Personally I wouldn't pay $450 for any pair of frame especially rimless ones like that. If you lightly mishandle mostly glasses they can be bent back into shape. Rimless ones tend to snap off where they are screwed directly into the lenses.
Would you pay $450 for square rims with round edges that were also dull heads-up displays? Give it time...
Those guys should be more individual and stop copying others. I think it might be a sign that Seth MacFarlane might have some serious mental problems. Notice that I said MIGHT. I'm not saying that he does, just that he might. Stop looking at the world in such a black and white way. MIGHT. Someone should look into it probably. Definitely.
Maybe that is the real Steve Jobs and you are the biased one?
After 40 interviews with the man and talking to hundreds of personal acquaintances, I'm pretty sure he got it pretty close.
I have no doubt on the accuracy of the information, but lives are long and books are short so you have to focus on an unbiased range of events and there was a lot of repetition in making a certain point, which I felt came across as biased, especially given Isaacson's attitude in interviews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Maybe the publisher had something to do with getting the book out early, an amazing feat to jam a hardcover out with last-minute details (up to July so far in the first half of the book, which is where I'm at).
True, that goes back to the point about profiteering, there was obviously a pressure to release this book almost as soon as Jobs died, which I find distasteful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Where do you find that he "arrogantly" made out that Jobs "wasn't really worthy of his authorship"?
In interviews, he makes himself out to be a great author who has covered Einstein and Benjamin Franklin and he was asked by Jobs to do his biography and he said he thought that Jobs perhaps considered himself to be in league with his other subjects and made it clear he didn't think so. To me that suggests he is arrogant about his own writing skills and dismissive of Jobs when in fact Isaacson is merely someone who documents other people's achievements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by umumum
apple seems not to share your distaste for making money out of job's bio, it released it for sale early in the iBookstore and let the profits come rolling in, iKA-CHING!
Yeah, that's a fair point but they are a distribution channel so they probably wouldn't hold it back out of respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
After a while, it was like, "Ok, I get it. He can be dick sometimes."
Exactly and I agree with what you said, there's clearly an upside and I feel that should have been made clearer in the biography. People might say you can achieve the same things without being a dick but there aren't too many examples. Bill Gates certainly isn't an example because Microsoft still has no taste, even after they've been shown what good taste looks like. As Steve said, how dumb do you have to be that you still can't do it right when it's sitting in front of you.
When people notice art or innovation, it's because there's been a disruption from the expected. It takes a disruptive force to make that happen. Buying a pair of glasses or reading stories of emotional tantrums don't improve the understanding of that process.
True, that goes back to the point about profiteering, there was obviously a pressure to release this book almost as soon as Jobs died, which I find distasteful.
I don't think its anything that Steve wouldn't of done to be honest as long as the product was finished properly and ready to go. He was a capitalist even if money wasn't his primary driver. He created mega-buzz and cashed in on it. His death created mega-buzz and it was cashed in on for his official biography. Its not like some a**hole company that claims he wore their turtlenecks when he never did. It was very much an endorsed product. What good would of holding onto it and waiting a few more months done or changed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
interviews, he makes himself out to be a great author who has covered Einstein and Benjamin Franklin and he was asked by Jobs to do his biography and he said he thought that Jobs perhaps considered himself to be in league with his other subjects and made it clear he didn't think so. To me that suggests he is arrogant about his own writing skills and dismissive of Jobs when in fact Isaacson is merely someone who documents other people's achievements.
I haven't read any of his work besides the Jobs biography, but if that is reflective of the rest of the body of his work I'm not really sure I see the attraction that Steve did. It's a bit droll and repetitive. It was a easy-breezy read that probably could of been at least 100 pages shorter, or 100 pages more engaging then 93 pages of the term "reality distortion field". Like pretty much everybody on the face of the earth, he probably thinks he is smarter then he really is, but he very well may be a lot smarter then others to begin with... he is at least more successful.
In the interviews he merely said to give it another 10-20 years for Steve to retire to write it. He always came across as dismissive of the timing, not the subject. Maybe you encountered a different bit of press he did, but not the impression I got in anything I've seen him on radio/tv wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
and I agree with what you said, there's clearly an upside and I feel that should have been made clearer in the biography. People might say you can achieve the same things without being a dick but there aren't too many examples. Bill Gates certainly isn't an example because Microsoft still has no taste, even after they've been shown what good taste looks like. As Steve said, how dumb do you have to be that you still can't do it right when it's sitting in front of you.
I think the book made pretty clear the two sides of the technological divide the two of them fell on. Bill hasn't really been involved in Microsoft in close to a decade. Chairman seems much more in title only. I can't even remember when he's really discussed Microsoft in a present tense. He is off saving the world and good for him. He brings a big brain and a big wallet to tackle massive development problems. Steve Ballmer sure as hell isn't concerned with anything other then probably figuring out how to stop sweating so much. He brings the angry to the table without the brains or intuition to back it up.
I'm not sure Microsoft could really win one way or another. As a software supplier they are relying on shitty, crappy, plastic casings that Dell, HP and whoever is left are building to run it or if they start building their own its going to take awhile to get right and they'd just be ridiculed for copying Apple's approach.
The Windows Phone operating system was a small step to engaging UI from a design perspective that I'm sure the bureaucracy of Microsoft bastardized tremendously a long the way. Its not for me and needs plenty of refinements, but at least the company is making some steps in the right direction, no matter how miniscule. I imagine the company has plenty of great and intuitive, simple thinkers... but I imagine they are also focus grouping their products to death as well.
I have no doubt on the accuracy of the information, but lives are long and books are short so you have to focus on an unbiased range of events and there was a lot of repetition in making a certain point, which I felt came across as biased, especially given Isaacson's attitude in interviews.
I don't get the impression that he's selecting details to make his own points about Steve's character, rather just reporting what happened and what people remember. We all remember the painful and obnoxious just as clearly or more clearly than we remember the good stuff. But the book is full of good stuff too. It isn't pointed at as: see, here's how we can judge him, but often: this is how it went because of how sentimental, romantic or passionate he was, or this is how he figured it out and played his hand. Mixed into the story usually is that he used his will like a weapon, which is where Isaacson may drop in "the RDF" as shorthand. Too frequently? I haven't been keeping track because I don't have an issue with his writing or his detail selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
True, that goes back to the point about profiteering, there was obviously a pressure to release this book almost as soon as Jobs died, which I find distasteful.
Since I'm so glad that they did push it out early so we could all jump on it, I can't join in your judgment here. It's amazing that they could do it, that book production has gotten so streamlined in recent years, and I wonder if Tim Cook (or Steve) might have said, hell yes, if you can pull it off, do it.
I know you weren't disputing this, only the timing, but all this assessment of his life is appropriate and therapeutic, I think. Helps get over the loss, and it is a huge loss to the world, and more than that, the book shows exactly how he lived on the crosscurrents of the time he found himself in. This is where the positive stuff comes in, it looks like Isaacson is saying ever so subtly.
Bill Gates, bless him, seems to have paid no attention to the so-called counterculture. Those who were attentive to the music, the drug mix, the indiscriminate liberation on many fronts, all saw it as something that could humanize the future, as did Jobs. He not only lived that out for himself, he created technology to carry the main themes forward for the next how many generations. To get down to specifics, the iPod was essentially designed for his Dylan collection, and Dylan was one cultural lightning rod for the new culture. (It was actually called it the Revolution at the time, not the "counterculture," which was Rozak's sociological term.)
So it's not easy to exaggerate Jobs's importance to us, and no amount of soul searching over him and how he did it is too much, in my opinion. Analysis isn't unhealthy, but hero-worship might be, and Isaacson did not write a book for hero worship. But it is a record of how the counterculture has somewhat prevailed in the end, which is now. What life could be more important than one that embodies that? And it can't be gone over enough or too soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
In interviews, he makes himself out to be a great author who has covered Einstein and Benjamin Franklin and he was asked by Jobs to do his biography and he said he thought that Jobs perhaps considered himself to be in league with his other subjects and made it clear he didn't think so. To me that suggests he is arrogant about his own writing skills and dismissive of Jobs when in fact Isaacson is merely someone who documents other people's achievements.
I heard his Terry Gross and his Kai Ryssdal interviews, and missed any of that. Can you remember where you heard it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Exactly and I agree with what you said, there's clearly an upside and I feel that should have been made clearer in the biography. People might say you can achieve the same things without being a dick but there aren't too many examples. Bill Gates certainly isn't an example because Microsoft still has no taste, even after they've been shown what good taste looks like. As Steve said, how dumb do you have to be that you still can't do it right when it's sitting in front of you.
When people notice art or innovation, it's because there's been a disruption from the expected. It takes a disruptive force to make that happen. Buying a pair of glasses or reading stories of emotional tantrums don't improve the understanding of that process.
Well said, but I think we're not paying enough attention to the good stuff about Steve in the book. There should be a website on the book, and a crowdsourced accounting of each page. I'm only half joking.
Edit: I see TheDisco has anticipated some points here, while I was stewing over it all.
Anyone else find this kind of hero worship slightly unhealthy (both with the glasses and turtlenecks)?
Seems to be the antithesis of everything Steve was about..
"Your time is limited, so don?t waste it living someone else?s life."
I liked Jobs as much as any other Apple fan/Computer professional but I do find it unhealthy how people are this quick to mimic his style. Slightly "stalker-ish" if you ask me.
Though I've been wearing polo neck jumpers since I was about 12 years old, I guess that means I'm already half way there.
What good would of holding onto it and waiting a few more months done or changed?
It would have made the publication sales stand more on its own merit rather than in light of the event, much like the sales of the glasses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDisco
It's a bit droll and repetitive. It was a easy-breezy read that probably could of been at least 100 pages shorter, or 100 pages more engaging then 93 pages of the term "reality distortion field"
That's how I felt about it too. I guess it had to be this way but there's far too much content in there that's already been told. It's been fleshed out a bit but very repetitive writing style and not very engaging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
I don't get the impression that he's selecting details to make his own points about Steve's character, rather just reporting what happened and what people remember. We all remember the painful and obnoxious just as clearly or more clearly than we remember the good stuff.
Yeah that's part of the problem I guess is that a lot of information will come from people who were in arguments and will mostly remember the arguments from 20 or more years ago as they would be the most memorable. I trust Wozniak's viewpoint as he is a great guy and he has some negative things to say too but you just have to watch his account here to see that he was still one of his closest friends:
Analysis isn't unhealthy, but hero-worship might be, and Isaacson did not write a book for hero worship. But it is a record of how the counterculture has somewhat prevailed in the end, which is now. What life could be more important than one that embodies that? And it can't be gone over enough or too soon.
I don't think people should have heroes at all, I think people should view everyone on the same level regardless of gender, race, age, wealth or intellect. Everyone has the same flaws and the same vulnerabilities and as is the nature of evolution, people should select and follow the successful paths that lead to happiness by observing the successes and failures of themselves and others. The book seems to miss out key elements that explain the journey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
I heard his Terry Gross and his Kai Ryssdal interviews, and missed any of that. Can you remember where you heard it?
I thought it was the 60 minutes interviews he compared him to his other subjects but he was on The Daily Show too so it might have been there, he's making the rounds. He does give Jobs some compliments but I never see him make them with a sense that he means it. He seems to be of the mindset that this guy was an asshole and has a list of stories to back it up and only seems to mildly acknowledge the good parts.
Steve Jobs spent over $50m of his own money on Pixar without which we might never have advanced CGI. There's no way you could tell way back then that this would be important but the vast majority of things we do now on computers use rasterised graphics with programmable shaders and they developed this over 30 years ago. While there was an admission that it was intended to be profitable, the descriptions of Jobs as a 'business leader' come across as empty. No businessman comes up with phrases like 'innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower', there's an insight and a passion that doesn't get covered. Emotional outbursts are described as child-like and frequent when they may have been months or years apart.
I don't want to be trying to defend a character I don't know but you only have to listen to any of the numerous interviews and presentations to see that there's something that Isaacson is missing out. It's sad that Jobs can't defend himself. Isaacson has his audience and because it's an approved biography, what he's saying goes. History is written by the survivors. Perhaps Steve Wozniak and others will comment on the book and like I say, I don't expect they will find fault with the accuracy but possibly the overall portrayal. After all you can take a set of facts and present them in such a way as to reach completely opposite impressions.
Comments
Round rimless <> round with metal rims.
Personally I wouldn't pay $450 for any pair of frame especially rimless ones like that. If you lightly mishandle mostly glasses they can be bent back into shape. Rimless ones tend to snap off where they are screwed directly into the lenses.
Would you pay $450 for square rims with round edges that were also dull heads-up displays? Give it time...
last post
Ah, irony.
Broken image and the website is "Stuff I Stole From The Internet."
Ah, irony.
Broken image and the website is "Stuff I Stole From The Internet."
Image isn't working? Here's the original page I hotlinked it from.
Image isn't working? Here's the original page I hotlinked it from.
Those guys should be more individual and stop copying others. I think it might be a sign that Seth MacFarlane might have some serious mental problems. Notice that I said MIGHT. I'm not saying that he does, just that he might. Stop looking at the world in such a black and white way. MIGHT. Someone should look into it probably. Definitely.
Maybe that is the real Steve Jobs and you are the biased one?
After 40 interviews with the man and talking to hundreds of personal acquaintances, I'm pretty sure he got it pretty close.
I have no doubt on the accuracy of the information, but lives are long and books are short so you have to focus on an unbiased range of events and there was a lot of repetition in making a certain point, which I felt came across as biased, especially given Isaacson's attitude in interviews.
Maybe the publisher had something to do with getting the book out early, an amazing feat to jam a hardcover out with last-minute details (up to July so far in the first half of the book, which is where I'm at).
True, that goes back to the point about profiteering, there was obviously a pressure to release this book almost as soon as Jobs died, which I find distasteful.
Where do you find that he "arrogantly" made out that Jobs "wasn't really worthy of his authorship"?
In interviews, he makes himself out to be a great author who has covered Einstein and Benjamin Franklin and he was asked by Jobs to do his biography and he said he thought that Jobs perhaps considered himself to be in league with his other subjects and made it clear he didn't think so. To me that suggests he is arrogant about his own writing skills and dismissive of Jobs when in fact Isaacson is merely someone who documents other people's achievements.
apple seems not to share your distaste for making money out of job's bio, it released it for sale early in the iBookstore and let the profits come rolling in, iKA-CHING!
Yeah, that's a fair point but they are a distribution channel so they probably wouldn't hold it back out of respect.
After a while, it was like, "Ok, I get it. He can be dick sometimes."
Exactly and I agree with what you said, there's clearly an upside and I feel that should have been made clearer in the biography. People might say you can achieve the same things without being a dick but there aren't too many examples. Bill Gates certainly isn't an example because Microsoft still has no taste, even after they've been shown what good taste looks like. As Steve said, how dumb do you have to be that you still can't do it right when it's sitting in front of you.
When people notice art or innovation, it's because there's been a disruption from the expected. It takes a disruptive force to make that happen. Buying a pair of glasses or reading stories of emotional tantrums don't improve the understanding of that process.
True, that goes back to the point about profiteering, there was obviously a pressure to release this book almost as soon as Jobs died, which I find distasteful.
I don't think its anything that Steve wouldn't of done to be honest as long as the product was finished properly and ready to go. He was a capitalist even if money wasn't his primary driver. He created mega-buzz and cashed in on it. His death created mega-buzz and it was cashed in on for his official biography. Its not like some a**hole company that claims he wore their turtlenecks when he never did. It was very much an endorsed product. What good would of holding onto it and waiting a few more months done or changed?
interviews, he makes himself out to be a great author who has covered Einstein and Benjamin Franklin and he was asked by Jobs to do his biography and he said he thought that Jobs perhaps considered himself to be in league with his other subjects and made it clear he didn't think so. To me that suggests he is arrogant about his own writing skills and dismissive of Jobs when in fact Isaacson is merely someone who documents other people's achievements.
I haven't read any of his work besides the Jobs biography, but if that is reflective of the rest of the body of his work I'm not really sure I see the attraction that Steve did. It's a bit droll and repetitive. It was a easy-breezy read that probably could of been at least 100 pages shorter, or 100 pages more engaging then 93 pages of the term "reality distortion field". Like pretty much everybody on the face of the earth, he probably thinks he is smarter then he really is, but he very well may be a lot smarter then others to begin with... he is at least more successful.
In the interviews he merely said to give it another 10-20 years for Steve to retire to write it. He always came across as dismissive of the timing, not the subject. Maybe you encountered a different bit of press he did, but not the impression I got in anything I've seen him on radio/tv wise.
and I agree with what you said, there's clearly an upside and I feel that should have been made clearer in the biography. People might say you can achieve the same things without being a dick but there aren't too many examples. Bill Gates certainly isn't an example because Microsoft still has no taste, even after they've been shown what good taste looks like. As Steve said, how dumb do you have to be that you still can't do it right when it's sitting in front of you.
I think the book made pretty clear the two sides of the technological divide the two of them fell on. Bill hasn't really been involved in Microsoft in close to a decade. Chairman seems much more in title only. I can't even remember when he's really discussed Microsoft in a present tense. He is off saving the world and good for him. He brings a big brain and a big wallet to tackle massive development problems. Steve Ballmer sure as hell isn't concerned with anything other then probably figuring out how to stop sweating so much. He brings the angry to the table without the brains or intuition to back it up.
I'm not sure Microsoft could really win one way or another. As a software supplier they are relying on shitty, crappy, plastic casings that Dell, HP and whoever is left are building to run it or if they start building their own its going to take awhile to get right and they'd just be ridiculed for copying Apple's approach.
The Windows Phone operating system was a small step to engaging UI from a design perspective that I'm sure the bureaucracy of Microsoft bastardized tremendously a long the way. Its not for me and needs plenty of refinements, but at least the company is making some steps in the right direction, no matter how miniscule. I imagine the company has plenty of great and intuitive, simple thinkers... but I imagine they are also focus grouping their products to death as well.
I have no doubt on the accuracy of the information, but lives are long and books are short so you have to focus on an unbiased range of events and there was a lot of repetition in making a certain point, which I felt came across as biased, especially given Isaacson's attitude in interviews.
I don't get the impression that he's selecting details to make his own points about Steve's character, rather just reporting what happened and what people remember. We all remember the painful and obnoxious just as clearly or more clearly than we remember the good stuff. But the book is full of good stuff too. It isn't pointed at as: see, here's how we can judge him, but often: this is how it went because of how sentimental, romantic or passionate he was, or this is how he figured it out and played his hand. Mixed into the story usually is that he used his will like a weapon, which is where Isaacson may drop in "the RDF" as shorthand. Too frequently? I haven't been keeping track because I don't have an issue with his writing or his detail selection.
True, that goes back to the point about profiteering, there was obviously a pressure to release this book almost as soon as Jobs died, which I find distasteful.
Since I'm so glad that they did push it out early so we could all jump on it, I can't join in your judgment here. It's amazing that they could do it, that book production has gotten so streamlined in recent years, and I wonder if Tim Cook (or Steve) might have said, hell yes, if you can pull it off, do it.
I know you weren't disputing this, only the timing, but all this assessment of his life is appropriate and therapeutic, I think. Helps get over the loss, and it is a huge loss to the world, and more than that, the book shows exactly how he lived on the crosscurrents of the time he found himself in. This is where the positive stuff comes in, it looks like Isaacson is saying ever so subtly.
Bill Gates, bless him, seems to have paid no attention to the so-called counterculture. Those who were attentive to the music, the drug mix, the indiscriminate liberation on many fronts, all saw it as something that could humanize the future, as did Jobs. He not only lived that out for himself, he created technology to carry the main themes forward for the next how many generations. To get down to specifics, the iPod was essentially designed for his Dylan collection, and Dylan was one cultural lightning rod for the new culture. (It was actually called it the Revolution at the time, not the "counterculture," which was Rozak's sociological term.)
So it's not easy to exaggerate Jobs's importance to us, and no amount of soul searching over him and how he did it is too much, in my opinion. Analysis isn't unhealthy, but hero-worship might be, and Isaacson did not write a book for hero worship. But it is a record of how the counterculture has somewhat prevailed in the end, which is now. What life could be more important than one that embodies that? And it can't be gone over enough or too soon.
In interviews, he makes himself out to be a great author who has covered Einstein and Benjamin Franklin and he was asked by Jobs to do his biography and he said he thought that Jobs perhaps considered himself to be in league with his other subjects and made it clear he didn't think so. To me that suggests he is arrogant about his own writing skills and dismissive of Jobs when in fact Isaacson is merely someone who documents other people's achievements.
I heard his Terry Gross and his Kai Ryssdal interviews, and missed any of that. Can you remember where you heard it?
Exactly and I agree with what you said, there's clearly an upside and I feel that should have been made clearer in the biography. People might say you can achieve the same things without being a dick but there aren't too many examples. Bill Gates certainly isn't an example because Microsoft still has no taste, even after they've been shown what good taste looks like. As Steve said, how dumb do you have to be that you still can't do it right when it's sitting in front of you.
When people notice art or innovation, it's because there's been a disruption from the expected. It takes a disruptive force to make that happen. Buying a pair of glasses or reading stories of emotional tantrums don't improve the understanding of that process.
Well said, but I think we're not paying enough attention to the good stuff about Steve in the book. There should be a website on the book, and a crowdsourced accounting of each page. I'm only half joking.
Edit: I see TheDisco has anticipated some points here, while I was stewing over it all.
Anyone else find this kind of hero worship slightly unhealthy (both with the glasses and turtlenecks)?
Seems to be the antithesis of everything Steve was about..
"Your time is limited, so don?t waste it living someone else?s life."
I liked Jobs as much as any other Apple fan/Computer professional but I do find it unhealthy how people are this quick to mimic his style. Slightly "stalker-ish" if you ask me.
Though I've been wearing polo neck jumpers since I was about 12 years old, I guess that means I'm already half way there.
What good would of holding onto it and waiting a few more months done or changed?
It would have made the publication sales stand more on its own merit rather than in light of the event, much like the sales of the glasses.
It's a bit droll and repetitive. It was a easy-breezy read that probably could of been at least 100 pages shorter, or 100 pages more engaging then 93 pages of the term "reality distortion field"
That's how I felt about it too. I guess it had to be this way but there's far too much content in there that's already been told. It's been fleshed out a bit but very repetitive writing style and not very engaging.
I don't get the impression that he's selecting details to make his own points about Steve's character, rather just reporting what happened and what people remember. We all remember the painful and obnoxious just as clearly or more clearly than we remember the good stuff.
Yeah that's part of the problem I guess is that a lot of information will come from people who were in arguments and will mostly remember the arguments from 20 or more years ago as they would be the most memorable. I trust Wozniak's viewpoint as he is a great guy and he has some negative things to say too but you just have to watch his account here to see that he was still one of his closest friends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK_XEGrzHUo
Analysis isn't unhealthy, but hero-worship might be, and Isaacson did not write a book for hero worship. But it is a record of how the counterculture has somewhat prevailed in the end, which is now. What life could be more important than one that embodies that? And it can't be gone over enough or too soon.
I don't think people should have heroes at all, I think people should view everyone on the same level regardless of gender, race, age, wealth or intellect. Everyone has the same flaws and the same vulnerabilities and as is the nature of evolution, people should select and follow the successful paths that lead to happiness by observing the successes and failures of themselves and others. The book seems to miss out key elements that explain the journey.
I heard his Terry Gross and his Kai Ryssdal interviews, and missed any of that. Can you remember where you heard it?
I thought it was the 60 minutes interviews he compared him to his other subjects but he was on The Daily Show too so it might have been there, he's making the rounds. He does give Jobs some compliments but I never see him make them with a sense that he means it. He seems to be of the mindset that this guy was an asshole and has a list of stories to back it up and only seems to mildly acknowledge the good parts.
Steve Jobs spent over $50m of his own money on Pixar without which we might never have advanced CGI. There's no way you could tell way back then that this would be important but the vast majority of things we do now on computers use rasterised graphics with programmable shaders and they developed this over 30 years ago. While there was an admission that it was intended to be profitable, the descriptions of Jobs as a 'business leader' come across as empty. No businessman comes up with phrases like 'innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower', there's an insight and a passion that doesn't get covered. Emotional outbursts are described as child-like and frequent when they may have been months or years apart.
I don't want to be trying to defend a character I don't know but you only have to listen to any of the numerous interviews and presentations to see that there's something that Isaacson is missing out. It's sad that Jobs can't defend himself. Isaacson has his audience and because it's an approved biography, what he's saying goes. History is written by the survivors. Perhaps Steve Wozniak and others will comment on the book and like I say, I don't expect they will find fault with the accuracy but possibly the overall portrayal. After all you can take a set of facts and present them in such a way as to reach completely opposite impressions.