Atari Founder Nolan Bushnell on Steve Jobs at Atari and Finding the Next Jobs

[twigman08]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

IMHO, it's badly written. Go read a biography (John Adams or Truman) by David McCullough to see what an extraordinary biography is like.

I read a biography to learn about the person really, and that's what happened. No where did I say it was the best written biography, but in terms of content and what someone could get from it it was really good.

[LorenK]

Originally Posted by bobob

There is a great deal of research showing that too much washing is un-hygenic.

Daily showers are an unhealthy practice brainwashed into us via the false shame used to market soap.

Oh, let's be real, there is a difference between plain soap and anti-microbial, which is what the concern about soap is all about. There is a difference between regular bathing and being obsessive about it.

As to Jobs' bathing habits, I suspect that he just didn't smell himself and didn't know how bad he smelled to others, most people are too polite to mention it, even when it gets bad. Bushnell was remembering Jobs fondly in pointing out the long hours that Jobs worked, and felt Jobs' body odor was counterbalanced by his dedication.

Me, I take at least one shower a day, more if I do some strenuous work, but our bathing habits have changed over time, and a weekly bath was the standard just forty years ago, so those who think that his bathing habits were somehow deficient, cut Jobs some slack.

[bobob]

Originally Posted by bobob

There is a great deal of research showing that too much washing is un-hygenic.

Daily showers are an unhealthy practice brainwashed into us via the false shame used to market soap.

Originally Posted by LorenK

Oh, let's be real, there is a difference between plain soap and anti-microbial, which is what the concern about soap is all about.

Incorrect - - the subject of over-cleanliness is broader than simply "anti-microbial" soap. In the NYTimes link in my post above, they refer to an excellent book on the topic for anyone interested in a more in depth history of the changing perceptions of what we consider "clean":

The Dirt on Clean: An Unsanitized History by Katherine Ashenburg

Originally Posted by LorenK

There is a difference between regular bathing and being obsessive about it....

Me, I take at least one shower a day...

Okay, then.

[bbeagle]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

IMHO, it's badly written. Go read a biography (John Adams or Truman) by David McCullough to see what an extraordinary biography is like.

Yes, it was badly written. It wasn't even edited properly - there are a few places where there are repeated topics.

But, it's the best we have for Steve Jobs so far. If you want to learn about Steve Jobs, this is the best book to read. There is a lot of good information in there.

By the way, did anyone actually WATCH this video? It's very distracting in many places. He's obviously talking outdoors, and there are soccer fans cheering and whistles and trumpet-type things bellowing in the background. Very distracting. There are better videos on the web where Nolan Bushnell is giving the same talk sitting down in interview style.

[HiRez]

Originally Posted by weezor

Correct Quote from 0:24:34 is 'if you come up with an idea, and 99 % of the people think it is a crazy idea, and 1 % think it is a cool idea, than that 1 % is you, pursue it with all vigor.'

He speaks about believing in yourself is all it takes. I notice this all the time. When I come up with an idea, the first reaction from others is to a) tell me whats all wrong with it or b) tell me that it has already be done before.

That's why Nolan says we shouldn't care if there are 99% nay-sayer, just be the only person (the 1%) wo believes and pursue your crazy ideas nonetheless. 'The more revolutionary the idea is, the fewer people will think it is cool.'

OK thanks, the actual quote makes sense, the misquote doesn't.

[notjustjay]

Originally Posted by CrickettGrrrl

I thought that Isaacson was repetitious for one thing (so help me god if I hear, read or see the word "petulant" or variants again in my lifetime! He exceeded the quota twice over, at least); and in spite of the book length, all the interviews, all the research, it felt like Isaacson didn't really get what was so amazing about this computer revolution. I just felt that he is comfortable in thinking in stereotypes. He didn't reach.

"Then, he started crying."

Aaaaaargh.

[CrickettGrrrl]

Originally Posted by notjustjay

"Then, he started crying."

Aaaaaargh.

Then, he wept. …he sobbed, he bawled, he wailed, …sniveled, bleated, keened, howled, blubbered, mewled… Lachrymal! Lugubrious.

Or he was truculent, tetchy, fractious, disgruntled, querulous… but not bloody petulant ever again.

[Casiotone]

Bill Gates also had some less than stellar hygiene back in the days according to the documentary Triumph of the Nerds.

If he (Bill Gates) was busy he didn't bathe, he didn't change clothes. We were in New York and the demo that we had crashed the evening before the announcement, and Bill worked all night with some other engineers to fix it. Well it didn't occur to him to take ten minutes for a shower after that, it just didn't occur to him that that was important, and he badly needed a shower that day.

[SteveW928]

Originally Posted by MacDav

Don't know how much you really know about Mr. Jobs, other than what seems to be going around lately. Fact is he didn't care at all about money. In his interview (The Lost Interview) He says when he was 21 he was worth a million dollars. At 22 about 10 million and I think by age 25 worth 100 million. He says it meant nothing to him, what was important was the work, the creative process. He was probably one of the least materialistic people around. As a billionaire he lived in a relatively modest home in a modest neighborhood. So, he was an interesting person. Definitely not your typical mogul. Since I didn't know the man personally, I will reserve any self righteous judgement of him to others who are prone to feeling morally superior.

The thrust of my response (especially the materialism) was to MacDav, rather than Jobs, but I apologize in my stereotyping of aspects which didn't apply to him. I only met him in-person once, very briefly at the Palo Alto Apple Store.

I think I'd be the same, given the situation, in that after a million or so, the amount would then become irrelevant. Apparently that IS NOT the case with many of the very wealthy, for whom the game is about finding more creative ways to amass as much as possible. I respect that aspect of Jobs very much, especially his drive towards the goal he set out to accomplish. However, that still isn't necessarily all positive in the big picture. Our vocation in life is VERY important, but not THE most important thing. Balance is needed, and I doubt Jobs was balanced in that regard (please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see how anyone could work like that and have their family life in proper balance.

Many throughout history have achieved great things at some other cost (often high). The ends don't always justify the means.

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by SteveW928

The thrust of my response (especially the materialism) was to MacDav, rather than Jobs, but I apologize in my stereotyping of aspects which didn't apply to him. I only met him in-person once, very briefly at the Palo Alto Apple Store.

I think I'd be the same, given the situation, in that after a million or so, the amount would then become irrelevant. Apparently that IS NOT the case with many of the very wealthy, for whom the game is about finding more creative ways to amass as much as possible. I respect that aspect of Jobs very much, especially his drive towards the goal he set out to accomplish. However, that still isn't necessarily all positive in the big picture. Our vocation in life is VERY important, but not THE most important thing. Balance is needed, and I doubt Jobs was balanced in that regard (please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see how anyone could work like that and have their family life in proper balance.

Many throughout history have achieved great things at some other cost (often high). The ends don't always justify the means.

Hmmm. "Proper balance"? Who decides what is proper balance? Is there actually such a thing? I don't believe there is. Every situation and circumstance is unique. You'd have to ask Mr Jobs' family if he was a proper husband and Father. From what I've read he was a doting father and a good husband. Although as I mentioned, who is the decider of such things? His family? The court of public opinion? Ultimately, no human knows such things. No human has all the facts and figures or the brain power to make a truly objective evaluation. I gave up that quest many years ago. Today I leave that quest to those who think they can manage such a monumental task.

[notjustjay]

Originally Posted by CrickettGrrrl

Then, he wept. …he sobbed, he bawled, he wailed, …sniveled, bleated, keened, howled, blubbered, mewled… Lachrymal! Lugubrious.

Or he was truculent, tetchy, fractious, disgruntled, querulous… but not bloody petulant ever again.

Yeah, I really felt like the biography was written hastily (and maybe it was, given the timing of Jobs' illness and death) but it was annoyingly repetitive in places. "Steve went to a meeting with So-and-So. At the meeting, he started crying. Then, a few pages later, he met with another person. At the meeting, he started crying. Then, he met with..." We get it, Walter, we get it.

[calaverasgrande]

People forget how huge Atari was at one time.
They were the Apple/EA/Bally/Nintendo of hardware, software, arcade games and game consoles for a good period of time in the 70's and 80's.
Sadly corporate idiocy killed Atari as a major player.

Green Tea, Anchovies and Dark Chocolate?


PS Am I the only one that sees a resemblance between Nolan and Woz?

[calaverasgrande]

Originally Posted by bobob

There is a great deal of research showing that too much washing is un-hygenic.

Daily showers are an unhealthy practice brainwashed into us via the false shame used to market soap.

Truth. If I shower too much my skin dries out a lot. I've tried different soaps and colder water. Bbut my skin just gets so flaky that I have to clean the face dandruff off my glasses, several times a day. (yeah gross!)
3 showers a week is good enough so long as I'm not getting really sweaty.

As far as the cancer comment, I think it is an attempt at humour in very poor taste. I've lost several members of my family to the C. and one of my dearest friends just last year. I do not appreciate poking fun at Jobs demise, not because I hold him in special regard, but because he must have suffered for a while.

[janstett]

Originally Posted by calaverasgrande

Sadly corporate idiocy killed Atari as a major player.

I worked with a guy whose dad was an executive at Warner (which owned Atari 76-84) in Manhattan, said they treated the business like an inexhaustible ATM and Caligula would have been proud of the decadence.

[SteveW928]

Originally Posted by MacDav

Hmmm. "Proper balance"? Who decides what is proper balance? Is there actually such a thing? I don't believe there is. Every situation and circumstance is unique. You'd have to ask Mr Jobs' family if he was a proper husband and Father. From what I've read he was a doting father and a good husband. Although as I mentioned, who is the decider of such things? His family? The court of public opinion? Ultimately, no human knows such things. No human has all the facts and figures or the brain power to make a truly objective evaluation. I gave up that quest many years ago. Today I leave that quest to those who think they can manage such a monumental task.

This reminds me of that 'Blind Men and an Elephant' parable where the all-knowing story-teller feigns humility.

Of course there are unique circumstance. And, you're right that none of us likely know all the details of Mr. Jobs in particular. But if you're working 80 hours / week and away a lot, methinks that's not quite ideal. Not all that much brain-power necessary.

Originally Posted by calaverasgrande

People forget how huge Atari was at one time. ... Sadly corporate idiocy killed Atari as a major player.

It's funny, as I used to be a huge Atari fan and think Apple's stuff was kind of silly and way overpriced. I had a 1040ST for many years and various models before that. They certainly were huge. But, remember that corporate idiocy almost killed Apple once and could again if they don't resist it. That was one of Jobs' big strengths... that he knew better than the 'experts' and typical corporate idiocy... and had the charisma to pull off going a different direction. If you see Apple start to follow the majority of 'industry experts' and management looks to start doing things the 'normal corporate way' that is the time to start looking elsewhere.

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by SteveW928

This reminds me of that 'Blind Men and an Elephant' parable where the all-knowing story-teller feigns humility.

Of course there are unique circumstance. And, you're right that none of us likely know all the details of Mr. Jobs in particular. But if you're working 80 hours / week and away a lot, methinks that's not quite ideal. Not all that much brain-power necessary.

Well... I prefer the Sufi/Rumi version of that parable, where the men are not blind but in a dark cave with the Elephant. His version ends something like " If all the men entered the cave with burning candles there would be no disagreement". Not sure where you got the idea about the story teller feigning humility. The point I was making is there is no ideal formula for human beings to follow in order to have "Proper Balance". One Father could spend 40hrs with his son and the other 4hrs of better quality time and show more love. As far as feigning humility...you have no worries there.

[SteveW928]

Originally Posted by MacDav

Well... I prefer the Sufi/Rumi version of that parable, where the men are not blind but in a dark cave with the Elephant. His version ends something like " If all the men entered the cave with burning candles there would be no disagreement". Not sure where you got the idea about the story teller feigning humility. The point I was making is there is no ideal formula for human beings to follow in order to have "Proper Balance". One Father could spend 40hrs with his son and the other 4hrs of better quality time and show more love.

I've not heard that version. It is a bit better, at least. The 'humble' story teller is the one who seems to know more than all the blind men or men in the dark... in other words, the somehow enlightened one. (The version I laid out is 'suicidal' in that it's like saying, "There is no such thing as truth.")

Good thing we've got some candles, then. I never said there was some ideal formula for every situation, nor that I know exactly what it is. That's your imposition. I'm just saying there are some general guidelines and truths that will weigh in on any situation. With a bit of observation and common sense, we can roughly figure them out. And, while quality is important, it doesn't make up for quantity.

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by SteveW928

I've not heard that version. It is a bit better, at least. The 'humble' story teller is the one who seems to know more than all the blind men or men in the dark... in other words, the somehow enlightened one. (The version I laid out is 'suicidal' in that it's like saying, "There is no such thing as truth.")

Good thing we've got some candles, then. I never said there was some ideal formula for every situation, nor that I know exactly what it is. That's your imposition. I'm just saying there are some general guidelines and truths that will weigh in on any situation. With a bit of observation and common sense, we can roughly figure them out. And, while quality is important, it doesn't make up for quantity.

Interestingly I would say ...Quantity is less important than quality. Of course it
depends on what we are talking about. In different situations the converse is obviously true. So I guess I'm splitting elephant hairs.

[SteveW928]

Originally Posted by MacDav

Interestingly I would say ...Quantity is less important than quality. Of course it
depends on what we are talking about. In different situations the converse is obviously true. So I guess I'm splitting elephant hairs.

Certainly it would depend on the circumstances, but I think the studies show otherwise (in general, the quality over quantity thing is a myth invented by busy people with guilty consciences.)

But, my main point goes back to questioning the idea that success = wealth and fame.

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by SteveW928

Certainly it would depend on the circumstances, but I think the studies show otherwise (in general, the quality over quantity thing is a myth invented by busy people with guilty consciences.)

But, my main point goes back to questioning the idea that success = wealth and fame.

Not sure where you got the idea I was saying that success equaled wealth and fame. There is great bias today against wealth. Some of it is based in fact. The truth is there are far more wealthy people who have good morals and raise their children with love and respect than those who don't. You never hear about these people because they are not "news". As far as quality over quantity being a myth devised by people with guilty consciences...I challenge you to name a single study. I think your statement is a myth invented by a person with a false sense of moral superiority. I call people like this "halo polishers". This is my own terminology and I think it describes them well. I can see them standing if front of the mirror happily polishing their respective halo's. I'm not saying that you absolutely fall into this group, I don't know you personally...but next time you're standing in front of the mirror you might want to give it some reflection. (Pun intended).

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by Marty Goldberg

No, that was not why Jobs was on the night shift, you're trying to draw a correlation between two different happenings. Jobs was specifically put on the night shift by Alcorn and Bushnell because of his smell and because of his attitude. The head of his department, Don Lang, came to Alcorn after only a day and basically said "He’s filthy, smells, is completely obnoxious and doesn’t know electronics!" That's when Bushnell came up with the idea to put him on the night shift, and that's when he started being a tech for Harold Lee. And there were plenty of people also working the night shift, claiming no one was around to see would not be accurate.

The quote of Al's you're drawing from is specifically in regards to Breakout. Al knew full well when he originally hired jobs in '74 that he wasn't an engineer, that's why he put him as a tech. And that's why he was surprised when Jobs showed up with a prototype of Breakout. Both because Al had just been discussing the project with Bristow and Bushnell only a few days before and had no idea it had been assigned to anyone, and because... Steve had no experience to be able to do something like that, yet there it was.

For their part Bristow and Bushnell knew full well Woz would be doing the actual engineering, that's the only reason they gave it to Jobs.

Thanks, for taking the time to set the record straight. Kdarling is a Jobs hater and goes out of his way to belittle him any chance he gets. He obviously cherry picked the worst part of the entire article for his post. You may also notice he doesn't usually respond to criticism. I've called him on his B/S in the past to no avail. Thanks again for a well stated reply.

[SteveW928]

Originally Posted by MacDav

Not sure where you got the idea I was saying that success equaled wealth and fame. There is great bias today against wealth. Some of it is based in fact. The truth is there are far more wealthy people who have good morals and raise their children with love and respect than those who don't. You never hear about these people because they are not "news". As far as quality over quantity being a myth devised by people with guilty consciences...I challenge you to name a single study. I think your statement is a myth invented by a person with a false sense of moral superiority. I call people like this "halo polishers". This is my own terminology and I think it describes them well. I can see them standing if front of the mirror happily polishing their respective halo's. I'm not saying that you absolutely fall into this group, I don't know you personally...but next time you're standing in front of the mirror you might want to give it some reflection. (Pun intended).

I didn't say YOU were saying that. It was the context for my initial post, which you jumped all over because I might have tied it too closely to Steve Jobs (and, rightly, I don't know the details for him specifically).

Yes, wealth does at least provide the *opportunity* to do a great job raising kids. However, this is only true to the extent that chasing greater wealth doesn't occupy all of one's time.

Here is an interesting study, which seems to show both of us are correct to some extent:
http://www.adcl.org.pt/observatorio/...ldrenslist.pdf

Basically, it's not as simple as raw quality vs quantity (which I think we both know). Just being around kids a bunch only in terms of proximity, OR only being there in too limited amount of time, no matter how quality, isn't good. And, quality doesn't mean doing something special and well-planned either. It means really being there for them, in sufficient quantity.

I'm not going to try and post them all here, but for example, Google family mealtime and any number of things from obesity, to drug use, criminal activity, and even brain and physical development. You'll find families who take time to have dinner together have better outcomes. (Columbia University has a whole series of studies called, "The Importance of Family Dinners.") This isn't exactly rocket-science. It's pretty common sense.

[Pompiliu]

Originally Posted by Pentad

Sadly, a terrible autobiography.

If it's so terrible, why don't you write a better one?

And btw, it's biography, not autobiography.
Let me guess: you're american!

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by SteveW928

I didn't say YOU were saying that. It was the context for my initial post, which you jumped all over because I might have tied it too closely to Steve Jobs (and, rightly, I don't know the details for him specifically).

Yes, wealth does at least provide the *opportunity* to do a great job raising kids. However, this is only true to the extent that chasing greater wealth doesn't occupy all of one's time.

Here is an interesting study, which seems to show both of us are correct to some extent:
http://www.adcl.org.pt/observatorio/...ldrenslist.pdf

Basically, it's not as simple as raw quality vs quantity (which I think we both know). Just being around kids a bunch only in terms of proximity, OR only being there in too limited amount of time, no matter how quality, isn't good. And, quality doesn't mean doing something special and well-planned either. It means really being there for them, in sufficient quantity.

I'm not going to try and post them all here, but for example, Google family mealtime and any number of things from obesity, to drug use, criminal activity, and even brain and physical development. You'll find families who take time to have dinner together have better outcomes. (Columbia University has a whole series of studies called, "The Importance of Family Dinners.") This isn't exactly rocket-science. It's pretty common sense.

Well... I'm a big "common sense" type of guy. Yes, I did read the article. It's really an opinion piece as opposed to an actual study. Anyway, quality to me means that each child needs to be taken as a unique individual, and as such needs the type of attention that best suits him/her. This is where the "quality" comes in. Knowing your child and knowing his/her needs is what counts. Of course having plenty of time to allocate is a good thing. I think we probably agree more than we disagree, and so I think we've reached the end of our discussion. Correct me if I am wrong.

[calaverasgrande]

In my experience, the difference in "quality time" and not, is that good parents provide a consistent framework of reference to their children. Both in matters of language syntax, culture and values. Merely indulging each child as their own human being is not quality time.
Meting out justice, family style, the same rules should apply to all of the children, equally.
Telling one kid to do their homework, then letting another kid slide because they are on the football team, or are already failing, is how children start questioning their parents authority.
Likewise for matters of language. You can't tell kids to speak properly, then turn around and abuse the limits of double negatives and glottal stops.
Children pattern themselves after the parent, so parents have to provide an example.
I think this applies to pet owners somewhat too.
I know my dog owes her flawless diction to many hours of reading to her before bedtime.