After reading Becoming Steve Jobs, this was what I wrote:
I just finished the new book. To my mind, it provides a fair appraisal of the complexion of a person whose every though, every quote, and every decision has been scrutinized for several decades. I had the fortune to spend 26 years, beginning in 1985, working in software start-ups, constantly under the invent-or-die paridigm in which someone like a Steve Jobs comes to stardom. I worked for the same CEO in three consequetive companies throughout that 26 year period; probably one of the longest running continuous partnerships in the history of the fast-paced and ever changing technology industry. He's a UC Berkley grad, and a Harvard MBA, and is a brilliant and driven entrepreneur and CEO. I recall shouting matches in meetings, cold dismissals of people who were lazy in their thinking, and a relentless drive to pull us all forward into a future he often single-handedly invented. Very much a portrait that would match Steve Jobs. And yet, one of the most caring and human people I've ever known; a Buddist, a deep thinker, and someone who would go out of his way to serve his employees, beyond the workplace. To anyone on the receiving end of his intense and intellectual scrutiny, I can see them walking away dismissing him as nothing more than an egotistical asshole. But that's far from the truth understood by those of us knew him for decades. I imagine the reputation of Jobs was formed in the same manner, and wholly undeserved of the actual man.
I'm pretty surprised to see the turn around in attitude on Isaacson's book. I don't remember seeing this amount of negativity about the book previously. At least it seems like the tide has turned there.
I can't say I'm surprised about people being disgruntled about Sorkin's movie. I hadn't read an Apple news site in many months, if not a year, because I was getting tired of the filmmaking gossip, hanging off of every scrap of information, seemingly down to whoever was catering the production. I guess the fatigue set in for other people while I was gone, though there's quite a bit more comments on this story than most others in the feed.
After reading Becoming Steve Jobs, this was what I wrote:
I just finished the new book. To my mind, it provides a fair appraisal of the complexion of a person whose every though, every quote, and every decision has been scrutinized for several decades. I had the fortune to spend 26 years, beginning in 1985, working in software start-ups, constantly under the invent-or-die paridigm in which someone like a Steve Jobs comes to stardom. I worked for the same CEO in three consequetive companies throughout that 26 year period; probably one of the longest running continuous partnerships in the history of the fast-paced and ever changing technology industry. He's a UC Berkley grad, and a Harvard MBA, and is a brilliant and driven entrepreneur and CEO. I recall shouting matches in meetings, cold dismissals of people who were lazy in their thinking, and a relentless drive to pull us all forward into a future he often single-handedly invented. Very much a portrait that would match Steve Jobs. And yet, one of the most caring and human people I've ever known; a Buddist, a deep thinker, and someone who would go out of his way to serve his employees, beyond the workplace. To anyone on the receiving end of his intense and intellectual scrutiny, I can see them walking away dismissing him as nothing more than an egotistical asshole. But that's far from the truth understood by those of us knew him for decades. I imagine the reputation of Jobs was formed in the same manner, and wholly undeserved of the actual man.
As always: precise, cutting and knowledgeable commentary!
This movie is based on the Isaacson book, although the trailers don't look much like what was in the book. Isaacson is being paid millions for the movie rights. The book was opportunistic as it was published just over 2 weeks after Steve died and especially poor considering the contents.
Cook is absolutely right to condemn all of these attempts to cash in while painting their own fictional tales. The way they go about it is to pick a narrative - Haunted Empire about Apple trying but failing to run on Steve's legacy, Gibney's documentary trying to frame the question of the human cost in technology (employees, mental health, family) with Apple as the context, Isaacson's book about Steve being a narcissist - and then they pick out the negative parts of Apple's and Steve's history to justify the narrative. Real life doesn't fit the same story arcs that you get in fiction so the dramatists have to twist and select portions of reality to fit into something they think will be compelling and that will leave a simple message for viewers to take away from the movie. If they make it too complex with conflicting ideas then it waters down the core theme because the audience can't just put everything into neat little boxes. If they were more honest then it wouldn't be so bad but they just tell everything that fits the theme that they've chosen and since Apple is doing extremely well, focusing on negative themes is what sells.
While Apple uses overseas labor to get the manufacturing scale and efficiency to be competitive in their industry, this kind of exploitation isn't necessary in the movie industry with subject matter and Apple would build products elsewhere if it wasn't available in Asia. Sorkin was free to make a movie and write a script on all of the available subject matter from Apple's and Steve's history and could have conducted exclusive interviews of his own. He didn't have to line Isaacson's pockets any more; Isaacson doesn't deserve anywhere near the multiple millions he's getting from the amateur trash he wrote. The most value comes from Steve's first-hand accounts but Isaacson's only part in this was being present while he said what he wanted to say.
I tried to read your response but fell asleep half way through it. What was your point?
I tried to read your response but fell asleep half way through it. What was your point?
You were saying that Cook's comments weren't about Sorkin's movie. A few Apple employees have openly stated their dislike for Isaacson's book (published 1 week after Steve's funeral), which was opportunistic and this movie is based on that book. I was offering details as to why it could be included in with Tim's comment.
Comments
I just finished the new book. To my mind, it provides a fair appraisal of the complexion of a person whose every though, every quote, and every decision has been scrutinized for several decades. I had the fortune to spend 26 years, beginning in 1985, working in software start-ups, constantly under the invent-or-die paridigm in which someone like a Steve Jobs comes to stardom. I worked for the same CEO in three consequetive companies throughout that 26 year period; probably one of the longest running continuous partnerships in the history of the fast-paced and ever changing technology industry. He's a UC Berkley grad, and a Harvard MBA, and is a brilliant and driven entrepreneur and CEO. I recall shouting matches in meetings, cold dismissals of people who were lazy in their thinking, and a relentless drive to pull us all forward into a future he often single-handedly invented. Very much a portrait that would match Steve Jobs. And yet, one of the most caring and human people I've ever known; a Buddist, a deep thinker, and someone who would go out of his way to serve his employees, beyond the workplace. To anyone on the receiving end of his intense and intellectual scrutiny, I can see them walking away dismissing him as nothing more than an egotistical asshole. But that's far from the truth understood by those of us knew him for decades. I imagine the reputation of Jobs was formed in the same manner, and wholly undeserved of the actual man.
I can't say I'm surprised about people being disgruntled about Sorkin's movie. I hadn't read an Apple news site in many months, if not a year, because I was getting tired of the filmmaking gossip, hanging off of every scrap of information, seemingly down to whoever was catering the production. I guess the fatigue set in for other people while I was gone, though there's quite a bit more comments on this story than most others in the feed.
As always: precise, cutting and knowledgeable commentary!
I tried to read your response but fell asleep half way through it. What was your point?
You were saying that Cook's comments weren't about Sorkin's movie. A few Apple employees have openly stated their dislike for Isaacson's book (published 1 week after Steve's funeral), which was opportunistic and this movie is based on that book. I was offering details as to why it could be included in with Tim's comment.