
Wozniak Says `Lot of Things Wrong’ With Jobs Movie [video] - eroded
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/wozniak-says-lot-of-things-wrong-with-jobs-movie-Mm1dnrz8QJuikP6iFdCJmQ.html
======
MBCook
The woman doing the interview really seems to do a poor job.

She seems to let Wozniak get about 80-90% into statements and then speedily
talk over him to move onto the next point. It doesn't sound like she's
actually _listening_ to his answers, just going down her checklist. At one
point he explains why he liked Sorkin's approach better than Kutcher's, then
she asked a later question as if he had never said that.

It's kind of sad. Woz mentioned numerous times that the problem was showing
the pre-firing Jobs behaving and being treated more like he was after having
matured, but the interviewer just didn't get it.

She also asked quite a few questions designed in a "X vs. Y, choose now!"
style, trying to get a soundbite or setup a narrative (Woz wisely wouldn't
fall for it). Between that and the interrupting, it was actually kind of hard
to listen to.

Missed opportunities, I guess.

~~~
onli
Absolutely disagree. In my opinion, she does a good job in guiding Wozniak
through the interview while still being respectful. Yes, it is obvious that
she wanted to have some specific questions answered, but that is nothing bad,
it prevents people from rambling and makes the interview interesting. And it
wasn't my impression that she interrupted mid-sentence or even just often.

How do you come to the conclusion that she doesn't get his point? Didn't she
even react to that with the "is he too visionary in the movie" question line?

~~~
MBCook
Woz definitely need to be guided, there were some times it was appropriate.
He's clearly the kind of person who could talk about any question for 15
minutes. I've seen interviewers do a good job without sounding rushed and
forced, that was what grabbed me. I hear interviews on The Daily Show, NPR,
local talk shows, even entertainment shows where the host was _part_ of the
interview. Where they worked with the subject. I have heard some very hostile
interviews with people in politics where the host is clearly pissed at the
question dodging and double talk. But they have some sort of respect for the
person they're talking to, they at least sound like they are trying to talk
_to_ the person. This sounded hollow, like she was just trying to get through
it so she could get on to the next segment... just routine 'interview X for 5
minutes'. She knew who he was, and it's not like she was hostile.

> How do you come to the conclusion that she doesn't get his point?

Maybe she did. But it didn't seem to influence the questions she asked. I felt
like they could have taped both sides of the interview separately and then
just spliced it together. There were almost no follow-up questions, it sounded
like she could have ended every part with "Thank you, next question." She
asked him some base question and he explained the difference between Sorkin's
and Kutcher's approaches. Ten minutes later she asked that very question,
without even acknowledging that she already had the answer. Instead of "You
touched on the difference in Sorkin's style, could you tell us more..." it was
"I hear your working with Sorkin. How did that compare." It gave the
impression she wasn't really paying attention to her own interview.

My impression was the whole thing was set out before it started. She had her
angle, and she just kept trying to get there. To get him to trash someone, to
say the movie was a travesty, to bait him with "is Apple doomed?" again, or to
just finish it up and get onto the next segment. No engagement, no feeling, no
heart... just hollowness and a missed opportunity.

------
danso
What really burns me is how the "Jobs" people treated his criticism as being
motivated out of money. From Ashton Kutcher:

[http://blogs.computerworld.com/mac-os-x/22659/jobs-ashton-
ku...](http://blogs.computerworld.com/mac-os-x/22659/jobs-ashton-kutcher-hits-
back-woz)

> _" Woz is being paid by another company to support a different Steve Jobs
> film. It's personal for him, but it's also business. We have to keep that in
> mind."_

Seriously? Woz is the guy who gave his Apple stock shares to co-workers he
felt were slighted in the IPO. Hello, he's the guy who wanted to give his
groundbreaking engineering behind the Apple away for free.

Woz is an engineering legend...but if there were a Hall of Fame for generosity
and integrity, he'd be in there too. Shame on the "Jobs" people and it's great
to see the lukewarm/negative reviews roll in for their shit sandwich of a
biopic.

~~~
thezilch
Kutcher is being paid by another company to support his Steve Jobs film. It's
personal for him, but it's also business. We have to keep that in mind.

------
VonGuard
In the heady days of my youth in the early 90's I was foolishly of the opinion
that Apple would one day rule the world, and that Steve Jobs would be seen as
some sort of Christ figure. I kinda looked up to him in that fashion, at the
time, even before he'd come back to Apple after Next.

Of course, when I actually became an adult, I realized the error of my ways,
switched to Linux,and over time my admiration only grew for Woz.

I once appeared in a reenactment of a Jobs/Woz story on TV:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEuJMPBZJ7c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEuJMPBZJ7c)
. It was a cheesey TV reenactment, and it really doesn't matter which one of
the two Steve's I was playing, versus which one was portrayed by my child-hood
friend, Travis. But during the filming, I did get to handle a Woz Blue Box,
and an Apple I board. It was like touching a Rembrandt, or a Van Gogh.

At the time, I pretended to be Jobs. These days, I say I played Woz.

Woz, to put it bluntly, is the awesomest hacker/engineer, ever. He's just a
freakin' god! Everything he's ever done has been 10% pure hacker ethos. The
early Apple I's came with a complete explanation of how they were laid out,
hardware-wise. The manual was a work of pure joy. You don't get technical
writing like that, ever. Nothing was hidden.
[http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Apple/Appl...](http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Apple/Apple.AppleI.1976.102646518.pdf)

If you like that, ever head of the CL 9? Woz, after leaving Apple due to
surviving a freakin' plane crash, decided he wanted to fix the then common
remote control. The CL9 Core remote control was a hacker's dream device. You
could program it to emit whatever IR signals you wanted, and it came with a
manual explaining as much.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CL_9](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CL_9)

Jobs, on the other hand, was a seriously driven guy. An entrepreneur's
entrepreneur. Take that for what you will, the good and the bad. I've always
taken it to mean he was good at spotting an opportunity and exploiting it.

I, for one, will always worship the engineer, first.

~~~
derefr
Rather than picking one over the other, I would say that it would have been
best if Jobs had had a little more Woz in him (to appreciate the tech more),
Woz had had a little more Jobs (to sell himself more), and they had continued
to work together. Apple would be an even bigger player than it is today, I
think.

~~~
enraged_camel
I disagree. What made them an amazing pair is that they complimented each
other perfectly. Character and skill are zero-sum: if Jobs had a little more
Woz in him, he would have to be a little less Jobs. And vice versa. The result
would be a more inferior Apple.

It's better to have one person who is Level 100 at skill A and another who is
Level 100 at skill B, than 75/25 and 25/75.

"Well-rounded" is another term for "mediocre."

~~~
oblique63
While this stance sounds nice, it doesn't actually make much sense in reality.
It appeals to our cultural want for 'justice'/'fairness'/'equality', but it
doesn't quite pan out once you look at the general picture of skill
acquisition.

If a person learned to become exceptionally 'talented' in one area, then
he/she's more likely to replicate that _same level success_ in a completely
new area, than someone who hasn't gained that level of skill _anywhere_. This
is because skill acquisition _itself_ is a skill. So once you've learned what
it takes to master a certain skill (i.e. you learned how to learn
_effectively_ ), you can then apply it with much more ease than someone who
hasn't really learned how to learn as much. This causes a sort of 'snowball-
effect' outcome, where ease of skill acquisition follows a logarithmic curve
of sorts rather than a linear/exponential one like most people seem to view
it.

The only limiting factor on skill acquisition is _choice /taste_. If a
particular area doesn't interest you, then why bother expending energy
learning to master it, right? Doesn't mean you're not capable of it, all it
means is that you didn't have to strive for greatness in that area to make it
work for you. And since Jobs met Woz pretty early on, there was really no
reason for him to become a master engineer thereafter. Meanwhile, Woz probably
just didn't care about business/marketing, so he _chose_ to not master it.

There are other factors that influence skill acquisition (e.g. IQ), but they
don't necessarily limit it. And in order for the 'fair' view of skill
acquisition to hold, there would need to be some sort of non-trainable
limiting mechanism for building skills. But as of now, I'm not familiar of
anything that would cause that.

The only way the "Jack of all trades; master of none" mantra holds, is if the
'Jack' never deeply learnt/'mastered' any of the subjects he's familiar with.
But of course, the label "Jack of all trades" doesn't actually specify
whether-or-not that's actually the case. Same for "well-rounded"; implying it
indicates anything other than _breadth_ of knowledge is inaccurate.

~~~
stiff
Without references your comment is worthless.

~~~
oblique63
No, worth can be drawn simply by applying the model I outlined above.
References may _add more_ worth if you're looking for verification (which I
don't blame), but it's also a daunting task to compile such lists. Your
comment on the other hand, could've just asked me for sources and that
would've been productive, but instead you chose to just dismiss the entire
argument cynically with a single statement; that literally doesn't add any
value for anybody. I wish downvotes would be justified more deeply than this.

However, since it is useful, here are some resources to begin learning about
what intelligence and cognitive research have to say about the matter:

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Talent-Code-Greatness-
Grown/dp/055...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Talent-Code-Greatness-
Grown/dp/055380684X/)

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Genius-All-Us-
Insights/dp/03073873...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Genius-All-Us-
Insights/dp/0307387305)

[http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/26/motivation-not-iq-
matt...](http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/26/motivation-not-iq-matters-most-
for-learning-new-math-skills/)

[http://www.cogmed.com/impact-working-memory-training-
young-p...](http://www.cogmed.com/impact-working-memory-training-young-people-
social-emotional-behavioral-difficulties)

[http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-but-not-iq-predicts-
sub...](http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-but-not-iq-predicts-subsequent-
learning-in-children-with-learning-difficulties)

[http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-training-generalize-
imp...](http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-training-generalize-improve-
offtask-behavior-children-attentiondeficithyperactivity-disorder)

[http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~antonvillado/courses/09a_psyc630...](http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~antonvillado/courses/09a_psyc630001/Ackerman%20\(1987\)%20PB.pdf)

[http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/ml2009/CMU-
ML-09-...](http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/ml2009/CMU-
ML-09-102.pdf)

[http://jabba.edb.utexas.edu/it/enhancingCognitiveSkill.pdf](http://jabba.edb.utexas.edu/it/enhancingCognitiveSkill.pdf)

There are plenty more resources out there, and I'm sure there are much better
ones too. But the implication of all this is that learning _is_ a skill, and
that you _can_ learn how to learn better. We may not yet thoroughly understand
how generalized learning takes place in the brain, but it does seem to be a
function of working memory and motivation, which can be improved. Generalized
learning is segmented more finely than how I described it originally, but it
still functions the same way (e.g. learning to juggle may not help you learn a
new language better, but learning to play a musical instrument may help you to
learn the other two more easily, since it incorporates language skills through
music, and motor skills through playing). Making an argument against this
model would place the burden of proof on that side, because as I mentioned
before, there is no known mechanism that would lead to the outcome outlined by
the 'fair'/balanced model, and it would have to explain away phenomena like
neuroplasticity that seem to directly oppose it.

~~~
stiff
I just don't understand how you can state bold claims like this as facts
without substantiating them in any way by references or any sort of logical
deduction:

 _If a person learned to become exceptionally 'talented' in one area, then
he/she's more likely to replicate that same level success in a completely new
area_

 _The only limiting factor on skill acquisition is choice /taste._

Doesn't genetics also have some role here? The references you just included do
nothing to provide any sort of evidence for those statements. To what extents
cognitive skills are transferable is still much debated and science is far
from having an unanimous answer. Good overview of the issue is here:

[http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jlnietfe/EDP504_Notes_files/Are%20Cogn...](http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jlnietfe/EDP504_Notes_files/Are%20Cognitive%20Skills%20Context%20Bound.pdf)

~~~
oblique63
Genetics do play a surprisingly significant role, and my second reference
(book) even mentions it in the title. IQ is strongly believed to be linked to
genetics, but again, as I listed in one of the sources, even IQ doesn't
necessarily factor into skill acquisition, only _ease_ of skill acquisition;
two distinct but important points. You can learn to learn better -- _that_ is
the main point. It doesn't matter where you start off (i.e. IQ via genetics),
you can still get a skill snowball-effect going relative to where you started.
It seems you missed the second part of my last comment where I mentioned it
was more segmented and context based (like your citation states), but that the
_general trajectory_ is still the same. Learn a skill in one context, any
subsequent skills in the same context become easier. The thing is that there
are things that generalize to multiple contexts, and that some contexts are
larger than they seem[1].

Now, it is certainly _much harder_ for some people to acquire certain skills,
and it may be near impossible to _excel_ at them up to a certain level (e.g.
physical athleticism). But skill _level_ is again different from the skill
_itself_ , and it is the skills themselves that matter in skill acquisition.
For example, if running ability is found to be genetically limited, then
getting any better at it may be harder for you, but picking up a sport like
football would probably still be much easier for you if you trained your
running first regardless. IQ being genetically determined _can_ impact other
things like motivation; i.e. if you have a low IQ things will be harder for
you, making you less likely to pursue skill acquisition in the future, and
conversely, a high IQ _may_ predispose you to acquiring more skills since they
come so easily to you, but the point is that neither absolutely determine how
many skills you can/will acquire.

I made a 'bold' statement because it's just that practical of a perspective to
take[2]. And science backs it up not only in terms of all the positive effects
exercising brain plasticity brings[3], but also in the fact that IQ isn't an
end-all be-all metric. It is significant, and highly correlated to other
important things like life expectancy[4], but IQ itself is _not_ the limit. A
built-in limit to skill acquisition would have to come somewhere else down the
line if there is one. I study this stuff on my free time because it interests
me, I'm not an expert/scientist, so trying to discover a well-defined concrete
limit to skill acquisition is beyond my domain, but stuff like epigenetics and
plasticity is making it harder to believe there is one.

[1] I believe the last cite in my previous comment shows an example of this.
Also, I myself have a pretty average IQ of ~114 or something, but this view
has allowed me to learn a surprising number of skills before I even knew any
of the science around it, so of course I'm biased and wanted to share.

[2] Well, that and the fact that most people simply don't bother to look at
painfully constructed source lists anyway, making the endeavor of compiling
them less worth it.

[3] One example:
[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/september24/dementia.html](http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/september24/dementia.html)

[4]
[http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/AnnualReview09-10/SevenAges/Elder...](http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/AnnualReview09-10/SevenAges/Elderly/IQlinkbetween/index.htm)

~~~
stiff
The problem here is that we humans really want to believe certain things, and
our emotional involvement blinds us to what we really managed to establish
scientifically, e.g. people vehemently oppose any suggestions of determinism,
attempts to deny free will, whatever it might mean, etc., regardless of any
logical argument.

I think you are falling for this in certain places as well, for example when
talking about genetic skill level limitations you jump right to physical
athleticism, which is something people are somehow able to accept more easily,
while there is strong evidence that intellectual abilities are open to
limitations of the same kind.

IQ is an imperfect measure that is at best correlated with the "quality" of
ones genetic endowment, but it doesn't mean that the genetic limitations are
any less real. This is the very old and heated debate of "nature vs. nurture",
and I would appreciate your comment much more if you also included views of
the "opposing" side and moderated your claims to what the research really
says, while I think you are making some big extrapolations. That is not to
deny the possibility of "learning to learn" or to discourage learning, but you
used very strong phrases.

~~~
oblique63
I actually don't think our views are opposing, but I think the point I'm
trying to make is just tricky because falls in a small area that doesn't
oppose determinism. I actually view the mind as a total algorithm, because
there are a shocking number of personality traits that _appear_ to be
deterministic[1]. Thus, I don't actually believe in free will, but I find it
to be a useful _model_ by which to live by (kinda like how classical mechanics
helped us get to the moon despite relativity ultimately being more accurate).
There are many things that can still work within a deterministic system
though, they may just require the right set of inputs[2] to get the desired
outputs. So I just proposed a perspective (one that leverages our apparently
limitless ability for plasticity and memory) as an input, and maybe it'll
trigger some people to _deterministically_ consider it for helping themselves,
leading to useful outputs.

The system is much too complex to assume that just because we don't have what
amounts to total 'free' will that we're hopeless to improve anything at our
level of operation. If someone's determined (pun intended) to be a defeatist,
then alright, but some others are just waiting for the right inputs to take
them down a more useful branch of execution. Because just like a program, even
though everything is neatly outlined and determined, that doesn't mean you
know what every output ever will be. That's why I don't think 'hardcore'
determinism to the point of discouraging choices is a useful view to take,
much like how hardcore philosophical skepticism is a dead-end line of logic;
neither really provide anything you can build off of, so while they may
ultimately be true, they're poor models for productivity. I mean, it's
possible that you're right and I'm just having a hard case of cognitive
dissonance, but it seems to me like extrapolating deterministic genetic
algorithms to argue against useful high-level perspectives is still making a
lot of assumptions about the implications of such a system. Meanwhile, I'm
just reporting observations that been found with regards to skill acquisition.

[1] The phenomenon depicted on this episode of Radiolab with regards to
Transient Global Amnesia is particularly damning
([http://www.radiolab.org/2011/oct/04/](http://www.radiolab.org/2011/oct/04/)
), because it shows that when given all the same inputs, you're likely to
perform the exact same actions over-and-over again. The separated twin studies
on IQ also show a remarkable number of personality similarities amongst twins
(besides IQ), which indicates a possible genetic component to random things
like sense of humor. There's no hard evidence that any of these things _are_
genetically determined of course, but meh. Let's also not forget that
epigenetics and GMOs exist, though it may be a while before that becomes
useful for GATTACA-like situations, lol.

[2] Yes, genetics and other deterministic factors count as inputs. If you want
to reach a branch of logic that requires AND-ing with a genetic component you
don't have, then tough luck, but a simple OR with some other less
deterministic input is equally possible. Of course, this is just another
hypothetical model to cope with our lack of understanding.

------
hayksaakian
For a better film concerning the same topic, try pirates of silicon valley.

Its a bit old, but quite good.

~~~
MBCook
I'm hoping Sorkin's movie is better. We'll see.

~~~
Zigurd
There is a very good chance it will be better, but Sorkin had to take
considerable liberties to make The Social Network work as a movie. I really
liked it because it captured and conveyed the spirit of things people find
hard to understand. But you can't do that and be a historically accurate
document. And despite Sorkin being a genius, I know several people who thought
sitting through The Social Network was torture.

------
dirkgently
If we wait long enough, we will also find out that Steve Jobs invented
practically everything around us - the bits, the bytes, the electricity, atoms
and molecules. Hack, he was the first fish out of the water that gave raise to
the man kind millions of years later.

All Hail the King Jobs.

~~~
saraid216
> Hack

1) I like this typo.

2) I can't imagine how you made it. Dvorak keyboard?

~~~
orblivion
A is in the same position, Dvorak or qwerty.

~~~
Draco6slayer
Tha a is raelly closa to tha e on tha dvorek kayboerd, end it mekas for e mora
common misteka. ;)

------
subdane
I love Woz's honesty. I actually think the issues he brings up would have made
for a better film - because they illuminate all the ways Jobs failed early in
his career... and ultimately learned from his failures to realize the success
of his later iYears. Real conflict and real resolution. But that's a different
film, it sounds like. (The one I wish they'd made).

------
juandopazo
For comparison here's what he had to say about "Pirates of Silicon Valley"
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lx9JsSTklI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lx9JsSTklI)

------
sethbannon
Every time I see a Woz interview I'm struck by what a genuinely good guy he
seems to be.

~~~
JacobSkyler
I love that he can talk so comfortably about the strengths and weaknesses of
himself and others.

A lot of people are uncomfortable talking plainly about their own importance
or about other people's failings. And then you get the odd megalomaniac who's
the opposite. It's refreshing to see someone who's comfortable talking about
people honestly.

------
jared314
People had similar things to say about The Social Network. It was wrong about
history, but it was also a good movie on its own. We will see if "Jobs", as a
movie, can stand on its own.

~~~
shubb
But a movie isn't just a movie. Every movie has a narrative that makes a
point, and that makes it valuable.

If what we are hoping to learn from 'Jobs' or The Social Network is "How did
this guy do it? What personal qualities can I emulate, what situations can I
apply the same approach in", then it is only valuable if it is accurate.

After all, if the narrative is something the writer more or less made up (i.e.
he's missed out the bit where Jobs goes into the wilderness and comes back
another person), then what the movie teaches us is coming from the writers
head. The writer didn't build a leading company, so I am not really interested
in what he thinks about how to do it.

~~~
bennyg
That's not the writer's intention though - that's what you want the intention
to be. And that's not really fair. The point is probably an entertaining
biopic aimed at mass-market success, not a how-to on building a successful
company.

------
rch
Link needs a [video] warning or something.

~~~
ams6110
Yeah this is a good idea. Just like the [pdf] indicator. I generally don't
watch video pieces and get mildly annoyed when there's no other clue.

------
timkeller
A wasted opportunity to properly interview a great man. There are a few people
that you interview with reverence: Woz is one of them.

~~~
MikeCapone
Personally, I think 'reverence' makes interviews worse, not better.

------
esusatyo
What is wrong with the interviewer? Towards the end she kept pushing Woz to
say that Apple is in decline. Even after Woz repeatedly said that he didn't
believe so.

Is this the view of the general public? That Apple is doomed if they don't
release iWatch or whatever that's bigger than the iPhone/iPad?

~~~
julespitt
Not the general public, but I listen to Bloomberg financial radio a lot, and
know-nothing finance types definitely believe that Apple needs another product
- any product - immediately.

On the other side, different analysts say both the watch market and the TV
market are too small to matter, so Apple is also doomed if they do. That the
MP3 player, smartphone and tablet markets were also "too small" before Apple
released their products hasn't entered their mind.

~~~
baby
how is the watch market "too small"? Everybody owns a watch. Also if you go
out, you'll always see plenty of watch stores, and watch advertisements.

~~~
vidarh
Firstly, I see fewer people with watches these days, as a watch is basically a
fashion statement these days.

Secondly, the portion of that market that buy "techie" phones as opposed to
what's effectively a variation of a bracelet is vanishingly small, so the size
of the overall watch market is irrelevant.

------
k-mcgrady
Was this movie meant to be a documentary? I was under the impression it was
supposed to be more like The Social Network. Some facts but mainly just
entertainment.

The Social Network may not be factually accurate but I enjoyed it and watched
it again. I'm guessing this will be similar.

~~~
dirkgently
If it was mainly for entertainment, they should have called it Blow Jobs, you
know. It would have been true to their intent (entertainment), and more
accurate to the content of the movie.

~~~
k-mcgrady
If you want the facts read Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs.

>> "It would have been true to their intent (entertainment)"

OF COURSE their intent is entertainment! It's a movie!

~~~
hrktb
Or not as it seems. Walter Isaacson was heavily criticized as being way too
light and inaccurate (disclaimer: didn't read). 'Infinite loop' seems a better
entry point.

~~~
dsuth
Yeah, the Isaacson book is almost unreadable. Obviously rushed to coincide as
closely as possible with his death, and just not a good book by any standard.
The lack of even cursory editing is telling.

------
CamperBob2
Please don't link directly to auto-playing video pages. At least not until
browser vendors get their acts together and indicate which tabs are generating
sound. (No, I'm not interested in a long list of excuses as to why that's hard
to do.)

~~~
christianmann
The solution I employ is Click2Plugin, native to Chrome and an extension to
Firefox (and Safari?). I have it enabled on everything but Youtube.

~~~
tyilo
If it worked in Chrome, that is.

~~~
Renaud
There is an option for click-to-play in Chrome privacy settings, no need for a
separate plugin, it's already baked in.

------
npguy
The movie kind of confirms the fact that steve jobs actually lived for 150
years.

[http://fakevalley.com/steve-jobs-actually-lived-
for-150-year...](http://fakevalley.com/steve-jobs-actually-lived-
for-150-years/)

------
purephase
Anyone else think that all this negative press is on purpose? I mean, really.
They've taken one of the most iconic men of this nascent century and
apparently slapped together a movie about him.

It's not like there is not considerable source material to work with (even
without Isaacson's book if you're concerned about the "other" movie).

It just feels like someone has asked the press to deliberately drum up
negative opinions specifically in regards to the true validity of the movie
(not, you know, overall quality) and it will likely drive people out in
droves.

------
gsands
She lets him talk more than most interviewers I've seen. Which is great
because I could listen to a guy like Woz talk all day.

------
zw123456
I know this is going to sound petty, but I just think Ashton Kutcher was a bad
choice. He is too dumb to play Jobs. I would go for someone with more
intellect, perhaps Daniel Day-Lewis, somebody edgey, Peter Fonda, Duston
Hoffman, I dunno, it is not that I do not like Kutcher, it just seems like he
is too dumb to play Jobs. Is it just me?

~~~
dchuk
Kutcher is actually a smart guy he just got typecasted as an idiot character
for most of his career

------
evli
I feel sorry for woz. The interviewer seems she had no clue what she was
talking about.

------
jamesjguthrie
I still really want to see it. I've just watched all the Steve Jobs
documentaries on Netflix and I love Pirates of Silicon Valley.

Can't find details of when or if it's coming to the UK...

------
waylonrobert
Not really surprised by the inaccuracies. Memories fade over time and are
often replaced my an amalgamation of memory fragments and what makes sense.

------
taigeair
Damn. Wozniak should be a movie critic. I'd watch.

------
msh
is anyone surprised?

~~~
npsimons
Some would argue that one of the biggest things wrong is that this movie
exists at all, and there's not one for people who had a _much_ bigger
influence on the world:

 _On the one hand, I can imagine where the computing world would be without
the work that Jobs did and the people he inspired: probably a bit less shiny,
a bit more beige, a bit more square. Deep inside, though, our devices would
still work the same way and do the same things. On the other hand, I literally
can 't imagine where the computing world would be without the work that
Ritchie did and the people he inspired. By the mid 80s, Ritchie's influence
had taken over, and even back then very little remained of the pre-Ritchie
world._

Taken from
[https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cn...](https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cnepe)

~~~
mwfunk
That's just geek one-upsmanship, it's not commentary. Geek A says that he
really admires Geek Icon A. Geek B denigrates Geek A by telling him that Geek
Icon A didn't really do anything, that he was just standing on the shoulders
of the slightly more obscure but infinitely more talented Geek Icon B. This
makes Geek B sound smart and informed, or at least it it makes Geek B feel
smart and informed and better the Geek A.

Geek C comes along and tells Geek B that he's clueless, because Geek Icon B
was just a poseur who spent his career harvesting the intellectual fields that
had been plowed and sown by the even more obscure Geek Icon C. And so on, ad
infinitum.

I halfway expect someone else to stumble on that thread and inform the author
that he's an idiot because he doesn't realize that Dennis Ritchie is no more
than a pimple on John McCarthy's back (not my opinion, just the sort of binary
thinking and argumentation that I've observed in these types of threads).

It's also an example of geek self-importance: the idea that the only thing
that matters is writing code. It reduces the value of anyone involved in the
creation of a piece of hardware or software who wasn't writing code or
soldering stuff to nil. People say this stuff to feel better about themselves
at the expense of other people that they feel get too much credit. There's
some truth to it, of course, but it's rarely expressed as a gray area. It
usually comes in the form of, "hey, you know that guy who everyone thinks did
everything? Really, he did NOTHING! Nothing at all. This other guy that most
people never heard of did EVERYTHING." Which is just as intellectually
dishonest as the idea that the first guy did everything.

------
cruise02
There should be an update in a few weeks that fixes all the problems with the
film.

------
Uchikoma
Can we stop this Wozniak worshiping every time there is a link to something
this guy said?

~~~
Uchikoma
-2? Wozniak worshippers, you can do better in punishing an heretic!

------
rickdale
I have the understanding that this movie was made in Hollywood, and therefore,
Steve Wozniak complaining about the accuracy of the movie is irrelevant.
Steve's main point is that the movie doesn't accurately portray Jobs in the
early days and that he evolved into the character Ashton Kutcher plays. It's
Hollywood, and its different perspectives. I think usually movies are 'based
on a true story' not exactly a true story.

Woz has his own fame, so I don't see this as a jealous rant, but I do see it
as a guy waving his arms screaming to the public "HEY HEY, I AM STILL HERE!
PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"

EDIT \---- Yeah down vote me, my bet is you didn't watch the whole video.

~~~
talmir
"but I do see it as a guy waving his arms screaming to the public "HEY HEY, I
AM STILL HERE! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!""

I bet ya dollars to doughnuts that Woz did not contact the media first. His
phone probably didnt stop for days with media ringing him up trying to goad
something out of him.

