

Steve Jobs didn’t - donmcc
http://www.asymco.com/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-didnt/

======
TomOfTTB
I HATED this list. A few rebuttals to point out why...

Steve Jobs did not create products he created an organization. No. He was
partially responsible for the creation. He sat in on design meetings and
offered input and feedback. Plus he vetoed bad idea (just as important)

Steve Jobs did not wrest market share from competitors he created new markets:
Tell that to Creative Labs and Microsoft. Creative labs had an MP3 player and
Microsoft had tablets before apple came along. Apple just did things better.

Steve Jobs did not design anything he gave others freedom to think: Not
really. He certainly encouraged people to think for themselves but anyone
whose studied Jobs will tell you he stuck to his own vision. Your only way to
design a product at Apple under Jobs was to make your case to him and change
his vision.

Steve Jobs did not develop new management theories he showed by example: Well
how do you think management theory is born? Good management theory comes from
people who practiced what they preached.

Steve Jobs was not a futurist he built the future one piece at a time: WHAT?!?
You don't build the future one piece at a time unless you have a vision of
what it will be like as a whole.

Steve Jobs was not charismatic he spoke from the heart: WHAT?!? What do you
think "being Charismatic" means?

Steve Jobs was not a gifted orator he spoke plainly: A gifted orator is
someone who is engaging to watch speak. Jobs was engaging.

~~~
mechanical_fish
You're _so_ close to understanding this essay, and yet I fear you're a
thousand miles away.

I'm going to kill the poetry by trying to explain it, but try translating each
phrase like this: When you read:

"Steve Jobs did not [do X], he [did Y]."

read it as:

"It's not so much that Steve Jobs did [legendary thing X], as that he did
[apparently simple thing Y, and did you notice that by doing so he just
happened to accomplish X as a side effect?]"

The author _agrees_ with you.

(Note, by the way, that my rephrasing is absolutely bloated with weasel words
that diminish its impact. That's why the original author wrote the way he did,
at the expense of losing the literalists in the audience.)

~~~
glenstein
I find such sentences as:

>Steve Jobs was not a futurist. He just built the future one piece at a time.

to be almost hypnotically devoid of meaning and disrespectful to the reader.
Why not just say what's true? A good reader can be stunned by the truth,
without needing to be lead through a difficult contradiction for dramatic
effect.

~~~
j_baker
Well sure. I mean, Abe Lincoln could have shortened the Gettysburg Address to
"Let's free the slaves and reunite the union", but that wouldn't have had the
same impact as the speech he did give.

There's nothing wrong with presenting a difficult idea that has a more
dramatic effect. Do you think Moby Dick or War and Peace are considered great
due to their simple ways of communicating ideas?

~~~
scott_s
As long as you don't lose accuracy, sure. I think many of these crossed that
line. They remind me of the tendency for bloggers to make a link-bait headline
that obviously sounds bad, then they spend their whole post redefining what
those words mean so at the end, their title is a good thing.

------
espeed
"Steve Jobs was not a visionary. He put the dots together and saw where they
led."

That's what being a visionary/genius is -- seeing things and making
associations or "connecting the dots" before others do. It's having a rare and
valuable perspective on the world.

~~~
ErrantX
_That's what being a visionary/genius is_

This is the authors point :)

------
dangero
"Steve Jobs did not design anything."

Not true. Look at the history of Apple. He definitely did.

~~~
manuscreationis
This man begs to differ:

[http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/steve-jobs-never-
had-...](http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/steve-jobs-never-had-any-
designs-he-has-not-designed-a-single-project/)

~~~
acqq
And Raskin is quoted there, and Raskin was the guy who wanted the Mac _without
mouse_. I think it's obvious that Jobs in fact designed Mac, in a sense --
realized his vision. It's also very clear that Jobs even cared a lot about
every _detail_ of his products.

See also the last link in the article which leads to:

[http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story...](http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=The_Father_of_The_Macintosh.txt&showcomments=1)

"ultimately, if any single individual deserves the honor, I would have to cast
my vote for the obvious choice, Steve Jobs, because the Macintosh never would
have happened without him, in anything like the form it did. Other individuals
are responsible for the actual creative work, but Steve's vision, passion for
excellence and sheer strength of will, not to mention his awesome powers of
persuasion, drove the team to meet or exceed the impossible standards that we
set for ourselves. Steve already gets a lot of credit for being the driving
force behind the Macintosh, but in my opinion, it's very well deserved."

------
jchrisa
This is the only article on the topic that doesn't make me cringe. Just wanted
to add my voice as most of the commentary here is negative.

------
mburney
I read this a bit differently than saying that anyone can do what Steve Jobs
did.

To speak plainly, to be patient and put the dots together, to lead without
charisma are all incredibly difficult things to do. It really does take genius
and only the extraordinary amongst us can do it.

If you have a natural, god-given charisma, its very easy to be a leader. No
accomplishment there. But you would lead for what purpose?

If you have some uncanny ability to predict the future as a whole, without
error, you would be popular for your predictions but you wouldn't build much
of anything, because building great things requires trial and error.

If you were merely a design expert, you'd make nice looking things, but you
wouldn't be able to scale it, compared to the non-designer that sees the
greatness in other designers.

Being foolish and curious really trumps all other skills, but how many people
can truly endure being foolish and curious?

~~~
j_baker
_how many people can truly endure being foolish and curious?_

The people who embrace curiosity and don't dwell too much on their
foolishness.

------
j_baker
My interpretation of this post is a bit different from the others that I see
here.

I see this as being about cutting through all the cliches and platitudes that
we tend to run into when we talk abou Steve Jobs, and pointing out the truth
behind them.

"Steve Jobs was a charismatic visionary with a knack for design who created
revolutionary products."

...sounds like something the press would say about Jobs doesn't it?

~~~
nirvana
Yes, and the people who do not understand or like Apple prefer to see the
company and its products as the mystical results of one man.

Horace has presented the elements of the process clearly, but they are not
interested in grasping it.

------
da5e
Steve Jobs didn't really create that much. It's easier to choose than to
create. Jobs was a "chooser" of other people's good ideas.

------
marquis
That's all a little disingenuous. Who among us can do all of these things, and
stand so strong in the face of criticism?

~~~
bradleyland
I think Horace's point is that the potential is in all of us. He's taken each
of the things we all think about Steve Jobs and presented a different
perspective. I don't agree with the absolute manner in which they're stated,
but that's sometimes the nature of writing. No one likes to read writing that
is as firm as pudding. It's boring and doesn't challenge the reader.

If you didn't walk away from that list wondering whether you could do things
Steve Jobs did, then Horace failed in his intention, which was, I think, to
inspire.

------
alexwolfe
I think in some way he was all of those things and none of them at the same
time.

------
nirvana
I think this is a great list. It's one thing to mourn the loss of a great
person, but the most frustrating thing about this is watching all the people
on TV and in the mainstream media, and others who don't know much about Apple,
say things that show they didn't really understand Steve Jobs at all.

I would disagree with the list in one respect. I believe Steve Jobs didn't
have taste. Well, he had some taste, but he didn't have genius level taste.
Steve Jobs did, however, know how to identify and listen to people who _did_
have taste, and he worked very hard to learn from the people who did have it
who didn't work for him (Eg: from the past, or people like Dieter Rahms who is
retired, etc.)

But this is a great list overall.

I do wish the people who have been bashing Apple out of ignorance, and Steve
Jobs out of ignorance and based on their preconceived notions or personal
projections of their own faults, would at least wait until his body is in the
ground before posting their drivel on the internet (I've seen far too much of
this on HN already... making the site a lot less classy.)

In life, Steve Jobs didn't bother to respond to every scurrilous lie told
about him, I wish, in death, such people would hold off until he's buried
before ramping up the hate again.

------
da5e
Steve Jobs also did not share the credit. Like Elizabeth Warren said, "Nobody
ever made a million dollars by themself."

~~~
MartinCron
What? He shared credit all the time. Go watch an old keynote, it was never
"Here's what _I_ built" it's always "Here's what _we_ built".

~~~
mcantelon
Maybe not _all_ the time.

<http://everything2.com/title/Breakout>

~~~
MartinCron
Like most of us, he shared credit more often than never and less often than
always.

------
runjake
I thought the title of this is annoying linkbait, so here's the "article" in
its entirety:

Steve Jobs did not create products. He created an organization that
predictably and reliably created emotionally resonant products.

Steve Jobs did not make movies. He made a company that predictably and
reliably made blockbusters.

Steve Jobs did not wrest market share from competitors. He created new markets
that attracted and sustained competitors.

Steve Jobs did not design anything. He gave others the freedom to think about
what jobs products are hired to do.

Steve Jobs did not re-engineer processes. He brought engineering processes to
works of creativity and the creative process to engineering.

Steve Jobs did not develop new management theories. He showed by example that
innovation can be managed.

Steve Jobs was not a visionary. He put the dots together and saw where they
led.

Steve Jobs was not a futurist. He just built the future one piece at a time.

Steve Jobs did not distort reality. He spoke what he believed would become
reality at a time when those beliefs seemed far fetched.

Steve Jobs was not charismatic. He spoke from the heart compelling others to
follow him.

Steve Jobs was not a gifted orator. He spoke plainly.

Steve Jobs was not a magician. He practiced, a lot.

He had taste.

He was curious.

He was patient.

He was foolish.

He was hungry.

These things many others can do. Maybe you can.

~~~
da5e
"Steve Jobs" is now link bait.

~~~
runjake
I was more referring to the "cliffhanger" "didn't" suffix.

I suspect the above post is getting moderated into oblivion because the
impression is that I'm complaining about the Jobs coverage, but that's not the
case at all. I'm not at all bothered by all the Jobs submissions. He did so
much to make me not hate computers.

I don't think comparisons made between he and Edison/Ford/etc are hyperbole at
all.

