For someone of his standing in the tech industry, going to a restaurant largely patronised by tech industry people, I'd say his actions were indeed humble.
With all the anecdotes, positive and negative, coming out following his death, I don't see why we shouldn't read about his one. Perhaps it's only worth a mention for you if it paints Jobs in a negative light?
No. But I think an article that simply shows him 'not being a jerk' and acting like a normal person hardly seems worthy of mention. Unless it was so extremely rare when he wasn't a jerk. I wouldn't know.
You would think but that isn't the way a lot of people are. Many see people in the service industry as nothing but slaves and treat them accordingly. I've seen some awfully bad behavior from people expecting to be treated with preference.
That is a good sign, it paints an entirely different picture than some here would like to paint.
Slow news day?
Seriously it is no different than picking up the local paper to find a bunch of filler material because nothing is happening.
No. But I think an article that simply shows him 'not being a jerk' and acting like a normal person hardly seems worthy of mention. Unless it was so extremely rare when he wasn't a jerk. I wouldn't know.
Perhaps now having read the article you might have more of an idea?
Siracusa's podcast is spot on and I'd recommend it over the book. I said pretty much exactly the same thing he does about the early parts of the book (Isaacson just summarises other sources) here on AI after I read it. What's interesting is Siracusa knew the sources because he's read so many Apple books and could identify them, but even without that knowledge I could tell it was all cribbed simply because the tone changes were so bizarre and because it was written from the perspectives of people I know have written extensively on Apple rather than from Jobs's perspective (i.e., the Mac section is from the POV of Hertzfeld because it's just a summary of his book, the Sculley section is so different in tone because it's just a summary of Sculley's biography with some added editorialising, etc). It really is a shoddy, lazy work. I didn't pick up on nearly as many errors as Siracusa but I got the sense throughout that Isaacson didn't understand the industry, didn't understand technology, didn't understand Apple, didn't understand Jobs and, moreover, wasn't remotely interested in understanding any of those things. I think he just saw the opportunity to write the authorised biography of a dying man and took it.
Google's first head chef this week offered a rare glimpse into the personal life of late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, recalling that frequent visits to his restaurant showed the tech guru was a humble, if not fashionably late, individual.
Thanks for sharing this. Somehow Walter Isaacson failed to interview Ayers, and we're left with a biography that highlights Steve's jerk wad side. For shame. He was a complex personality.
Yeah, Isaacson really dropped the ball and failed to get inside Jobs's character, choosing to present a bunch of anecdotes he'd cribbed from employees accounts and so forth (except in the final chapter where he set out a really confused thesis about how Jobs's "controlling" character led to Apple's "closed" ecosystem). The result was a jumble of contradictory information. I think the best way to understand Jobs is in terms of the way people can try to be good but end up with a bad result because they take it too far. So somebody can be honest to the point of being rude, humble to the point of being a nuisance, etc. For example, Jobs didn't want to be the kind of guy who cared about money, so he ignored it to the point that he didn't have time for charity either. He wanted to be honest with people and honest about how he felt, but it was to the point that he bruised a lot of egos, acted in often petty ways, expressed himself too strongly (people were either "A-players" or "bozos", ideas were either "insanely great" or "complete shit"), etc. (There's an interesting paradox between being intellectually honest and being honest in the sense of expressing how you feel without reservation. The latter can lead to excesses exaggeration, failure to give credit where it is due, etc, which are themselves intellectually dishonest.) That's where those contradictions come from, I think. Jobs was too intense.
No. But I think an article that simply shows him 'not being a jerk' and acting like a normal person hardly seems worthy of mention. Unless it was so extremely rare when he wasn't a jerk. I wouldn't know.
Siracusa did have a nice list of blunders, but I thought he was off base in blaming Isaacson for not knowing his technology. All those errors should have been caught by editors and fact checkers. The publisher blew it, and let the author down with slack oversight.
Isaacson probably had no time to learn the necesssary tech chops while he was racing against time to get the book out. In such a case, the editor should send the proofs out to readers who know the field, like Siracusa, for example. That's the way it's supposed to work when you have a humanities writer covering a technical subject.
Still there were a few nontechnical gaffes, like Isaacson's editorial asides, that should also have been caught by a good editor.
Ayers, formerly a personal chef to a family of 14, first began his stint at Google in 1999 after a successful audition for founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin. As Google expanded, his 50 meal a day job turned into serving between 10,000 and 15,000 employees per day. Ayers left the tech company in 2006 to open his restaurant where many Google employees, including Page and Brin, still eat.
Bloody hell! I thought Apple saw growth but this chef went from cooking for a family of 14 to a tech company chef cooking for 50 employees and while that company grew he ended up cooking for 10,000 to 15,000 people a day! Can understand that he is 'taking it easy now' and cooking for 250 customers a day, now that he has his own restaurant. Yeah yeah, not all on his own, 150 employees according to the Forbes article.
Nice menu, nothing really special AFAICT. Would like to visit someday.
Yeah, Isaacson really dropped the ball and failed to get inside Jobs's character, choosing to present a bunch of anecdotes he'd cribbed from employees accounts and so forth (except in the final chapter where he set out a really confused thesis about how Jobs's "controlling" character led to Apple's "closed" ecosystem). The result was a jumble of contradictory information. I think the best way to understand Jobs is in terms of the way people can try to be good but end up with a bad result because they take it too far. So somebody can be honest to the point of being rude, humble to the point of being a nuisance, etc. For example, Jobs didn't want to be the kind of guy who cared about money, so he ignored it to the point that he didn't have time for charity either. He wanted to be honest with people and honest about how he felt, but it was to the point that he bruised a lot of egos, acted in often petty ways, expressed himself too strongly (people were either "A-players" or "bozos", ideas were either "insanely great" or "complete shit"), etc. (There's an interesting paradox between being intellectually honest and being honest in the sense of expressing how you feel without reservation. The latter can lead to excesses exaggeration, failure to give credit where it is due, etc, which are themselves intellectually dishonest.) That's where those contradictions come from, I think. Jobs was too intense.
Thanks. That's an interesting take on Jobs, and observations of Isaacson's book.
Comments
I sort of agree with this...the biography did seem to dwell on his peculiarities!
and here was me thinking the bio was to provide insight on Steve as the visionary founder & leader of Apple.. not a patron of a restaurant.. silly me.
You don't agree with him, so he's a troll?
Apparently. I though I was pretty much stating the obvious.
For someone of his standing in the tech industry, going to a restaurant largely patronised by tech industry people, I'd say his actions were indeed humble.
With all the anecdotes, positive and negative, coming out following his death, I don't see why we shouldn't read about his one. Perhaps it's only worth a mention for you if it paints Jobs in a negative light?
No. But I think an article that simply shows him 'not being a jerk' and acting like a normal person hardly seems worthy of mention. Unless it was so extremely rare when he wasn't a jerk. I wouldn't know.
You would think but that isn't the way a lot of people are. Many see people in the service industry as nothing but slaves and treat them accordingly. I've seen some awfully bad behavior from people expecting to be treated with preference.
That is a good sign, it paints an entirely different picture than some here would like to paint.
Slow news day?
Seriously it is no different than picking up the local paper to find a bunch of filler material because nothing is happening.
Thank you. A reasonable response.
No. But I think an article that simply shows him 'not being a jerk' and acting like a normal person hardly seems worthy of mention. Unless it was so extremely rare when he wasn't a jerk. I wouldn't know.
Perhaps now having read the article you might have more of an idea?
and here was me thinking the bio was to provide insight on Steve as the visionary founder & leader of Apple.. not a patron of a restaurant.. silly me.
Unfortunately, the bio is arguably pretty poor on a lot of stuff regarding Apple and technology in general...
Listen to this 5by5 podcast with John Siracusa: http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/42
Unfortunately, the bio is arguably pretty poor on a lot of stuff regarding Apple and technology in general...
Listen to this 5by5 podcast with John Siracusa: http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/42
Siracusa's podcast is spot on and I'd recommend it over the book. I said pretty much exactly the same thing he does about the early parts of the book (Isaacson just summarises other sources) here on AI after I read it. What's interesting is Siracusa knew the sources because he's read so many Apple books and could identify them, but even without that knowledge I could tell it was all cribbed simply because the tone changes were so bizarre and because it was written from the perspectives of people I know have written extensively on Apple rather than from Jobs's perspective (i.e., the Mac section is from the POV of Hertzfeld because it's just a summary of his book, the Sculley section is so different in tone because it's just a summary of Sculley's biography with some added editorialising, etc). It really is a shoddy, lazy work. I didn't pick up on nearly as many errors as Siracusa but I got the sense throughout that Isaacson didn't understand the industry, didn't understand technology, didn't understand Apple, didn't understand Jobs and, moreover, wasn't remotely interested in understanding any of those things. I think he just saw the opportunity to write the authorised biography of a dying man and took it.
Google's first head chef this week offered a rare glimpse into the personal life of late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, recalling that frequent visits to his restaurant showed the tech guru was a humble, if not fashionably late, individual.
You mean "if fashionably late"...
Thanks for sharing this. Somehow Walter Isaacson failed to interview Ayers, and we're left with a biography that highlights Steve's jerk wad side. For shame. He was a complex personality.
Yeah, Isaacson really dropped the ball and failed to get inside Jobs's character, choosing to present a bunch of anecdotes he'd cribbed from employees accounts and so forth (except in the final chapter where he set out a really confused thesis about how Jobs's "controlling" character led to Apple's "closed" ecosystem). The result was a jumble of contradictory information. I think the best way to understand Jobs is in terms of the way people can try to be good but end up with a bad result because they take it too far. So somebody can be honest to the point of being rude, humble to the point of being a nuisance, etc. For example, Jobs didn't want to be the kind of guy who cared about money, so he ignored it to the point that he didn't have time for charity either. He wanted to be honest with people and honest about how he felt, but it was to the point that he bruised a lot of egos, acted in often petty ways, expressed himself too strongly (people were either "A-players" or "bozos", ideas were either "insanely great" or "complete shit"), etc. (There's an interesting paradox between being intellectually honest and being honest in the sense of expressing how you feel without reservation. The latter can lead to excesses exaggeration, failure to give credit where it is due, etc, which are themselves intellectually dishonest.) That's where those contradictions come from, I think. Jobs was too intense.
No. But I think an article that simply shows him 'not being a jerk' and acting like a normal person hardly seems worthy of mention. Unless it was so extremely rare when he wasn't a jerk. I wouldn't know.
[insult removed]
[insult removed]
Really, that's your response? Had I slammed you in some way? Who is the "jerk" here?
Perhaps now having read the article you might have more of an idea?
How would I know how often he was a jerk? How do you know?
Unfortunately, the bio is arguably pretty poor on a lot of stuff regarding Apple and technology in general...
Listen to this 5by5 podcast with John Siracusa: http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/42
Siracusa did have a nice list of blunders, but I thought he was off base in blaming Isaacson for not knowing his technology. All those errors should have been caught by editors and fact checkers. The publisher blew it, and let the author down with slack oversight.
Isaacson probably had no time to learn the necesssary tech chops while he was racing against time to get the book out. In such a case, the editor should send the proofs out to readers who know the field, like Siracusa, for example. That's the way it's supposed to work when you have a humanities writer covering a technical subject.
Still there were a few nontechnical gaffes, like Isaacson's editorial asides, that should also have been caught by a good editor.
Ayers, formerly a personal chef to a family of 14, first began his stint at Google in 1999 after a successful audition for founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin. As Google expanded, his 50 meal a day job turned into serving between 10,000 and 15,000 employees per day. Ayers left the tech company in 2006 to open his restaurant where many Google employees, including Page and Brin, still eat.
Bloody hell! I thought Apple saw growth but this chef went from cooking for a family of 14 to a tech company chef cooking for 50 employees and while that company grew he ended up cooking for 10,000 to 15,000 people a day! Can understand that he is 'taking it easy now' and cooking for 250 customers a day, now that he has his own restaurant. Yeah yeah, not all on his own, 150 employees according to the Forbes article.
Nice menu, nothing really special AFAICT. Would like to visit someday.
calafiapaloalto.com
Yeah, Isaacson really dropped the ball and failed to get inside Jobs's character, choosing to present a bunch of anecdotes he'd cribbed from employees accounts and so forth (except in the final chapter where he set out a really confused thesis about how Jobs's "controlling" character led to Apple's "closed" ecosystem). The result was a jumble of contradictory information. I think the best way to understand Jobs is in terms of the way people can try to be good but end up with a bad result because they take it too far. So somebody can be honest to the point of being rude, humble to the point of being a nuisance, etc. For example, Jobs didn't want to be the kind of guy who cared about money, so he ignored it to the point that he didn't have time for charity either. He wanted to be honest with people and honest about how he felt, but it was to the point that he bruised a lot of egos, acted in often petty ways, expressed himself too strongly (people were either "A-players" or "bozos", ideas were either "insanely great" or "complete shit"), etc. (There's an interesting paradox between being intellectually honest and being honest in the sense of expressing how you feel without reservation. The latter can lead to excesses exaggeration, failure to give credit where it is due, etc, which are themselves intellectually dishonest.) That's where those contradictions come from, I think. Jobs was too intense.
Thanks. That's an interesting take on Jobs, and observations of Isaacson's book.