'Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine' Film Debuts at SXSW, Eddy Cue Calls It 'Inaccurate' and 'Mean-Spirited'

[samcraig]

Anyone diminishing Woz's contributions or implying that Steve Jobs could have been successful without him are incredulous to me.

Lightening struck for BOTH parties by becoming partners. Without each other at that moment in time, NO one can say what would have happened. Period.

 

[lowendlinux]

I saw a documentary some years ago that stated the traits and brain patterns of clever criminals and successful business people are identical.

What differentiated the two was simply a matter of being in the right place at the right time and sheer luck as to which side of the tracks you came down on.

As said previously why so many people especially in the U.S. give SJ this god like status is a total mystery. The rest of the world has moved on.

Personally I think Gates has done and continues to do far more good with his wealth than Jobs ever did or ever would have done had he lived.

I agree Mr. Gates turned out to be a pretty good guy even if he spent years as my technology antagonist.

 

[westrock2000]

It's a myth that a leader needs to be an a$$hole to motivate talented people and get the best out of them.

When, as an engineer, you are at the top of your field and someone is telling you "you can do better", there are not too many other ways you are going to interpret that.

 

[LordVic]

Snip

While this explains things, it doesn't not excuse things.

People often confuse the two concepts. Explanation isn't and excuse for continued behaviours (also something you learn in Psychology). The whole point of identifying causation of patterns of behaviour is to adjust and come up with solutions to those behaviours which negatively impact them or others.

I can't speak to his case with his daughter so I'm leaving that out.

But, there's strong significant anecdotal history that shows that Mr Job's was not an ethical, or good person to many people. His history does not excuse continued and ongoing behaviours of lack of empathy.

This was a trend throughout his entire life even up to his death, when he was too stubborn, arrogant and conceited to even listen to the medical community and chose Homoeopathic remedies to cancers till it was too late.

as human beings, We should all owe each other a great deal. And one of those is not to unduly treat others with contempt and that each one of us is a human being and equal.

Listen, Steve did great things. Nobody doubts his influence on the modern tech world. But its far too often that his life and times are romanticised and he's put up on a pedestal for his business success, while the rest of his life is often ignored and excused because "oh, he had it so rough as a child".


Treat others the way you wish to be treated. Always and forever.

 

[iMember]

Anyone diminishing Woz's contributions or implying that Steve Jobs could have been successful without him are incredulous to me.

Lightening struck for BOTH parties by becoming partners. Without each other at that moment in time, NO one can say what would have happened. Period.

Bill gates are many but a Steve jobs is hard to find, do you wanna know why Albert Einstein was so popular? because he was a Steve Jobs and a Bill Gates

There is another Steve Jobs, his name his James Cameron, I think they were foes

 

[tbrinkma]

I gotta say that reads completely like you’re trying to find any excuse to make Jobs out to be the good guy.

Not at all. Just pointing out the poor wording of the quoted excerpt.

In any walk of life, if any man has an ex that has suggested he was the father of her child he should at the bare minimum take a look at it.

If your ex claims you're the father of her kid, you'd be foolish to take her at her word without taking a paternity test, especially if you believe you are infertile. There are folks out there who *didn't* insist on a paternity test, and are still stuck (years later) paying child support for children that *aren't* theirs and with who they have no visitation rights, even when the mother tells the courts as much. All because there's a time limit after notification, where after the clock runs out you can't dispute paternity.

As for the payments vs. net worth, the two responses to my post that I've looked at so far contradict one another on the order of events. You claim he's a douche because he paid so little, but was already worth millions. The other post claims he's a douche because he settled *before* he was worth millions in order to pay so little.

Either way, it seem to me that he was paying what the courts ordered, and the courts don't tend to be averse to modifying payments *upward* when situations change, and a reevaluation is requested.

----------

All of that is true.

However, I don't believe there's any record of Jobs having any difficulty conceiving later in life. And any given episode of Maury, you'll see men claiming to be infertile only to be told that they "ARE the father!" The preponderance of the evidence even absent the paternity testing suggested strongly that Jobs was merely claiming infertility to shun his responsibility (a responsibility the record shows he embraced once it was basically almost too late).

Actually, the preponderance of evidence doesn't speak to the *motive* for claiming infertility at all. I don't believe there's any *public* record as to his fertility/infertility status or the ease/difficulty of fathering children *at all*.

For all we know, he was misdiagnosed, or going through some unknown, temporary medical issues during the original diagnosis. For all we know, his later children were the result of fertility treatments. That's the thing, we *don't* know.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

The truth hurts. Everyone has their bad moments. But his treatment of his first child and mother is pretty much unforgivable.

 

[koruki]

here's one thing i"ve learned in my short life so far on this earth:

Friends of individuals cannot necessary give an accurate, and unbiased history of an individual since by nature, Friendship is a bond in which often the individuals share commonality in behaviour or acceptance of ones intricacies.

So in a case like Job's, and his history, it's best to look at multiple stories and sources. The friends who point rosy pictures, the enemies who hate him. Somewhere in the middle, you have closer to the real person.

What I have taken from it all? from his friends and enemies?

Jobs was a dedicated worker who had a very strong personal drive and motivation. if you were his friend, he rewarded you well. If you were not his friend, he could either be irrelevant to your life, or a complete and utter ass.

I agree, a friends view is bias. I pointed that out instead of saying Cue's take was skewed by his paycheck. He could easily say nothing as the rest of the exec team. Cue was often invited to the Jobs home for family birthday parties so I can understand him taking it very personal when a close friend is attacked, and more so that he is no longer around to defend himself.

In saying that, no ones view is accurate and unbiased really. A journalist view is narrow and based on what they've heard. An interview is prepared and scripted.

 

[Mojo1]

When, as an engineer, you are at the top of your field and someone is telling you "you can do better", there are not too many other ways you are going to interpret that.

I think that way you communicate the essence of that "you can do better" message is the difference between a great leader and the rest of the pack. Steve Jobs may have been a visionary in some respects. But I think that Apple engineers excelled in spite of his questionable leadership methods, not because of them...

 

[H2SO4]

I don't understand this line of reasoning. How likely was Jobs to get the bonus at all without Wozniak's work?

I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. So Jobs was a douchebag, he introduced some incredible things which changed society positively, but also did some terrible things which changed other societies negatively. At the end of the day he was simply a business man out to make money and any other altruistic label is just a bunch of fanatical BS. Go worship the teacher making 25k teaching your kid, or worship that firefighter that just saved someone's life. I never understood the idolatry around Jobs or around any business man.

This. I remember when I met my first celeb. After the first 3 seconds I thought, ‘Oh, he’s just a regular human being’. His crap still stinks.

 

[Lankyman]

We sadly live in a society that for some inexplicable reason worships the cult of facile celebs.

People we should revere, those who have done something really meaningful or brave we tend to either ignore or try to belittle in some way, yet those who have won a cookery show for how to make a slice of toast we place on a pedestal.

I exaggerate but you get my drift.

I find the whole obsession with Apple really unhealthy. Let's face it at the end of the day they make gadgets, big deal.

 

[waldobushman]

Woz's talent were unique

From the Hollywood Reporter review...
"according to Steve Wozniak's account, Jobs swindled him out of 90% of his share of payment for work they did on Atari's Breakout game."

Basically, Jobs split Atari’s fee with Wozniak but secretly kept the extra bonus Atari paid for minimizing the number of chips the game required. Yes, a total dick move, one which has already been covered ad nauseaum. But when compared to how most companies treat their talent, was this really such a bad deal? How likely is Wozniak to have secured the deal with Atari without Jobs? How likely is he to have negotiated equal or better payment terms, given his propensity for giving away intellectual property and rarely thinking of the business opportunities for his inventions? What percentage of profits does a developer typically receive for a product he designs which is later sold by his employer?

News flash: Steve Jobs was not the perfect humanitarian. I wonder, though, how well Gibney's public image would fare if his own life were subjected to the same level of scrutiny. I doubt we'll ever know, since his accomplishments will never merit that level of interest.

Woz is a clever guy and made significant contributions to a nascent Apple, but his talents were by no means unique, nor were they essential to Apple's birth and eventual explosive growth. To put it another way, Jobs is far more likely to have found some other smart computer geek with whom to partner than Woz was to have met up with another visionary genius like Jobs.

In the end, Wozniak had a fruitful and lucrative career at Apple, and to this day lives what appears to be a happy life of financial independence. Additionally, he (technically) remains an employee of Apple (though I doubt he's doing any actual work for them) and receives a stipend, estimated to be $120K per year.

That's more than we can say for early collaborators in some other Silicon Valley giants - for example Zuckerberg's underhanded betrayal of Saverin and others, who were tricked into relinquishing their shares of the company.

Woz's talents were unique. He and others teamed up with Jobs at the beginning and stuck with a nascent idea and company through difficult times as well as hopeful, and with Jobs, who, if even some stories are true, was a real dick. Those who think of themselves as leaders, especially those who are difficult, owe their success almost exclusively to people like Woz.

 

[gnasher729]

The truth hurts. Everyone has their bad moments. But his treatment of his first child and mother is pretty much unforgivable.

His first child and her mother disagree with you.

 

[weckart]

I was and am still looking forward to Alex Gibney's upcoming documentary on Scientology, but this Steve Jobs doc lowers the esteem I had for the filmmaker. It's great when you apply balls to the wall, muckracking investigations to an evil cult. Steve Jobs doesn't deserve that treatment. He raised the standards of everyone around him, was absolutely devoted to his work, and created an enormous amount of good in the world despite his personal flaws.

I am sure the Scienos feel exactly the same way about Gibney's upcoming documentary as you seem to about this one.

 

[filiale]

SJ did several bad things an decisions, but at least he didn't buy Beats!

 

[numlock]

Bill gates are many but a Steve jobs is hard to find, do you wanna know why Albert Einstein was so popular? because he was a Steve Jobs and a Bill Gates

There is another Steve Jobs, his name his James Cameron, I think they were foes

sorry what?

His first child and her mother disagree with you.

forgave or decided to move on with their lives? and are you claiming to know what those two really feel and think?

 

[SactoGuy18]

I would rather see at what he actually did for society with apple. I dont really care he made someone millionaire or about floppy drives . I do care he created an "us against them" "we are better" cult that almost seems brainwashed and is so hooked on its products trough marketing (and that he was brilliant in) I care apple seems to find the need to pay its employee as little as possible while trying to minimize its taxes, I care that its pouring more and more money in lobbying trying to buy its legislation it wants,...

But yet, despite all the known flaws about Jobs, somehow he managed with his masterful showmanship and marketing skills to make Apple one of the most visible companies in the world, period. Sure, he had his misses, but look at how iPod, iPhone and iPad effectively changed so many industries. Indeed, the iPad and iPhone is why today's car stereos are starting to dispense with even CD players in favor of connectivity with portable media players and cellphones.

I agree Mr. Gates turned out to be a pretty good guy even if he spent years as my technology antagonist.

I think Gates realized that given Microsoft essentially trampled over everyone else up until 2000, he needed to do something to improve his own image in terms of public relations. That's why he created the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, modeled heavily on what John D. Rockfeller and Andrew Carnegie did later in their lives.

 

[LordVic]

I think Gates realized that given Microsoft essentially trampled over everyone else up until 2000, he needed to do something to improve his own image in terms of public relations. That's why he created the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, modeled heavily on what John D. Rockfeller and Andrew Carnegie did later in their lives.

there was an interview with Gates, will have to find it.

Summation though from memory, was that once he achieved this grand position he looked back and saw everything he did to achieve it, and all the people eh had to step on to get there. He also remembered why he went into tech in the first place, was that for advancement of mankind technologically. To give access to the world technology.

he realized that he has far too much wealth personally, that he would never be able to spend it all, and that having so few people holding onto so much wealth was a detriment to mankind and that he wishes now that he's in the position of power and money to return that knowledge and money back to the world.

He's also said he intends to leave very little of his money to his children and the bulk of it will all be donated to various charities when he passes.

Sometimes, when you get older, you look back on your life choices and decisions, and might not like what you see. The stronger person will rise from that and change. The weaker man will continue on the same path.

 

[Sill]

there was an interview with Gates, will have to find it.

Summation though from memory, was that once he achieved this grand position he looked back and saw everything he did to achieve it, and all the people eh had to step on to get there. He also remembered why he went into tech in the first place, was that for advancement of mankind technologically. To give access to the world technology.

Maybe thats what he says now, but that wasn't the reason he got into technology. Bill was after profit, pure and simple. The people who came before him, like Stallman, Englebart, Kotok - the entire early software community - were all about coming up with better software and then giving it away so people could build on it. The computer companies of the time gave away free software to add value to their machines.
Along comes Bill Gates. He bears the distinction of being the first person to ever charge for software. He wanted, I think, $100 for a paper tape copy of Microsoft Basic for the early S-100 machines. He whined when people bought one tape and then copied it for their friends, and took out a full page ad in Dr. Dobbs Journal lambasting the early software "pirates".

I'm not saying Bill didn't have a right to ask for money, nor do I think there is anything at all wrong with him profiting handsomely for what he's done. He found a need - getting underpowered and overpriced IBM clones to be something more than cash registers with low res graphics - and filled it. Quite well. I don't begrudge him the money.

he realized that he has far too much wealth personally, that he would never be able to spend it all, and that having so few people holding onto so much wealth was a detriment to mankind and that he wishes now that he's in the position of power and money to return that knowledge and money back to the world.

Well, Bill isn't exactly the greatest mind when it comes to economics so I'll forgive him his misconceptions.

He's also said he intends to leave very little of his money to his children and the bulk of it will all be donated to various charities when he passes.

I remember that. Weren't they supposed to receive one mil each?

Sometimes, when you get older, you look back on your life choices and decisions, and might not like what you see. The stronger person will rise from that and change. The weaker man will continue on the same path.

Agreed.

----------

The truth hurts. Everyone has their bad moments. But his treatment of his first child and mother is pretty much unforgivable.

So.. you were personally harmed by this?

Again, people who have not been affected by someone's decisions shouldn't have say over how forgivable or unforgivable those decisions are.