A fundamental difference between Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg is, Jobs doesn't have a "management style". He is the way he is because he can't be any other way, for better or worse. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, is a punk-ass kid who scores a -3 on the 0-10 social graces scale. Facebook is successful because Zuckerberg understood how to make datapoints connect to each other. And people and their interests are datapoints. And once he and his friends figured this out, they also realized that they could make TONS of money off of this. But their vision does not go any further than that. Sure Steve is tough and aggressive, but that's because he cares deeply about his way of doing things, but he is also a visionary who wanted to do something "insanely great". Steve wanted to change the world?making money in the process was a bonus. Zuckerberg is no visionary. He's a computer genius for sure, but no visionary.
Putting "I'm CEO, bitch!" on your business card is funny in a tongue-in-cheek sorta way, but ultimately it shows a fundamental lack of maturity and won't earn you a lot of respect. It's even worse if that's the way he carries himself in his day-to-day business. And it explains a lot about why Facebook is the way it is?how it has no respect for users' privacy or security. On the contrary, it uses users, precisely for their value as targets for advertising. Its architecture is designed in such a way that users gladly reveal all sorts of information about themselves, so that advertisers know how to target them as potential sources of revenue. Genius, but also slimy.
There's another fundamental difference between Facebook and Apple: Nobody loves Facebook. Which is to say, most of its 500,000,000 users perhaps love that Facebook gives them a nice environment in which to connect with friends and family both close and far away. But I can't imagine that anybody loves the Facebook brand. In contrast, Steve, with his vision and charisma has managed to create a "cult" of Apple users?people who react to the Apple brand on an emotional level (I include myself in this "cult"). It's not unusual to hear someone say "I love my Mac!" It's highly unlikely that you'll hear anyone say "I love my [insert Wintel brand-name here]!" I'm not as fanatic as some, I'm sure, but I've been a Mac-only guy since the original 128k Mac?actually even before then, I thought Apple IIe's were pretty special.
I am also a Facebook user, though a cautious one. Even though I have my privacy settings set to maximum, I harbor no illusions that anything I post or connect to is actually private. So, I'm careful what I post and with whom I connect.
I'm a loyal and happy Mac user and likely always will be. But I'm only on Facebook until a better alternative comes along.
Just chiming in here.. When Steve Jobs asked for $1 salary, he was at a position where money doesn't really matter for him, and so is now.
If, just if you're being offered for a position like Jobs with that kinda salary, will you take it?
Yes I would and I'm not in a position really. There are more important things than money or power. To work with incredible people to create tools of change that remove barriers in usability, creativity and communication.. Well, i would do it for no money.
I already do so in my small business. There was a time when it was about me and my income, I grew out of that. I build business now for itself and turn the surplus back in to provide more growth and opportunity to others through that growth.
In fact I ask people going for a job if they would do it for no money. Quite frankly if they are there for the money, then no amount of money will feel adequate. They have to be in a role because it is them, it is the role, the task that they love. (this is not to say that I wouldn't pay them, the starving homeless cannot focus on their work)
I also don't feel that pretending to behave like someone i had never met and didn't understand the nuance of would be really poor form. I don't know steve jobs but I do know that his full success was not found in his youth and sudden attainment of a few wins but tempered after some rather trying times and hard yards.
I'd say contrary to popular opinion, jobs isn't into it for his own increasing greatness which is totally useless and inevitably short lived but for Apple itself, to draw out the capability of the staff and to build an enduring engine to support them by doing so. The result, something he enjoys using, perhaps nothing more.
Since Zuckergerg never worked at Apple, and didn't know Jobs when he started Facebook, it's unlikely he modeled his management style after Steve Jobs. He may have modeled it after some idea he had about what Steve Jobs' management style is or was, but that's not really the same thing: in that instance, he's modeling his management style after himself and just telling himself it's based on Steve Jobs' style to lend it some cred.
I saw this coming. If it's so great that Steve behaves the way he does, then why shouldn't everyone behave the same way? After all, shouldn't everyone aspire to greatness? So let's have every manager and CEO start behaving like Steve Jobs and Dr. House.
There have always been people who think that to be boss means to be an a$$. Of course, if that's his takeaway of how to emulate Steve Jobs does, he really missed the point entirely anyway.
Jobs pushes a vision of what he thinks are elegant products and where he sees the industry going. As far as I can tell, Zuckerberg is an a-hole working out how to sell more of people's data every day who had a business card with "Suck it, bitch" (ooops, sorry, that was another techie...).
A fundamental difference between Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg is, Jobs doesn't have a "management style". He is the way he is because he can't be any other way, for better or worse. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, is a punk-ass kid who scores a -3 on the 0-10 social graces scale.
Interesting point that you bring up about Jobs. More than one person has questioned whether Jobs seemingly overbearing 'style' could actually be the result of his being genuinely OCD. When I hear stories about him doing things like buying a quarry cause he insists that every store have tiles made of exactly the same tiles, getting all the stools and those funny ball seats for the kids from the same company, sending back hand railings 3 days before a store opening because they were rubbed long ways and not in circles etc, I really wonder if it is true to some degree.
At the same time, while I thought that the whole Social Network movie was rather boring, it did bring up one interesting notion. Movie Zuckerberg at times seemed like he totally wasn't getting it on a social level. Like his brain wasn't connecting to the idea that his behavior had or could upset someone. This is not unlike a friend of mine whose little brother has Aspergers. Kyle also tends to not get things, especially sarcasm etc. David calls him a 'social monotone'. Movie Zuck seemed like that as well. And I can't help wondering if that was one of the details they got right in the movie. Perhaps the real Zuckerberg really does lack social 'graces' because they weren't wired in his brain.
At least I hope so because otherwise he's a jerk who has for a great deal misinterpreted a lot of how Jobs does things and make his 'idol' out to be a real asshat to everyone. And I'm not sure that's a fair view of Jobs.He's focused, he is demanding and he expects 200% effort 200% of the time or he will call you out on it (the disaster of launching Mobile Me the same day as a new iOS and new iphone hardware is a prime example) but I don't know that anyone that has worked with him would think him an ass. But many who have worked with Zuckerberg would say that first off about him.
I'm pretty sure Zuckerberg didn't model anything after anyone. See, those folks that are as successful and influential rarely imitate anybody, and -- whatever they claim -- they rarely have any idols. Whether they state it or not, all great men believe they're bigger than Jesus (with Jesus being a likely exception). Modesty is a virtue, but most often it's the only virtue one has.
The resemblance in style comes from being irreverent and cocky -- a prerequisite for success, albeit not the only one. However similar the behavior may be, it is neither imitation nor modeling, it simply comes from having well-functioning gonads. Only a bunch of tossers like some on this forum would think that looking up to someone and trying to imitate them will lead to anything but a well deserved oblivion, if not derision.
Having said that, I believe that all Facebook users are tools, simply because whatever value they receive from the company, they pay back with creating a much higher for the company's owners...
Since Zuckergerg never worked at Apple, and didn't know Jobs when he started Facebook, it's unlikely he modeled his management style after Steve Jobs. He may have modeled it after some idea he had about what Steve Jobs' management style is or was, but that's not really the same thing: in that instance, he's modeling his management style after himself and just telling himself it's based on Steve Jobs' style to lend it some cred.
If you believe that f'ing movie, he modeled his management style after Justin Timberlake.
Interesting point that you bring up about Jobs. More than one person has questioned whether Jobs seemingly overbearing 'style' could actually be the result of his being genuinely OCD. When I hear stories about him doing things like buying a quarry cause he insists that every store have tiles made of exactly the same tiles, getting all the stools and those funny ball seats for the kids from the same company, sending back hand railings 3 days before a store opening because they were rubbed long ways and not in circles etc, I really wonder if it is true to some degree.
At the same time, while I thought that the whole Social Network movie was rather boring, it did bring up one interesting notion. Movie Zuckerberg at times seemed like he totally wasn't getting it on a social level. Like his brain wasn't connecting to the idea that his behavior had or could upset someone. This is not unlike a friend of mine whose little brother has Aspergers. Kyle also tends to not get things, especially sarcasm etc. David calls him a 'social monotone'. Movie Zuck seemed like that as well. And I can't help wondering if that was one of the details they got right in the movie. Perhaps the real Zuckerberg really does lack social 'graces' because they weren't wired in his brain.
At least I hope so because otherwise he's a jerk who has for a great deal misinterpreted a lot of how Jobs does things and make his 'idol' out to be a real asshat to everyone. And I'm not sure that's a fair view of Jobs.He's focused, he is demanding and he expects 200% effort 200% of the time or he will call you out on it (the disaster of launching Mobile Me the same day as a new iOS and new iphone hardware is a prime example) but I don't know that anyone that has worked with him would think him an ass. But many who have worked with Zuckerberg would say that first off about him.
Your comment about OCD reminds me of The Aviator. Of course, if Steve Jobs has it, it's a relatively minor case?especially when compared with Howard Hughes. But there are other similarities?highly driven men who basically see the world from their perspective and no one else's. Both took/have taken tremendous risks but also worked their way to the top of their game. But Hughes' OCD crippled him and eventually brought him down. I don't think that will happen with Steve though. But it may drive some of his employees to madness...
I'm pretty sure Zuckerberg didn't model anything after anyone. See, those folks that are as successful and influential rarely imitate anybody, and -- whatever they claim -- they rarely have any idols. Whether they state it or not, all great men believe they're bigger than Jesus (with Jesus being a likely exception). Modesty is a virtue, but most often it's the only virtue one has.
The resemblance in style comes from being irreverent and cocky -- a prerequisite for success, albeit not the only one. However similar the behavior may be, it is neither imitation nor modeling, it simply comes from having well-functioning gonads. Only a bunch of tossers like some on this forum would think that looking up to someone and trying to imitate them will lead to anything but a well deserved oblivion, if not derision.
Having said that, I believe that all Facebook users are tools, simply because whatever value they receive from the company, they pay back with creating a much higher for the company's owners...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
Jealous much?
I'm starting to think that Zuckerberg is your idol. ZING!! Or. Wait. Maybe you are Zuckerberg!!
Your comment about OCD reminds me of The Aviator. Of course, if Steve Jobs has it, it's a relatively minor case—especially when compared with Howard Hughes. But there are other similarities—highly driven men who basically see the world from their perspective and no one else's. Both took/have taken tremendous risks but also worked their way to the top of their game. But Hughes' OCD crippled him and eventually brought him down. I don't think that will happen with Steve though. But it may drive some of his employees to madness...
1) I've read that Hughes may have suffered from syphilis which could affect his thinking if it was present in the brain.
2) I contend that one of the best things to happen to Jobs was his ousting from Apple so he could learn some humility. If all you know in life is success then you haven't succeeded in knowing life.
3) I wonder if obsessiveness is the human trait that makes for greatness, most of which only seems to be observed post mortem. I like to use Joseph von Fraunhofer as a prime example of such obsession.
I'm pretty sure Zuckerberg didn't model anything after anyone. See, those folks that are as successful and influential rarely imitate anybody, and -- whatever they claim -- they rarely have any idols. Whether they state it or not, all great men believe they're bigger than Jesus (with Jesus being a likely exception). Modesty is a virtue, but most often it's the only virtue one has.
True... they may believe themselves to be bigger than Jesus (if he actually existed... I haven't read his autobiography)... but reading almost any autobiography will tell you that most, if not all, successful and influential people had a role model (or two...).
I'm starting to think that Zuckerberg is your idol. ZING!! Or. Wait. Maybe you are Zuckerberg!!
Hehe. I wish I had his success/money, but I don't wanna be him. I'm smarter, more handsome, and a much better person overall (and I don't need to know him personally to be certain of that). I just have had other priorities in life than making a pile of money out of people's stupidity. Maybe I shouldn't have -- only time will tell...
True... they may believe themselves to be bigger than Jesus (if he actually existed... I haven't read his autobiography)... but reading almost any autobiography will tell you that most, if not all, successful and influential people had a role model (or two...).
Bollocks. People write autobiographies later in life, when they depend more on others' appreciation. That's why they make up stories about role models...
2) I contend that one of the best things to happen to Jobs was his ousting from Apple so he could learn some humility.
I think you're absolutely right. Though I would add that in addition to learning humility, he also ended up taking some time to travel and see the world; broaden his horizons. His NeXT venture could be considered a "successful failure"?he ultimately had to close the company, but the OS technology developed there eventually became the core of OS X. If he had stayed at Apple the whole time, I think it's highly unlikely he would have made Apple what it is today. I don't think he would have had the vision to expand into other markets/technologies.
Bollocks. People write autobiographies later in life, when they depend more on others' appreciation. That's why they make up stories about role models...
Comments
Putting "I'm CEO, bitch!" on your business card is funny in a tongue-in-cheek sorta way, but ultimately it shows a fundamental lack of maturity and won't earn you a lot of respect. It's even worse if that's the way he carries himself in his day-to-day business. And it explains a lot about why Facebook is the way it is?how it has no respect for users' privacy or security. On the contrary, it uses users, precisely for their value as targets for advertising. Its architecture is designed in such a way that users gladly reveal all sorts of information about themselves, so that advertisers know how to target them as potential sources of revenue. Genius, but also slimy.
There's another fundamental difference between Facebook and Apple: Nobody loves Facebook. Which is to say, most of its 500,000,000 users perhaps love that Facebook gives them a nice environment in which to connect with friends and family both close and far away. But I can't imagine that anybody loves the Facebook brand. In contrast, Steve, with his vision and charisma has managed to create a "cult" of Apple users?people who react to the Apple brand on an emotional level (I include myself in this "cult"). It's not unusual to hear someone say "I love my Mac!" It's highly unlikely that you'll hear anyone say "I love my [insert Wintel brand-name here]!" I'm not as fanatic as some, I'm sure, but I've been a Mac-only guy since the original 128k Mac?actually even before then, I thought Apple IIe's were pretty special.
I am also a Facebook user, though a cautious one. Even though I have my privacy settings set to maximum, I harbor no illusions that anything I post or connect to is actually private. So, I'm careful what I post and with whom I connect.
I'm a loyal and happy Mac user and likely always will be. But I'm only on Facebook until a better alternative comes along.
Just noticed that I use "fundamental" too much.
Just chiming in here.. When Steve Jobs asked for $1 salary, he was at a position where money doesn't really matter for him, and so is now.
If, just if you're being offered for a position like Jobs with that kinda salary, will you take it?
Yes I would and I'm not in a position really. There are more important things than money or power. To work with incredible people to create tools of change that remove barriers in usability, creativity and communication.. Well, i would do it for no money.
I already do so in my small business. There was a time when it was about me and my income, I grew out of that. I build business now for itself and turn the surplus back in to provide more growth and opportunity to others through that growth.
In fact I ask people going for a job if they would do it for no money. Quite frankly if they are there for the money, then no amount of money will feel adequate. They have to be in a role because it is them, it is the role, the task that they love. (this is not to say that I wouldn't pay them, the starving homeless cannot focus on their work)
I also don't feel that pretending to behave like someone i had never met and didn't understand the nuance of would be really poor form. I don't know steve jobs but I do know that his full success was not found in his youth and sudden attainment of a few wins but tempered after some rather trying times and hard yards.
I'd say contrary to popular opinion, jobs isn't into it for his own increasing greatness which is totally useless and inevitably short lived but for Apple itself, to draw out the capability of the staff and to build an enduring engine to support them by doing so. The result, something he enjoys using, perhaps nothing more.
I saw this coming. If it's so great that Steve behaves the way he does, then why shouldn't everyone behave the same way? After all, shouldn't everyone aspire to greatness? So let's have every manager and CEO start behaving like Steve Jobs and Dr. House.
There have always been people who think that to be boss means to be an a$$. Of course, if that's his takeaway of how to emulate Steve Jobs does, he really missed the point entirely anyway.
Jobs pushes a vision of what he thinks are elegant products and where he sees the industry going. As far as I can tell, Zuckerberg is an a-hole working out how to sell more of people's data every day who had a business card with "Suck it, bitch" (ooops, sorry, that was another techie...).
A fundamental difference between Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg is, Jobs doesn't have a "management style". He is the way he is because he can't be any other way, for better or worse. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, is a punk-ass kid who scores a -3 on the 0-10 social graces scale.
Interesting point that you bring up about Jobs. More than one person has questioned whether Jobs seemingly overbearing 'style' could actually be the result of his being genuinely OCD. When I hear stories about him doing things like buying a quarry cause he insists that every store have tiles made of exactly the same tiles, getting all the stools and those funny ball seats for the kids from the same company, sending back hand railings 3 days before a store opening because they were rubbed long ways and not in circles etc, I really wonder if it is true to some degree.
At the same time, while I thought that the whole Social Network movie was rather boring, it did bring up one interesting notion. Movie Zuckerberg at times seemed like he totally wasn't getting it on a social level. Like his brain wasn't connecting to the idea that his behavior had or could upset someone. This is not unlike a friend of mine whose little brother has Aspergers. Kyle also tends to not get things, especially sarcasm etc. David calls him a 'social monotone'. Movie Zuck seemed like that as well. And I can't help wondering if that was one of the details they got right in the movie. Perhaps the real Zuckerberg really does lack social 'graces' because they weren't wired in his brain.
At least I hope so because otherwise he's a jerk who has for a great deal misinterpreted a lot of how Jobs does things and make his 'idol' out to be a real asshat to everyone. And I'm not sure that's a fair view of Jobs.He's focused, he is demanding and he expects 200% effort 200% of the time or he will call you out on it (the disaster of launching Mobile Me the same day as a new iOS and new iphone hardware is a prime example) but I don't know that anyone that has worked with him would think him an ass. But many who have worked with Zuckerberg would say that first off about him.
The resemblance in style comes from being irreverent and cocky -- a prerequisite for success, albeit not the only one. However similar the behavior may be, it is neither imitation nor modeling, it simply comes from having well-functioning gonads. Only a bunch of tossers like some on this forum would think that looking up to someone and trying to imitate them will lead to anything but a well deserved oblivion, if not derision.
Having said that, I believe that all Facebook users are tools, simply because whatever value they receive from the company, they pay back with creating a much higher for the company's owners...
Mark Zoidberg should have been named Time Magazine's Bitch of the Year.
Jealous much?
Since Zuckergerg never worked at Apple, and didn't know Jobs when he started Facebook, it's unlikely he modeled his management style after Steve Jobs. He may have modeled it after some idea he had about what Steve Jobs' management style is or was, but that's not really the same thing: in that instance, he's modeling his management style after himself and just telling himself it's based on Steve Jobs' style to lend it some cred.
If you believe that f'ing movie, he modeled his management style after Justin Timberlake.
Interesting point that you bring up about Jobs. More than one person has questioned whether Jobs seemingly overbearing 'style' could actually be the result of his being genuinely OCD. When I hear stories about him doing things like buying a quarry cause he insists that every store have tiles made of exactly the same tiles, getting all the stools and those funny ball seats for the kids from the same company, sending back hand railings 3 days before a store opening because they were rubbed long ways and not in circles etc, I really wonder if it is true to some degree.
At the same time, while I thought that the whole Social Network movie was rather boring, it did bring up one interesting notion. Movie Zuckerberg at times seemed like he totally wasn't getting it on a social level. Like his brain wasn't connecting to the idea that his behavior had or could upset someone. This is not unlike a friend of mine whose little brother has Aspergers. Kyle also tends to not get things, especially sarcasm etc. David calls him a 'social monotone'. Movie Zuck seemed like that as well. And I can't help wondering if that was one of the details they got right in the movie. Perhaps the real Zuckerberg really does lack social 'graces' because they weren't wired in his brain.
At least I hope so because otherwise he's a jerk who has for a great deal misinterpreted a lot of how Jobs does things and make his 'idol' out to be a real asshat to everyone. And I'm not sure that's a fair view of Jobs.He's focused, he is demanding and he expects 200% effort 200% of the time or he will call you out on it (the disaster of launching Mobile Me the same day as a new iOS and new iphone hardware is a prime example) but I don't know that anyone that has worked with him would think him an ass. But many who have worked with Zuckerberg would say that first off about him.
Your comment about OCD reminds me of The Aviator. Of course, if Steve Jobs has it, it's a relatively minor case?especially when compared with Howard Hughes. But there are other similarities?highly driven men who basically see the world from their perspective and no one else's. Both took/have taken tremendous risks but also worked their way to the top of their game. But Hughes' OCD crippled him and eventually brought him down. I don't think that will happen with Steve though. But it may drive some of his employees to madness...
If you believe that f'ing movie, he modeled his management style after Justin Timberlake.
I haven't seen the movie (because, really, do I want to?), but I know what you mean.
I'm pretty sure Zuckerberg didn't model anything after anyone. See, those folks that are as successful and influential rarely imitate anybody, and -- whatever they claim -- they rarely have any idols. Whether they state it or not, all great men believe they're bigger than Jesus (with Jesus being a likely exception). Modesty is a virtue, but most often it's the only virtue one has.
The resemblance in style comes from being irreverent and cocky -- a prerequisite for success, albeit not the only one. However similar the behavior may be, it is neither imitation nor modeling, it simply comes from having well-functioning gonads. Only a bunch of tossers like some on this forum would think that looking up to someone and trying to imitate them will lead to anything but a well deserved oblivion, if not derision.
Having said that, I believe that all Facebook users are tools, simply because whatever value they receive from the company, they pay back with creating a much higher for the company's owners...
Jealous much?
I'm starting to think that Zuckerberg is your idol. ZING!!
Your comment about OCD reminds me of The Aviator. Of course, if Steve Jobs has it, it's a relatively minor case—especially when compared with Howard Hughes. But there are other similarities—highly driven men who basically see the world from their perspective and no one else's. Both took/have taken tremendous risks but also worked their way to the top of their game. But Hughes' OCD crippled him and eventually brought him down. I don't think that will happen with Steve though. But it may drive some of his employees to madness...
1) I've read that Hughes may have suffered from syphilis which could affect his thinking if it was present in the brain.
2) I contend that one of the best things to happen to Jobs was his ousting from Apple so he could learn some humility. If all you know in life is success then you haven't succeeded in knowing life.
3) I wonder if obsessiveness is the human trait that makes for greatness, most of which only seems to be observed post mortem. I like to use Joseph von Fraunhofer as a prime example of such obsession.
I'm pretty sure Zuckerberg didn't model anything after anyone. See, those folks that are as successful and influential rarely imitate anybody, and -- whatever they claim -- they rarely have any idols. Whether they state it or not, all great men believe they're bigger than Jesus (with Jesus being a likely exception). Modesty is a virtue, but most often it's the only virtue one has.
True... they may believe themselves to be bigger than Jesus (if he actually existed... I haven't read his autobiography)... but reading almost any autobiography will tell you that most, if not all, successful and influential people had a role model (or two...).
I'm starting to think that Zuckerberg is your idol. ZING!!
Hehe. I wish I had his success/money, but I don't wanna be him. I'm smarter, more handsome, and a much better person overall (and I don't need to know him personally to be certain of that). I just have had other priorities in life than making a pile of money out of people's stupidity. Maybe I shouldn't have -- only time will tell...
True... they may believe themselves to be bigger than Jesus (if he actually existed... I haven't read his autobiography)... but reading almost any autobiography will tell you that most, if not all, successful and influential people had a role model (or two...).
Bollocks. People write autobiographies later in life, when they depend more on others' appreciation. That's why they make up stories about role models...
2) I contend that one of the best things to happen to Jobs was his ousting from Apple so he could learn some humility.
I think you're absolutely right. Though I would add that in addition to learning humility, he also ended up taking some time to travel and see the world; broaden his horizons. His NeXT venture could be considered a "successful failure"?he ultimately had to close the company, but the OS technology developed there eventually became the core of OS X. If he had stayed at Apple the whole time, I think it's highly unlikely he would have made Apple what it is today. I don't think he would have had the vision to expand into other markets/technologies.
Bollocks. People write autobiographies later in life, when they depend more on others' appreciation. That's why they make up stories about role models...
... and you know this how?
... and you know this how?
By reductio ad absurdum.