Steve's "Greatness"?! ...

[masterbaron]

If I managed to change the world in positive technological-cultural ways and then - denied my child - I would have a hole in my soul that technology can not fill as there's no app for that - this should serve as a reminder to the claim of "greatness" which is held in small vessels and presented in humane kindness!

If the burden of "greatness" is too much humility and caring for others will lighten the load.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/m/6a2102e4-de78-3313-b949-1c3b3e24fecc/ss_steve-jobs'-daughter-details.html

 

[Scepticalscribe]

If I managed to change the world in positive technological-cultural ways and then - denied my child - I would have a hole in my soul that technology can not fill as there's no app for that - this should serve as a reminder to the claim of "greatness" which is held in small vessels and presented in humane kindness!

If the burden of "greatness" is too much humility and caring for others will lighten the load.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/m/6a2102e4-de78-3313-b949-1c3b3e24fecc/ss_steve-jobs'-daughter-details.html

If I may, I would like to suggest an amendment to the actual thread title: Put the inverted commas that you have around the word "greatness" in the text of the post into the actual title of the post. That should make a difference in how it reads to those who chance upon it while scrolling or browsing.

This is because when I clicked on the thread, I assumed that it was simply another uncritical thread devoted to worship of the esteemed Mr Jobs.

 

[masterbaron]

Point well taken - unfortunately the topic heading cannot be edited - but yes, emphasis is needed! Perhaps those expecting such are just the ones to gain from reading the article.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Point well taken - unfortunately the topic heading cannot be edited - but yes, emphasis is needed!

Yes, it can.

On the top - either left or right - hand corner of your screen (something you alone will be able to see, as you are the thread title starter), you will see a tiny icon that looks a little like a cog-wheel.

Actually, having just checked a thread I started, you will see the tiny cog-wheel beside "Most Liked Posts" and "Watch Thread" - on the right above the page of the thread.

Click on that; it will allow you to amend your thread title.

 

[masterbaron]

Yes, it can.

On the top - either left or right - hand corner of your screen (something you alone will be able to see, as you are the thread title starter), you will see a tiny icon that looks a little like a cog-wheel.

Actually, having just checked a thread I started, you will see the tiny cog-wheel beside "Most Liked Posts" and "Watch Thread" - on the right above the page of the thread.

Click on that; it will allow you to amend your thread title.

This is one example of why the internet is "good" - many thanks and useful information.

 

[mmomega]

It is still an example of placing the OP's values against another persons values, in this case Steve Jobs, and then saying OP's values are more important.

Everyones own personal values are more important than any other persons values. Always. Period.

The moment you place someone else's values above your own is when you are "putting yourself down"
The moment you place your values on another person is when you are "putting them down"

My words aren't saying Steve Jobs was or is great, neither are they saying his is not great.
To me Steve was who he was, probably one of the worlds best salesmen.

 

[masterbaron]

It is still an example of placing the OP's values against another persons values, in this case Steve Jobs, and then saying OP's values are more important.

Everyones own personal values are more important than any other persons values. Always. Period.

The moment you place someone else's values above your own is when you are "putting yourself down"
The moment you place your values on another person is when you are "putting them down"

My words aren't saying Steve Jobs was or is great, neither are they saying his is not great.
To me Steve was who he was, probably one of the worlds best salesmen.

Well said ... and I agree!

However - across many articles some things stand out and I tend to take those points (about Steve) and look at it's probable impact on the business - it explains the culture under Steve.

Additionally, and it is a matter of opinion and belief ... I find it hard to imagine having access to that much money - being charitable in other instances and not "resolving to" setting something aside for my child - it equates to something larger - perhaps hate ... and I did say "I would have a hole in my soul" ... and many survive quite well with that condition.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

To me Steve was who he was, probably one of the worlds best salesmen.

Exactly, but he is (mistakenly, in my opinion) held up as much more - a visionary, a genius, etc.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Exactly, but he is (mistakenly, in my opinion) held up as much more - a visionary, a genius, etc.

I would argue that the story is a bit more nuanced.

Jobs didn't invent any of the tech in question, but he saw how consumers could be persuaded to want to buy and use these devices.

In some areas, Jobs was a genius, in that he had some extraordinary skills and talents; he was an outstanding salesman, yes, but he had to have something to sell for that to be of relevance.

In the area of tech, he, probably more than anyone else was responsible for moving tech into the mainstream - away from the pimply nerds and out to consumers who might have wished to use it, but hadn't seen a need to do so, as they couldn't see how this was relevant to their lives.

That meant making the product easy enough to use, - as least as easy as the products that were already on the market - and attractive enough to wish to use it. It also meant that it had to fulfil a use - it had to be actually useful, as well as attractive and easy to use.

So, Jobs had taste, - at times, impeccable taste - and was able to bring the concept of taste to tech, which, initially, was almost shocking; moreover, he could identify what people might want, or need, before they realised that they wanted or needed this and supply this need.

As a businessman, he showed unusual an innovative vision: For example, he built Apple - not once, but twice - resurrecting it with the iPod and transforming the way in which music (and other matters) is and are consumed and then, of course, there was his relationship with Pixar.

However, he was an insufferable human being, and Jobs the man, I admit to not liking at all.

Personally, I have long found the uncritical admiration and adulation with which he was regarded, almost cult like in its unquestioning veneration, very hard to take.

My personal take is that is should be possible to like some of the products Apple produce, - and express disagreement with the direction of the company on occasion - without having to buy into an uncritical mindset of adulation of the founder or the company.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

I would argue that the story is a bit more nuanced.

Jobs didn't invent any of the tech in question, but he saw how consumers could be persuaded to want to buy and use these devices.

In some areas, Jobs was a genius, in that he had some extraordinary skills and talents; he was an outstanding salesman, yes, but he had to have something to sell for that to be of relevance.

In the area of tech, he, probably more than anyone else was responsible for moving tech into the mainstream - away from the pimply nerds and out to consumers who might have wished to use it, but hadn't seen a need to do so, as they couldn't see how this was relevant to their lives.

That meant making the product easy enough to use, - as least as easy as the products that were already on the market - and attractive enough to wish to use it. It also meant that it had to fulfil a use - it had to be actually useful, as well as attractive and easy to use.

So, Jobs had taste, - at times, impeccable taste - and was able to bring the concept of taste to tech, which, initially, was almost shocking; moreover, he could identify what people might want, or need, before they realised that they wanted or needed this and supply this need.

As a businessman, he showed unusual an innovative vision: For example, he built Apple - not once, but twice - resurrecting it with the iPod and transforming the way in which music (and other matters) is and are consumed and then, of course, there was his relationship with Pixar.

However, he was an insufferable human being, and Jobs the man, I admit to not liking at all.

Personally, I have long found the uncritical admiration and adulation with which he was regarded, almost cult like in its unquestioning veneration, very hard to take.

My personal take is that is should be possible to like some of the products Apple produce, - and express disagreement with the direction of the company on occasion - without having to buy into an uncritical mindset of adulation of the founder or the company.

Well put. But I’m still reluctant to call Jobs a genius given that he relied heavily on other people’s work without crediting them so it’s not easy to accurately assess his accomplishments. A lot of people consider him a developer/inventor of the Apple computer, but Woz has said that Jobs didn’t do any of the hardware or software on the Apple 1. Even Ive has stated publicly that Jobs took too much credit. But there’s no question he was a very successful businessman, salesman and promoter. He had good judgment for what people desired and/or created that very desire, and he led Apple to the height of profitability (even if an occasional “reality distortion field” was required).

I’ll admit that my opinion of him may be clouded by how nasty a person he was, but if we were playing the old "who doesn't belong and why" game, I think we'd know the answer to the following.

Newton - DaVinci - Mozart - Jobs

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Well put. But I’m still reluctant to call Jobs a genius given that he relied heavily on other people’s work without crediting them so it’s not easy to accurately assess his accomplishments. A lot of people consider him a developer/inventor of the Apple computer, but Woz has said that Jobs didn’t do any of the hardware or software on the Apple 1. Even Ive has stated publicly that Jobs took too much credit. But there’s no question he was a very successful businessman, salesman and promoter. He had good judgment for what people desired and/or created that very desire, and he led Apple to the height of profitability (even if an occasional “reality distortion field” was required).

I’ll admit that my opinion of him may be clouded by how nasty a person he was, but if we were playing the old "who doesn't belong and why" game, I think we'd know the answer to the following.

Newton - DaVinci - Mozart - Jobs

Oh, agreed.

The uncritical admiration in which he has been held by many - not least on these threads - always irked me, and smacked of the suspension of critical faculties one finds in a cult.

And no, he wasn't the origin inventor these devices, - and was less then generous in acknowledging those who were - agreed, also.

However, that doesn't detract from what he did achieve; he found a way to bring stylish tech to "the masses" or to a mass consumer market and created a demand for that.

But, a very nasty piece of work as a human being, agreed.

 

[masterbaron]

But, a very nasty piece of work as a human being, agreed.

... and ... to emulate any aspect of that as part and parcel of genius is a mistake. I think Johnnie could use some humility as his genius is inferred through "flatness" of product and character - just sayin ...

Where as in the past Apple (Steve) represented "freedom and individuality" personified - Tim invokes "product" in a detached and impersonal way that is stoic and rigid.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

Relevant to our discussion in this thread, an AP article was in the Sunday papers that included this statement (emphasis mine):

"A fully functioning Apple-1 being auctioned by Boston-based RR Auction in September is one of only 60 or so remaining of the original 200 that were designed and built by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in 1976 and 1977."

Functioning Apple computer built in 1970s up for auction
https://www.apnews.com/71572c83b136...-Apple-computer-built-in-1970s-up-for-auction

 

[macsimcon]

If I managed to change the world in positive technological-cultural ways and then - denied my child - I would have a hole in my soul that technology can not fill as there's no app for that - this should serve as a reminder to the claim of "greatness" which is held in small vessels and presented in humane kindness!

If the burden of "greatness" is too much humility and caring for others will lighten the load.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/m/6a2102e4-de78-3313-b949-1c3b3e24fecc/ss_steve-jobs'-daughter-details.html

Just as a president gets the credit or the blame for events occurring during his or her administration, Steve gets credit and blame for Apple during his tenure. When it came to businesss, Steve was an undeniable genius: he realized the potential of the GUI, of the mouse, of the smartphone, of online software, music, and movie sales, of computer animation. Even Edison and Ford created or transformed fewer industries than Steve Jobs. It’s just incredible that Steve helped mainstream personal computing AND mobile computing.

And maybe that’s the point: perhaps you can’t be a visionary industrialist and a good person. Nobody talks about what great guys Edison and Ford were, they were both real bastards.

I didn’t know Steve personally, but I’ve read nearly everything there is to read about him, and in the end, we are all judged by what we do. There are scores of people who knew Steve who tell essentially the same tale: he was a narcissistic sociopath, caring more about what he wanted than anything or anyone else. Those attributes enabled him singular focus in getting people to do the best work of their lives; he wasn’t limited by the humanity of empathy or ethics, and hence was an indomitable innovator.

If it had just been him, maybe I could see that all that sacrifice and misery inflicted on others was worth it, but the damage done to Lisa and her mother, and Steve’s cold detachment toward all his children are just too high a price. Steve owed it to his children to be a great parent, and it seems clear now that he was cruel, selfish, and distant. That right there makes him a total failure as a human being, no matter his professional accomplishments.

Most everything Apple has done made my life easier and more enjoyable, and nearly all of that is due to Steve in one way or another, and I’m grateful for that.

But Steve was a dick.

 

[AxiomaticRubric]

If I managed to change the world in positive technological-cultural ways and then - denied my child - I would have a hole in my soul that technology can not fill as there's no app for that - this should serve as a reminder to the claim of "greatness" which is held in small vessels and presented in humane kindness!

If the burden of "greatness" is too much humility and caring for others will lighten the load.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/m/6a2102e4-de78-3313-b949-1c3b3e24fecc/ss_steve-jobs'-daughter-details.html

The last years of Steve's life were spent caring for his immediate family. He definitely realized what really matters before the end came.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

When it came to businesss, Steve was an undeniable genius: he realized the potential of the GUI, of the mouse, of the smartphone, of online software, music, and movie sales, of computer animation.

Many of the things you listed existed before Jobs and Apple, so by definition some people saw their potential but business leaders failed to exploit them, similar to how Swiss watchmakers didn't see any future for electronic watches. But to me an important element of genius is creativity and as Jobs was well known for taking more credit than was appropriate, one doesn't really know what to attribute to him versus internal Apple technical and marketing groups that presented concepts that Jobs green lighted. So no question that as CEO he deserved significant credit for Apple's success by recognizing the potential of the things you listed. He pushed to make them easier to use - and let's give credit to Apple engineers for accomplishing that - and he created the aura around Apple products that made people think they were cool for using them.

So I'm still resistant to calling him a genius, but admit to possible bias based on the kind of person he was.