As do all corporate CEOs. But, hey, at least Gates is giving away his fortune, I don't see Jobs doing that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
pirates of the slicon valley ? is it true
- Thread starter mith
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Probably not, as it portrays Apple in a bit of a negative light. I'm pretty sure the Steve would never allow such a movie to be available for purchase.Check your local library
![20080215-wni3sru5i3c17a7hy6qh1hihn.jpg]()
I've yet to get a chance to watch it though. I wonder if this will ever make it's way to the iTms?
Not to mention it's more akin to the old Apple of the late 80s/90s, which actually made some really horrible products. "Apple 2.0," which began when Steve came back in 1997, I think, is an entirely different corporation in of itself.
When I say at all costs, I refer to breaking the law to get what they want. If you followed the antitrust trial like I did you'd know that Gates & Co. have no scruples whatsoever. They have no problem providing falsified evidence to a judge, if they think they can get away with it.
It's commendable that Gates is giving away some of his fortune, but he was notably stingy with his wealth before that, and his approach to charity is much the same as his approach to running Microsoft. It's a lot about making people dance to his tune. I don't know anything about Jobs' charitable efforts.
And as evil as that is, I'd much rather support a company that did that sort of thing versus one where the CEO acted like Jobs.
I'd buy a hundred PCs before I spent a dime on a product that would end up in that ******'s pocket. This two-minute clip ruined the idea of buying a Mac for me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwYy8R87JMA
The unlawful behavior is a matter of fact. The personal quirks were dramatized in a TV movie. You decide.
Shrug. I don't care about unlawful behavior that has no real impact on me.
The events in the movie may have been dramatized. However, there are enough things portrayed in the movie correctly to make me wonder how off base they are (or are not) about Steve Jobs.
It has an impact, whether you know it or not. But then, I'm not making decisions about what products I buy based on the portrayal of a CEO on a TV movie. Whether it's accurate or not, I just can't see the sense in it, nor can I see how it meets your test of having a real impact on you. If you're really determined to not buy products that line some "******'s pocket" then I suggest living in a cave might be your best course of action.
wow. you base your life on clips like that? what is that, bad acting? i mean, it's a movie.
there are plenty of "******'s" around. better not spend any money anywhere.
why are you so mad?
I live three miles from an interstate highway. If I were to discover that my neighbor speeds on it regularly, I would not give a crap. His violation of the law doesn't bother me in the least. However, if I discover he regularly kicks his dog, I seriously doubt I'd be inviting him over to watch football anymore. I place mean jerks on the scale a bit lower than criminals.
All products come from "******s." Of that, I have no doubt. I probably would be living in a cave if I knew more about the people who provide my consumer products. Fortunately, I am blissfully unaware that my clothes were made by a 12 year old in Pakistan, or that my dentist is having an affair behind his wife's back. As time and information permits, I discover things like this... and I adjust my consumer habits accordingly.
Is your point that you think Steve Jobs isn't a jerk?
If not... then why do you enjoy sending your money to a jerk?
Or perhaps the question should be... what about an anti-trust lawsuit makes a guy more reprehensible than someone who berates his employees?
I live three miles from an interstate highway. If I were to discover that my neighbor speeds on it regularly, I would not give a crap. His violation of the law doesn't bother me in the least. However, if I discover he regularly kicks his dog, I seriously doubt I'd be inviting him over to watch football anymore. I place mean jerks on the scale a bit lower than criminals.
All products come from "******s." Of that, I have no doubt. I probably would be living in a cave if I knew more about the people who provide my consumer products. Fortunately, I am blissfully unaware that my clothes were made by a 12 year old in Pakistan, or that my dentist is having an affair behind his wife's back. As time and information permits, I discover things like this... and I adjust my consumer habits accordingly.
Is your point that you think Steve Jobs isn't a jerk?
If not... then why do you enjoy sending your money to a jerk?
Or perhaps the question should be... what about an anti-trust lawsuit makes a guy more reprehensible than someone who berates his employees?
Buying a computer is not my whole life. I guess it is for you.
I base consumer decisions on alot of different things. Very few of them have anything to do with how much of a "good guy" the manufacturer's CEO is. This is a case where it comes into play.
Single-minded genius, jerk, what's the difference? Edison was a complete jerk. Quit using light bulbs. Ford was a raging jerk. Quit buying cars made on assembly lines.
I'd hate to see how you come to a decision about whom to vote for.
Oh, and Bill Gates was--and still is--a jerk, known for his red-faced screaming fits while being a monopolist and a pirate at the same time. He makes Wal-Mart look like the best thing to come to your city in history.
Either your standards and sources for personal judgements are limited to YouTube and sound bites, or you've painted yourself into a corner here and can't find a way to back off with honor.
It's your money, buy from whom you wish, just please don't claim a superior moral position with those arguments.
A major hole in your logic here is that Henry Ford doesn't make a dime off me when I buy a Toyota. Same for Edison, or any other dead guy you can come up with.
I've admitted as much in three posts now. I see a difference in the behavior of the two men. Gates wants to win in business, Jobs wants to screw with people's heads. It's the difference between a guy who speeds on the highway, and a guy who kicks his dog.
Could just be me, but it doesn't sound like it!
Even if you drove a Ford, I'm pretty sure that Henry Ford has very little to do with the company that exists today. AT&T and Verizon aren't beholden to Antonio Meucci either.
Anyhow, to me, the knowledge that Jobs is so driven makes me want to buy a Mac more, not less. Gates is symbolic of the sort of bean counter mediocrity that pollutes fields way beyond consumer electronics. I like the fact that he values the Apple engineers who sat down and thought that mobile phones don't need half the crap the cerebrally-challenged engineers at Motorola and the like cram their devices with. That floppy disks could go to hell, portable music players sucked, PC laptops are ugly, etc. Quite aside from design acumen, he has the presence of mind to tell people their ideas suck. Maybe he's mean to people sometimes, or overly controlling... but I could care less. Everyone's got flaws, and his are obviously magnified. It kind of perturbs me that watching sensationalised accounts of his career makes you not want to buy a Mac. Surely you should be judging it against its peers, rather than acting out against a CEO you'll probably never meet?
Why would it "perturb" you? It's my money. If I like one jerk better than another, and base a consumer decision on that... why should you care?
What makes you think anything in Pirates was "sensationalized"? I don't honestly know as much about Job's story as I know about Gates.... but the things in the movie about Gates were spot-on.
Is there any specific scene in that movie that you guys think is completely fictional?
Winner of the most twisted logic award of the day.
I wasn't the one who somehow linked Henry Ford to the purchase of a car (any car) sixty years after his death.
Wow. That's just shameful.
You'd rather work for a criminal with no morals at all, than a guy with a "bad personality?" One that he has been working on ever since and is by all accounts quite a different man than he was when he was younger. Wow.
The thing I find amusing is that Jobs basically acted like the typical rock-star that had fame "go to his head." What the average young person thinks is "cool" if their favorite music-idol does is somehow "evil" when Jobs did it? Double standard if you ask me.
Also to those that are talking about the "charitable efforts of Bill Gates," remember that just because he doesn't crow about it, doesn't mean that jobs doesn't also give away millions. We just don't know if he does or not. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he gave nothing or that he gave millions. We just don't know either way.
You guys and your koolaid are a hoot.
You could not have exaggerated the characteristics of one guy in one direction, and the other in another direction any more if you had tried.
I'm not an "average young person." In fact, I'm easily old enough to have kids out of college at this point. I don't admire any "rock stars" these days; and certainly none that act like ******s.
Actually... nobody was talking about the charitable efforts of Gates. Could you give us some more doublespeak about Jobs and his philanthropy... that he may or may not do?
When I read your last paragraph I started to wonder if you were a 5th column debater interested in supporting my comments! Didn't you just say that Gates has "no morals" in the same post?
You could not have exaggerated the characteristics of one guy in one direction, and the other in another direction any more if you had tried.
I'm not an "average young person." In fact, I'm easily old enough to have kids out of college at this point. I don't admire any "rock stars" these days; and certainly none that act like ******s.
Actually... nobody was talking about the charitable efforts of Gates. Could you give us some more doublespeak about Jobs and his philanthropy... that he may or may not do?
When I read your last paragraph I started to wonder if you were a 5th column debater interested in supporting my comments! Didn't you just say that Gates has "no morals" in the same post?
Well, Steve Jobs' LSD trip was real.
He's on record as saying it was one of the most significant experiences of his life.
He's on record as saying it was one of the most significant experiences of his life.
So let me get this straight: You are claiming a lack of desire to do business with the company of one individual merely because of a two-minute dramatic portrayal on a several year old teleplay (which is certainly your choice), but at the same time defend that same position by claiming that the opposite player is justified in having similar personality traits, but is the better of the two because he conducts business in a mercenary, cutthroat manner.
Once again, this is entirely your choice, and I wouldn't deign to change your mind, but the logic in reaching that position is curious, to say the least. My conclusion is that not only is your reasoning flawed, but the source of your information is flawed as well, or have I completely missed the point?
Once again, this is entirely your choice, and I wouldn't deign to change your mind, but the logic in reaching that position is curious, to say the least. My conclusion is that not only is your reasoning flawed, but the source of your information is flawed as well, or have I completely missed the point?
I'm not the one giving the horse CPR
You have mostly missed the point.
The two minute clip I provided was (to my understanding) an accurate representation of Job's modus operandi. You guys have tap-danced around this (by saying it was "sensationalized" or "dramatic") but none of you has had the balls to say the scene is pure fiction.
I'll try and explain this once again. When Gates chews an employee's ass (or breaks the law), he is doing it because he wants the company to win. When Jobs goes over the top, he is apparently doing it because he is a psychotic nut case.
I have worked for plenty of "Gates" in my life. I know how they tick. I know what their goal is. I often hate them, but I can understand the logic in what they do. I have more respect for someone who just wants to win (even if they break the law, and have no people skills), versus some freak who just wants to get inside people's heads. I'm not willing to give my money to someone who just gets off on being sadistic (if I can help it).
You have mostly missed the point.
The two minute clip I provided was (to my understanding) an accurate representation of Job's modus operandi. You guys have tap-danced around this (by saying it was "sensationalized" or "dramatic") but none of you has had the balls to say the scene is pure fiction.
I'll try and explain this once again. When Gates chews an employee's ass (or breaks the law), he is doing it because he wants the company to win. When Jobs goes over the top, he is apparently doing it because he is a psychotic nut case.
I have worked for plenty of "Gates" in my life. I know how they tick. I know what their goal is. I often hate them, but I can understand the logic in what they do. I have more respect for someone who just wants to win (even if they break the law, and have no people skills), versus some freak who just wants to get inside people's heads. I'm not willing to give my money to someone who just gets off on being sadistic (if I can help it).
OK, the scene is fiction. The entire teleplay was fiction. It was based on a fictionalized version of history. Have you ever seen anything on TV that was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but? Why you should take this little bit as a perfect portrayal and the gospel is simply incomprehensible. And don't think for a minute that there was any intent to portray the key characters in a perfectly representative manner, consistent with actual reality. Context is everything.
When Gates screams at somebody, it's because he (and now his pit bull Ballmer) want to dominate an industry, it's cost, ethics, and law be damned, and it's always been that way with Microsoft. When Jobs does it, it's because he is a freaking perfectionist (not a "psychotic nut case"), and he wants the product being shipped to be the absolutely best possible that can be made at the time with the technology available (and inventing the technology if need be). Try and look into the documented history, involving interviews with people that have actually dealt with them. Yeah, they're both insufferable, but I'd rather take my chances with a visionary than a shark. It's not all about the money, you see.
And I, too have worked for many of the same people you have. Hard drivers who never forgot their people, nit-picking fools trying to hide their own inadequacies, and ring-knockers that had no business in uniform, much less command. I'll take a leader over a manager any day.
That's the reason so many here "drink the Kool-Aid." It's because historically, Microsoft has been about simply dominating every market it decides to enter, with no consideration for the product or consumer or law, where Apple has been about the product first; hardware, software, human interface. Yes, I oversimplify, but even in generalities there is truth.
I've been in & around this industry before it was an industry, when IBM was known more for typewriters, and tubes ruled. I've watched and paid close attention to the rise & fall of a lot of companies, and I've learned a deep distrust of anything out of Redmond, and for good reason. I've managed to lose some love for Apple over the years, too, but not from Day 1.
Look, don't feel like we're ganging up, or just rabid fanboys, or this isn't a great place to get answers, exchange views, and even respectfully disagree. We don't have to change anybody's mind.
When Gates screams at somebody, it's because he (and now his pit bull Ballmer) want to dominate an industry, it's cost, ethics, and law be damned, and it's always been that way with Microsoft. When Jobs does it, it's because he is a freaking perfectionist (not a "psychotic nut case"), and he wants the product being shipped to be the absolutely best possible that can be made at the time with the technology available (and inventing the technology if need be). Try and look into the documented history, involving interviews with people that have actually dealt with them. Yeah, they're both insufferable, but I'd rather take my chances with a visionary than a shark. It's not all about the money, you see.
And I, too have worked for many of the same people you have. Hard drivers who never forgot their people, nit-picking fools trying to hide their own inadequacies, and ring-knockers that had no business in uniform, much less command. I'll take a leader over a manager any day.
That's the reason so many here "drink the Kool-Aid." It's because historically, Microsoft has been about simply dominating every market it decides to enter, with no consideration for the product or consumer or law, where Apple has been about the product first; hardware, software, human interface. Yes, I oversimplify, but even in generalities there is truth.
I've been in & around this industry before it was an industry, when IBM was known more for typewriters, and tubes ruled. I've watched and paid close attention to the rise & fall of a lot of companies, and I've learned a deep distrust of anything out of Redmond, and for good reason. I've managed to lose some love for Apple over the years, too, but not from Day 1.
Look, don't feel like we're ganging up, or just rabid fanboys, or this isn't a great place to get answers, exchange views, and even respectfully disagree. We don't have to change anybody's mind.