

What Would You Answer If Jobs Asked “What Have You Done That’s So Great …”? - bwaldorf
http://alexiatsotsis.com/2010/05/15/donkey_ditch/

======
replicatorblog
Two great quotes along this line:

T. Roosevelt

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong
man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit
belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust
and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again
and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who
knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a
worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high
achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while
daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid
souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Anton Ego from Ratatouille:

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a
position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment.
We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the
bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the
average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism
designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something,
and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind
to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I
experienced something new; an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected
source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my
preconceptions about fine cooking, is a gross understatement. They have rocked
me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef
Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook". But I realize - only now do I truly
understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great
artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins
than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's
opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to
Gusteau's soon, hungry for more."

~~~
brandnewlow
I never liked how this monologue mischaractarizes the value of critics. The
actual criticism itself may not be terribly valuable unto itself (though I
argue that a great critic's ability to compare what's new to what's already
come is very valuable), but when you combine the criticism with an audience,
it becomes very valuable indeed. Ebert didn't just create a body of work, he
also created a massive audience for that work that can't be ignored in
assessing the value of a critic.

~~~
replicatorblog
I think your point has some merit, but what has Ebert really done? Has his
criticism shaped film making in any tangible way? Has any critic in any field,
maybe since John Ruskin? I know Ebert has had a rebirth in the tech community
with his speech synthesizer and Twitter account, but really the guy opined on
a syndicated basic cable and newspaper column for 25 years. His only
significant innovation is the "Thumbs Up/Down" rating. Certainly famous, but
influential or valuable? At least as it relates to a comparison with film
makers of the day?

As a thought experiment, think of all the movies you can for the last 25
years, good, bad, weird. Probably a fairly large list. Now think of all the
insights, or "Thumbs" ratings you can remember from Ebert? Or any other
critic? How do they match up?

~~~
derefr
The work of a modern critic is not in their individual opinions on individual
works: rather, a single "Thumbs Up" is more like a single dance step in a
ballet, an atomic element that works with others to create the actual art.

What you get from a man like Ebert is a _partial ordering of an infinite set_
; a way to overcome choice paralysis, by culling all but a finite number of
the choices. Criticism is how we deal with the Information age, and critics
are valuable because they willingly go out and spend their days drinking from
the firehose, so we can get a rather more purified liquid from the other end.

------
_delirium
I don't think there's an answer you could give that'd satisfy him, unless
you're also a CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company. That's what his value
system is, so if you really want to go toe-to-toe with him, it has to be by
that measuring stick, which may not be a productive use of your time (unless
you agree with it, and think you have a good way to get yourself into such a
position).

You can play that game on all sorts of fronts. For example, an elitist-feeling
Nobel Prize in Physics winner might pick out some reasonably successful YC
company and ask them, "well, you have a website, but what have you _really_
done lately?" And regardless of how useful they think their startup is, they
can't compete with the Nobel-prize winner on the prize-winner's terms (unless,
perhaps, they actually do invent something field-changing).

~~~
replicatorblog
I would broaden the criteria a bit. I think Jobs would accept the criticism of
a Nobel Laureate, a Bob Dylan-esqe artistic figure, or any of the folks in the
"Think Different" commercials. His point is fair enough. SJ has spent his life
bringing new tech to the world and reshaping it in kind. He is a bad ass and
knows it. The Gawker guy was making a 1/32 assed point, hasn't contributed
anything of meaning to the culture (or even cultural debate) and was lucky to
get a response from SJ considering. While he is milking the minor pageview
spike this story generates, SJ is inventing the future.

------
jarek
I found this message by Joe Clark when researching for another reply (guess on
which topic):

[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-
ig/2004JulSep/02...](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-
ig/2004JulSep/0237.html)

"Actually, no, it is not the responsibility of the critic to solve the
problem. Pauline Kael was not expected to rewrite and redirect the films she
disliked."

"[N]ot everybody who can spot a mistake can fix it (I know there's a leak in
the ceiling; do you expect me to get up there with a ladder and a bucket o'
tar?)"

This doesn't excuse people who rip on everything they see. However, good,
balanced criticism _is_ very valuable, regardless of the critic's Maker™
credentials. Don't let others tell you otherwise.

------
naner
Well if it made sense I'd say something about the difference between critics
and creators. Ebert is respected in his field even though he hasn't made any
movies.

In this case, however, I think Steve was just lashing out against this guy's
sense of entitlement. Tate also had a narrative fallacy problem.

------
blogimus
I really wonder what would have become of Steve Jobs if he didn't have that
opportunity to stand on the shoulders of Steve Wozniak.

~~~
aresant
Or vice versa. Every ying needs its yang.

~~~
nostrademons
True, but Woz doesn't go around writing snippy e-mails that ask "What have
_you_ done lately?"

~~~
lurch_mojoff
True, but Woz, after his initial contribution - Apple][, called it quits on
the industry and dedicated his life to hobbies and personal projects. Jobs
stayed in the industry and eventually returned to Apple to turn a dying
company into one of the titans of technology.

------
AlexBlom
I'd say "Well I got you to respond to my bloody e-mail"

~~~
jbarciauskas
Brought to you by another episode of snide answers to snide questions. This
kind of question doesn't merit serious response, it is not meant to engage in
a serious discussion. It is meant to humiliate and deserves only a response in
kind.

------
chmike
This "argument" was unfair and proves that Jobs was short of more pertinent
arguments in this case.

The recurrent successful experiences of Steve Jobs can and should be used as a
heuristic that he has no "vision problems" ;).

But the argument is unfair because the lack of successful experience proves
nothing more that you didn't have YET a successful experience and certainly
not that you might be wrong on the debated matter. As successful experiences
won't prove that you will always be right, it's just a heuristic.

------
mwerty
Most of this Apple nonsense would make a lot more sense if you imagined Apple
had 1m dollars in annual revenue. Then, whatever Apple is doing would not seem
so bad because they would be a struggling company. People feel entitled
because Apple is successful and makes a lot of money. It's pretty disgusting.

------
thwarted
That reminds me of this Fake Steve Jobs Crunchies Acceptance video.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmfP6aXNSis>

------
jodrellblank
I predict that I would answer 'nothing' and then feel ashamed.

It makes me wonder why the two go together and whether I can break that link
so I could answer 'nothing' and be OK with that.

~~~
lurch_mojoff
"Nothing" and shame will always go hand in hand. But you can always reevaluate
what "nothing" means to you. "I created a great family and brought up great
kids." "I helped the people in my community." "I managed to stay a decent
person." These are all "somethings" one can be proud of, even if they are not
things that have changed the world at large.

~~~
jodrellblank
> "Nothing" and shame will always go hand in hand.

I dispute that. You wouldn't expect a monk, a hunter-gatherer tribesman, or a
lion to be ashamed of doing "nothing great", would you?

