First I'm not sure Cook has proven to be brilliant, driven, focused and knowledgeable. I question his focus most of all. Apple has risen under Cook because Apple was already on the rise. As long as no one can compete with the iPhone Apple will continue to dominate. The first major release under Cook is the Apple Watch and in spite of how many here want to defend it, let's be honest it hasn't gone all that well. The roll out most off all was bad and that is on Cook.
The experience I have which is how I can somewhat relate to having a really hard core leader is I worked under Jack Welch. At one point Welch had more employees under him then any company in the world. With Welch you are either one or two in the industry or your department was gone. I worked for GE Capital which was the cash cow for GE, now under Immelt the stock hasn't moved more than four dollars up an down for years.
Under Welch I always had this feeling of a low level fear it pushed me to do better, I knew I had to do better because there was never any option. Jobs was like that I just don't get the feel Cook is like that. I could be wrong because I don't work for Apple.
You never saw any of this side stuff with Jobs the activism, I would call it extreme activism in some cases. I don't know how you can be weight in on social issues and still be fully focused at running the most profitable company in the world. I would also argue staying at the top is harder then getting tot he top.
We have seen a few poor rollouts with Cook and that falls on him he is the CEO it's his job to make sure things like that don't happen. I know a lot of brilliant people that aren't focused.
I don't Apple shining the spotlight on themselves all the time, the diversity push, the best person should just get the job if the product is great people don't care about the optics.
It's just may take on the situation as in investor. Microsoft has been poorly managed for over a decade yet they are still around and they still have a fairly nice market cap, Apple can be doing well doesn't mean they are still being run well. Right now I feel like we have a one hit wonder, iPhone numbers and only iPhone numbers.
The reality is China is going to be a problem for Apple, even Cook admitted it's going to be a speed bump. If iPhone numbers don't hit the mark we are going to see the stock drop like a rock. I believe iPhones are 63% of the net profit we need another home run and the Apple Watch was suppose to be that product.
So I'm just not big on Cook, not sure he was the right guy for the job.
The Immelt comparison also works because he's hugely involved in government affairs, including scoring GE hundreds of millions in subsidies (they pay 0 income tax). Cook hasn't pushed Apple that far (and the subsidies would be a stretch) but hes definitely looking to be that politically active.
Starting to wonder if Forstall might not have been the better choice.
How would you know? I question everything, including the frequently self projecting excuses many people make about others.
I particularly question the obsessive singular obsession with "Stuff". The material objects people surround themselves with to fill in the absence of anything else.
Steve Jobs seemed to be particularly be more concerned about objects than people, a narrow focus that was useful in his career and aspirations. And useful to us in that it leveraged our ability to manipulate and create more meaningful things than the consumer products he worked on.
Steve Jobs didn't just create the Mac, the iPhone, the iPod and the iPad he played a large part in creating the self obsessed society that shows more affection and concern with the consumer products than with each other. A generation into selfies, and inane twitter. The generation that views the world through their gadgets, oblivious to the real world and everyone else around them.
Ironically it was Pixar, a Steve Jobs creation, that so cuttingly portrayed these lazy, obese time wasters in WALL-E.
A little historical perspective. When portable printed books first appeared in the early 1500s, there was a lot of anguish among the Schoolmen invested in the manuscript culture of scarce, very scarce, books. The Church had most to lose, because the copyists were the stock in trade of the monasteries, and thought could be controlled almost absolutely. Would you have referred to the new printed books as "stuff?" People went off to the taverns and coffee shops and buried their noses in them, and even discussed what they learned by forming social networks around ideas, which later became the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason.
We're seven years into the Jobsian parallel to the Gutenberg revolution, which has been running things for 500 years. It's too early to write this new one off as stuck in this initial phase of hypnosis and narcissism. I agree that's happening, by the way, but it's very temporary. The early years of print were plagued with terrible episodes of self-righteous indulgences.
You realize Bill only donates because his wife pulled him into it, and he loves the recognition and the fact that he gets to advance many terrible (as in literally harmful) policies? Jobs didn't donate to most charities because they just exist to support themselves.
The fact that Jobs pretty well said that, shows how much he was blindly biased. He obviously was anti-Jobs!
Yes I know Bill's motives, which may have changed as he mellowed. I get the same knee-jerk "Microsoft hater" accusation when I point out to Microsoft fans that the charity only started after the DoJ accusations of abusive monopolistic behaviour.
As to the second statement . Really? All charities are self serving? A ready excuse for selfishness: "Everyone is just like me! Self centred and greedy."
I can spot that line when I go door knocking for the several charities that I collect for. The "I gave at the office" coming out of the hard face that gives away the lie.
The most generous people I have ever encountered are usually those who can least afford to give it. The two not being unrelated, selfish miserliness is rewarded in hard cash and the material things of life.
The Immelt comparison also works because he's hugely involved in government affairs, including scoring GE hundreds of millions in subsidies (they pay 0 income tax). Cook hasn't pushed Apple that far (and the subsidies would be a stretch) but hes definitely looking to be that politically active.
Starting to wonder if Forstall might not have been the better choice.
We're seven years into the Jobsian parallel to the Gutenberg revolution, which has been running things for 500 years. It's too early to write this new one off as stuck in this initial phase of hypnosis and narcissism. I agree that's happening, by the way, but it's very temporary. The early years of print were plagued with terrible episodes of self-righteous indulgences.
Actually the first things that were printed were "How-To guides" which stripped away the power of inherited trades and the bonds and secrecy of the guilds.
We've got that today, but from the Internet, not Steve Jobs or Apple.
Apple's stuff can be better related to the invention of cheap and freely available mirrors so the vain and petty can admire themselves endlessly and not waste any time on anyone else.
Actually the first things that were printed were "How-To guides" which stripped away the power of inherited trades and the bonds and secrecy of the guilds.
We've got that today, but from the Internet, not Steve Jobs or Apple.
Apple's stuff can be better related to the invention of cheap and freely available mirrors so the vain and petty can admire themselves endlessly and not waste any time on anyone else.
Maybe next year we could take this up again, after you've had a chance to read and think a bit. Till then, best not to judge another for being a shallow materialist.
I've seen this movie, and it's absolutely negative. It's polemic. Gibney thinks he's uncovered a new scandalous exposé on our adored icon, and that's how Magnolia is marketing the movie, but if you watch it, they only interview critics of Steve, and go over what a colossal jerk he was to everyone, 20 years ago, because that's about as recent as the personal character testimony is in the movie.
Then they go over and dredge up every scandal associated with Apple and slam Apple for murdering Chinese factory workers and beating up that blogger who was trying to traffic a stolen iPhone 4 prototype, bad Apple! You're evil, and I'm gonna getcha in my documentary. Yeah, I gotcha good. My description is probably making the Apple haters salivate, LOL. Enjoy your bias confirmation, boys. You know who you are.
Boo-hoo! You hate every movie about Apple, just like the rest of the people here. There is always dramatic effect added to any type of biography movie. It is well documented that he was a colossal jerk at times. It is part of his biography, whether you like it or not. So deal with it. Consider it entertainment and take what you want from it. I am sure you will hate the 'Steve Jobs' movie from Universal too.
Maybe next year we could take this up again, after you've had a chance to read and think a bit. Till then, best not to judge another for being a shallow materialist.
Why what's happening next year?
A new iPhone?
Will the firmament move because of a product launch?
Should I stop a lifetime habit of reading and thinking a lot, so I can have "a chance to read and think a bit"?
Boo-hoo! You hate every movie about Apple, just like the rest of the people here. There is always dramatic effect added to any type of biography movie. It is well documented that he was a colossal jerk at times. It is part of his biography, whether you like it or not. So deal with it. Consider it entertainment and take what you want from it. I am sure you will hate the 'Steve Jobs' movie from Universal too.
Whoops, hold on, there, he means he really did see this movie, when it was shown at SXSW..
"Consider it entertainment . . ." — speaking for myself, I will consider YOU entertainment.
"Redemption" (being saved from sin/evil, forgiveness of a debt) in this case is nothing more what what some people "want to perceive."
Steve reconciled with people... But so what? You and I do the same. Steve was a business leader who changed the world, but he wasn't Divine. He was like you and me in many more ways than you may be willing to admit.
Woz felt hurt that Steve lied to him, but Woz moved on. Woz didn't dwell on that event 24/7 or allow it to destroy their friendship or business. If he had, Woz would have never done anything after that lie. That part is never emphasized whenever that story is mentioned. Woz constantly brings it up in speeches because it triggers emotions in people. But to quip "Steve burned Woz!" and say little more than that is to mislead people about Steve Jobs. If you don't have all the story, you cannot accurately assess the big picture. I see a lot of people who praise or tear down Steve Jobs based on a few short historical tidbits they read about. That's not right. Before we point our finger at someone else, let's research all the facts first and then reflect on the three fingers pointing back to ourselves. We should we be so eager to cast the first stone?
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Consider also that Woz was often out of control in those early years and derelict in his engineering duties at Apple. Imagine the tech Apple could have produced if lazy old Woz had set his mind to it as much as he set his mind to rock concerts! Steve had much more focus that Woz, and Steve was driven to get things done. Woz lacked that drive. Woz helped to get Apple started, without question. He deserves credit for that. And he takes advantage of that constantly with speeches worldwide. But what Apple has become and the products we love today are not really tied to or connected to Woz at all. They are products strongly inspired by Steve Jobs. We can get on our moral high-horse all we like about Jobs, but as Jobs once said to a critic, "What have YOU done that was so great?" Seriously, what have YOU done? What have I myself done?? Have you or I sufficiently plucked the BEAM from our own eye so as to see clearly enough to pluck the splinter from Steve's? Steve is easy to criticize because quite frankly, his life is truly an open-book for all to read. Imagine the moral heat you and I would get if our lives were published in public. We should temper excessive criticism of Steve with that in mind.</span>
Love your post... but just want to say that no... Steve Jobs was not like any of us here. Not in the least.
Another one of my favorite posts on this thread is from [@]zoetmb[/@], from which I've emphasized some very important observations that I also share.
No, I don't think every scene in the trailer portrays Jobs in a bad light. Many portray him as the genius he was. And as far as making money is concerned, it's the very rare documentary that makes any, so I can assure you this wasn't done for the money. All of the negatives brought up in the trailer are already well known, so I don't find those to be a big deal.
As to whether the movie on balance is fair can only be known by seeing the entire film.
Most geniuses have been troubled figures who have led complex lives. John Lennon was a musical genius who promoted peace who could also be quite cruel and treated his first wife and son like crap. In a Playboy interview, he admitted lying about the other Beatles because he had been mad at them. Picasso was known to treat his women like dirt, although he was married to each of his two wives for a fairly long period of time. There have even been bad things said about Ghandi (and Martin Luther King for that matter). I've always felt that people like Jobs, Gates and Zuckerberg, among others, display signs of Asperger's syndrome. Their relentless focus, which is part of their genius, causes them to lose sight of other aspects of their life and that could go a long way in explaining why they treat people the way that they have (or why they went through periods where they didn't bathe or why Jobs always wore the same outfit in the latter part of his life).
With any genius, you have to take the bad with the good. Jobs was a complex character who changed over time. There's nothing wrong with a documentary that explores that complexity as long as it's fair. There's no need to place Jobs on a pedestal. But if it's just a hatchet job that explores all the negatives that we already know about, then it will be garbage. Apple employees walking out might indicate it's a hatchet job. Or it might indicate that they're still living in denial.
Subjectively, people who I know seem to feel that while Jobs' genius is sorely missed, in general Apple is now a happier place.
I've always felt that true geniuses in any endeavor whether business, tech, art, sports or political (dictators) are "afflicted" AKA "gifted" with something that is beyond our possible imaginations to comprehend being one. Also: most serial killers have IQs in the genius range.
They sit on a precarious cusp of appearing like the rest of us in many respects, yet are borderline dysfunctional in others.
Rather unfortunately for us "simple" humans, many if not most geniuses are terribly egotistic, enslaved by their genius, and for all intents and purposes can be considered asocial. @zoetmb@ mentioned Aspergers, but you can also add Autism to that neural cocktail. Almost every single "genius" has been interviewed and asked, "what, why, how do you you do the things you do?". They are often miffed by the question, and can't begin to understand the question, let alone why OTHERS are not like them and can't "understand" how easy it is.... if you just put your mind to it". <- Funny saying!
I'm not an authority by any means on psychological genetics, but I also try to be a "thinker" (nod to rubiyat) when it comes to explaining the unexplainable if only to myself.
The public facts surrounding Steve Jobs point to a very... VERY... complex mind, that I prefer to spend my time trying to understand and learn from by separating the "genius" from the "affliction".
I am not a genius... will never be one... and am VERY glad for that to tell you the truth! That doesn't mean that I can't learn something from one though, nor enjoy the positive fruits of their disorder (pun intended), all without the need to compartmentalize or label them as we so often tend to do into "good guy/bad guy"...:smokey:
Love your post... but just want to say that no... Steve Jobs was not like any of us here. Not in the least.
Thank you. I like your post as well and tried to give it a thumbs up, but I'm on my iPad now and this forum isn't cooperating with my mobile browser. I will try again later on my iMac whenever I can kick the kids off.
But please allow me to clarify how Steve was "the same as you and I." He was the same only in one regard — human nature. We all have the natural tendency to screw up. You and I do that and so did Steve. I only pointed out "the obvious" because I perceive an excessive amount of condemnation from some people toward Steve Jobs. Some of these people put on a holier-than-thou cloak and then proceed to thrash the very man who led a team of engineers to create the very electronic device on which they type their endless critiques. They don't see past the negatives to comprehend the genius and what good came of it.
As I said, I do not worship Jobs nor even agree with him much of the time. I just give credit where credit is due, and before I chastise another person, I always reflect in those three fingers pointing back at me. Who am I to cast strong judgment against another!
Thank you. I like your post as well and tried to give it a thumbs up, but I'm on my iPad now and this forum isn't cooperating with my mobile browser. I will try again later on my iMac whenever I can kick the kids off.
Thanks for that! I experience the same problem on my iPad from time-to-time as well. However not necessary, since I don't write comments for likes or thumbs up. If truth be known, I like to put my thoughts to words sometimes to see if I can make sense of them myself. If it's not apparent... good... but that's my excuse for such a horrible discombobulated writing style unlike some of the prose-masters on this forum like "The Flaneur". I'm seriously jealous of that guy!
But please allow me to clarify how Steve was "the same as you and I." He was the same only in one regard — human nature. We all have the natural tendency to screw up. You and I do that and so did Steve. I only pointed out "the obvious" because I perceive an excessive amount of condemnation from some people toward Steve Jobs. Some of these people put on a holier-than-thou cloak and then proceed to thrash the very man who led a team of engineers to create the very electronic device on which they type their endless critiques. They don't see past the negatives to comprehend the genius and what good came of it.
Well said and I thoroughly agree!
It's rather ironic you stated "holier-than-thou" against the opposition, considering the derision shown to Steve Jobs and fans of his accomplishments AKA "Church of SJ" or Apple Cultists. Even more so when you find out that many of these same folk consider themselves Christians AKA Followers of Christ who admitted many times (if you believe in the writings of the Bible) that he was a sinner and imperfect himself. Disclaimer: I'm not affiliate with any religion that I know of. I am spiritual however and a believer in Karma as a description, rather than a true follower.
As I said, I do not worship Jobs nor even agree with him much of the time.
We have much in common, since I could've written the same sentence.
I just give credit where credit is due, and before I chastise another person, I always reflect in those three fingers pointing back at me. Who am I to cast strong judgment against another!
So you're an Old Fart that doesn't understand the Internet or what proper "social communication" means today? Me too!
That's all I was trying to say.
Actually, I was only calling you out to qualify and build on that quote. I suspected as much from the content of the rest of your post. Glad to see you took my bait, and put into words far better than I what needed to be said. Just writing "ditto"*** just isn't my style... even though it's Old Guy Cool if you have nothing to add.
*** Just looked up the origins of "ditto" and it's far older than I thought! That's some serious Vintage Old Guy Cool... my favorite brand and label...
I don't think it diminishes his legend or legacy by being honest about how tough it was to be in a professional or personal relationship with him.
Maybe this film will be more negative than other portrayals. It's a balancing act of seeing the full spectrum. It's history through the experience of others. Judge for yourself.
I don't think it diminishes his legend or legacy by being honest about how tough it was to be in a professional or personal relationship with him.
Maybe this film will be more negative than other portrayals. It's a balancing act of seeing the full spectrum. It's history through the experience of others. Judge for yourself.
If, IF the film allows you to judge for yourself.
That's the point. Does it emphasize the negative aspects, which are easier for everybody, including Gibney and his Gawker buddy, to grasp, and which are the documentary equivalent of clickbait? Or does it give a fair portrait of the more difficult-to-portray positive and evolving aspects of his character?
So far the marketing indicates that they went the heavily negative route ("Bold, Brilliant, Brutal"—no loving wife and kids, no friendship with Jony Ive in that headline).
The film therefore will not allow you to judge Steve Jobs's life for yourself. It will allow you to to judge the character of the filmakers, though.
You realize Bill only donates because his wife pulled him into it, and he loves the recognition and the fact that he gets to advance many terrible (as in literally harmful) policies? Jobs didn't donate to most charities because they just exist to support themselves.
Yep. So long as the Gates Foundation supports population control I refuse to support it. Also Gates biggest buddy is Warren Buffett who has given millions to that scum of the earth baby killing organization Planned Parenthood.
How could the movie not allow me to judge for myself? I ask that with all due respect. Nobody can force me to take their representation of the man as gospel. I can judge when someones behavior is being "sensationalized" for the purpose of entertainment or attracting a crowd. I think it just poses the question of where the truth lies. If you take in all representation presented through books, dramatic or documentary film and media, you can judge for yourself. The interpretation will distill differently for different people. No single truth I guess.
Nothing new here. From him ripping off Woz to the his legendary elevator firings of Apple employee is all well document. There is nothing new and I go see it and buy a copy.
Ah. Probably not since he references it as part of Jobs "downward spiral" and that event occurred before Apple was off the ground. That said, I can see how someone like Woz would never dream of cheating someone like that. Not for $7 or $7 million. I would think that would hurt Woz deeply and while he seems very forgiving there would still be a scar from someone he would call a friend and partner being so cheap and greedy.
Good point about Woz. To "cheap and greedy" we could add treacherous. I know from my own experience what a childish, selfish jerk one can be well into legal "adult" age, depending on one's upbringing, even despite one's good upbringing. Perverse.
The redeeming factor comes from figuring out how to make amends and do better. Woz seems to have been taken care of and repaid well. I remember one product intro around five years ago when Steve called him out as his "old crime partner" from the stage. Seems llike the tomahawk was buried long ago. Also seems like someone like Steve gains more understanding of pride and redemption in the end—more than one who has never transgressed, I mean.
Good point about Woz. To "cheap and greedy" we could add treacherous. I know from my own experience what a childish, selfish jerk one can be well into legal "adult" age, depending on one's upbringing, even despite one's good upbringing. Perverse.
The redeeming factor comes from figuring out how to make amends and do better. Woz seems to have been taken care of and repaid well. I remember one product intro around five years ago when Steve called him out as his "old crime partner" from the stage. Seems llike the tomahawk was buried long ago. Also seems like someone like Steve gains more understanding of pride and redemption in the end—more than one who has never transgressed, I mean.
1) Didn't Steve decline doing the forward to Woz's book?
2) I would like to add an addendum to say that I believe Woz is more famous, wealthy, and overall, likely happier than he every would have been without knowing Steve Jobs. Woz is a brilliant engineer and would have likely been a multimillionaire either way, but without a person like Jobs to see your potential, to see the potential in an idea, and to get you to carry that idea to fruition I think he would have likely just ended up as a top cog in HP's wheel. That isn't to say that the ends justify the means, but just to say they big picture is probably better for Qoz than if he hadn't met Jobs. Going the other way, I think Jobs would have found someone else component and would still be famous today.
How could the movie not allow me to judge for myself? I ask that with all due respect. Nobody can force me to take their representation of the man as gospel. I can judge when someones behavior is being "sensationalized" for the purpose of entertainment or attracting a crowd. I think it just poses the question of where the truth lies. If you take in all representation presented through books, dramatic or documentary film and media, you can judge for yourself. The interpretation will distill differently for different people. No single truth I guess.
I was speaking from a point of view within the boundaries of the film's own material, not what you could put together from outside sources.
For example, if the film has no interviews with Jony or Steve's wife or Tim or the guys who wrote Becoming Steve Jobs or Pixar/Disney people who worked with him in later years, if all such latter-day sources are unrepresented because they tell a story of an evolved Steve Jobs that the meanie filmakers wish to suppress because the negative narrative is the one they're pushing, then the film is DESIGNED to keep you from making up your mind as to the truth of Steve Jobs.
Of course you're going to see right through that and bust these liars using stuff you know from OUTSIDE THE FILM, but my point is that they have kept the truth from you within the boundaries of the film. The result is a toxic stew of lies that you have to neutralize by wasting good, honest mental effort to correct.
Comments
The Immelt comparison also works because he's hugely involved in government affairs, including scoring GE hundreds of millions in subsidies (they pay 0 income tax). Cook hasn't pushed Apple that far (and the subsidies would be a stretch) but hes definitely looking to be that politically active.
Starting to wonder if Forstall might not have been the better choice.
A little historical perspective. When portable printed books first appeared in the early 1500s, there was a lot of anguish among the Schoolmen invested in the manuscript culture of scarce, very scarce, books. The Church had most to lose, because the copyists were the stock in trade of the monasteries, and thought could be controlled almost absolutely. Would you have referred to the new printed books as "stuff?" People went off to the taverns and coffee shops and buried their noses in them, and even discussed what they learned by forming social networks around ideas, which later became the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason.
We're seven years into the Jobsian parallel to the Gutenberg revolution, which has been running things for 500 years. It's too early to write this new one off as stuck in this initial phase of hypnosis and narcissism. I agree that's happening, by the way, but it's very temporary. The early years of print were plagued with terrible episodes of self-righteous indulgences.
Ah yes, the "Jobs hated charity" narrative.
You realize Bill only donates because his wife pulled him into it, and he loves the recognition and the fact that he gets to advance many terrible (as in literally harmful) policies? Jobs didn't donate to most charities because they just exist to support themselves.
The fact that Jobs pretty well said that, shows how much he was blindly biased. He obviously was anti-Jobs!
Yes I know Bill's motives, which may have changed as he mellowed. I get the same knee-jerk "Microsoft hater" accusation when I point out to Microsoft fans that the charity only started after the DoJ accusations of abusive monopolistic behaviour.
As to the second statement . Really? All charities are self serving? A ready excuse for selfishness: "Everyone is just like me! Self centred and greedy."
I can spot that line when I go door knocking for the several charities that I collect for. The "I gave at the office" coming out of the hard face that gives away the lie.
The most generous people I have ever encountered are usually those who can least afford to give it. The two not being unrelated, selfish miserliness is rewarded in hard cash and the material things of life.
Perhaps it's time to stop wondering.
We're seven years into the Jobsian parallel to the Gutenberg revolution, which has been running things for 500 years. It's too early to write this new one off as stuck in this initial phase of hypnosis and narcissism. I agree that's happening, by the way, but it's very temporary. The early years of print were plagued with terrible episodes of self-righteous indulgences.
Actually the first things that were printed were "How-To guides" which stripped away the power of inherited trades and the bonds and secrecy of the guilds.
We've got that today, but from the Internet, not Steve Jobs or Apple.
Apple's stuff can be better related to the invention of cheap and freely available mirrors so the vain and petty can admire themselves endlessly and not waste any time on anyone else.
Maybe next year we could take this up again, after you've had a chance to read and think a bit. Till then, best not to judge another for being a shallow materialist.
I've seen this movie, and it's absolutely negative. It's polemic. Gibney thinks he's uncovered a new scandalous exposé on our adored icon, and that's how Magnolia is marketing the movie, but if you watch it, they only interview critics of Steve, and go over what a colossal jerk he was to everyone, 20 years ago, because that's about as recent as the personal character testimony is in the movie.
Then they go over and dredge up every scandal associated with Apple and slam Apple for murdering Chinese factory workers and beating up that blogger who was trying to traffic a stolen iPhone 4 prototype, bad Apple! You're evil, and I'm gonna getcha in my documentary. Yeah, I gotcha good. My description is probably making the Apple haters salivate, LOL. Enjoy your bias confirmation, boys. You know who you are.
Boo-hoo! You hate every movie about Apple, just like the rest of the people here. There is always dramatic effect added to any type of biography movie. It is well documented that he was a colossal jerk at times. It is part of his biography, whether you like it or not. So deal with it. Consider it entertainment and take what you want from it. I am sure you will hate the 'Steve Jobs' movie from Universal too.
Maybe next year we could take this up again, after you've had a chance to read and think a bit. Till then, best not to judge another for being a shallow materialist.
Why what's happening next year?
A new iPhone?
Will the firmament move because of a product launch?
Should I stop a lifetime habit of reading and thinking a lot, so I can have "a chance to read and think a bit"?
Whoops, hold on, there, he means he really did see this movie, when it was shown at SXSW..
"Consider it entertainment . . ." — speaking for myself, I will consider YOU entertainment.
Love your post... but just want to say that no... Steve Jobs was not like any of us here. Not in the least.
Another one of my favorite posts on this thread is from [@]zoetmb[/@], from which I've emphasized some very important observations that I also share.
I've always felt that true geniuses in any endeavor whether business, tech, art, sports or political (dictators) are "afflicted" AKA "gifted" with something that is beyond our possible imaginations to comprehend being one. Also: most serial killers have IQs in the genius range.
They sit on a precarious cusp of appearing like the rest of us in many respects, yet are borderline dysfunctional in others.
Rather unfortunately for us "simple" humans, many if not most geniuses are terribly egotistic, enslaved by their genius, and for all intents and purposes can be considered asocial. @zoetmb@ mentioned Aspergers, but you can also add Autism to that neural cocktail. Almost every single "genius" has been interviewed and asked, "what, why, how do you you do the things you do?". They are often miffed by the question, and can't begin to understand the question, let alone why OTHERS are not like them and can't "understand" how easy it is.... if you just put your mind to it". <- Funny saying!
I'm not an authority by any means on psychological genetics, but I also try to be a "thinker" (nod to rubiyat) when it comes to explaining the unexplainable if only to myself.
The public facts surrounding Steve Jobs point to a very... VERY... complex mind, that I prefer to spend my time trying to understand and learn from by separating the "genius" from the "affliction".
I am not a genius... will never be one... and am VERY glad for that to tell you the truth! That doesn't mean that I can't learn something from one though, nor enjoy the positive fruits of their disorder (pun intended), all without the need to compartmentalize or label them as we so often tend to do into "good guy/bad guy"...:smokey:
But please allow me to clarify how Steve was "the same as you and I." He was the same only in one regard — human nature. We all have the natural tendency to screw up. You and I do that and so did Steve. I only pointed out "the obvious" because I perceive an excessive amount of condemnation from some people toward Steve Jobs. Some of these people put on a holier-than-thou cloak and then proceed to thrash the very man who led a team of engineers to create the very electronic device on which they type their endless critiques. They don't see past the negatives to comprehend the genius and what good came of it.
As I said, I do not worship Jobs nor even agree with him much of the time. I just give credit where credit is due, and before I chastise another person, I always reflect in those three fingers pointing back at me. Who am I to cast strong judgment against another!
That's all I was trying to say.
Thanks for that! I experience the same problem on my iPad from time-to-time as well. However not necessary, since I don't write comments for likes or thumbs up. If truth be known, I like to put my thoughts to words sometimes to see if I can make sense of them myself. If it's not apparent... good... but that's my excuse for such a horrible discombobulated writing style unlike some of the prose-masters on this forum like "The Flaneur". I'm seriously jealous of that guy!
Well said and I thoroughly agree!
It's rather ironic you stated "holier-than-thou" against the opposition, considering the derision shown to Steve Jobs and fans of his accomplishments AKA "Church of SJ" or Apple Cultists. Even more so when you find out that many of these same folk consider themselves Christians AKA Followers of Christ who admitted many times (if you believe in the writings of the Bible) that he was a sinner and imperfect himself. Disclaimer: I'm not affiliate with any religion that I know of. I am spiritual however and a believer in Karma as a description, rather than a true follower.
We have much in common, since I could've written the same sentence.
So you're an Old Fart that doesn't understand the Internet or what proper "social communication" means today? Me too!
Actually, I was only calling you out to qualify and build on that quote. I suspected as much from the content of the rest of your post. Glad to see you took my bait, and put into words far better than I what needed to be said. Just writing "ditto"*** just isn't my style... even though it's Old Guy Cool if you have nothing to add.
*** Just looked up the origins of "ditto" and it's far older than I thought! That's some serious Vintage Old Guy Cool... my favorite brand and label...
Great man with tragic flaws....
I don't think it diminishes his legend or legacy by being honest about how tough it was to be in a professional or personal relationship with him.
Maybe this film will be more negative than other portrayals. It's a balancing act of seeing the full spectrum. It's history through the experience of others. Judge for yourself.
If, IF the film allows you to judge for yourself.
That's the point. Does it emphasize the negative aspects, which are easier for everybody, including Gibney and his Gawker buddy, to grasp, and which are the documentary equivalent of clickbait? Or does it give a fair portrait of the more difficult-to-portray positive and evolving aspects of his character?
So far the marketing indicates that they went the heavily negative route ("Bold, Brilliant, Brutal"—no loving wife and kids, no friendship with Jony Ive in that headline).
The film therefore will not allow you to judge Steve Jobs's life for yourself. It will allow you to to judge the character of the filmakers, though.
Yep. So long as the Gates Foundation supports population control I refuse to support it. Also Gates biggest buddy is Warren Buffett who has given millions to that scum of the earth baby killing organization Planned Parenthood.
How could the movie not allow me to judge for myself? I ask that with all due respect. Nobody can force me to take their representation of the man as gospel. I can judge when someones behavior is being "sensationalized" for the purpose of entertainment or attracting a crowd. I think it just poses the question of where the truth lies. If you take in all representation presented through books, dramatic or documentary film and media, you can judge for yourself. The interpretation will distill differently for different people. No single truth I guess.
Good point about Woz. To "cheap and greedy" we could add treacherous. I know from my own experience what a childish, selfish jerk one can be well into legal "adult" age, depending on one's upbringing, even despite one's good upbringing. Perverse.
The redeeming factor comes from figuring out how to make amends and do better. Woz seems to have been taken care of and repaid well. I remember one product intro around five years ago when Steve called him out as his "old crime partner" from the stage. Seems llike the tomahawk was buried long ago. Also seems like someone like Steve gains more understanding of pride and redemption in the end—more than one who has never transgressed, I mean.
1) Didn't Steve decline doing the forward to Woz's book?
2) I would like to add an addendum to say that I believe Woz is more famous, wealthy, and overall, likely happier than he every would have been without knowing Steve Jobs. Woz is a brilliant engineer and would have likely been a multimillionaire either way, but without a person like Jobs to see your potential, to see the potential in an idea, and to get you to carry that idea to fruition I think he would have likely just ended up as a top cog in HP's wheel. That isn't to say that the ends justify the means, but just to say they big picture is probably better for Qoz than if he hadn't met Jobs. Going the other way, I think Jobs would have found someone else component and would still be famous today.
I was speaking from a point of view within the boundaries of the film's own material, not what you could put together from outside sources.
For example, if the film has no interviews with Jony or Steve's wife or Tim or the guys who wrote Becoming Steve Jobs or Pixar/Disney people who worked with him in later years, if all such latter-day sources are unrepresented because they tell a story of an evolved Steve Jobs that the meanie filmakers wish to suppress because the negative narrative is the one they're pushing, then the film is DESIGNED to keep you from making up your mind as to the truth of Steve Jobs.
Of course you're going to see right through that and bust these liars using stuff you know from OUTSIDE THE FILM, but my point is that they have kept the truth from you within the boundaries of the film. The result is a toxic stew of lies that you have to neutralize by wasting good, honest mental effort to correct.
We shall see.