of course). Based on my personal experience with 'Jobsian' types, I have found this to be true as well. I've met many people who were brilliant at things, but under these types, even those with less brilliance often performed better. Anecdotal evidence, true, but still. My point is that it is fine to acknowledge their genius AND that he might have played a more important role than just money/power.