I don't think he would have had the vision to expand into other markets/technologies.
I think Steve's vision was always there... he has always been known for moving forward with the next great thing... this is the reason why he wanted Sculley to move away from the Apple 2 and press forward into new markets. Steve would have had them swap out the old system for something new long before it actually did occur... but that is where I see the real benefit... I highly doubt that Apple, with Steve, would have developed a system that was as good as OS X. I think that Steve's time with NEXT helped him develop a great system. Apple had dropped many a system project prior to Steve, NEXT and OSX.
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
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...
Oh my, you have a dim view of humanity?or at least that segment of humanity made up of Facebook users. I mean, I totally understand if you choose to not use Facebook for whatever reason(s). (I, myself, resisted for a long time, until some friends insisted that I get an account, so they could keep in touch with me. I said, okay, but only if they set it up for me. They did. It was very sweet of them. ) What I don't get is the harshness of your tone towards those who find Facebook useful and fun. Sure, some users are stupid, and some are tools. But when you use those words to describe all Facebook users, then you're also talking about my friends?and my friends are very nice people (they wouldn't be my friends otherwise). And when people talk shit about my friends, I feel the need to speak up in their defense. But in general, I ask you to be nice. I mean really.
II'm not sure where the evaluations come from either. How can Zuckerberg be valued at $6.9b and Jobs at $6.1b when Facebook made $1.8b in 2010 vs Apple making $3.5b profit per quarter in 2010 and currently $6b.
This is no surprise. Markets are always valuing expected future growth opportunities.
Not to say that those expectations will pan out - markets can and do get it wrong - but higher growth expectations will generally be accompanied by higher P/Es.
I haven't seen the movie (because, really, do I want to?), but I know what you mean.
I haven't seen the movie, but the fact that the actor playing him looks 100% less obnoxious and has a 100% less "punch me in the face" face, looks like a plus.
I think that every CEO should attempt to emulate Steve Jobs. We'd have a far more successful corporate sector if they did.
I agree, though I'd be a little more precise: Every CEO should emulate his drive & vision. It should come as no surprise to anyone that he can strike fear into the hearts of his employees. But that is not what makes him great or successful. In other words, a budding (or seasoned) CEO shouldn't look at Steve and say, "Wow, he's an uncompromising jerk! But, he's at the helm of the most successful company in the industry! So if I want his kind of success, I have to be an uncompromising jerk as well!"
I think a CEO can have drive and vision and still be a nice guy/gal. In other words, I disagree with whoever said that being irreverent and cocky is a prerequisite for success.
It's good to have idols and mentors, and to stand on the shoulders of giants. But in the end, it's your own two feet that you have to stand on; it's your own vision that you have to realize and it's your own drive that can power that vision.
I haven't seen the movie, but the fact that the actor playing him looks 100% less obnoxious and has a 100% less "punch me in the face" face, looks like a plus.
I work in a creative field and Jobs' attention to detail is par for the course. Creative, driven people have the same, nearly obsessive, attention to detail. If you aren't like that and work with a person who is, it can be maddening, and at times seem pathological. It's not- usually. But this is what makes these people great. They know what is required to be great, they can see it and they demand it of you too. In the case of Jobs, you can add experience and proven success on top of it and his success is exactly why he is the real deal. Without the success he's just another silicon valley carnival barker who coulda, shoulda, woulda but never did.
It doesn't seem Mr. Zuckerberg has these same exacting and artistic personality traits that really sets Jobs apart. Because of this, I think Mr. Zuckerberg may be more in the mold of a Bill Gates, which ain't exactly chopped liver. But Gates himself said he would give almost anything to have Jobs' sense of taste and style- things that money can not buy.
I agree, though I'd be a little more precise: Every CEO should emulate his drive & vision. It should come as no surprise to anyone that he can strike fear into the hearts of his employees. But that is not what makes him great or successful. In other words, a budding (or seasoned) CEO shouldn't look at Steve and say, "Wow, he's an uncompromising jerk! But, he's at the helm of the most successful company in the industry! So if I want his kind of success, I have to be an uncompromising jerk as well!"
I think you're pretty much right. People take the wrong lessons from Jobs sometimes.
In the end I suspect Jobs can be an "uncompromising jerk" because he's right (mostly) and has a strong vision of the future he wants to create. I'd venture to say that most CEOs simply don't have that kind of vision. Many have spent so much time politicking their way to the CEO's office that they know more about corporate politicking than about great product and/or service vision. They don't have a real vision. To be sure there are a few on par with Jobs albeit without his "rock star" presence and persona. But very few.
There is one big difference between Jobs and Zuckerberg. Born in the fifties and child of the idealistic sixties, Jobs may be an a$$ but he has a moral compass, and it is evident in the way Apple is run. Zuckerberg on the other hand doesn't seem to have any ability to distinguish right from wrong and that's also evident in the way Facebook is run.
There is one big difference between Jobs and Zuckerberg. Born in the fifties and child of the idealistic sixties, Jobs may be an a$$ but he has a moral compass, and it is evident in the way Apple is run. Zuckerberg on the other hand doesn't seem to have any ability to distinguish right from wrong and that's also evident in the way Facebook is run.
He does seem to be a bit of a psychopathic personality from what I've read of him, and the way he operates Facebook.
There is one big difference between Jobs and Zuckerberg. Born in the fifties and child of the idealistic sixties, Jobs may be an a$$ but he has a moral compass, and it is evident in the way Apple is run. Zuckerberg on the other hand doesn't seem to have any ability to distinguish right from wrong and that's also evident in the way Facebook is run.
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...
Time will say nothing but I told you so, as a poet once said, I think you ve made the right choices, if more people made such choices the world would be a better place.
Comments
I don't think he would have had the vision to expand into other markets/technologies.
I think Steve's vision was always there... he has always been known for moving forward with the next great thing... this is the reason why he wanted Sculley to move away from the Apple 2 and press forward into new markets. Steve would have had them swap out the old system for something new long before it actually did occur... but that is where I see the real benefit... I highly doubt that Apple, with Steve, would have developed a system that was as good as OS X. I think that Steve's time with NEXT helped him develop a great system. Apple had dropped many a system project prior to Steve, NEXT and OSX.
By reductio ad absurdum.
In other words, you don't know shit.
In other words, you don't know shit.
Sure, if that helps you sleep better.
Sure, if that helps you sleep better.
You do realize that by using reductio ad absurdum as your argument that you have basically disproved yourself.
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...
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...
Oh my, you have a dim view of humanity?or at least that segment of humanity made up of Facebook users. I mean, I totally understand if you choose to not use Facebook for whatever reason(s). (I, myself, resisted for a long time, until some friends insisted that I get an account, so they could keep in touch with me. I said, okay, but only if they set it up for me. They did. It was very sweet of them.
II'm not sure where the evaluations come from either. How can Zuckerberg be valued at $6.9b and Jobs at $6.1b when Facebook made $1.8b in 2010 vs Apple making $3.5b profit per quarter in 2010 and currently $6b.
This is no surprise. Markets are always valuing expected future growth opportunities.
Not to say that those expectations will pan out - markets can and do get it wrong - but higher growth expectations will generally be accompanied by higher P/Es.
I haven't seen the movie (because, really, do I want to?), but I know what you mean.
I haven't seen the movie, but the fact that the actor playing him looks 100% less obnoxious and has a 100% less "punch me in the face" face, looks like a plus.
I think that every CEO should attempt to emulate Steve Jobs. We'd have a far more successful corporate sector if they did.
I agree, though I'd be a little more precise: Every CEO should emulate his drive & vision. It should come as no surprise to anyone that he can strike fear into the hearts of his employees. But that is not what makes him great or successful. In other words, a budding (or seasoned) CEO shouldn't look at Steve and say, "Wow, he's an uncompromising jerk! But, he's at the helm of the most successful company in the industry! So if I want his kind of success, I have to be an uncompromising jerk as well!"
I think a CEO can have drive and vision and still be a nice guy/gal. In other words, I disagree with whoever said that being irreverent and cocky is a prerequisite for success.
It's good to have idols and mentors, and to stand on the shoulders of giants. But in the end, it's your own two feet that you have to stand on; it's your own vision that you have to realize and it's your own drive that can power that vision.
I haven't seen the movie, but the fact that the actor playing him looks 100% less obnoxious and has a 100% less "punch me in the face" face, looks like a plus.
Hahahaha! Agreed.
It doesn't seem Mr. Zuckerberg has these same exacting and artistic personality traits that really sets Jobs apart. Because of this, I think Mr. Zuckerberg may be more in the mold of a Bill Gates, which ain't exactly chopped liver. But Gates himself said he would give almost anything to have Jobs' sense of taste and style- things that money can not buy.
I agree, though I'd be a little more precise: Every CEO should emulate his drive & vision. It should come as no surprise to anyone that he can strike fear into the hearts of his employees. But that is not what makes him great or successful. In other words, a budding (or seasoned) CEO shouldn't look at Steve and say, "Wow, he's an uncompromising jerk! But, he's at the helm of the most successful company in the industry! So if I want his kind of success, I have to be an uncompromising jerk as well!"
I think you're pretty much right. People take the wrong lessons from Jobs sometimes.
In the end I suspect Jobs can be an "uncompromising jerk" because he's right (mostly) and has a strong vision of the future he wants to create. I'd venture to say that most CEOs simply don't have that kind of vision. Many have spent so much time politicking their way to the CEO's office that they know more about corporate politicking than about great product and/or service vision. They don't have a real vision. To be sure there are a few on par with Jobs albeit without his "rock star" presence and persona. But very few.
There is one big difference between Jobs and Zuckerberg. Born in the fifties and child of the idealistic sixties, Jobs may be an a$$ but he has a moral compass, and it is evident in the way Apple is run. Zuckerberg on the other hand doesn't seem to have any ability to distinguish right from wrong and that's also evident in the way Facebook is run.
He does seem to be a bit of a psychopathic personality from what I've read of him, and the way he operates Facebook.
There is one big difference between Jobs and Zuckerberg. Born in the fifties and child of the idealistic sixties, Jobs may be an a$$ but he has a moral compass, and it is evident in the way Apple is run. Zuckerberg on the other hand doesn't seem to have any ability to distinguish right from wrong and that's also evident in the way Facebook is run.
Here, here, excellently put.
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...
Time will say nothing but I told you so, as a poet once said, I think you ve made the right choices, if more people made such choices the world would be a better place.
He does seem to be a bit of a psychopathic personality from what I've read of him, and the way he operates Facebook.
Hmmm. A social network run by a sociopath. Interesting, disconcerting and, oh, the irony!!!
True... they may believe themselves to be bigger than Jesus (if he actually existed.
Whether He existed or not is irrelevant to being "bigger than Jesus".
The comparison is how many people now know something of Jesus, not how many people knew something of HIm 2000 years ago.
So to be "bigger than Jesus", one would have to be pretty darn big.
I'd bet that easily less than 1/4 of Facebook users (just picking a number) could tell you could tell you anything about Zuckerberg, if asked.
Hmmm. A social network run by a sociopath. Interesting, disconcerting and, oh, the irony!!!
He wrote "psychopath", not "sociopath".