What an excellent speaker. Despite many moral issues with his character, I am a big admirer of Jobs in a professional capacity.
I have found that audiences genuinely appreciate when you speak powerfully and simply; you can rephrase something like
> "we're considering many different possible pathways, and some of them we're finding are less optimized to meet our institutional goals"
to
> "we're not sure what to do, and so far most of the ideas we thought of were pretty bad"
and your audience laughs and leans in. I try to emulate that Jobs-ian style at work and a lot of people seem to like my presentations.
I think people really like it when someone takes the responsibility of standing up and saying "let's not overcomplicate this, I'll take responsibility for making the decisions and I don't spend a lot of time trying to hide my real level of knowledge. In fact, I may know less than some of you." (Even if that's probably not true.)
Another good (albeit hyperbolic) example of this is Jeremy Irons' speech near the end of Margin Call (2011) where he tells the junior analyst to "speak to me as if I am a very small child, or possibly a golden retriever." In fact, that's also an explicit direction given to flight controllers at NASA during their training.
> I have found that audiences genuinely appreciate when you speak powerfully and simply
Unfortunately, that only works if the speaker has interesting ideas to share. Often, obtuse language hides the lack of interesting ideas. Sometimes, there are no ideas at all.
Saying "most of our ideas were pretty bad" only works if an interesting idea comes afterwards. But such every interesting idea requires a lot of work; work that many speakers have not performed.
A core component of that film is that the higher you go up the corporate ladder, the more distant and ignorant the individuals are. Further, they wear their distance and ignorance with pride - they have the luxury of remaining distant and ignorant and they're not afraid to flaunt it.
Don't get me wrong: it's a great scene, and speaking plainly is always something to aspire to, but the individuals in those scenes are supposed to be viewed as somewhat monstrous and lizard-brained.
As another commenter said, the film was trying to make the opposite point: that Irons’ character knew full well — probably better than the other characters — what was going on.
But the detachment you mention can / is very important. When you’re working deep in the woods you really can’t see the forest for the trees. You may be working on a feature that will make the user’s life a lot easier, but the real customer is IT and your feature could be cut because the customer won’t like it (“this will add retraining cost”). In Margin Call, perhaps the thing that could increase your bonus is, from the overall company’s PoV a distraction because it’s more urgent to save the company (so bonuses can be paid out at all).
So a good manager operates at a higher level of abstraction. The best ones have a lot of experience so can see from the signals they get what’s happening at the lower levels of abstraction. Irons’ character is supposed to be one of those.
Of course the high level abstraction, when the boss fell upwards and doesn’t have the Fingerspitzengefühl to be able to see what’s below the surface, is a common problem. It can kill a company: look at how Welch and Immelt destroyed GE.
A good sign of this is also called out by a different commenter: opaque language is often used to try to cover up ignorance.
> is a German term, literally meaning "finger tips feeling" and meaning intuitive flair or instinct, which has been adopted by the English language as a loanword. It describes a great situational awareness, and the ability to respond most appropriately and tactfully. It can also be applied to diplomats, bearers of bad news, or to describe a superior ability to respond to an escalated situation. The term is sometimes used to describe the instinctive play of certain football players.
The context is that Jeremy Irons' character knew exactly what was going on, he wanted the risk analyst to state it to everyone else in the room, and keep him on track and focused. Right before that meeting, there is a scene as the characters walk in where they are warned by the CEO's right hand man not to try and bullshit, since he would know.
I don't disagree with anything you've said - I was trying to make a tangential point: while the CEO is ignorant of financial analysis, and the quant is ignorant to the business ramifications of said analysis, both people lack humanity: neither character gave a damn about the wider consequences of their company's actions.
Steve Jobs may not have cared much for individual people, but for all his faults, he really did seem to care about humanity (in his own way). He preferred plain language because he deeply valued shared understanding, not because he wanted to flex on his overly cerebral underlings.
Its a great compliment to The Big Short (2015). The Big Short gives you a nice explanation of what the heck is going on but mainly follows "outsider" points of view, while Margin Call gives a sense of the thoughts and concerns of the big banks at the time. Both how deluded everyone was, but also how flawed and human the systems were (as they ultimately reflect the people that built them).
I remember thinking, after watching Margin Call first and then The Big Short, that you could pretty much identify exactly where within The Big Short the (single-night) events of Margin Call would have taken place...
Jobs communicates amazing well. But I don't think this can be reduced to just a skill "good communication". He communicates with passion because he has something he's passionate about and not in corporate terms. He's passionate that the objects around us, humanity, can beautiful rather than ugly and work in a beautiful rather than ugly way. If you step back and think, that's a big thing for humankind. We live a lot of our lives with objects.
I too have qualms about the practical Steve Jobs but he saw that the world was being built of out computer and it could be nice or it could be terrible. He put forward that vision and I think it was the power of that vision rather than doing speaking right that powered his speech here.
Have you ever seen his interview titled "A Bicycle of the Mind"? You only need to watch the first minute. He says the computer is a bicycle of the mind -- in terms of (intellectual) efficiency. That interview is amazing. His ability to explain a very complex topic in simple, relatable terms is nearly unmatched in that era of technology.
One lesson I continually take away from early Apple is how well rounded the core folks were in things other than technology. Design, religion. Typography, fashion, literature...really the genius of Apple was human-ness brought to bear on technology.
These days the technology shapes us, and companies push us to adapt to their tech offering. Thou shalt have the shitty Aptos font. Thine eyes will be assaulted by advertisements even in your most reflective moments using our devices. Etc.
SJ was a grade A ass** in a hundred ways. And Apple isnt the Apple of 1983. But trying to imbue computing with the human spirit was a massive contribution to society, and I hope we can continue to drive that forwards.
That's something I think about as well. He said "we’re solving the problems of injecting some liberal arts into these computers" and I think he was sincere and successful. There are so many Jobs-wannabe's out there that have picked up on the being-an-asshole part of his management style and ignored his appreciation of the humanities.
To be fair, Microsoft has a long history of research in computer typography, especially in regards to readability on screen, see for example ClearType.
Apple was more about true WYSIWG, less about screen work.
You might not like Microsofts fonts subjectively of course, but it’s not like they were design by some interns. Aptos for example is by Steve Matteson.
> Thine eyes will be assaulted ... using our devices
This is what I hate the most.
Devices nag. They interrupt. I'm not even talking about advertising, which is evil and self-serving.
I mean the rest of it. Tips for your new device. You haven't set up 3 things! Do you want to switch your browser? Apple used to be so clean, but now this has permeated our society starting with apple.
A lot of awesome predictions that ended up being true: software trials, app store (he calls it the radio station for software), computers getting smaller and smaller, internet, 13/14 year olds creating businesses with apps, computers getting cheaper to under $1000.
He didn't as much predict it as made it. He obviously didn't do it alone, but he did spend a lot of his life making those predictions (really promises) come true.
Maybe not the computers we would buy or like, but you can buy plenty of computers for a couple of hundred dollars.
Hell, you can buy a mobile phone (a computer that fits in your pocket!) for less than that. And don’t get met started about raspberry Pi and the likes.
We are genuinely living in the future. We just don’t realize it all the the time.
confused as to why I'm getting massively downvoted for asking a question. I didn't see any when I went to the apple website (maybe it's because i got forwarded to the canadian version)
All I could think about when listening to this interesting clip is, "How many young people, today, even have any idea what he's talking about, re: computers being ugly and hard to use?" Since this is 1983, he's obviously talking about IBM PCs[1] and DOS[2] -- not even MS Windows (Windows 3.1[3] wouldn't arrive until 1993, a full decade later). But that might be lost on younger listeners today.
It’s funny but when I talk to my younger brothers friends (only a few years apart), they have never had to deal with the multitude of ports (scsi, vga, ps/2 etc) , multitude of media types (floppy, zipdrive, cassettes, dv tape etc) or even tasks like defragmentation of hard drives.
What a wonderful boon that is to entire generations. As Steve says, today you can’t even imagine it any other way.
Maybe they just never had desktop PCs? Mine has a ps/2 port, various different colored USB type A ports, USB type C, DVI, HDMI, RJ-45, 3.5mm audio, and I just bought a M.2 PCIe adapter card because SSDs have two different popular interfaces. I also have a micro-SD to USB adapter and a box full of just as many cables as I had in the 1990's. Graphics cards now have their own special power connector, as do SATA drives. HDMI comes in 2 or 3 different sized connectors, so does SATA. It's no less of a mess than it was then.
Yea we don't use that but we do use just as many incompatible connectors like most of what I listed. Even M.2 drives have two mutually incompatible connectors which look almost identical. It's easier to tell serial vs parallel port than it is purple vs blue vs black vs green USB-A ports.
Apple has always been good at keeping that clean though, at least for the external ports.
Like most progress, it is only partially "complete".
When we look at SSDs and flash memory, we worry about TRIM, atime being off, TLC vs MLC vs SLC or what have you, how it behaves when it's near full, very hot etc.
For USB-C connectors, we have no idea how fast any device is going to charge, how fast is data transfer going to be, and whether some of the things are going to work at all (TB vs USB, alt-DP or not, PD or not).
In a sense, multitude of connectors was simpler because it wore those capabilities right on the face of it: if it fits, it works.
For both your examples, that’s not something 99% of people have to consider though.
But most computer users did have to understand the things I mentioned to some degree to get things done.
If you get a mismatched usb-c cable, chances are you’ll still get some data transfer or you’ll just try another till it works. A data only cable being used for data is no different to an end user than a broken cable.
Defragmentation of drives is pretty similar to all the SSD related issues we face today.
Difference between VGA and PS/2 was really more obvious than using USB-C for all of your peripherals and displays and power (and there are still HDMI, DisplayPort and regular AC and DC ports too)
I assume most HNers have seen this, but if you haven't seen The Mother Of All Demos, you owe it to yourself to see what was possible in 1968 but wouldn't be taken seriously for another 15-30 years. [0]
> and points to the possibility that one day we might be able, in any given situation, to ask a computer, “What would Aristotle have said?”—and get an answer.
Steve Jobs predicts ChatGPT. Off by 40 years, but nobody's perfect.
SJ was a true visionary. He had a philosophical and deep look at the computer revolution, and he was one of the few leaders who actually cared about building products he could recommend to his own friends and family.
He was also a fantastic speaker. I watch his iPhone and other announcement videos from time to time and his ability is unparalleled. You can see how many modern day presentations are derived from his style
Another prescient "talk" is Douglas Engelbart's "Mother of all Demos", from 1968 where he shows off the mouse and other technologies that became commonplace. It feels remarkably contemporary and other than the obvious age of the video, feels like a modern day conference talk.
I attended a few of his keynote speeches. The "reality distortion field" was real. It was impossible to look away from him. And no matter how cynical I was when I arrived, by the end of the presentation, I believed everything he said.
I think a big difference between Apple and some of its competitors is Steve’s inherent outlook.
He clearly envisioned a world that he wanted to make. Even in these clips, it’s clear he is thinking about the current state of things not being adequate for the vision he wants.
When I look at Apple, and certainly the couple times I interviewed there, they have that same vision as part of their culture. In one of my interviews, I was asked about my own view of the future. Another time they asked me how we could avoid certain dystopian trends like proliferation of ads and reductions in privacy.
Both times it was clear the product vision wasn’t just monetary. To quote jobs from this talk, people wanted to give back to the world.
I compare that to some other tech giants I’ve interviewed for and the focus is, how can we maximize returns.
Apple certainly isn’t perfect, and they’ve faltered many times, but I think there’s the spirit of Steve in everything today.
Often I ask the interviewers “What is customer value? Is it the value we provide to customers or the value we get from them?”. Apple is the only place I’ve interviewed where people start with the former rather than the latter.
Even though I was a heavy Android and windows guy going into those interviews, it did convince me to start paying more attention to their product vision and I eventually switched over. Sadly they went with an internal candidate but it was still very eye opening.
Within five years of SJ's death, Apple was selling last year's model iPhone at discount prices... in rose gold... running a version of iOS with Letraset text where the icons used to be.
There is few people who would disagree, specifically both the guy who was fired in the elevator, and the person right behind him, who quit a week later. The guy Jobs fired in the elevator was an engineering liaison to the design team, who's firing set back the iPhone by more than 6 months.
Was he speaking like this right from birth, a little baby, pacing around, pointing at his pacifier, saying 'this is crap, who designed this, make it a big soft breast, follow nature, curves'.
It's interesting how the industry mocks the image of Steve joba by putting a turtleneck on a scruffy middle aged person that speaks modern corporate gobbledygook. The big blank stage revealing some product with none of the interesting thoughts behind it
I think that picture of Jobs in a room with a Tiffany lamp and his stereo is interesting. I don't like the lamp and that doesn't look like a room in which I would want to spend much time.
But it does make me think about my space and my stuff.
What are the objects you own that feel extraordinarily well designed? Jobs' lamp is likely still plugged in someplace. Will your favorite objects still be admired 40 years from now?
You made me go back and re-look at that pic. Totally agree with your thoughts. It's really hard for me to buy something I don't "love". On the other hand, I need to be practical with my money and just be content with a mediocre product much of the time.
Can anyone tell me about those floor speakers in the back corners of the room?
I looked again and I actually love the room, just the way it is furnished isn't at all appealing to me. Great stereo but with all those hard surfaces, it probably doesn't sound great.
The room itself though - those big windows and that fireplace? I love that and with enough books and the right furniture and some great art, the place could be super cozy and inviting. I'd probably even like the lamp more if it were part of an overall design.
It's definitely a bachelor pad in the pic. These days I'd definitely want some sofas, pillows, and rugs in there. Would probably even make the hi-fi sound better. And yes, the lamp stays!
I hope that my kids and whoever their heirs are will value the case I made for my Bear Custom Kodiak takedown bow and arrows and various accouterments:
I have a deep admiration for Steve Jobs and the revolutionary impact Apple had on the computing world. They truly had the potential to push the boundaries of innovation even further. However, it's disappointing to see how they have clamped down on innovation under the guise of security. By turning against hackers, who were once their allies, they have stifled the very spirit of creativity and exploration that once defined them.
In contrast, I'm grateful for my Android phone. Despite its own set of issues, it still allows me the freedom to root it and truly own my device. This openness fosters a community of innovation and experimentation, something that Apple seems to have moved away from. It's a reminder that while security is important, it shouldn't come at the cost of stifling innovation and user freedom.
> Steve points out that the design effort in the U.S. at the time had been focused on the automobile, with little consideration or effort given to consumer electronics
Home stereo equipment has a long and storied history of design, and before that it was radios. The 80's was chock full of interesting and pretty electronic gadgets.
Loads fully in an incognito window for me. That said, that preamp really is a thing of beauty!
Older people like myself remember that the essential things you'd unpack after moving into a new apartment were the mattress and the multi-component stereo system. All the other things could wait for a few days/weeks/months. It's strange how kids these days don't really care any more about having a phat sound system in their apartments.
I don't consider myself an audiophile and I'm sure they'd scoff at the Klipsch speakers I have hooked up to my HTPC and home theater. But even then, listening to the Ultra HD selection on Amazon Music and 4K Blu-Rays as opposed to streaming, there's a noticeable upgrade in sound quality. I think you'd be hard-pressed to get anything close to the same level of sound out of headphone speakers or even a soundbar just based on the relative sizes of the speakers.
Of course, like I said, the true (and wealthy) enthusiasts would probably look at my setup and laugh, because there's always more money to be thrown at something like that.
SJ has undeniably championed great progress at the technology design front. But I think it’s important to acknowledge the bad parts, or rather, the things we lost along the way. Mainly, I think, the push for too much abstractions, needed to introduce the disruptive new medium of PCs to everyday people, holds no “truth to material”. This in turn has made ignorance almost a prerequisite to use computers as they come. There’s a tremendous distance between the way of computers and the way of users, so much so that, specially in software engineering, it feels like a huge portion of the job is just making very long and fragile bridges to connect the reality of machines to these unsound models of “humanized” interfaces. It makes the machine less efficient and the users less powerful than they could be if the mechanical truth wasn’t considered an aberration. In a sense, we’re now trapped within the tyranny of a very particular semiological viewpoint.
What amazes me and leaves me breathless is the incredibly and profound ability of a thinker on a coabre of such magnitude to express such complex and intricate ideas blah blah blah blah blah blah shoot me. Kill me please. I am empty and I must use a speech made long ago by someone trying to sell his product to give me meaning and feel like I’m alive. Help me. Help me. My personhood is fading….buy mac. Buy Mac. Buy Mac. Think different. Think different. Buy Mac. Don’t be like others. Be cool. Buy Mac.
Heraclitus plead, "Listen not to me but the logos (word)"
i.e., to honor SJ, it may be best to pick up his work - to respect what he respected - instead of lining up in idolatry.
In this case, the key insight about design is not that it's beautiful.
Because the personal computer would be so useful that it would become pervasive, it was an incredible opportunity to inject some beauty and joy into many, many interactions, and thus if not enliven people at least counter the deadening effects of continuous interaction with purely functional affordances. Steve was asking designers to see it as such (and not as a threat to their traditional tools and value vectors).
We in society are trapped by the things we need to live at this scale and level of coordination. At a minimum, don't be evil. But that's not all.
In 2024, the situation has reversed: generations have become conditioned by the attention economy, to the point that everyone - small children to our best tech leaders - are making sound-bite reactive emotional decisions shaping our future.
Tech affords not just the opportunity to influence. It's realizing that other people made your capabilities and everything you depend on, and you're responsible for doing the same, to make it possible for future people to live a good life.
I think SJ took it as a responsibility instead of an opportunity because as an adopted person he directly experienced the contingency of nuture and appreciation for the people who did raise him.
"the ability to put something back into that pool of human experiences is extremely neat" - SJ, remembered by Jony Ives
> generations have become conditioned by the attention economy, to the point that everyone - small children to our best tech leaders - are making sound-bite reactive emotional decisions shaping our future.
> I find it breathtaking how profound his understanding was of the dramatic changes that were about to happen as the computer became broadly accessible. Of course, beyond just being prophetic...
The author of this article should consider not reading any more about the history of computing for health reasons.
If that takes their breath away, they're at serious risk of going into cardiac arrest if they keep going and discover some of the many other fascinating figures from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s who were enjoying speculating about the direction things would go in.
Dang, could you delete my account? I've tried to look up how to do it and it seems to be possible only upon request from a moderator. I asked pvg below but got no answer.
I appreciate your polite intervention and that moderation is a hard job, but I've no interest in engaging further in the manner which I now understand from my exchange with pvg below that I'm supposed to have inferred from the guidelines.
I feel like my style of interacting is relatively consistent throughout my time on the site, but suddenly I get flagged twice when I'm making an unpopular point strongly. I refuse to go about softening my points because they're liable to be flagged, and would prefer to spare you the bother of having to step in. I'm just not interested in exchanging lowest-common-denominator type takes and worrying about flagging and popularity.
Anyway, no hard feelings, maybe a bit of cultural confusion, but I'll deal with that on my own side. If you could let me know if there's anything I can do to get the account deleted, that'd be great.
I wasn't attempting to be snarky or dismissive. I was framing my point in a playful, jokey way, sure, but it's not a snarky or dismissive point in itself.
I would like to think at least some people got that.
All I'm saying is that the 1980s (and the preceding decades) were full of people predicting and describing all sorts of things that then happened (as well as others getting it totally wrong). To find Jobs in 1983 "breathtaking" and "prophetic" is, to me, a bit of a hyperbolic take, considering the reality of that moment in history. Lots of interesting people were imagining the future, and making it happen.
One way to avoid this kind of misunderstanding - after you draft such a comment, imagine you were berated by a moderator (or another user, like here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40997406) then write the clarifying response (i.e. the "All I'm saying [...]" in this case). Throw away that first version and post the hypothetical response instead.
Is dang a moderator? Was there some way for me to know that?
In any case, if their comment was intended to "berate" me, I didn't take it that way. I believe the fear of my comment being intended as mere snark, though politely expressed, was misplaced, and have tried to lay out why.
The joke was meant to help to portray my point strongly, but there was no snarkiness - there's no indirect suggestion, or sarcasm.
A touch of hyperbole, yes, but it was intended to highlight the ahistorical and hyperbolic nature of the original claim in the article. Calling Jobs' comments in 1983 "breathtaking" and "prophetic" is, from my reading of the figures during that decade and the previous ones, grossly exagerrated.
The joke was meant to help to portray my point strongly, but there was no snarkiness - there's no indirect suggestion, or sarcasm.
You can't talk to people on HN like that, it's fairly straightforwardly explained in the guidelines dang linked you. Parsing out whether it's truly 'snark' or not is not that important. Another way to look at it is that things that work fine in some settings - like people more familiar with each other in a group chat or more broadcasty setups like twitter - aren't suitable for HN.
Ok, well thank you for taking the time to clarify all this. I didn't intend to cause any issues. I sincerely thought my comments fall within the guidelines, and have re-read them since, and think perhaps I was misunderstanding what is really being suggested by the guidelines.
I don't think it's straightforwardly explained, but as a non-American, perhaps I was missing or underestimating some cultural assumptions and insinuations.
Could I have my account deleted then? I'm not interested in engaging in the manner which I now understand the guidelines to be suggesting, and would therefore much prefer to not have the account.
The parenthetical remark about the other user "berate"-ing me I find really a bit at odds with reality - it remains to be seen what that user intended, the whole comment was quite neutrally put I thought. I've responded at length attempting to answer their question(s), and am looking forward to seeing if a fruitful discussion develops.
I certainly don't see any scolding or criticism in their comment, and think it's quite possible that it's a misunderstanding.
Can someone PLEASE try to find and link me to the audio interview with an early computer pioneer (maybe Alan Kay but I forgot exactly who) on a radio show, I think it was a British one, where he tries to explain to the interviewer why general-purpose computers are important. Like how we will be able to find whatever file we want quickly, and I think he speaks about music playing as well, and maybe knitting
Like the interviewer doesn’t get why we need it and keeps talking about how we can already do the things like find books using the Dewey Decimal system.
I remember listening to it and I can never seem to find it again. Anyone on HN know at least what the name of the show and/or interviewed person was?
It is like Bill Gates on Letterman but it was a radio show from the 60-80s? and took place for 10-30 minutes or so.
Honestly, I remember now getting this interview, but it isn't it. I looked through the whole transcript and the interviewer was not skeptical of computers, there was hardly any mention of the Dewey Decimal system etc.
Is there anything else? That one I had only audio, it a radio show I believe. And the guy was talking about music and dewey decimal system etc. Must have been 80s or 70s. It wasn't Alan Kay
Do you see how Elon Musk behaves in real time? That was Steve Jobs in his day, but we didn't have social media, so we didn't get to see his tantrums. Both Jobs and Musk were known for thinking very little of people outside their personal circles. It just shows that human beings are innately attracted to mythology and love to romanticize authoritative figures, even when those figures display sociopathic tendencies. Maybe that's why polls say people think less and less of democracy and more and more of autocracy all over the world. We can say these people are changing the world but we should not forget that they are not role models.
One big difference is Jobs didn't push his assholery on the world by taking over the world's dominant* social media platform to shape it in his own fashion.
I greatly admire what Elon did to push the world into EVs where no one had succeeded before him. I also think all that power and money has amplified his weaknesses and turned him into someone who I would never want to be in a position of power over me or others.
Elon also strikes me as very immature compared to Jobs, like a spoiled little brat.
* one could argue that would be FB but the nature of Twitter made it the platform of choice for anyone who wanted to broadcast their thoughts (or news) vs connect with a group of followers
Jobs' demanding personality and toxic managerial behaviour are well well well documented. Most of the documovies on him pay special attention to it.
But he also did marvellous things for the advent of human-centric tech design that has been a boon for the regular people.
An article or person is allowed to focus on his genius and invention without having to caveat them alongside his toxicity as well. This isn't intended to be an Art vs. Artist discussion.
I have to ask: when you say "what planet are you from?", do you find it impossible (or at least very hard) to model someone thinking what the poster said? I guess, more precisely, do you think that the average person -- not educated with comfortable background, just average or low income -- is much more likely to share your opinion, than that of Steve Jobs and Apple being broadly positive?
My guess is that the majority people think of Jobs and Apple as being neutral to good, if they think of them at all. At the very least, lots of people who don't fit into your privileged categories of Jobs apologists, still don't think of him as bad.
Do you think those people have been misled? Why do you think you have more insight into the truth than them?
I don't find it impossible, and it requires no modelling. From my anecdotal experience, it does seem that most people would have a neutral or positive view of Jobs and Apple.
When I said "what planet are you from", I meant simply that what the poster was saying (Jobs did "marvellous things for the advent of human-centric tech") isn't true on this planet. That's all.
I do think people have been misled, yes, but I wouldn't have guessed that would be a controversial point? Advertising is the art and science of misleading people, and we've never been so saturated in ads, morning til night.
And finally (you asked a lot of small questions) I think I've more insight into the matter because I've read books and articles about this issue and related issues.
On the actual question of whether on this planet Apple (Microsoft, Google, etc) have been a "boon for regular people", the book that struck me the hardest was probably "La Fabrique du crétin digital" by Michel Desmurgets, but I don't know if there's an English translation. There's lots of good stuff from Cory Doctorow. Ivan Illich, Neil Postman, etc.
In summary - I wasn't saying it's a popular or majority opinion. I was saying that it's really true though, and I was even implying that people working in tech-related fields have no excuse for lying to themselves about it (although they've tons of incentive to do so, of course).
Apparently he has a history of retweeting/replying to tweets that make dubious claims linking crime with race and how it's "misrepresented" by the media.
I think there’s a massive difference between Steve and Elon.
Perhaps if Steve had social media , things would be different. But he never took to the news to denigrate entire groups of people based on their gender and sexuality. He never had any scandals for calling people pedophiles. When he denied science, he only did so personally. Afaik I can find no evidence of him trying to influence politics significantly.
I’m not saying Steve was a saint by any means. However, the level of sociopathy one can ascribe to Steve Jobs is a minuscule fraction of that of Elons to the point I question the logic of anyone making such a vague general comparison.
It's hard to consider Jobs as sociopathic in the large when he created so much social value. And it's hard to imagine that he would have been quite so effective if he were more agreeable. So I think it's reasonable to consider the kind of rudeness that gets big things done at the cost of hurt feelings as something other than pathological.
I think this is a myth, that major accomplishments require running roughshod over people.
We also have a twisted idea of what "major accomplishments" are. Are Walmart and Amazon being supremely dominant in their industries, build on the back of wiping out much of small town America, and worker mistreatment, an "accomplishment"?
The iPhone was a major accomplishment. Its design was influenced by Jobs' ability to inform people when their work was not insanely great. Maybe he could have done that more gently. But lacking that rare talent it was a social good for him to do that anyway.
I have found that audiences genuinely appreciate when you speak powerfully and simply; you can rephrase something like
> "we're considering many different possible pathways, and some of them we're finding are less optimized to meet our institutional goals"
to
> "we're not sure what to do, and so far most of the ideas we thought of were pretty bad"
and your audience laughs and leans in. I try to emulate that Jobs-ian style at work and a lot of people seem to like my presentations.
I think people really like it when someone takes the responsibility of standing up and saying "let's not overcomplicate this, I'll take responsibility for making the decisions and I don't spend a lot of time trying to hide my real level of knowledge. In fact, I may know less than some of you." (Even if that's probably not true.)
Another good (albeit hyperbolic) example of this is Jeremy Irons' speech near the end of Margin Call (2011) where he tells the junior analyst to "speak to me as if I am a very small child, or possibly a golden retriever." In fact, that's also an explicit direction given to flight controllers at NASA during their training.