3 ms·

> 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:

by 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.

by lutusp 12y ago

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.