
The Story of Steve Jobs: An Inspiration or a Cautionary Tale? - vvnraman
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/07/ff_stevejobs/all/
======
imgabe
One of the things that struck me while reading Jobs' biography was how
frequently he cried. Numerous times throughout he's described as weeping,
sometimes at momentous occasions, like getting fired from Apple, and sometimes
over relatively trivial matters. Think about it. When was the last time you
saw a grown person cry about something at work? Ever?

I think one of the things that made Steve Steve, and made him capable of doing
the things he did, was how deeply he felt things. When a design wasn't right
it actually seemed to cause him great emotional pain. People in emotional pain
tend to lash out angrily. Just like you might forgive your spouse for saying
something awful in the heat of an argument (I honestly believe it affected him
on that deep of an emotional level), I think people forgave Steve because they
knew that even when he was being vicious, it wasn't because he literally hated
them. He was just deeply, personally wounded that his expectations weren't
being met.

Now, it's not normal for anyone to care that deeply about what most people
consider minor details, like the angle a corner is beveled at or something
like that, but he did. And that level of caring about the details is what made
Apple's products great.

Think about the last time anyone has done any work for you. Was there anything
that was off? Probably there was. Most people weigh the benefit of fixing
whatever minor problem there might be against the hassle of explaining what's
wrong and waiting for it to be redone and the possibility of insulting the
person who did the work and decide it's not worth it. You probably do this
without even thinking about it. Obviously, for Steve it was always worth it,
and that probably had a lot do with how emotionally sensitive he was.

It's easy to look back and say that you could have achieved the same results
while being a nicer person, but I think it's easier said than done. I'm not
saying it's impossible in general, but I think the deeply emotional place that
Steve's sense of design came from made it nearly impossible for him. The
important thing to take away was how much he was able to achieve because he
cared so deeply, not the tyrannical aspect. That was a side effect. If you
seek to emulate his tyranny (because you like being a tyrant, maybe) assuming
that you'll get the same results, you're bound to be disappointed.

~~~
nsns
What you describe is very childish behavior, infantile even, but I believe you
are right about Jobs being like that, and I think this might explain why he
was so good at making toys adults crave like children. But we shouldn't
idolize someone like that, IMHO, this isn't healthy conduct. Even if he has
made a lot of money during certain periods of his life, it does not vindicate
his behavior or make him a proper role model. Being a responsible adult is a
lot harder, and there are things more important than financial profit.

~~~
brandall10
Who said anything about money? He changed the game multiple times in multiple
industries, and had his greatest successes as he was fighting death. If you
compare his net impact vs. actual wealth he was a pauper... and _esp_ if you
look at his stake in Apple, as the majority of his wealth was from
Pixar/Disney.

There are too many 'responsible adults' wallowing in mediocrity who more than
anything else actually drag the system down. Maybe you can look up to them as
role models on how to raise a family (although I personally would disagree as
the majority fail at that anyway)... but how to leave a mark on this world and
push for excellence, I will look to people like Steve, Musk, Frank Lloyd
Wright, Edison/Tesla, etc. Please don't conflate the two.

~~~
datalus
Ah the American conquer, might is right arguement. No wonder your country
ranks pretty high on the misery scale... There's more to life than
"dominating" industries.

Edit: I should qualify this a bit more. If it does make you happy to basically
have no life outside of a career, then go for it. Everyone's happiness is
something only they can answer for themselves. Some people can tolerate being
lonely, and I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs was a lonely person (after reading the
Isaacson book), despite having people around him.

~~~
dedward
As a Canadian, I can say that Americans have more fun in life than just about
anyone. Sure, we canucks and the rest of the world like to call them out on
their shortcomings all the time, but they brought us disneyland and superman,
etc.

~~~
rmckayfleming
You forget that Superman was an American-Canadian co-creation.

~~~
xiaoma
>* You forget that Superman was an American-Canadian co-creation.*

You forget that even the "Canadian" one, Shuster, spent his life from the age
9 on in America and both were US citizens and did all their work in the US.

------
victork2
I have read Steve Jobs biography and this is definitively a cautionary tale
and a great warning for anybody, but for other reasons that stated in this
article.

I am no Apple fan, as a matter of fact I don't like the look and feel of their
product but I gained a great admiration for Steve Jobs because he seemed like
a man in immense suffering. I'm not talking about the obvious physical pain of
cancer and all his crazy diets ( we share something in common ) but mentally
he seemed like a sad sad person. I don't want to do bar stool psychology but
it seemed pretty obvious that he was missing something in his life and he
probably never found it.

But he's the paragon of the self made man, in the Ayn Rand sense and people (
especially here, where there's something approaching a cult ) look up to that
and as soon as they encounter problems they imagine themselves in the shoes of
this man and try to act tough... or _act Steve Jobs_.

If there's one paradoxical lesson that should be taken from his biography it
is that you should never to listen to anybody that tells you how to act, don't
try to fit in a mold, even in the mold of a great man, because you
fundamentally don't have the same substance and thus you won't come out the
same way: ie successful nor happy. Be your own man, forge your own mold and
challenge the statu quo.

~~~
adavies42
> But he's the paragon of the self made man, in the Ayn Rand sense [...]

I was just thinking this. I'm sure Jobs hated Rand, given his politics, but he
sounds an awful lot like Hank Rearden in TFA.

~~~
s_baby
As a Buddhist maybe not. Buddhism and Enlightenment Era ideology are both
anchored in the idea of the "self". There's a great synergy between the two.
To get what I mean look at the former CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey. The
staunchest of Libertarians, a legitimate Buddhist, and a pioneer of "Core
Values" Branding( e.g Apple ).

~~~
gruseom
While it may be the case that many Western Buddhists have found a way to merge
Buddhism and selfishness, I'm pretty sure that this is a modern and
specifically Western distortion of Buddhist teachings. At least I haven't
found anything like that in the Buddhist sutras I've read. On the contrary, to
the extent that the self appears there at all, it is to be effaced.

~~~
s_baby
>On the contrary, to the extent that the self appears there at all, it is to
be effaced.

Within the context of Theravada. Mahayana embraces the "small" self. All
Buddhist acts of compassion are anchored in self-interest. Just how you caring
for your family is simultaneously compassionate and self-serving.

Just how we try to create real "value" through meritocracy Buddhism preaches
giving and skillful means. The overlap is significant.

~~~
gruseom
I am skeptical of this as it gets applied in consumerist Western societies.
It's all too easy to become the same ego you were before, only now with a
spiritual varnish. In my observation, there is a lot of rationalization around
this. When you have no roots in a tradition, it's easy to twist it to be
whatever you feel it should be. Typically it turns into an accoutrement.
George Westerholm brilliantly summarized this as "Does Taoism make me look
fat?"

~~~
s_baby
>It's all too easy to become the same ego you were before, only now with a
spiritual varnish. In my observation, there is a lot of rationalization around
this.

Can you think of anything more self-centered and intoxicating then conflating
your ego with the "Ground of Being". Narcissism is the cliche sticking point
of westerners. Than again Westernized lineages systematically address this.
Mondo Zen being a good example.[1]

Historically, Buddhism doesn't export cultural context. It embeds itself in
what is already there. Zen exists along side Shinto. Tibetan Buddhism
envelopes the local shamanic beliefs. Trying to export the cultural context of
Tibet or Japan to the West is a mistake.

[1] <http://www.mondozen.org/>

------
DirtyCalvinist
It seems to me that being dictatorial and downright mean only works if you are
right about whatever you've decided to be dictatorial about. So when Jobs
dropped that iPod prototype in water to prove that it could be smaller still,
this helped the iPod's success largely because Jobs was right about the
smallness, not because he berated his engineers. That ability to be right
about what people wanted, not his apparently capricious and unpleasant
demeanor, is why we still talk about him a year after his death.

Incidentally, it is also the difficult to reproduce part of his success.

~~~
mrich
Well said. Let's not produce more abusive bosses who, when their "brilliant
strategy" doesn't work, just think they have to berate their employees harder.

------
cageface
In the ten years I worked at Pixar I had the pleasure of seeing or hearing a
couple of Jobs famous tantrums first hand. At least in Pixar's case, they
always seemed childish and destructive to me.

Meanwhile, Ed Catmull, the CEO, commanded the instant respect of absolutely
everybody in the company despite being unfailingly polite and soft spoken
because we all had such enormous regard for his intellect and maturity.

~~~
codinghorror
Well, this proves that you can be childish and destructive and still
accomplish amazing things, right? So.. er.. yay?

(And yes, Ed Catmull is awesome.)

~~~
cageface
What I saw from Jobs at Pixar seemed largely counterproductive. Maybe it
worked better at Apple?

------
michaelpinto
If we're still talking about him half a year after he's gone he must have
gotten something right. I think something that techies don't see is that Jobs
real gem is Pixar, a company that Lucas couldn't make work and a company that
became Disney's animation studio. My bet is that as these devices go from
being cool gadgets to the mundane that Jobs will be remembered for those Pixar
films which will seem charming even if their technique is crude next to
animation in the year 2032.

~~~
pooriaazimi
He _almost_ did nothing for Pixar, except pouring money into it quarter after
quarter and using Toy Story's success to rise again. He was a very big
visionary, a great manager and he deserves every bit of praise he gets for
what he did at Apple in his second coming, but his role at Pixar was only to
negotiate and give them money; not that it's an unimportant thing. Pixar would
most certainly not exist today if it wasn't for Jobs, but the creative mind at
Pixar was John Lasseter.

Source: I've read two books about Pixar, more than 10 about Jobs/Apple and
watched well over 20 documentaries about these subjects.

~~~
michaelpinto
Actually what he did right with Pixar was to let the creative people be
creative. I realize that sounds like nothing, and yes it is nothing -- but
it's everything and here's why:

A bad producer or studio head who isn't a creative will always get his or her
paws all over the film projects and tend to ruin them. Or worse yet select
projects not on the creative merits but on a perceived notion of how they'll
do in the box office -- the result is all of the bad special effects and
franchise movies we see today.

Instead Steve had the rare courage to do NOTHING except let the creative
people "make a great film". That's something that's very rare in Hollywood and
deserves a ton of credit...

~~~
pooriaazimi
Exactly. And that's what I was trying to say. He created (or recreated) bot
Apple and Pixar, but his role at two companies was completely different.

------
stcredzero
_> Soon after Steve Jobs returned to Apple as CEO in 1997, he decided that a
shipping company wasn’t delivering spare parts fast enough. The shipper said
it couldn’t do better, and it didn’t have to: Apple had signed a
contract...But the lesson here might make us uncomfortable: Violate any norm
of social or business interaction that stands between you and what you want._

I've heard that many Chinese regard contracts more as guidelines than as iron-
clad rule sets to be interpreted like bytecode. The relationship between the
parties and their needs are more important than the letter of the law. (Or the
letters on the contract.) By this set of norms, the shipper was the
transgressor in this case, and Steve did the right thing.

Take care of the customer, or someone else will.

------
keeptrying
How many of your bosses were assholes?

Asshole wise I think Jobs might have been on the gentler side than some I've
worked for.

Ever worked in a bank for a trading desk or a trader? That trader will make
Jobs look like father christmas.

Bezos, the old bill gates, jobs,Steve balmier, marissa Mayer, all of my bosses
except 2, Bloomberg, - all mutherfucking ahole bosses. Hell During my first
stint, I sucked at it too. Don't single out jobs here.

The Only one who has grown up is Gates. In my mind Gates beats all these guys
fr the amazing foundation he as created and how he has reinvented himself
completely and the vigorous passion with which he is helping humanity.

I never thought I'd defend gates-I hae windows mre than anyone I know.

------
mirsadm
In my opinion the success of Apple with the more recent products is the only
reason most people tolerated his shitty behaviour. It is easy to stay positive
when everything is going so well.

------
projectileboy
Whenever I read these articles tha have arisen lately about Steve Jobs'
managerial style, I'm surprised that no one mentions the most obvious thing:
the people working for Jobs were building the iPhone, and the iPad, and some
of the other _greatest products the world has ever seen_. Why on earth would
the executive of a second-rate financial services software company (or
whatever) think that they could motivate people in the same way?

------
danbmil99
The outline of his personality should be quite familiar to anyone who has
worked with a famous (or even semi-famous, or just in their own mind) creative
person in a field such as music, fashion, movies, TV, publishing, or high-end
food. It's the classic prima donna genius-in-pain trope.

I suppose it's just somewhat rare in tech, where you more often see the Brian
Wilson, asperger type of personality -- the introverted genius-in-a-thick-
shell.

------
stretchwithme
The market is absolutely ruthless. It doesn't sugarcoat things for you or hold
your hand.

Startups know this and act accordingly.

Large organizations do not necessarily know this or act accordingly. There are
too many layers insulating people from reality. But they ability to scale
processes and that's why they survive.

Steve pushed reality hard and got through more of those layers. And that
organization can really execute as a result.

That was just one of his abilities.

------
debacle
How long are blogs going to milk the Steve Jobs thing?

------
ScottBurson
This seems like one occasion when a headline question is correctly answered
"yes" :-)

------
padmanabhan01
This article is Bullshit. It is heights of insanity that a no name wired
writer can just assume himself to be qualified to make judgements on someone
who has had a huge impact (positive) on the world. I use an iPhone, iPad and a
mac and I can vouch that my life is better with them than what I would imagine
it to be without them. And what is the accusation? that he bullied a few? for
making hundreds of millions of lives better? bullied as in asking people who
are free to quit whenever to work more? The writer of this article is nuts

~~~
rotw
From the article:

> Jobs has become a Rorschach test, a screen onto which entrepreneurs and
> executives can project a justification of their own lives: choices they
> would have made anyway, difficult traits they already possess. “Everyone has
> their own private Steve Jobs,” Sutton says. “It usually tells you a lot
> about them—and little about Jobs.”

This isn't about Jobs being good or bad for the world. It's about his
managerial legacy. Essentially, nearly every account of Jobs' life devolves
into a hagiography, espousing subjectively his deeds, trying to fit them into
a theology of sorts, which distorts generations of entrepreneurs' views of
Jobs. Many misread him being great _because_ he was an asshole, but overlook
the fact that if he was _right_ , it's because he was _right_ that the product
succeeded. Not because he was an asshole.

------
sopooneo
Did no one ever pull back and just punch him in the face? If not, why? Even
the worst possible repercussions don't stop some people. And if so, did it
have any effect?

------
state
There are a number of things that I find annoying about stories like this
about Jobs — but the most pronounced is that I doubt he would have condoned
his own behavior as seen from the outside. Jobs' attitude is a side-effect of
his convictions.

I think people seem to overlook how a personality like that actually works.
Oftentimes this happens while overtly being assholes in an attempt to imitate
someone they admire but could probably never become.

------
Aloha
I think there are good examples to take from Jobs. It's all about a time and a
place, sometimes you want to drive to resolution, and be a dick, because that
is what will produce the most efficient best result, and for other things,
good enough _is_ good enough, and additional pushing will not result in
substantive improvement. Wisdom is the ability to pick those two situation
apart.

------
mitchty
Why can't it be both? The one thing I gathered was to be passionate, but it
really seemed like he wished he had more involvement with his children in the
end.

He was a person, complex in many ways. I choose to follow Bruce Lee's advice,
take whatever good you can learn from his life and apply it. Be that the
manager style if it works, or the tale of being a better parent. I reject this
dichotomy.

------
alaskamiller
If you believe in MBTI, Steve Jobs is pegged as an ENTJ.

This is the brief definition of an ENTJ:

 _"They tend to be self-driven, motivating, energetic, assertive, confident,
and competitive. They generally take a big-picture view and build a long-term
strategy. They typically know what they want and may mobilize others to help
them attain their goals. ENTJs are often sought out as leaders due to an
innate ability to direct groups of people. Unusually influential and
organized, they may sometimes judge others by their own tough standards,
failing to take personal needs into account."_

Here's the kicker:

 _ENTJs are among the rarest of types, accounting for about 2–5% of those who
are formally tested._

A generation of people are going to try really hard to emulate a cult status
figure's personality but at the end of the day that's all it really is: a bad
fidelity copy.

Don't live to be Steve Jobs, be you. And if it so happens that you turn out
awesome then great. If not, then work on acceptance.

~~~
stcredzero
_> A generation of people are going to try really hard to emulate a cult
status figure's personality but at the end of the day that's all it really is:
a bad fidelity copy._

Reminds me of what happens when I use Pandora. Instead of revealing a bunch of
bands I like, Pandora gives me a bunch of _bands that sound like_ bands that I
like.

Don't imitate. Attune yourself to value.

~~~
vectorpush
> _Pandora gives me a bunch of bands that sound like bands that I like._

That's a feature, not a bug.

~~~
eropple
Only if you don't differentiate "sounds like" and "are appealing in the same
way." If you don't, having a conversation about this will be fruitless.

~~~
DannyBee
So now i'm wildly curious.

This makes it sound like you don't just choose to listen to certain music
because you like the sound of that music.

Why else is music appealing except because of how it sounds?

~~~
eropple
I think this is best explained through example: let's take Bad Religion vs.
Pennywise. A large part of Bad Religion's appeal to me is that Greg Graffin
and Brett Gurewitz are _fantastic_ writers. Their lyrics are interesting (on
an intellectual as well as a musical level), well done, and (time to touch the
third rail!) often have a political point that I generally agree with and
appreciate.

Pennywise (during their "sounds like Bad Religion" phase) does indeed sound
like Bad Religion, but their lyrical work is crap. I actively dislike
listening to them _because_ they sound like Bad Religion but aren't good at
what they do. They sound similar but go in the "pop shit" bucket while Bad
Religion goes in the "good punk rock" bucket.

.

Pandora can't quantify that sort of thing. They sound very similar but one of
them is uninteresting-to-repellent. If I could find a music recommendation
system that could, I'd pay it approximately _all the money_. As it is, Pandora
is pretty crap; I can burn through my allotted skips in five minutes of
listening because every station.

Hat-tip to a friend of mine who pointed this one out: Pandora also converges
on the pop flavor of whatever genre you want to listen to. Industrial? I hope
you like Nine Inch Nails. Synth/futurepop? New Order and Depeche Mode.

~~~
vectorpush
"Reminds me of what happens when I visit that restaurant. Instead of serving a
bunch of food I like, that restaurant gives me a bunch of food that tastes
like food that I like."

~~~
eropple
I mean no disrespect when I say this: if you are unable to perceive the
subleties of which I'm writing, I feel pretty sorry for you. There are
differences within genres of music that Pandora can't quantify (yes, Bad
Religion and Pennywise are _different_ ) and Pandora very obviously attempts
to quantize listening preferences toward the most popular examples of a given
genre.

(Your analogy is pretty weak, too, because those subleties exist within food
as well; a Pandora-for-food would give you wet Memphis barbecue because you
liked dry, and would steadfastly refuse to stop serving you wet barbecue no
matter how many times you clicked the down-fork.)

------
snowwrestler
Just reacting to the first anecdote: Breaking a contract that is not optimal
for your business is not the same thing as breaking a social norm like parking
in a handicap space or berating people regularly.

Contracts exist to serve the business. If you are smart you will employ great
lawyers to make sure your contracts are at least equitable, if not
advantageous to your company. To do this effectively, the lawyers will provide
advice and create internal rules.

However if you are not careful the lawyers can backdoor themselves into making
business decisions. The optimal rate at which parts are shipped is a
_business_ decision. If you need to break a contract to improve the business,
then break it. Calculate the risks and costs, then break it if it makes
business sense. That's what Apple did and the results obviously speak for
themselves. Their supply chain is the envy of the entire world.

------
nollidge
I just wonder if he was happy.

------
koglerjs
In my experience "the rules of social engagement" are as often used to
entangle and obstruct as they are to create civility. Think of "foot-in-the-
door" phenomenon.

Sometimes rudeness is respect, especially if it's an honest communication.

Jobs needed an on-time supplier, and it was arguably worth the cost of a legal
battle in order to get one.

As others have said, though, it spawns imitators that think "Steve berated his
employees, so I can too."

~~~
fusiongyro
> Sometimes rudeness is respect, especially if it's an honest communication.

I disagree, you fucking piece of shit.

~~~
koglerjs
See, I'd still buy this scummy dirtbag of an excuse for a human being a beer.
;)

~~~
fusiongyro
Well said. :)

------
nacker
The lasting cultural influence of Jobs seems to me to be that he made ruthless
Machiavellian sociopathy acceptable to a large segment of the population. What
does it really matter how shiny and "faux-zen" the design of the perishable
toys he sold was? He was to business ethics what Kiefer Sutherland in the show
"24" was to law enforcement.

------
nacker
No one said it better than RMS:

    
    
        “Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.
    
        As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, “I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he’s gone.” Nobody deserves to have to die – not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs’ malign influence on people’s computing.
    
        Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective.”

------
crag
Wasn't he a buddhist? Not that that means anything. Buddhist's are more then
capable of being shit-heads.

But if he was a practicing buddhist.. wouldn't he had recognized what leads to
suffering? Desire of course. Desire to be be perfect. Or maybe his desire to
prove he was right?

There are other words I'd use to describe him (and several other corporate
giants); arrogance comes to mind.

Sometimes these men think there really did do it all on their own. Why I love
hearing a billionaire say, "I'm a self made man". Oh really? So all the people
who worked for you, cooked for you, kept your schedule, managed your
companies, investments and life didn't do a damn thing? Really?

And that's what I think of Steve Jobs. No doubting he was brilliant and had
amazing taste. But he wasn't the most important person in the room. At it's
start Woz built Apple. Steve just sold it. And today, he didn't design the
products, but he had vision of what he wanted. And many of us wanted the same
thing. He was a damn good salesman. And he had a great ability of keeping
everyone on focus. But he wasn't the most important person in the room. Apple
could (and it does) go on without him. And I think he knew it. And it dogged
him all his life.

I'm also believe in karma. And the way he died,, his long battle/suffering -
leads me to believe he had debts to pay. I only hope, in the end he died
clean.

~~~
mcantelon
>Why I love hearing a billionaire say, "I'm a self made man". Oh really? So
all the people who worked for you, cooked for you, kept your schedule, managed
your companies, investments and life didn't do a damn thing? Really?

The individualist "self made man" notion seems a conceit designed to introduce
the concept of aristocracy, which humans seem drawn to, to modern capitalism.

~~~
smsm42
The idea of "self made man" is directly opposed to the concept of aristocracy
- which derives its uniqueness and elevation from belonging to a long row of
elevated ancestors and to a long-living tradition. No aristocrate would ever
call oneself "self-made" - that's the same as calling oneself an impostor or a
fraud. One can be made an aristocrat - e.g. by a royalty - and fresh-minted
aristocrats always were considered the lowest form of aristocracy by the "old"
and "true" ones, the length of the family tree always was the main source of
aristocratic pride. But one can never be a "self-made" aristocrat, it's a
direct contradiction in terms and concepts. I'm sorry, but your theory makes
no sense at all.

