4 ms·

I worked around Steve for years, I couldn't stand him so I spent as little time in his company as possible, but I can say he wasn't an engineer or a serious cod

by lutusp 12y ago

I worked around Steve for years, I couldn't stand him so I spent as little time in his company as possible, but I can say he wasn't an engineer or a serious coder. He was what is now called a "visionary", a catch-all phrase that can mean anything or nothing. When Bill Gates saw bad code, he would sit down and rewrite the code to shame the perpetrator. Steve didn't have that option. This is how he acquired a deserved reputation as a tyrant -- he could only fire people or humiliate them before their coworkers, but he couldn't outperform them. In the early days at Apple, and not to oversimplify, people like me coded the software, while Steve coded the customers. On the general topic of Steve Jobs, I highly recommend the Isaacson biography, excellent book, and one that openly acknowledges Steve's core malady -- pathological narcissism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_(book) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_(book)

coldtea 12y ago
>I worked around Steve for years, I couldn't stand him so I spent as little time in his company as possible So, did you tell that to his face? Because this sounds like post-mortem sour grapes. As if all he did was shout at people and look at his fabulous self in the mirror... He created and brought several companies to the top -- on of those twice, first from a garage, then from near banrunptcy. And he did that while ignoring all the BS advice given by analysts and industry pundits, as well as the directions and fads of the industry for a whole decade. Heck, his "most failed" company was sold off for $400 million, and ended up domineering the buyer company, saving it and leading it to become the hugest company in America.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > So, did you tell that to his face? Never. Couldn't take the risk -- we had a very lucrative relationship that such a statement would have jeopardized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer > Because this sounds like post-mortem sour grapes. Not really. Most people who worked closely with Jobs held the same views, and didn't express them. But read the Isaacson book, see for yourself. Narcissists aren't a role model for self-criticism or a willingness to hear the criticisms of others. > Heck, his "most failed" company was sold off for $400 million, and ended up domineering the buyer company, saving it and leading it to become the hugest company in America. You're overlooking several factors -- the influence of very creative people who worked with Jobs, a prime technological opportunity (new technical devices and abilities culminating in the personal computer), and chance. Of several companies in competition, if you somehow were able to erase anything but superficial differences, one of them would still come out on top, because of a snowball effect in which people decide en masse that they prefer A to B for no particular reason.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >You're overlooking several factors -- the influence of very creative people who worked with Jobs, a prime technological opportunity (new technical devices and abilities culminating in the personal computer), and chance. I don't say he created OS X or the iPod, etc. Neither in their technical details, nor even in their high level UI (although he had some influence in that too)(). Just that he created a very specific climate and culture were those things could be produced in the way they were, and steered towards specific approaches to product lines, pricing, etc that could make those products thrive. Competitors with the same amount of assets (or even far more at the start), and tons of "very creative people" couldn't get something as coherent out, and seemed to miss the whole point time and again. Not with things that require luck or money or access to talent, but with things that require specific decisions. Similarly, those "prime technological opportunities" were available for all who could see it, and "very creative people" were working in all companies too. It's not like Apple, NeXT, Apple-2-in-near-bankrupcy were even a particularly attractive employer (at least before the iPod's success). >Of several companies in competition, if you somehow were able to erase anything but superficial differences, one of them would still come out on top, because of a snowball effect in which people decide en masse that they prefer A to B for no particular reason.* Don't know, the IBM PC market for example had IBM, Dell, HP, Compaq, etc competing rather strongly for 2 decades or so (which are aeons in IT). And I don't think most competitors to Apple products had just "superficial differences". Following the scene since the late nineties I see a repeated, generalized lack of a plan and understanding of the markets they tried to compete with Apple in. (*) Also I don't doubt that he had sociopathic aspects, although I'm not his doctor and I didn't have to be around him, so I don't care about that. At least he didn't kill anyone, which is better that lots of people in my book. I'd call any banker or golden parachute type of manager a worse sociopath.
- idlewords 12y ago
  None of these things has anything to do with the parent commenter's claims, which are that Jobs was not very technically proficient, and a raging asshole. Your appeal to his business success is a complete non-sequitur.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >Your appeal to his business success is a complete non-sequitur. Sorry, but the parent wanted to downplay Jobs, not just in his technical profeciency but in general (hence the "visionary" label, which can mean "nothing at all" etc). So my reference to his business success was to counter-balance that. And it shows a kind of "10 x" Wolf type, which is what we're actually discussing, in business too. Hardly a non sequitur. Second, if you're going down that road, the parents comments about how Jobs had "pathological narcissism" and about how he couldn't "stand him" are also non-sequiturs in a discussion about the Wolf type, and wether Jobs was one. How are his personal feelings towards Jobs revelant in this discusion? The fact that you seem to revel with the "raging arsehole" accusation and dislike my "business success" comments, doesn't make the first any more relevant.
    - idlewords 12y ago
      The parent actually has personal experience working with Steve Jobs, which isn't something a lot of people on this forum can say. That makes his views on the man much more interesting than yours or mine, whether or not you agree with him. The 'Wolf' type we are discussing is basically a cartoon superhero outfit for aspiring engineers to wear. Lopp is adept at these kind of character sketches of fantasy nerd stereotypes (he doesn't play by anyone's rules, but he also works miracles!). The fact that no one in the thread seems to be able to agree quite what it means demonstrate what a nebulously defined concept it is. I'd much rather sit and read some Steve Jobs stories from someone who was actually there.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >The fact that no one in the thread seems to be able to agree quite what it means demonstrate what a nebulously defined concept it is. Isn't "agree to quite what it means" a nebulously defined concept itself? Some disagreement you can kind in any topic, even the most objective and well established ones. But more specifically, the Wolf base description is just what the original (T)FA says -- the variations in the comments are because people draw upon their own individual encounters with such types, which of course differ in details.
astrange 12y ago
> On the general topic of Steve Jobs, I highly recommend the Isaacson biography, excellent book, and one that openly acknowledges Steve's core malady -- pathological narcissism. There are lots of great things in that book, like all the chances you get to see Isaacson's blissful ignorance of technology and apparent unwillingness to get his sources checked over. (Bill Gates is directly quoted in the book as saying a "disk drive has too low latency".) Although he also skipped over most of the contributions by Steve's wife (instead Steve is just magically really good at business one day, totally unrelated to her?), he did seem intent on getting embarrassing quotes from their kids memorialized forever. I seem to remember Reed appearing in a few different chapters only to make dick jokes and leave.

by lutusp 12y ago

coldtea 12y ago

>I worked around Steve for years, I couldn't stand him so I spent as little time in his company as possible So, did you tell that to his face? Because this sounds like post-mortem sour grapes. As if all he did was shout at people and look at his fabulous self in the mirror... He created and brought several companies to the top -- on of those twice, first from a garage, then from near banrunptcy. And he did that while ignoring all the BS advice given by analysts and industry pundits, as well as the directions and fads of the industry for a whole decade. Heck, his "most failed" company was sold off for $400 million, and ended up domineering the buyer company, saving it and leading it to become the hugest company in America.

lutusp 12y ago
> So, did you tell that to his face? Never. Couldn't take the risk -- we had a very lucrative relationship that such a statement would have jeopardized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer > Because this sounds like post-mortem sour grapes. Not really. Most people who worked closely with Jobs held the same views, and didn't express them. But read the Isaacson book, see for yourself. Narcissists aren't a role model for self-criticism or a willingness to hear the criticisms of others. > Heck, his "most failed" company was sold off for $400 million, and ended up domineering the buyer company, saving it and leading it to become the hugest company in America. You're overlooking several factors -- the influence of very creative people who worked with Jobs, a prime technological opportunity (new technical devices and abilities culminating in the personal computer), and chance. Of several companies in competition, if you somehow were able to erase anything but superficial differences, one of them would still come out on top, because of a snowball effect in which people decide en masse that they prefer A to B for no particular reason.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >You're overlooking several factors -- the influence of very creative people who worked with Jobs, a prime technological opportunity (new technical devices and abilities culminating in the personal computer), and chance. I don't say he created OS X or the iPod, etc. Neither in their technical details, nor even in their high level UI (although he had some influence in that too)(). Just that he created a very specific climate and culture were those things could be produced in the way they were, and steered towards specific approaches to product lines, pricing, etc that could make those products thrive. Competitors with the same amount of assets (or even far more at the start), and tons of "very creative people" couldn't get something as coherent out, and seemed to miss the whole point time and again. Not with things that require luck or money or access to talent, but with things that require specific decisions. Similarly, those "prime technological opportunities" were available for all who could see it, and "very creative people" were working in all companies too. It's not like Apple, NeXT, Apple-2-in-near-bankrupcy were even a particularly attractive employer (at least before the iPod's success). >Of several companies in competition, if you somehow were able to erase anything but superficial differences, one of them would still come out on top, because of a snowball effect in which people decide en masse that they prefer A to B for no particular reason.* Don't know, the IBM PC market for example had IBM, Dell, HP, Compaq, etc competing rather strongly for 2 decades or so (which are aeons in IT). And I don't think most competitors to Apple products had just "superficial differences". Following the scene since the late nineties I see a repeated, generalized lack of a plan and understanding of the markets they tried to compete with Apple in. (*) Also I don't doubt that he had sociopathic aspects, although I'm not his doctor and I didn't have to be around him, so I don't care about that. At least he didn't kill anyone, which is better that lots of people in my book. I'd call any banker or golden parachute type of manager a worse sociopath.
idlewords 12y ago
None of these things has anything to do with the parent commenter's claims, which are that Jobs was not very technically proficient, and a raging asshole. Your appeal to his business success is a complete non-sequitur.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Your appeal to his business success is a complete non-sequitur. Sorry, but the parent wanted to downplay Jobs, not just in his technical profeciency but in general (hence the "visionary" label, which can mean "nothing at all" etc). So my reference to his business success was to counter-balance that. And it shows a kind of "10 x" Wolf type, which is what we're actually discussing, in business too. Hardly a non sequitur. Second, if you're going down that road, the parents comments about how Jobs had "pathological narcissism" and about how he couldn't "stand him" are also non-sequiturs in a discussion about the Wolf type, and wether Jobs was one. How are his personal feelings towards Jobs revelant in this discusion? The fact that you seem to revel with the "raging arsehole" accusation and dislike my "business success" comments, doesn't make the first any more relevant.
  - idlewords 12y ago
    The parent actually has personal experience working with Steve Jobs, which isn't something a lot of people on this forum can say. That makes his views on the man much more interesting than yours or mine, whether or not you agree with him. The 'Wolf' type we are discussing is basically a cartoon superhero outfit for aspiring engineers to wear. Lopp is adept at these kind of character sketches of fantasy nerd stereotypes (he doesn't play by anyone's rules, but he also works miracles!). The fact that no one in the thread seems to be able to agree quite what it means demonstrate what a nebulously defined concept it is. I'd much rather sit and read some Steve Jobs stories from someone who was actually there.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >The fact that no one in the thread seems to be able to agree quite what it means demonstrate what a nebulously defined concept it is. Isn't "agree to quite what it means" a nebulously defined concept itself? Some disagreement you can kind in any topic, even the most objective and well established ones. But more specifically, the Wolf base description is just what the original (T)FA says -- the variations in the comments are because people draw upon their own individual encounters with such types, which of course differ in details.

astrange 12y ago

> On the general topic of Steve Jobs, I highly recommend the Isaacson biography, excellent book, and one that openly acknowledges Steve's core malady -- pathological narcissism. There are lots of great things in that book, like all the chances you get to see Isaacson's blissful ignorance of technology and apparent unwillingness to get his sources checked over. (Bill Gates is directly quoted in the book as saying a "disk drive has too low latency".) Although he also skipped over most of the contributions by Steve's wife (instead Steve is just magically really good at business one day, totally unrelated to her?), he did seem intent on getting embarrassing quotes from their kids memorialized forever. I seem to remember Reed appearing in a few different chapters only to make dick jokes and leave.