12 ms·

What I Learned Negotiating With Steve Jobs

373 points by whbk 13y ago

incision 13y ago
Every time I read something about Jobs I'm struck by how similar he is to various assholes I've worked for over the years. This scenario, pretty much every nasty behavior described in the Isaacson biography, the recent salary-fixing emails - I've witnessed them all repeated. It might seem crazy to entertain, but having seen first-hand that these folks can consistently climb and succeed while being what most decent people would consider scumbags - I have to wonder if Steve was just alpha-scum in the right place at the right time.
- grannyg00se 13y ago
  ...with the right friends :)
- throwwit 13y ago
  I really hope the Aaron Sorkin movie cuts through the reality distortion field and distills just exactly what entrepreneurs really should be emulating about Jobs. Also of note: http://www.kevinoleary.com/kevin-oleary-steve-jobs-was-the-toughest-bastard-ever/ http://www.kevinoleary.com/kevin-oleary-steve-jobs-was-the-t...
  - gruseom 13y ago
    Sorkin is deeply conventional. He will almost certainly replicate the pre-existing myth, in an edgy way and with glib zingers.
    - covercash 13y ago
      Also keep in mind that Jobs and Sorkin seemed to be on pretty friendly terms: http://qr.ae/nS6or http://qr.ae/nS6or
  - bksenior 13y ago
    Thats not his job, he is not a historian. His job is to tell an entertaining story and there is a high probability you will be disappointed.
- downandout 13y ago
  I have to wonder if Steve was just alpha-scum in the right place at the right time. In the short term, luck can make anyone look like a fool or a genius, even though the reality is usually somewhere in between. However, Steve was highly successful over a number of decades. He ultimately created one of the most valuable enterprises in the history of the world. It seems that he was an unrepentant asshole, but I don't think that all of his success came down to just being in the right place at the right time.
  - reeses 13y ago
    The "luck" over the long term is, as you say, more than just the equivalent of finding a quarter on the street. Nearly everyone I've observed with long-term "luck" has been mostly successful at recognizing and acting on opportunities. The a-hole contingent merely has another tool to widen the funnel of opportunities. By eliminating compromise and being willing to divest others of their benefits, one can increase the likelihood of eventual success. It just takes timing to stumble on one gold-making opportunity. It takes an approach to repeat it with consistency. I had a conversation with a drill instructor who encapsulated (hah) the role by asking if I thought he really had that level of anger over untied bootlaces. Many a-holes use every opportunity to send the message that not following their way will lead to dire consequences. It doesn't have to appear rational in the moment, but it is generally intended to achieve end results that the a-hole is unwilling to communicate.
  - incision 13y ago
    >"It seems that he was an unrepentant asshole, but I don't think that all of his success came down to just being in the right place at the right time." Sure. Again relating this more to what I've experienced than any desire to try and peg exactly what Jobs was or wasn't - I don't think these people are living on luck. I think it's quite the opposite, they're absolutely deliberate in siphoning the talents everyone in their sphere of influence to their own ends. Like other comment here laid out so clearly they're able to take maximum personal advantage of every opportunity. What being in the right place at the right time would do is present historically unique opportunities and possibly people to pursue/exploit, leading to a bigger sphere encompassing more opportunities.
  - 13y ago
- abbasmehdi 13y ago
  "It might seem crazy to entertain, but having seen first-hand that these folks can consistently climb and succeed while being what most decent people would consider scumbags..." One of my best friends is a psychiatrist at a large academic hospital. He works with "corporate leaders" and top athletes (college level and above). He says in his 5 years of practice, he has not yet seen a "successful" person who does not exhibit a significant degree of sociopathic behavior. He goes as far as saying that being sociopathic is an asset if you are trying to be successful in any hyper competitive human endeavor (politics, business, sports etc).
  - megablast 13y ago
    > he has not yet seen a "successful" person who does not exhibit a significant degree of sociopathic behavior. This is such a weak argument, you can subscribe some sociopathic behavious to any regular person if you want.
    - abbasmehdi 13y ago
      A psychiatrist cannot differentiate between "any regular person" and "significant degree of sociopathic behavior"?
      - SamuelMulder 13y ago
        Maybe not as simple as you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYemnKEKx0c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYemnKEKx0c
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - forgottenpass 13y ago
        A psychiatrist cannot differentiate between "any regular person" and "significant degree of sociopathic behavior"? No they can't. Psychiatric opinions are too mailable. It's not an easy assessment like diagnosing someone else's professional qualifications in a field unrelated to yours using a 2nd hand anecdote posted on the Internet. Now there's an analysis you can take to the bank.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  I think the asshole part might be necessary but not sufficient for that level of success. He had greatness too. One of the downsides of his legacy is cargo-cult asshole-ness where people think that if they act like the kind of uber-jerk Steve was, they'll be successful like Steve.
  - colechristensen 13y ago
    I think being a person with what we'll call 'vision' can be extremely successful regardless of temperament. Being an asshole is somewhat both a cause and symptom of extreme success, but it only represents the easiest path to success and, what's important to add, was only part of what made Jobs a success. Certainly he wasn't so ruthless 100% of the time and the takeaway from his success should not be to emulate only or put undue focus on this part of his character.
  - Angostura 13y ago
    > One of the downsides of his legacy is cargo-cult asshole-ness where people think that if they act like the kind of uber-jerk Steve was, they'll be successful like Steve. Luckily, it would appear that Tim Cook is not one of the people who believe this, from what I can tell.
    - judk 13y ago
      For all of Tim Cook's great success in the jobs he has held and the one he holds today, no one thinks he could have founded an Apple.
      - joesb 13y ago
        But he was only at one position behind Job, and at that point he was still more successful than many a-holes. Unless we are only scoping the discussion to "a-hole being successful in business founding".
      - chris_wot 13y ago
        How do you know that?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Stratoscope 13y ago
  I can attest to that. I met Steve in the summer of 1976 when he was a barefoot hippie who'd just started a computer company with his buddy, and we got to talking about some software they needed, a 6502 disassembler. I told him I could do that and it was right up my alley. We exchanged phone numbers and shook hands on a "deal" - no money involved yet but it just seemed like an interesting side project to do for the fun of it. Steve called me back a couple of days later and chewed me out: "Mike, I've thought about this, and I've decided you couldn't possibly do this project. This is a microcomputer. It's nothing at all like the mainframes you've worked with. It's completely different, and you couldn't possibly do this project. So forget it." I tried to persuade him that my eight years of experience in machine language programming in a variety of architectures just might mean that I could tackle a simple instruction set like the 6502. But no, he knew I simply couldn't do it. Of course he wasn't a programmer and had no idea. But he did know for certain that a mainframe programmer like me couldn't possibly understand microcomputers. The sad part for me (besides the possible billions of dollars I might have made!) is that I didn't get a chance to meet Woz before Steve dissed me. A few friends have told me that we probably would have gotten along famously - if I could have somehow gotten past the doorkeeper. But so it goes; you can't second-guess history. I told a longer version of this story, with a few links to interesting stuff from the old days, here: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/h4n5w/i_was_one_of_the_first_people_steve_jobs_ever/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/h4n5w/i_was_one_of_the...
  - sitkack 13y ago
    You should still meet Woz. From the likes of it, you probably would get along swimmingly.
    - Stratoscope 13y ago
      Thank you for saying that, and I think you're right, we probably would. Woz just seems like a really nice guy, personable and interesting and fun to be around. I've bumped into him once or twice over the years, most recently at the Homebrew Computer Club reunion, where he gave a great talk full of enthusiasm. Woz was a breath of fresh air after Ted Nelson's keynote-of-sorts, which was interesting enough but so sad and bitter! (Anyone who was there will know what I'm talking about.) I suppose I can relate to that, as someone who's never had the kind of success I could have imagined for myself. But Woz reminded me that no matter what happens in your life, stay cheerful and enthusiastic and never let yourself become a bitter old person.
- toddmorey 13y ago
  That's a really dangerous takeaway. I've wondered, too, if being an asshole is a business advantage. Here's what I've learned: 1. This approach only amplifies whatever ideas you feed it. With the right vision behind it, you may end up becoming a force to be reckoned with. And people will endure your tantrums because you deliver them success. 2. But if your contributions aren't good—really, really good—this will only amplify your failure. And no one will endure you. 3. Most importantly, being an asshole may help great ideas get powered through, but it's not the only way. The people I most admire have found success while still being amazing human beings to work beside.
  - mathattack 13y ago
    I would add #4 - it is hard to leave a functioning structure for when you aren't around if progress depends on your force of will.
- craigyk 13y ago
  What would make the story even better would be to have learned that Steve sent the guy out to suggest the "fix".
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    That would show Jobs to be... stupid and capricious. If he wanted 50% inked on paper, he could just say so. Funnily enough, the story still shows him as capricious and stupid. She pretty much gave him the same contract, he looks for 50%, he approves it. Genius businessman.
- yuhong 13y ago
  Personally, I wish Tim Cook would actually fix some of the problems. For example, the Google and Samsung attacks.
- pcurve 13y ago
  Dan'l Lewin mentioned in the article comes across as a pretty decent fellow in this video, and has done pretty well for himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD_CHfiTClg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD_CHfiTClg
- sgy 13y ago
  "good artists copy great artists steal"
- abalone 13y ago
  If this were anyone but Jobs -- let's say your startup -- and I told you some Stanford MBA wanted to license the software you developed in order to market and support it and keep 85% of the proceeds for themselves, wouldn't you would say the MBA is the one being a huge asshole? Eighty-five percent???? That would in fact be ridiculous, right? This is the usual double-standard trope about Jobs/Apple. What's normal and even admirable business practice for a startup -- negotiating a fair deal -- is cast as evil and nefarious when it's Steve Jobs. When was the last time you heard WhatsApp leadership referred to as "assholes" because they negotiated a high valuation? How about Instagram? Or any other startup that negotiated for a high valuation / better deal? Never, right? And let's keep something in perspective: Jobs/NeXT owned the IP in question. How the heck does negotiating for 50% share of IP you're licensing to someone else to sell and support constitute being an "asshole"? (Granted, tearing up the contract was a bit theatrical.)
  - ghshephard 13y ago
    15% of gross receipts is not atypical for a publisher that takes on the responsibility of support, packaging, distribution, sales and maintenance. Honestly, as the owner of the IP, I would much rather have 15% of gross receipts than 50% of net. Taking a cut of net just encourages the publisher to beef up their costs, which are difficult for you to precisely track. I've had to negotiate these in the past - and the "rational" approach, in which you sit across from a lawyer, and walk down the various details (usually it's a staged agreement, with certain levels of return for certain levels of sales) - can be painful. I'm not saying that I would enjoy Steve's hysterics, but, it would be refreshingly to the point. A Lot of Steve Jobs success came from him eliminating the days, weeks, hell months of guidance/direction/management, and just saying let's get this f#%$cking thing done. It might not be pretty, you really don't like the person doing it - but it can be effective. Alternatively, it can also be incredibly destructive. Very fine line to walk.
    - abalone 13y ago
      Thanks, but do you have a source for "15% gross receipts" as typical? Quick search brings up this study, "PROFITABILITY AND ROYALTY RATES ACROSS INDUSTRIES: SOME PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE": "For software and content licensing, it could be as high as 50%"... "defined as a fixed percentage rate of sales" [1] Which would make Jobs' ask more typical. [Edit: on second look I think the paper's 50% figure may refer to gross margins not receipts.. but anyway, that would still cast the final deal as a completely typical software deal.] [1] http://law.unh.edu/assets/images/uploads/pages/ipmanagement-royalty-rates.pdf http://law.unh.edu/assets/images/uploads/pages/ipmanagement-...
- wozniacki 13y ago
  I think every time the issue of Steve's maniacal side comes up I feel obliged to bring this up: Wozniak on Jobs: I was inspired by Stanford intellectuals like Jim Warren talking this way at the club. Lee Felsenstein wanted computers to help in things like the antiwar marches he'd orchestrated in Oakland and I was inspired by the fact that these machines could help stop wars. Others in the club had working models of this computer before Jobs knew it existed. He came down one week and I took him to show him the club, not the reverse. He saw it as a businessman. It as I who told Jobs the good things these machines could do for humanity, not the reverse. I begged Steve that we donate the first Apple I to a woman who took computers into elementary schools but he made me buy it and donate it myself. [1] The contrast in the personalities of Jobs and Wozniak could not be more clearer. However I agree with first part of what toddmorey has said below: 3. Most importantly, being an asshole may help great ideas get powered through, but it's not the only way. The latter part, I'm unsure and circumspect about: The people I most admire have found success while still being amazing human beings to work beside. In the valley and elsewhere, I think this is increasingly not the case. I think we should stop telling kids that life rewards the passionate and the skilled. By rewards I certainly do not mean some inner calm or contentment coming from indulging in what you love. I mean the conventional rewards of recognition, admiration and remuneration. Life is rigged in favor of the opportunists. The schemers, hustlers and the witty-talkers. But certainly not the plainspoken and the adept. This is what many kids who have grown up on the stories of Steve Jobs and the valley lore surrounding many other iconic founders, will take away as their guiding principles. They will grow up thinking, "Life rewards the unabashedly ravenous, merciless and ruthless blokes among us. Life does not spare the dignified, the pleasant or the mild-mannered." There is nothing to suggest otherwise. No matter how you dice it, your conscience tells you that this is more than a bit disenchanting if not unfair. [1] http://i.imgur.com/a1I9DTs.jpg http://i.imgur.com/a1I9DTs.jpg https://plus.google.com/+CarmsPerez/posts/GnVTvQNgvpf https://plus.google.com/+CarmsPerez/posts/GnVTvQNgvpf
- aswanson 13y ago
  I agree 1000x. The worship of this guy in tech circles astonishes me; he comes across as the prototypical managerial leech while Wozniak comes across as the selfless genius. I bought and read the Isaacson bio to see if I missed anything, only to confirm what I thought: he is a classic bullshitting asshole that climbed to the top on taking credit for other peoples talent(Woz, Ives, etc). The best parts of that book were the people who cut through the bullshit RDF and called him on it: Wozniaks dad: "you havent done shit!" Bill Gates, re: NEXT (paraphrasing) "This is an overpriced piece of shit, Im not developing for it." The CEO of Corning, when Jobs tried to tell him, of all people, how glass is made: "Are you ready to shut up and listen to some science?" That wasnt enough to keep me from throwing the book in the trash, however.
fiatmoney 13y ago
Some people enjoy throwing their weight around and winning even relatively meaningless concessions, which marks them as high status. This can make it easier to win meaningful concessions at the margin, or to turn "not asking for concessions" into "you owe me one". Robert Ringer has some pretty apt descriptions of this type & how to deal with them in a couple of his more popular books.
- ghaff 13y ago
  With all due respect, I think you and others are missing the point here. This wasn't so much about Jobs "throwing his weight around" (abrasive style notwithstanding) but about him having an externally committed number that it was important to him and to others at the company to have met. Structuring the deal in such a way that this objective could be achieved opened a path to a negotiation that could satisfy both sides.
  - fiatmoney 13y ago
    You're right, the point of the article was to reflect on her, not on Jobs. But that doesn't mean we can't analyze his behavior. Presumably the number was "important" in an absolute sense because a number that high represented a fair amount of money, or at least taking margin from the publisher, because of the super-high quality of the software (remember, he made the promise trying to flatter the development team). Instead, the deal was structured strictly worse (less transparent revenue stream, same amount of money - and I'd be surprised if it was actually the same amount of money). Because he made a grand gesture as a status move, first to his team, and then to his vendors. There's no way in which "make an outrageous promise, make an outrageous demand to fulfil that promise, accept a strictly worse settlement that saves face" reflects well on his end of the negotiation. "He wanted to be able to tell everyone he got what he wanted."
ghaff 13y ago
The last item on the list: >Understand the needs of the other person Is a really important part of negotiation. Nothing to do with Jobs specifically. Don't assume that needs and desires are symmetrical in a negotiation. Sometimes they basically are. But when they aren't, it opens the possibility for win-win scenarios. And oldies but goodie (and short) book, "Getting to Yes" talks about this. Well worth the read. (And, when I say short, I really do mean very short.)
- Mz 13y ago
  "Getting to Yes" is researched based and, yes, a quick read. It was one of the required texts for a college class I had on "Negotiating and Conflict and Management." The other was "The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator." It is also research based but much meatier. I highly recommend both.
dmourati 13y ago
"Make it look like fifty percent." That one sentence made all the difference. In one instant, Heidi immediately understood what she had that the other side wanted. In her case, it was an initial app on a new platform. More than the money itself, it was being able to deliver on a previous promise to get a 50-50 split. It can be difficult to understand your negotiating partner's reasons but having an ally sure helped in this case.
danieltillett 13y ago
Great lesson here in how to deal with face. If done well this can provide the party unconcerned with saving face a real advantage in the negotiation process.
joosters 13y ago
At first I did not understand Steve’s needs Yes, because he didn't bother to explain them. He could have been the one to explain the need for the magic 50% - just think how that could have made their meeting productive and useful - but he didn't. It was only through her contact that this was discovered. Basically, Steve Jobs was being an asshole.
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  They might have been in it together. If he got fifty percent gross, that was great for him. If she almost got away, then the other guy goes after her and gets the face-saving fall-back position.
  - analog31 13y ago
    Good cop bad cop?
  - kenrikm 13y ago
    Indeed, Steve may have sent him to deliver the message that it needed to "look" like 50%. However, If you read Panic's experience with Steve, you'll see he was generally an asshole when it came to negotiation. Problem is, that's exactly what Apple needed to deal with the music industry and exactly what it needed to deal with the wireless industry and exactly what it needs now to deal with the cable industry. Except... he's not here to fight the good fight against the cable industry, and based on the rumors I've heard Apple is having troubles nailing down good terms with the content providers.
- MBCook 13y ago
  By doing things Steve's way there was a chance that he actually would get 50%. It would certainly be within Steve's personality to not care whether or not the deal actually went through.
- FiloSottile 13y ago
  Explaining that he wanted a fake 50% would not cast the impression that he had on people (Reality Distortion Field, they called it). That as far as we know, might very well be a key factor in his success.
BigBadBionicBoy 13y ago
Pretty much the MO for dealing with anyone with an inflated ego. Make them feel like they're right and make them feel like they always get exactly what they want.
- jbeja 13y ago
  And then?
  - bra-ket 13y ago
    F*ck them in the year (c)
    - jbeja 13y ago
      How?
      - bra-ket 13y ago
        in the ear
rdl 13y ago
Wow, I'd forgotten how bad the economics of boxed software were.
- keithwarren 13y ago
  The irony here is that Steve would eventually go on to put the final nail in the coffin of the boxed software world with the App Store. Sure people were starting to use web based software and yes other stores existed before the app store but he created the tipping point.
  - yuhong 13y ago
    I think with Lion they even added support to the Mac firmware to boot directly from Apple's servers.
  - Intermernet 13y ago
    This is slightly revisionist. The App Store is really just a centralized portal for software purchase and download. People were purchasing software online and downloading it well before the App Store.
    - rdl 13y ago
      IIRC, it had become the standard for high-end, engineering, server, unix software by around 2002, but App Store really did do a pretty good job of replacing boxed software in the $20-300 range outside gaming (which Steam probably did first).
      - markdennehy 13y ago
        You mean "App Store did a really good job copying a standard practice in the software world to a specific domain that Steam was doing a really good job in already, and though brand and lock-in, managed to survive where on pure merit, it wouldn't have".
        13y ago
jmomo 13y ago
Are there any known allegations or just flat-out known instances of Steve Jobs getting physically abusive with any of his employees or in the workplace environment? It's obvious he was verbally and emotionally abusive person and he was generally an all-around asshole, but I've never heard of him getting physical, and that sort of surprises me.
- analog31 13y ago
  Physical and psychological abuse are morally equivalent.
  - chrisdone 13y ago
    Morals tend to come from a body of ethics. It seems like what you're saying is "I think they should be considered equivalent" and therefore if you were to propose a set of morals that some society would adhere to, being mean to people would constitute property damage or something. Of course, that's bonkers, but you should distinguish between what you think should be the case and what is.
    - prutschman 13y ago
      Downplaying emotional abuse as "being mean" is disingenuous.
      - chrisdone 13y ago
        I don't think so, it's all mental and non-physical. That's the point.
andyidsinga 13y ago
so what i learned from this is that the developers did not actually get 50% but something that sounded like 50%. i know a dev at a startup who was employee number 2 and wanted a certain % of the company ( like 2 or 5 or something like that ). anyhoo, he was haggling with the founder about this and the founder didnt want to give him what he wanted but finally relented. later, when signing paperwork, he found that the % the founder relented to was actually a % of a newly created employee pool, and not the whole company. needless to say, the dev was pissed and had little trust in the relationship from that point forward.
- dmourati 13y ago
  Rookie mistake. Read Venture Deals: http://www.amazon.com/Venture-Deals-Smarter-Lawyer-Capitalist/dp/1118443616 http://www.amazon.com/Venture-Deals-Smarter-Lawyer-Capitalis...
  - andyidsinga 13y ago
    no doubt. ...ive been meaning to read venture deals myself. my impression of brad feld and jason mendelson is a very positive. Even better I've heard founder devs speak very highly of them.
  - fragsworth 13y ago
    That venture deals book is about founders negotiating with VCs, and probably mentions the "rookie mistake" of the founders getting stuck with paying for the option pool. We're talking about something different here - a potential hire joining a company and asking for "X% of the company". If the company agrees to this, then the legal document better not say you got X% of the employee option pool. That kind of shit is obviously going to ruin your employee's trust, because it's extremely fucking shady. I would immediately get the impression that the company/founders are big scammers.
    - dmourati 13y ago
      The book is about VC period. Authors switch sides in perspective throughout. The rookie mistake, covered at length in the book, was not knowing the difference between the cap table, employee options pool, and fully diluted shares. See, e.g., Appendix A.
huxley2 13y ago
Is it just me or does it seem like the new cool thing to do is talk about how much of a prick Steve was and how amazing Woz is? No one is perfect.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Is it just me or does it seem like the new cool thing to do is talk about how much of a prick Steve was and how amazing Woz is? It's now new for me -- I've been saying it for years. After a brief exposure to Jobs in the late 1970s when Apple was a new company, I refused to work with him thereafter. I turned down a number of job offers from Apple over the years because I knew I would have to work with Jobs, or near him, or some approximation thereof. Unacceptable. Some people found it possible to work with him, but IMHO that marked them as born narcissistic enablers.
  - huxley2 13y ago
    Oh. Well that's fair. You actually met him. So you can make a judgment. I'm sorry to hear that. I just find it a bit annoying how people that never met him find it cool to dog him. I've found that among people that actually met him they either looked up to him and saw him as a bold and charismatic character or they hated him with a passion.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > I've found that among people that actually met him they either looked up to him and saw him as a bold and charismatic character or they hated him with a passion. That's a common description of how people react to a narcissist. Consider Jim Jones (the French Guyana Jim Jones, the poisoned Kool-Aid Jim Jones) -- his followers thought he was the greatest, and it seemed as though they would die for him. Oh, wait, they did die for him. But others saw him as dangerous. Consider David Koresh. Same blind devotion among his followers and complete disgust elsewhere. My point is that a narcissistic enabler is as deeply twisted as a narcissist, but with a different focus. More here: http://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus http://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus
oinksoft 13y ago
People are saying that Jobs was being an asshole. I don't know much about the man, but what he's doing here is intelligent negotiation, plain and simple. The bravado of shredding the paper and loudly announcing the desired figure is a dead giveaway that (1) the other details of the contract don't mean much to him, and (2) the 50% figure means an awful lot to whoever else was supposed to hear it. You have to keep in mind what Jobs is trying to accomplish here. It's like a kid loudly putting stuff away when their mom walks by, "yea mom, just cleaning my room!" The ruthless part is that Jobs would have no problem if she didn't pick up on that and came back with the same contract and the 50% rate. I think that the lessons in this post are valuable for negotiating with intelligent people.
- vacri 13y ago
  I think that the lessons in this post are valuable for negotiating with intelligent people. The lesson in this post is "Have someone who works closely with the person you're negotiating with, who is willing to chase after you and tell you how to get around such a silly restriction". If the author didn't have the information that that was specifically what Jobs was looking for, then (in a slightly different world) she could have returned with exactly the same contract as she did, but Jobs may instead have taken extreme offense that she was fiddling the numbers, and that he meant 'actually 50%'. Most hagglers see this whole process as coming to an agreed percentage ("no, how about 20? 25? 25 and a free holiday?"), not "cook the numbers so that the same amount of money has a cosmetically different appearance". You start with a ridiculous number and work your way to something reasonable-but-favourable. Hagglers generally don't start with a ridiculous number and peacock about getting it even through a lie. Also, being intelligent (as the layman defines it) does not mean you're a shrewd negotiator and vice versa. There are plenty of successful businesspeople with shrewd negotiation skills that don't even understand the basics of their own business.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > A bunch of people here are saying that Jobs was being an asshole. Well ... he was. > I don't know much about the man, but what he's doing here is intelligent negotiation, plain and simple. Jobs had the destructive habit of tearing people down for no reason, preventing them from liking either themselves or him. I knew him personally and I saw this behavior any number of times, behavior that had no possible positive outcome. In this case, Jobs could simply have said, "This is completely unacceptable, but I'm sure you'll find a way to meet my legitimate requirements. I'm available next Thursday if you think we can come to an agreement." You know -- like a normal person. In the Isaacson book, Jobs is accurately described as a clinical narcissist, and I can confirm than from personal experience. To those who think Jobs accomplished what he did because of his behavior, I say he accomplished what he did in spite of his behavior. Obviously we will never know, this cannot be science, but Jobs went through life burning everyone down, filtering out everyone who wasn't a born narcissistic enabler.
evanmoran 13y ago
The world is full of assholes and yet there is only one Steve Jobs. If you are thinking of emulating him, I say stick to his better sides: understanding the industry, positioning, marketing, branding, public speaking and of course product design.
- Zelphyr 13y ago
  Wholeheartedly agree. After the Isaacson book came out I read story after story of "entrepreneurs" who had decided to emulate him in all the wrong ways. They chose to ignore the fact that in addition to being a complete dick a goodly part of the time he also had the ability to inspire fierce loyalty in people and I'm sure it wasn't by being a dick. If he saw you as valuable (e.g.; Jony Ive) then you got treated better. That said, in my experience, you'll get WAY more out of people if you treat everyone with respect if and until they do something to cause you to lose that respect. And even then you're better off having a polite but firm attitude.
lotsofmangos 13y ago
It makes you wonder how good his reality distortion field would have been without the vast dick-mitigation cloud that bubbled around it. Jobs owes a lot of his success to some very nice people.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
> What I Learned Negotiating With Steve Jobs I read the headline and thought, "that he's an asshole?" Then I read the article. I was right!
disputin 13y ago
That wasn't a negotiation, that was a demand. Dan'l did the negotiation. "People are not often as clear as Steve was" - he wasn't clear at all. He put on a performance for the developers, and Dan'l was the person who had to clarify what Steve wanted.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
JustARandomGuy 13y ago
I had to make the business make sense financially. I just needed to make my 15% look like his 50%. To do so, I reduced the nut to split by first deducting the cost of packaging, of technical support, the salaries for some developers on my side of the business to implement fixes, and when I still couldn’t get the math to pencil out, I added a $6 per unit Out of curiosity, is there an example contract text that demonstrates how to do this? Is it as simple as saying "You get 50% of the gross, but I'll deduct this, this and that from your share"?
- sumedh 13y ago
  Check out Hollywood Accounting. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-holl...
Udo_Schmitz 13y ago
This article has another story from Heidi Roizen which may offer some perspective (seventh story „A Friend In Need“): http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/10/03/untold-stories-about-steve-jobs-friends-and-colleagues-share-their-memories/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/10/03/untol...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

373 points by whbk 13y ago

Every time I read something about Jobs I'm struck by how similar he is to various assholes I've worked for over the years. This scenario, pretty much every nasty behavior described in the Isaacson biography, the recent salary-fixing emails - I've witnessed them all repeated. It might seem crazy to entertain, but having seen first-hand that these folks can consistently climb and succeed while being what most decent people would consider scumbags - I have to wonder if Steve was just alpha-scum in the right place at the right time.

grannyg00se 13y ago
...with the right friends :)
throwwit 13y ago
I really hope the Aaron Sorkin movie cuts through the reality distortion field and distills just exactly what entrepreneurs really should be emulating about Jobs. Also of note: http://www.kevinoleary.com/kevin-oleary-steve-jobs-was-the-toughest-bastard-ever/ http://www.kevinoleary.com/kevin-oleary-steve-jobs-was-the-t...
- gruseom 13y ago
  Sorkin is deeply conventional. He will almost certainly replicate the pre-existing myth, in an edgy way and with glib zingers.
  - covercash 13y ago
    Also keep in mind that Jobs and Sorkin seemed to be on pretty friendly terms: http://qr.ae/nS6or http://qr.ae/nS6or
- bksenior 13y ago
  Thats not his job, he is not a historian. His job is to tell an entertaining story and there is a high probability you will be disappointed.
downandout 13y ago
I have to wonder if Steve was just alpha-scum in the right place at the right time. In the short term, luck can make anyone look like a fool or a genius, even though the reality is usually somewhere in between. However, Steve was highly successful over a number of decades. He ultimately created one of the most valuable enterprises in the history of the world. It seems that he was an unrepentant asshole, but I don't think that all of his success came down to just being in the right place at the right time.
- reeses 13y ago
  The "luck" over the long term is, as you say, more than just the equivalent of finding a quarter on the street. Nearly everyone I've observed with long-term "luck" has been mostly successful at recognizing and acting on opportunities. The a-hole contingent merely has another tool to widen the funnel of opportunities. By eliminating compromise and being willing to divest others of their benefits, one can increase the likelihood of eventual success. It just takes timing to stumble on one gold-making opportunity. It takes an approach to repeat it with consistency. I had a conversation with a drill instructor who encapsulated (hah) the role by asking if I thought he really had that level of anger over untied bootlaces. Many a-holes use every opportunity to send the message that not following their way will lead to dire consequences. It doesn't have to appear rational in the moment, but it is generally intended to achieve end results that the a-hole is unwilling to communicate.
- incision 13y ago
  >"It seems that he was an unrepentant asshole, but I don't think that all of his success came down to just being in the right place at the right time." Sure. Again relating this more to what I've experienced than any desire to try and peg exactly what Jobs was or wasn't - I don't think these people are living on luck. I think it's quite the opposite, they're absolutely deliberate in siphoning the talents everyone in their sphere of influence to their own ends. Like other comment here laid out so clearly they're able to take maximum personal advantage of every opportunity. What being in the right place at the right time would do is present historically unique opportunities and possibly people to pursue/exploit, leading to a bigger sphere encompassing more opportunities.
- 13y ago
abbasmehdi 13y ago
"It might seem crazy to entertain, but having seen first-hand that these folks can consistently climb and succeed while being what most decent people would consider scumbags..." One of my best friends is a psychiatrist at a large academic hospital. He works with "corporate leaders" and top athletes (college level and above). He says in his 5 years of practice, he has not yet seen a "successful" person who does not exhibit a significant degree of sociopathic behavior. He goes as far as saying that being sociopathic is an asset if you are trying to be successful in any hyper competitive human endeavor (politics, business, sports etc).
- megablast 13y ago
  > he has not yet seen a "successful" person who does not exhibit a significant degree of sociopathic behavior. This is such a weak argument, you can subscribe some sociopathic behavious to any regular person if you want.
  - abbasmehdi 13y ago
    A psychiatrist cannot differentiate between "any regular person" and "significant degree of sociopathic behavior"?
    - SamuelMulder 13y ago
      Maybe not as simple as you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYemnKEKx0c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYemnKEKx0c
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - forgottenpass 13y ago
      A psychiatrist cannot differentiate between "any regular person" and "significant degree of sociopathic behavior"? No they can't. Psychiatric opinions are too mailable. It's not an easy assessment like diagnosing someone else's professional qualifications in a field unrelated to yours using a 2nd hand anecdote posted on the Internet. Now there's an analysis you can take to the bank.
noonespecial 13y ago
I think the asshole part might be necessary but not sufficient for that level of success. He had greatness too. One of the downsides of his legacy is cargo-cult asshole-ness where people think that if they act like the kind of uber-jerk Steve was, they'll be successful like Steve.
- colechristensen 13y ago
  I think being a person with what we'll call 'vision' can be extremely successful regardless of temperament. Being an asshole is somewhat both a cause and symptom of extreme success, but it only represents the easiest path to success and, what's important to add, was only part of what made Jobs a success. Certainly he wasn't so ruthless 100% of the time and the takeaway from his success should not be to emulate only or put undue focus on this part of his character.
- Angostura 13y ago
  > One of the downsides of his legacy is cargo-cult asshole-ness where people think that if they act like the kind of uber-jerk Steve was, they'll be successful like Steve. Luckily, it would appear that Tim Cook is not one of the people who believe this, from what I can tell.
  - judk 13y ago
    For all of Tim Cook's great success in the jobs he has held and the one he holds today, no one thinks he could have founded an Apple.
    - joesb 13y ago
      But he was only at one position behind Job, and at that point he was still more successful than many a-holes. Unless we are only scoping the discussion to "a-hole being successful in business founding".
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      How do you know that?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Stratoscope 13y ago
I can attest to that. I met Steve in the summer of 1976 when he was a barefoot hippie who'd just started a computer company with his buddy, and we got to talking about some software they needed, a 6502 disassembler. I told him I could do that and it was right up my alley. We exchanged phone numbers and shook hands on a "deal" - no money involved yet but it just seemed like an interesting side project to do for the fun of it. Steve called me back a couple of days later and chewed me out: "Mike, I've thought about this, and I've decided you couldn't possibly do this project. This is a microcomputer. It's nothing at all like the mainframes you've worked with. It's completely different, and you couldn't possibly do this project. So forget it." I tried to persuade him that my eight years of experience in machine language programming in a variety of architectures just might mean that I could tackle a simple instruction set like the 6502. But no, he knew I simply couldn't do it. Of course he wasn't a programmer and had no idea. But he did know for certain that a mainframe programmer like me couldn't possibly understand microcomputers. The sad part for me (besides the possible billions of dollars I might have made!) is that I didn't get a chance to meet Woz before Steve dissed me. A few friends have told me that we probably would have gotten along famously - if I could have somehow gotten past the doorkeeper. But so it goes; you can't second-guess history. I told a longer version of this story, with a few links to interesting stuff from the old days, here: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/h4n5w/i_was_one_of_the_first_people_steve_jobs_ever/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/h4n5w/i_was_one_of_the...
- sitkack 13y ago
  You should still meet Woz. From the likes of it, you probably would get along swimmingly.
  - Stratoscope 13y ago
    Thank you for saying that, and I think you're right, we probably would. Woz just seems like a really nice guy, personable and interesting and fun to be around. I've bumped into him once or twice over the years, most recently at the Homebrew Computer Club reunion, where he gave a great talk full of enthusiasm. Woz was a breath of fresh air after Ted Nelson's keynote-of-sorts, which was interesting enough but so sad and bitter! (Anyone who was there will know what I'm talking about.) I suppose I can relate to that, as someone who's never had the kind of success I could have imagined for myself. But Woz reminded me that no matter what happens in your life, stay cheerful and enthusiastic and never let yourself become a bitter old person.
toddmorey 13y ago
That's a really dangerous takeaway. I've wondered, too, if being an asshole is a business advantage. Here's what I've learned: 1. This approach only amplifies whatever ideas you feed it. With the right vision behind it, you may end up becoming a force to be reckoned with. And people will endure your tantrums because you deliver them success. 2. But if your contributions aren't good—really, really good—this will only amplify your failure. And no one will endure you. 3. Most importantly, being an asshole may help great ideas get powered through, but it's not the only way. The people I most admire have found success while still being amazing human beings to work beside.
- mathattack 13y ago
  I would add #4 - it is hard to leave a functioning structure for when you aren't around if progress depends on your force of will.
craigyk 13y ago
What would make the story even better would be to have learned that Steve sent the guy out to suggest the "fix".
- chris_wot 13y ago
  That would show Jobs to be... stupid and capricious. If he wanted 50% inked on paper, he could just say so. Funnily enough, the story still shows him as capricious and stupid. She pretty much gave him the same contract, he looks for 50%, he approves it. Genius businessman.
yuhong 13y ago
Personally, I wish Tim Cook would actually fix some of the problems. For example, the Google and Samsung attacks.
pcurve 13y ago
Dan'l Lewin mentioned in the article comes across as a pretty decent fellow in this video, and has done pretty well for himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD_CHfiTClg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD_CHfiTClg
sgy 13y ago
"good artists copy great artists steal"
abalone 13y ago
If this were anyone but Jobs -- let's say your startup -- and I told you some Stanford MBA wanted to license the software you developed in order to market and support it and keep 85% of the proceeds for themselves, wouldn't you would say the MBA is the one being a huge asshole? Eighty-five percent???? That would in fact be ridiculous, right? This is the usual double-standard trope about Jobs/Apple. What's normal and even admirable business practice for a startup -- negotiating a fair deal -- is cast as evil and nefarious when it's Steve Jobs. When was the last time you heard WhatsApp leadership referred to as "assholes" because they negotiated a high valuation? How about Instagram? Or any other startup that negotiated for a high valuation / better deal? Never, right? And let's keep something in perspective: Jobs/NeXT owned the IP in question. How the heck does negotiating for 50% share of IP you're licensing to someone else to sell and support constitute being an "asshole"? (Granted, tearing up the contract was a bit theatrical.)
- ghshephard 13y ago
  15% of gross receipts is not atypical for a publisher that takes on the responsibility of support, packaging, distribution, sales and maintenance. Honestly, as the owner of the IP, I would much rather have 15% of gross receipts than 50% of net. Taking a cut of net just encourages the publisher to beef up their costs, which are difficult for you to precisely track. I've had to negotiate these in the past - and the "rational" approach, in which you sit across from a lawyer, and walk down the various details (usually it's a staged agreement, with certain levels of return for certain levels of sales) - can be painful. I'm not saying that I would enjoy Steve's hysterics, but, it would be refreshingly to the point. A Lot of Steve Jobs success came from him eliminating the days, weeks, hell months of guidance/direction/management, and just saying let's get this f#%$cking thing done. It might not be pretty, you really don't like the person doing it - but it can be effective. Alternatively, it can also be incredibly destructive. Very fine line to walk.
  - abalone 13y ago
    Thanks, but do you have a source for "15% gross receipts" as typical? Quick search brings up this study, "PROFITABILITY AND ROYALTY RATES ACROSS INDUSTRIES: SOME PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE": "For software and content licensing, it could be as high as 50%"... "defined as a fixed percentage rate of sales" [1] Which would make Jobs' ask more typical. [Edit: on second look I think the paper's 50% figure may refer to gross margins not receipts.. but anyway, that would still cast the final deal as a completely typical software deal.] [1] http://law.unh.edu/assets/images/uploads/pages/ipmanagement-royalty-rates.pdf http://law.unh.edu/assets/images/uploads/pages/ipmanagement-...
wozniacki 13y ago
I think every time the issue of Steve's maniacal side comes up I feel obliged to bring this up: Wozniak on Jobs: I was inspired by Stanford intellectuals like Jim Warren talking this way at the club. Lee Felsenstein wanted computers to help in things like the antiwar marches he'd orchestrated in Oakland and I was inspired by the fact that these machines could help stop wars. Others in the club had working models of this computer before Jobs knew it existed. He came down one week and I took him to show him the club, not the reverse. He saw it as a businessman. It as I who told Jobs the good things these machines could do for humanity, not the reverse. I begged Steve that we donate the first Apple I to a woman who took computers into elementary schools but he made me buy it and donate it myself. [1] The contrast in the personalities of Jobs and Wozniak could not be more clearer. However I agree with first part of what toddmorey has said below: 3. Most importantly, being an asshole may help great ideas get powered through, but it's not the only way. The latter part, I'm unsure and circumspect about: The people I most admire have found success while still being amazing human beings to work beside. In the valley and elsewhere, I think this is increasingly not the case. I think we should stop telling kids that life rewards the passionate and the skilled. By rewards I certainly do not mean some inner calm or contentment coming from indulging in what you love. I mean the conventional rewards of recognition, admiration and remuneration. Life is rigged in favor of the opportunists. The schemers, hustlers and the witty-talkers. But certainly not the plainspoken and the adept. This is what many kids who have grown up on the stories of Steve Jobs and the valley lore surrounding many other iconic founders, will take away as their guiding principles. They will grow up thinking, "Life rewards the unabashedly ravenous, merciless and ruthless blokes among us. Life does not spare the dignified, the pleasant or the mild-mannered." There is nothing to suggest otherwise. No matter how you dice it, your conscience tells you that this is more than a bit disenchanting if not unfair. [1] http://i.imgur.com/a1I9DTs.jpg http://i.imgur.com/a1I9DTs.jpg https://plus.google.com/+CarmsPerez/posts/GnVTvQNgvpf https://plus.google.com/+CarmsPerez/posts/GnVTvQNgvpf
aswanson 13y ago
I agree 1000x. The worship of this guy in tech circles astonishes me; he comes across as the prototypical managerial leech while Wozniak comes across as the selfless genius. I bought and read the Isaacson bio to see if I missed anything, only to confirm what I thought: he is a classic bullshitting asshole that climbed to the top on taking credit for other peoples talent(Woz, Ives, etc). The best parts of that book were the people who cut through the bullshit RDF and called him on it: Wozniaks dad: "you havent done shit!" Bill Gates, re: NEXT (paraphrasing) "This is an overpriced piece of shit, Im not developing for it." The CEO of Corning, when Jobs tried to tell him, of all people, how glass is made: "Are you ready to shut up and listen to some science?" That wasnt enough to keep me from throwing the book in the trash, however.

fiatmoney 13y ago

Some people enjoy throwing their weight around and winning even relatively meaningless concessions, which marks them as high status. This can make it easier to win meaningful concessions at the margin, or to turn "not asking for concessions" into "you owe me one". Robert Ringer has some pretty apt descriptions of this type & how to deal with them in a couple of his more popular books.

ghaff 13y ago
With all due respect, I think you and others are missing the point here. This wasn't so much about Jobs "throwing his weight around" (abrasive style notwithstanding) but about him having an externally committed number that it was important to him and to others at the company to have met. Structuring the deal in such a way that this objective could be achieved opened a path to a negotiation that could satisfy both sides.
- fiatmoney 13y ago
  You're right, the point of the article was to reflect on her, not on Jobs. But that doesn't mean we can't analyze his behavior. Presumably the number was "important" in an absolute sense because a number that high represented a fair amount of money, or at least taking margin from the publisher, because of the super-high quality of the software (remember, he made the promise trying to flatter the development team). Instead, the deal was structured strictly worse (less transparent revenue stream, same amount of money - and I'd be surprised if it was actually the same amount of money). Because he made a grand gesture as a status move, first to his team, and then to his vendors. There's no way in which "make an outrageous promise, make an outrageous demand to fulfil that promise, accept a strictly worse settlement that saves face" reflects well on his end of the negotiation. "He wanted to be able to tell everyone he got what he wanted."

ghaff 13y ago

The last item on the list: >Understand the needs of the other person Is a really important part of negotiation. Nothing to do with Jobs specifically. Don't assume that needs and desires are symmetrical in a negotiation. Sometimes they basically are. But when they aren't, it opens the possibility for win-win scenarios. And oldies but goodie (and short) book, "Getting to Yes" talks about this. Well worth the read. (And, when I say short, I really do mean very short.)

Mz 13y ago
"Getting to Yes" is researched based and, yes, a quick read. It was one of the required texts for a college class I had on "Negotiating and Conflict and Management." The other was "The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator." It is also research based but much meatier. I highly recommend both.

dmourati 13y ago

"Make it look like fifty percent." That one sentence made all the difference. In one instant, Heidi immediately understood what she had that the other side wanted. In her case, it was an initial app on a new platform. More than the money itself, it was being able to deliver on a previous promise to get a 50-50 split. It can be difficult to understand your negotiating partner's reasons but having an ally sure helped in this case.

danieltillett 13y ago

Great lesson here in how to deal with face. If done well this can provide the party unconcerned with saving face a real advantage in the negotiation process.

joosters 13y ago

At first I did not understand Steve’s needs Yes, because he didn't bother to explain them. He could have been the one to explain the need for the magic 50% - just think how that could have made their meeting productive and useful - but he didn't. It was only through her contact that this was discovered. Basically, Steve Jobs was being an asshole.

6d0debc071 13y ago
They might have been in it together. If he got fifty percent gross, that was great for him. If she almost got away, then the other guy goes after her and gets the face-saving fall-back position.
- analog31 13y ago
  Good cop bad cop?
- kenrikm 13y ago
  Indeed, Steve may have sent him to deliver the message that it needed to "look" like 50%. However, If you read Panic's experience with Steve, you'll see he was generally an asshole when it came to negotiation. Problem is, that's exactly what Apple needed to deal with the music industry and exactly what it needed to deal with the wireless industry and exactly what it needs now to deal with the cable industry. Except... he's not here to fight the good fight against the cable industry, and based on the rumors I've heard Apple is having troubles nailing down good terms with the content providers.
MBCook 13y ago
By doing things Steve's way there was a chance that he actually would get 50%. It would certainly be within Steve's personality to not care whether or not the deal actually went through.
FiloSottile 13y ago
Explaining that he wanted a fake 50% would not cast the impression that he had on people (Reality Distortion Field, they called it). That as far as we know, might very well be a key factor in his success.

BigBadBionicBoy 13y ago

Pretty much the MO for dealing with anyone with an inflated ego. Make them feel like they're right and make them feel like they always get exactly what they want.

jbeja 13y ago
And then?
- bra-ket 13y ago
  F*ck them in the year (c)
  - jbeja 13y ago
    How?
    - bra-ket 13y ago
      in the ear

rdl 13y ago

Wow, I'd forgotten how bad the economics of boxed software were.

keithwarren 13y ago
The irony here is that Steve would eventually go on to put the final nail in the coffin of the boxed software world with the App Store. Sure people were starting to use web based software and yes other stores existed before the app store but he created the tipping point.
- yuhong 13y ago
  I think with Lion they even added support to the Mac firmware to boot directly from Apple's servers.
- Intermernet 13y ago
  This is slightly revisionist. The App Store is really just a centralized portal for software purchase and download. People were purchasing software online and downloading it well before the App Store.
  - rdl 13y ago
    IIRC, it had become the standard for high-end, engineering, server, unix software by around 2002, but App Store really did do a pretty good job of replacing boxed software in the $20-300 range outside gaming (which Steam probably did first).
    - markdennehy 13y ago
      You mean "App Store did a really good job copying a standard practice in the software world to a specific domain that Steam was doing a really good job in already, and though brand and lock-in, managed to survive where on pure merit, it wouldn't have".
      - 13y ago

jmomo 13y ago

Are there any known allegations or just flat-out known instances of Steve Jobs getting physically abusive with any of his employees or in the workplace environment? It's obvious he was verbally and emotionally abusive person and he was generally an all-around asshole, but I've never heard of him getting physical, and that sort of surprises me.

analog31 13y ago
Physical and psychological abuse are morally equivalent.
- chrisdone 13y ago
  Morals tend to come from a body of ethics. It seems like what you're saying is "I think they should be considered equivalent" and therefore if you were to propose a set of morals that some society would adhere to, being mean to people would constitute property damage or something. Of course, that's bonkers, but you should distinguish between what you think should be the case and what is.
  - prutschman 13y ago
    Downplaying emotional abuse as "being mean" is disingenuous.
    - chrisdone 13y ago
      I don't think so, it's all mental and non-physical. That's the point.

andyidsinga 13y ago

so what i learned from this is that the developers did not actually get 50% but something that sounded like 50%. i know a dev at a startup who was employee number 2 and wanted a certain % of the company ( like 2 or 5 or something like that ). anyhoo, he was haggling with the founder about this and the founder didnt want to give him what he wanted but finally relented. later, when signing paperwork, he found that the % the founder relented to was actually a % of a newly created employee pool, and not the whole company. needless to say, the dev was pissed and had little trust in the relationship from that point forward.

dmourati 13y ago
Rookie mistake. Read Venture Deals: http://www.amazon.com/Venture-Deals-Smarter-Lawyer-Capitalist/dp/1118443616 http://www.amazon.com/Venture-Deals-Smarter-Lawyer-Capitalis...
- andyidsinga 13y ago
  no doubt. ...ive been meaning to read venture deals myself. my impression of brad feld and jason mendelson is a very positive. Even better I've heard founder devs speak very highly of them.
- fragsworth 13y ago
  That venture deals book is about founders negotiating with VCs, and probably mentions the "rookie mistake" of the founders getting stuck with paying for the option pool. We're talking about something different here - a potential hire joining a company and asking for "X% of the company". If the company agrees to this, then the legal document better not say you got X% of the employee option pool. That kind of shit is obviously going to ruin your employee's trust, because it's extremely fucking shady. I would immediately get the impression that the company/founders are big scammers.
  - dmourati 13y ago
    The book is about VC period. Authors switch sides in perspective throughout. The rookie mistake, covered at length in the book, was not knowing the difference between the cap table, employee options pool, and fully diluted shares. See, e.g., Appendix A.

huxley2 13y ago

Is it just me or does it seem like the new cool thing to do is talk about how much of a prick Steve was and how amazing Woz is? No one is perfect.

lutusp 13y ago
> Is it just me or does it seem like the new cool thing to do is talk about how much of a prick Steve was and how amazing Woz is? It's now new for me -- I've been saying it for years. After a brief exposure to Jobs in the late 1970s when Apple was a new company, I refused to work with him thereafter. I turned down a number of job offers from Apple over the years because I knew I would have to work with Jobs, or near him, or some approximation thereof. Unacceptable. Some people found it possible to work with him, but IMHO that marked them as born narcissistic enablers.
- huxley2 13y ago
  Oh. Well that's fair. You actually met him. So you can make a judgment. I'm sorry to hear that. I just find it a bit annoying how people that never met him find it cool to dog him. I've found that among people that actually met him they either looked up to him and saw him as a bold and charismatic character or they hated him with a passion.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I've found that among people that actually met him they either looked up to him and saw him as a bold and charismatic character or they hated him with a passion. That's a common description of how people react to a narcissist. Consider Jim Jones (the French Guyana Jim Jones, the poisoned Kool-Aid Jim Jones) -- his followers thought he was the greatest, and it seemed as though they would die for him. Oh, wait, they did die for him. But others saw him as dangerous. Consider David Koresh. Same blind devotion among his followers and complete disgust elsewhere. My point is that a narcissistic enabler is as deeply twisted as a narcissist, but with a different focus. More here: http://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus http://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus

oinksoft 13y ago

People are saying that Jobs was being an asshole. I don't know much about the man, but what he's doing here is intelligent negotiation, plain and simple. The bravado of shredding the paper and loudly announcing the desired figure is a dead giveaway that (1) the other details of the contract don't mean much to him, and (2) the 50% figure means an awful lot to whoever else was supposed to hear it. You have to keep in mind what Jobs is trying to accomplish here. It's like a kid loudly putting stuff away when their mom walks by, "yea mom, just cleaning my room!" The ruthless part is that Jobs would have no problem if she didn't pick up on that and came back with the same contract and the 50% rate. I think that the lessons in this post are valuable for negotiating with intelligent people.

vacri 13y ago
I think that the lessons in this post are valuable for negotiating with intelligent people. The lesson in this post is "Have someone who works closely with the person you're negotiating with, who is willing to chase after you and tell you how to get around such a silly restriction". If the author didn't have the information that that was specifically what Jobs was looking for, then (in a slightly different world) she could have returned with exactly the same contract as she did, but Jobs may instead have taken extreme offense that she was fiddling the numbers, and that he meant 'actually 50%'. Most hagglers see this whole process as coming to an agreed percentage ("no, how about 20? 25? 25 and a free holiday?"), not "cook the numbers so that the same amount of money has a cosmetically different appearance". You start with a ridiculous number and work your way to something reasonable-but-favourable. Hagglers generally don't start with a ridiculous number and peacock about getting it even through a lie. Also, being intelligent (as the layman defines it) does not mean you're a shrewd negotiator and vice versa. There are plenty of successful businesspeople with shrewd negotiation skills that don't even understand the basics of their own business.
lutusp 13y ago
> A bunch of people here are saying that Jobs was being an asshole. Well ... he was. > I don't know much about the man, but what he's doing here is intelligent negotiation, plain and simple. Jobs had the destructive habit of tearing people down for no reason, preventing them from liking either themselves or him. I knew him personally and I saw this behavior any number of times, behavior that had no possible positive outcome. In this case, Jobs could simply have said, "This is completely unacceptable, but I'm sure you'll find a way to meet my legitimate requirements. I'm available next Thursday if you think we can come to an agreement." You know -- like a normal person. In the Isaacson book, Jobs is accurately described as a clinical narcissist, and I can confirm than from personal experience. To those who think Jobs accomplished what he did because of his behavior, I say he accomplished what he did in spite of his behavior. Obviously we will never know, this cannot be science, but Jobs went through life burning everyone down, filtering out everyone who wasn't a born narcissistic enabler.

evanmoran 13y ago

The world is full of assholes and yet there is only one Steve Jobs. If you are thinking of emulating him, I say stick to his better sides: understanding the industry, positioning, marketing, branding, public speaking and of course product design.

Zelphyr 13y ago
Wholeheartedly agree. After the Isaacson book came out I read story after story of "entrepreneurs" who had decided to emulate him in all the wrong ways. They chose to ignore the fact that in addition to being a complete dick a goodly part of the time he also had the ability to inspire fierce loyalty in people and I'm sure it wasn't by being a dick. If he saw you as valuable (e.g.; Jony Ive) then you got treated better. That said, in my experience, you'll get WAY more out of people if you treat everyone with respect if and until they do something to cause you to lose that respect. And even then you're better off having a polite but firm attitude.

lotsofmangos 13y ago

It makes you wonder how good his reality distortion field would have been without the vast dick-mitigation cloud that bubbled around it. Jobs owes a lot of his success to some very nice people.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

> What I Learned Negotiating With Steve Jobs I read the headline and thought, "that he's an asshole?" Then I read the article. I was right!

disputin 13y ago

That wasn't a negotiation, that was a demand. Dan'l did the negotiation. "People are not often as clear as Steve was" - he wasn't clear at all. He put on a performance for the developers, and Dan'l was the person who had to clarify what Steve wanted.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

JustARandomGuy 13y ago

I had to make the business make sense financially. I just needed to make my 15% look like his 50%. To do so, I reduced the nut to split by first deducting the cost of packaging, of technical support, the salaries for some developers on my side of the business to implement fixes, and when I still couldn’t get the math to pencil out, I added a $6 per unit Out of curiosity, is there an example contract text that demonstrates how to do this? Is it as simple as saying "You get 50% of the gross, but I'll deduct this, this and that from your share"?

sumedh 13y ago
Check out Hollywood Accounting. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-holl...

Udo_Schmitz 13y ago

This article has another story from Heidi Roizen which may offer some perspective (seventh story „A Friend In Need“): http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/10/03/untold-stories-about-steve-jobs-friends-and-colleagues-share-their-memories/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/10/03/untol...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]