2000 - 2009 = a decade (The "aughts", or whatever)
2001 - 2010 = a decade (The first decade of the 21st century)
1993 - 2002 = a decade (10 years)
All of these are correct, it just depends on what the context is.
The context of the article is "CEO of the Decade". I doubt Fortune is being pedantic and referring to linear decades starting from year 1. When they say "CEO of the Decade" I think they mean "the aughts". And there is a little less than 2 months left in "the aughts".
Thank you. He's trying to make some sort of case that they and I are wrong by saying the USA uses the wrong context, then goes on and on and on with his Gregorian calendar, etc, etc.
He still isn?t getting it. He also believes that CE/AD started in zeroth year. Crazy!
Well, I didn't see the post where he thinks AD started in year 0, but in this case and in this context, I think he's right. A decade just means 10 years, but when you start talking about the 90's, you're speaking of 10 specific years (1990 - 1999). But if you are talking about the last decade in the 20th century, you're talking about a different 10 years (1991 - 2000).
He still isn’t getting it. He also believes that CE/AD started in zeroth year and the turn of the calendar end of millennium was Dec. 31st 1999. Crazy! It’s not farfetched to think he may have recently filed a lawsuit against Sarah Jessica Parker and Apple.
Now he lies!!!!
He's boxed himself into a hole and can't get out!!
Thank you. He's trying to make some sort of case that they and I are wrong by saying the USA uses the wrong context, then goes on and on and on with his Gregorian calendar, etc, etc.
As far as I know, this has nothing to do with the USA or any other country.
Are you saying that the '90s is one set 10 years in the USA and another set of 10 years in some other country?
A decade just means 10 years, but when you start talking about the 90's, you're speaking of 10 specific years (1990 - 1999). But if you are talking about the last decade in the 20th century, you're talking about a different 10 years (1991 - 2000).
Yeah, we’ve all been telling him that. It’s been stated many, many times. His assertion is that a decade is a much simpler definition.
As proofed here: "And no- there are only 1 1/2 months left in this decade”
And here attacking Anonymous: "You're wasting your time with that one. He's thinks the year 2000 is in another decade.”
And then here: "Year ending in
0=1
1=2
2=3
3=4
4=5
5=6
6=7
7=8
8=9
9=10
This is why this decade ends 12/31/09”
With Anantksundaram responding with: "OK. One last try. Promise)
According to your logic above, what was the year that preceded AD 1? ("AD" for Anno Domini from Medieval Latin).”
Not comprehending what Anantsundaram clearly asked he oddly responded with: “There was no full year!! it was only measured in months.” indicating that he doesn’t understand how or why CE/AD started with year one.
Mine and everyone else’s posts, including yours basically stated this: "For this usage, that is the correct timeframe, but there is another, more technically accurate start and end, beginning with January 1st, xx01. This is because there is no "zeroth century” between BC/BCE and AD/CE.
"The nineties are from 1990—1999, but the 9th decade of the century is 1981-1990”
The common theme of his ignorance is posts like: "And the new millenium started 1/1/2000”
With a half dozen people telling him the same thing he still doesn’t understand the relationships between them. He was informed early on that Fortune is not wrong. But he started off by attacking Anonymous and then just continued with it. It would be fascinating if it wasn’t so sad. I have to wonder how he even performs certain basic tasks each day.
As far as I know, this has nothing to do with the USA or any other country.
Are you saying that the '90s is one set 10 years in the USA and another set of 10 years in some other country?
no - I'm not saying anything like that at all. he and annonymous keep trying to insist that Fortune is wrong (and myself) .
this all started because annonymous stated that the decade still has a over a year and a month. solipism keeps insisting the same thing- so I assume he's not daft and it must be some British thing as he says America has the millenium meaningwrong (as if one has anything to do with the other) and he keeps bringing up the Gregorian calendar.
At this point I don't even care what he thinks.
He still can't comprehend how the decade of the nineties ened 12/31/99. He thinks it ended 12/31/00.
no - I'm not saying anything like that at all. he and annonymous keep trying to insist that Fortune is wrong (and myself) .
this all started because annonymous stated that the decade still has a over a year and a month. solipism keeps insisting the same thing- so I assume he's not daft and it must be some British thing as he says America has the millenium meaningwrong (as if one has anything to do with the other) and he keeps bringing up the Gregorian calendar.
At this point I don't even care what he thinks.
He still can't comprehend how the decade of the nineties ened 12/31/99. He thinks it ended 12/31/00.
Rather sad actually.
Solipsism (and the rest of us) did not imply or state that the "90's" ended in 12/31/00. What were stating (and it's true) is that "the last" decade of the 20th century ended in 12/31/00. The 90's is ten years from xx90 to xx99. This is "a" decade not "the" decade. "a" decade can be any ten years in a row. 1985 to 1994 is a decade. But it would not be consider the "80's" or "the" decade.
"The" decade is one tenth of the century. And right now we are referring to the 1st decade of the 21st century. And the 21st century began on 1/1/2001. If it began on 1/1/2001 then 2009 can not be the tenth year of the 21st century. 2010 is the tenth year of the 1st decade in the 21st century. And to understand this you have to go all the way back to the very 1st century (100 years). Which went from 1/1/1 to 12/31/100. The 2nd century went from 1/1/101 to 12/31/200. And the 20th century was from 1/1/1901 to 12/31/2000.
Ask yourself this...Is the year 2000 the last year of the 20th century or the first year of the 21st century? There's only one right answer.
Solipsism (and the rest of us) did not imply or state that the "90's" ended in 12/31/00. What were stating (and it's true) is that "the last" decade of the 20th century ended in 12/31/00. The 90's is ten years from xx90 to xx99. This is "a" decade not "the" decade. "a" decade can be any ten years in a row. 1985 to 1994 is a decade. But it would not be consider the "80's" or "the" decade.
"The" decade is one tenth of the century. And right now we are referring to the 1st decade of the 21st century. And the 21st century began on 1/1/2001. If it began on 1/1/2001 then 2009 can not be the tenth year of the 21st century. 2010 is the tenth year of the 1st decade in the 21st century. And to understand this you have to go all the way back to the very 1st century (100 years). Which went from 1/1/1 to 12/31/100. The 2nd century went from 1/1/101 to 12/31/200. And the 20th century was from 1/1/1901 to 12/31/2000.
Ask yourself this...Is the year 2000 the last year of the 20th century or the first year of the 21st century? There's only one right answer.
The only thing that I think is being misinterpreted here is the context of decade in the headline "CEO of the Decade". You're saying it is a calendar decade, meaning the first decade of the 21st century (2001 - 2010). But when people think of decades in the context of "CEO of the decade" or "Best movie of the Decade", they're talking of the 80's or the 90's or the "aughts". So in this case, I think Fortune is talking about the aughts, 2000 - 2009.
Also, if you go to the Fortune site and look at the article there is a timeline of Jobs' hits and misses. ("Steve Jobs: a decade of hits and a few misses") It starts with 2000 and ends with 2009.
The only thing that I think is being misinterpreted here is the context of decade in the headline "CEO of the Decade". You're saying it is a calendar decade, meaning the first decade of the 21st century (2001 - 2010). But when people think of decades in the context of "CEO of the decade" or "Best movie of the Decade", they're talking of the 80's or the 90's or the "aughts". So in this case, I think Fortune is talking about the aughts, 2000 - 2009.
It seems clear from the date of the article that they are referring to the aughts, as we’ve all mentioned. Everyone on this thread accept TeckStud has understood and acknowledged that context and usage of the term decade can vary. Now he’s in another thread arguing with Bregalad that century and decade don’t have the similar rules of usage.
Quote:
Also, if you go to the Fortune site and look at the article there is a timeline of Jobs' hits and misses. ("Steve Jobs: a decade of hits and a few misses") It starts with 2000 and ends with 2009.
They even mention the “decade” of Steve starting in 1997, but that is more literary to suggest his stellar performance is well over 10 years now than to suggest the timeframe is from 1997 to 2006.
Relaxing here in Beijing, China, I just couldn't add my two cents to the Debate of the Decade.
As per the Fortune article and even Wikipedia, the decade in reference begins at 0.
Best analogy that I can come up with, is how we acknowledge our birthdays.
We start at zero, but day one, at birth. A year later we are celebrate our first, i.e., One Year Old, birthday. Our first decade of life is held on the 3653 (+/- 1) day, which is one day after a span of a full 10 years.
Remember the 2K scare: it was set to extoll itself on new years eve at midnight, January 1st, 2000. Not 2001. Did we not?
P.S. Don't buy an iPhone off the street markets in China. Just like you don't buy TB USB keys which are all over the place. Had to stop a few yanks from making a big mistake. Apple store in a very poor area. Little traffic. Not as many cell phones around of any order. Service is very expensive relative to income.
That has nothing to do with anything here. That had to do with 2 digit year representation.
Yes, but the millennium celebrations, i.e., 2K started as per, "The majority popular approach (which) was to treat the end of 1999 as the end of a millennium, and to hold millennium celebrations at midnight between December 31, 1999 and January 1, 2000….
Ref. Using Snow Leopard, highlight millennium , right click and select Look Up in Dictionary.
In any event, Jobs deserves the title, and the way that Apple is going, he could get it again in 2020/2021.
It would be interesting to list all the titles that he/Woz/Apple has been so accorded.
Yes, but the millennium celebrations, i.e., 2K started as per, "The majority popular approach (which) was to treat the end of 1999 as the end of a millennium, and to hold millennium celebrations at midnight between December 31, 1999 and January 1, 2000….
Ref. Using Snow Leopard, highlight millennium , right click and select Look Up in Dictionary.
Everyone on this thread, except Teckstud, has acknowledged the varying usage. I even made a Prince reference. We celebrated the numeric change from a leading 1xxx to a 2xxx, not the change from 1CE to 1000 CE, and then 1001 CE to 2000 CE, since CE didn’t start with a zero. The first millennium, based on out current calendar, would start 01-Jan-0001 and would end on 31-Dec-1000. Exactly 1000 years. All but one understand the difference.
Everyone on this thread, except Teckstud, has acknowledged the varying usage. I even made a Prince reference. We celebrated the numeric change from a leading 1xxx to a 2xxx, not the change from 1CE to 1000 CE, and then 1001 CE to 2000 CE, since CE didn?t start with a zero. The first millennium, based on out current calendar, would start 01-Jan-0001 and would end on 31-Dec-1000. Exactly 1000 years. All but one understand the difference.
Interesting. But as I remember, the 21st Century celebrations commenced at the dot of midnight, i.e., between the evening of December 31st, 1999 and the morning of January 1st, 2000.
However, re decades, Wikipedia defines, "The 2000s is the decade that started on January 1, 2000 and will end on December 31, 2009. It is the current decade." and
"The 2010s decade, pronounced "twenty-tens", "two thousand (and) tens" or simply "the tens",[1] is the upcoming decade beginning January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2019.
I know someone who was at Apple during the period 1996-2001, during the last days of Pepsi Apple and the first days of New Jobs Apple. What he says: Apple always had good people. But the problem with having good people is that good people tend to be opinionated and difficult and not always the best communicators (they're geeks, after all). Nothing ever got done because it got bogged down in turf wars, indecisive managers who didn't understand technology thus could not put an end to the turf wars, and internal squabbling about the right approach to the next version of MacOS. Steve came in and put an end to all the squabbling and turf wars -- there was one way, Steve's way, and that was that. Steve also understands technology even though he's not a geek himself. He understood exactly what the geeks were trying to tell him, and redirected them towards Steve's Way. And those who refused to be redirected... well. He had no (zero) compunctions about firing them and hiring people who were simpatico. And because he actually understands technology as vs. being a shoe salesman, he could hire good people to take the place of the people who wouldn't get on board.
One guy I know who was interviewed to be an executive software management employee at Apple during that era (he eventually turned it down, something he now regrets because he would have so many hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank if he'd accepted it then that it'd be ridiculous) said that going into Steve's Apple was totally unlike any computer company he'd had ever interviewed at before, it was like going into a foreign territory. He asked, "What if we want to add a new feature to the operating system core, how do I represent that to the management team," and the interview team looked at him as if he were a rat in the kitchen and said "Tell us how that will allow us to make a user experience that's cleaner, simpler, faster, more functional, easier to use." That is, *everything* is user experience driven at Apple, not geek-driven, and that focus comes down from the top because that is *not* the way that geeks (and people who've been promoted from the geek ranks) think. Now you know why ZFS is not in Snow Leopard -- Steve came back, said "WTF does this give us in terms of user experience?" and SPLAT, gone. (Probably good riddance, given how many lost data pool stories I've heard about ZFS... it simply does not react well to consumer hardware). And you also understand why Windows 7 is an overly complex mess (have you *seen* the control panel in Windows 7? NIGHTMARE!) -- Microsoft is entirely geek driven and Balmer is an accountant, not a geek, so he has no ability to evaluate what the geeks do critically and lay down Balmer's Way to them.
I'm not interested in working at Apple myself, I've heard too many "Steve stories" and work in an area that Steve isn't interested in anyhow. But I definitely respect what Steve did for Apple. He took a company with a lot of talent, a company that was on the verge of disintegration due to internal turf wars and executive indecision and made it work. And that's no small feat.
Comments
Context people, context.
2000 - 2009 = a decade (The "aughts", or whatever)
2001 - 2010 = a decade (The first decade of the 21st century)
1993 - 2002 = a decade (10 years)
All of these are correct, it just depends on what the context is.
The context of the article is "CEO of the Decade". I doubt Fortune is being pedantic and referring to linear decades starting from year 1. When they say "CEO of the Decade" I think they mean "the aughts". And there is a little less than 2 months left in "the aughts".
Thank you. He's trying to make some sort of case that they and I are wrong by saying the USA uses the wrong context, then goes on and on and on with his Gregorian calendar, etc, etc.
He still isn?t getting it. He also believes that CE/AD started in zeroth year. Crazy!
Well, I didn't see the post where he thinks AD started in year 0, but in this case and in this context, I think he's right. A decade just means 10 years, but when you start talking about the 90's, you're speaking of 10 specific years (1990 - 1999). But if you are talking about the last decade in the 20th century, you're talking about a different 10 years (1991 - 2000).
He still isn’t getting it. He also believes that CE/AD started in zeroth year and the turn of the calendar end of millennium was Dec. 31st 1999. Crazy! It’s not farfetched to think he may have recently filed a lawsuit against Sarah Jessica Parker and Apple.
Now he lies!!!!
He's boxed himself into a hole and can't get out!!
Quote me where I've stated either of this pleeze.
Thank you. He's trying to make some sort of case that they and I are wrong by saying the USA uses the wrong context, then goes on and on and on with his Gregorian calendar, etc, etc.
As far as I know, this has nothing to do with the USA or any other country.
Are you saying that the '90s is one set 10 years in the USA and another set of 10 years in some other country?
A decade just means 10 years, but when you start talking about the 90's, you're speaking of 10 specific years (1990 - 1999). But if you are talking about the last decade in the 20th century, you're talking about a different 10 years (1991 - 2000).
Yeah, we’ve all been telling him that. It’s been stated many, many times. His assertion is that a decade is a much simpler definition.
As proofed here: "And no- there are only 1 1/2 months left in this decade”
And here attacking Anonymous: "You're wasting your time with that one. He's thinks the year 2000 is in another decade.”
And then here: "Year ending in
0=1
1=2
2=3
3=4
4=5
5=6
6=7
7=8
8=9
9=10
This is why this decade ends 12/31/09”
With Anantksundaram responding with: "OK. One last try. Promise)
According to your logic above, what was the year that preceded AD 1? ("AD" for Anno Domini from Medieval Latin).”
Not comprehending what Anantsundaram clearly asked he oddly responded with: “There was no full year!! it was only measured in months.” indicating that he doesn’t understand how or why CE/AD started with year one.
Mine and everyone else’s posts, including yours basically stated this: "For this usage, that is the correct timeframe, but there is another, more technically accurate start and end, beginning with January 1st, xx01. This is because there is no "zeroth century” between BC/BCE and AD/CE.
"The nineties are from 1990—1999, but the 9th decade of the century is 1981-1990”
The common theme of his ignorance is posts like: "And the new millenium started 1/1/2000”
With a half dozen people telling him the same thing he still doesn’t understand the relationships between them. He was informed early on that Fortune is not wrong. But he started off by attacking Anonymous and then just continued with it. It would be fascinating if it wasn’t so sad. I have to wonder how he even performs certain basic tasks each day.
As far as I know, this has nothing to do with the USA or any other country.
Are you saying that the '90s is one set 10 years in the USA and another set of 10 years in some other country?
no - I'm not saying anything like that at all. he and annonymous keep trying to insist that Fortune is wrong (and myself) .
this all started because annonymous stated that the decade still has a over a year and a month. solipism keeps insisting the same thing- so I assume he's not daft and it must be some British thing as he says America has the millenium meaningwrong (as if one has anything to do with the other) and he keeps bringing up the Gregorian calendar.
At this point I don't even care what he thinks.
He still can't comprehend how the decade of the nineties ened 12/31/99. He thinks it ended 12/31/00.
Rather sad actually.
no - I'm not saying anything like that at all. he and annonymous keep trying to insist that Fortune is wrong (and myself) .
this all started because annonymous stated that the decade still has a over a year and a month. solipism keeps insisting the same thing- so I assume he's not daft and it must be some British thing as he says America has the millenium meaningwrong (as if one has anything to do with the other) and he keeps bringing up the Gregorian calendar.
At this point I don't even care what he thinks.
He still can't comprehend how the decade of the nineties ened 12/31/99. He thinks it ended 12/31/00.
Rather sad actually.
Solipsism (and the rest of us) did not imply or state that the "90's" ended in 12/31/00. What were stating (and it's true) is that "the last" decade of the 20th century ended in 12/31/00. The 90's is ten years from xx90 to xx99. This is "a" decade not "the" decade. "a" decade can be any ten years in a row. 1985 to 1994 is a decade. But it would not be consider the "80's" or "the" decade.
"The" decade is one tenth of the century. And right now we are referring to the 1st decade of the 21st century. And the 21st century began on 1/1/2001. If it began on 1/1/2001 then 2009 can not be the tenth year of the 21st century. 2010 is the tenth year of the 1st decade in the 21st century. And to understand this you have to go all the way back to the very 1st century (100 years). Which went from 1/1/1 to 12/31/100. The 2nd century went from 1/1/101 to 12/31/200. And the 20th century was from 1/1/1901 to 12/31/2000.
Ask yourself this...Is the year 2000 the last year of the 20th century or the first year of the 21st century? There's only one right answer.
Solipsism (and the rest of us) did not imply or state that the "90's" ended in 12/31/00. What were stating (and it's true) is that "the last" decade of the 20th century ended in 12/31/00. The 90's is ten years from xx90 to xx99. This is "a" decade not "the" decade. "a" decade can be any ten years in a row. 1985 to 1994 is a decade. But it would not be consider the "80's" or "the" decade.
"The" decade is one tenth of the century. And right now we are referring to the 1st decade of the 21st century. And the 21st century began on 1/1/2001. If it began on 1/1/2001 then 2009 can not be the tenth year of the 21st century. 2010 is the tenth year of the 1st decade in the 21st century. And to understand this you have to go all the way back to the very 1st century (100 years). Which went from 1/1/1 to 12/31/100. The 2nd century went from 1/1/101 to 12/31/200. And the 20th century was from 1/1/1901 to 12/31/2000.
Ask yourself this...Is the year 2000 the last year of the 20th century or the first year of the 21st century? There's only one right answer.
The only thing that I think is being misinterpreted here is the context of decade in the headline "CEO of the Decade". You're saying it is a calendar decade, meaning the first decade of the 21st century (2001 - 2010). But when people think of decades in the context of "CEO of the decade" or "Best movie of the Decade", they're talking of the 80's or the 90's or the "aughts". So in this case, I think Fortune is talking about the aughts, 2000 - 2009.
Also, if you go to the Fortune site and look at the article there is a timeline of Jobs' hits and misses. ("Steve Jobs: a decade of hits and a few misses") It starts with 2000 and ends with 2009.
The only thing that I think is being misinterpreted here is the context of decade in the headline "CEO of the Decade". You're saying it is a calendar decade, meaning the first decade of the 21st century (2001 - 2010). But when people think of decades in the context of "CEO of the decade" or "Best movie of the Decade", they're talking of the 80's or the 90's or the "aughts". So in this case, I think Fortune is talking about the aughts, 2000 - 2009.
It seems clear from the date of the article that they are referring to the aughts, as we’ve all mentioned. Everyone on this thread accept TeckStud has understood and acknowledged that context and usage of the term decade can vary. Now he’s in another thread arguing with Bregalad that century and decade don’t have the similar rules of usage.
Also, if you go to the Fortune site and look at the article there is a timeline of Jobs' hits and misses. ("Steve Jobs: a decade of hits and a few misses") It starts with 2000 and ends with 2009.
They even mention the “decade” of Steve starting in 1997, but that is more literary to suggest his stellar performance is well over 10 years now than to suggest the timeframe is from 1997 to 2006.
WTH happened to this thead?
It's been tech studded, with accomplices.
As per the Fortune article and even Wikipedia, the decade in reference begins at 0.
Best analogy that I can come up with, is how we acknowledge our birthdays.
We start at zero, but day one, at birth. A year later we are celebrate our first, i.e., One Year Old, birthday. Our first decade of life is held on the 3653 (+/- 1) day, which is one day after a span of a full 10 years.
Remember the 2K scare: it was set to extoll itself on new years eve at midnight, January 1st, 2000. Not 2001. Did we not?
P.S. Don't buy an iPhone off the street markets in China. Just like you don't buy TB USB keys which are all over the place. Had to stop a few yanks from making a big mistake. Apple store in a very poor area. Little traffic. Not as many cell phones around of any order. Service is very expensive relative to income.
Remember the 2K scare: it was set to extoll itself on new years eve at midnight, January 1st, 2000. Not 2001. Did we not?
That has nothing to do with anything here. That had to do with 2 digit year representation.
That has nothing to do with anything here. That had to do with 2 digit year representation.
Yes, but the millennium celebrations, i.e., 2K started as per, "The majority popular approach (which) was to treat the end of 1999 as the end of a millennium, and to hold millennium celebrations at midnight between December 31, 1999 and January 1, 2000….
Ref. Using Snow Leopard, highlight millennium , right click and select Look Up in Dictionary.
In any event, Jobs deserves the title, and the way that Apple is going, he could get it again in 2020/2021.
It would be interesting to list all the titles that he/Woz/Apple has been so accorded.
And for those that care and haven't heard his commencement speech at Stanford: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/j...ad-061505.html
Yes, but the millennium celebrations, i.e., 2K started as per, "The majority popular approach (which) was to treat the end of 1999 as the end of a millennium, and to hold millennium celebrations at midnight between December 31, 1999 and January 1, 2000….
Ref. Using Snow Leopard, highlight millennium , right click and select Look Up in Dictionary.
Everyone on this thread, except Teckstud, has acknowledged the varying usage. I even made a Prince reference. We celebrated the numeric change from a leading 1xxx to a 2xxx, not the change from 1CE to 1000 CE, and then 1001 CE to 2000 CE, since CE didn’t start with a zero. The first millennium, based on out current calendar, would start 01-Jan-0001 and would end on 31-Dec-1000. Exactly 1000 years. All but one understand the difference.
Everyone on this thread, except Teckstud, has acknowledged the varying usage. I even made a Prince reference. We celebrated the numeric change from a leading 1xxx to a 2xxx, not the change from 1CE to 1000 CE, and then 1001 CE to 2000 CE, since CE didn?t start with a zero. The first millennium, based on out current calendar, would start 01-Jan-0001 and would end on 31-Dec-1000. Exactly 1000 years. All but one understand the difference.
Interesting. But as I remember, the 21st Century celebrations commenced at the dot of midnight, i.e., between the evening of December 31st, 1999 and the morning of January 1st, 2000.
However, re decades, Wikipedia defines, "The 2000s is the decade that started on January 1, 2000 and will end on December 31, 2009. It is the current decade." and
"The 2010s decade, pronounced "twenty-tens", "two thousand (and) tens" or simply "the tens",[1] is the upcoming decade beginning January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2019.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s
In other words....
When all is said and done, Steve Jobs is still the best candidate by far for the title of "CEO of the Decade".
Pick any ten years you like, and call it good.
Boom.
One thing about Steve Jobs is that rarely in business does someone get an second act, much less a third. Here's the big ones since 1976.......
Thanks for informative history!
PS. I think Apple has more net sum cash than Cisco as Apple is debt free company
One guy I know who was interviewed to be an executive software management employee at Apple during that era (he eventually turned it down, something he now regrets because he would have so many hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank if he'd accepted it then that it'd be ridiculous) said that going into Steve's Apple was totally unlike any computer company he'd had ever interviewed at before, it was like going into a foreign territory. He asked, "What if we want to add a new feature to the operating system core, how do I represent that to the management team," and the interview team looked at him as if he were a rat in the kitchen and said "Tell us how that will allow us to make a user experience that's cleaner, simpler, faster, more functional, easier to use." That is, *everything* is user experience driven at Apple, not geek-driven, and that focus comes down from the top because that is *not* the way that geeks (and people who've been promoted from the geek ranks) think. Now you know why ZFS is not in Snow Leopard -- Steve came back, said "WTF does this give us in terms of user experience?" and SPLAT, gone. (Probably good riddance, given how many lost data pool stories I've heard about ZFS... it simply does not react well to consumer hardware). And you also understand why Windows 7 is an overly complex mess (have you *seen* the control panel in Windows 7? NIGHTMARE!) -- Microsoft is entirely geek driven and Balmer is an accountant, not a geek, so he has no ability to evaluate what the geeks do critically and lay down Balmer's Way to them.
I'm not interested in working at Apple myself, I've heard too many "Steve stories" and work in an area that Steve isn't interested in anyhow. But I definitely respect what Steve did for Apple. He took a company with a lot of talent, a company that was on the verge of disintegration due to internal turf wars and executive indecision and made it work. And that's no small feat.
Excellent post!