8 ms·

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 nas

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.

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.