As I see it from the previews and commentary so far, the problem is not in showing the negatives in Jobs's charater and behavior. It's in the relentless concentration on those negatives while ignoring the more important transcendance of the youthful outrages, plus the counterbalancing of his continuing abrasiveness. His family years and his unmatched business accomplishments and his developing philosophy of product realization attest to this growth in character.
In other words, the film takes the stupid route and fails to portray the full human being in his time. The result, I predict, is a destructive character assassination that will do much harm. It's vital that we understand this man and this company and prevent its getting subverted.
Believe me, it is possible. It happened to a very great corporation, the greatest of its era, AT&T. I watched it get taken down in the wrong way for the wrong reasons, and we lost two huge reservoirs of engineering, science and know-how, Western Electric and Bell Labs,
Uh, this was obvious from the trailers, and "mean-spirited" came to my mind as well. Every single scene in the trailer shows Jobs in a nasty light, and the intent of this movie is clearly to demonize and perform character assassination of the worst kind in order to attract viewers. It's clear this movie is nasty, one-sided, and unobjective. What a superficial and lazy portrayal, of course ignoring the later parts of Jobs life because it doesn't fit the nasty agenda and narrative. What a filthy way to make money.
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 would like to see this movie after being an Apple employee for many years. I worked on many projects at Apple before and after SJ came back but I never had any direct interaction with SJ except running into him in the hallways or the elevator. The closest I ever got to working with him was writing up bug reports that he had found in Keynote when I was on the QA team in productivity apps. But I do remember my manager, and his managers going on up, being frightened to death of SJ, when it came to him evaluating the Keynote software in meetings and various interaction they had with Jobs in the process of Keynote software development. That fear and loathing of SJ was felt all the way down to my lowly QA tester level, and it made work that much harder and intense. With lots of overtime, sometimes with several 7 day work weeks in a row. Other teams that I worked on were very mellow compared to Keynote. Not only we worked our asses off but he did too, probably ten fold compared to me, with all the projects he was juggling at the same time... One thing I'll remember all my life, (besides once meeting him in the elevator with my bike at my side), I saw him shortly before I retired, about six months before he died, while I was walking past him in the hall in IL 6. At that time he was skinny as hell but had a little spring in his step... Then he seemed very mellow, he saw me looking a little nervous after I recognized him from about 100 feet away and when we passed, he looked me in the eyes briefly, and he gave me the most gracious, friendly grin. Kinda of a grin that made me feel at ease, something that never happened before on earlier passings. It showed me that day that he also had a very mild, benevolent side to his personality as well. As I'm retired at age 55, and set up for life, I'm very grateful to have worked at a company so successful, with a leader so dynamic, intelligent and hard working.
Inkling, you said it all. Nice post. Neither devil nor saint I would imagine. Would I have wanted to work for him? Probably wouldn't have lasted, though the later money that got involved would have made it a tough decision. But I have talked to two people who were in meetings and worked directly with him and they never wanted to deal with him again.
I feel like there's a pretty good image of him, and even he admitted he was an immature ass when young.
Don't make the guy into a saint. He had some great abilities and luck was on his side many times. But there is no reason to build him up as anything but a good old fashioned human. Faults and all.
I would like to see this movie after being an Apple employee for many years. I worked on many projects at Apple before and after SJ came back but I never had any direct interaction with SJ except running into him in the hallways or the elevator. The closest I ever got to working with him was writing up bug reports that he had found in Keynote when I was on the QA team in productivity apps. But I do remember my manager, and his managers going on up, being frightened to death of SJ, when it came to him evaluating the Keynote software in meetings and various interaction they had with Jobs in the process of Keynote software development. That fear and loathing of SJ was felt all the way down to my lowly QA tester level, and it made work that much harder and intense. With lots of overtime, sometimes with several 7 day work weeks in a row. Other teams that I worked on were very mellow compared to Keynote. Not only we worked our asses off but he did too, probably ten fold compared to me, with all the projects he was juggling at the same time...
One thing I'll remember all my life, (besides once meeting him in the elevator with my bike at my side), I saw him shortly before I retired, about six months before he died, while I was walking past him in the hall in IL 6. At that time he was skinny as hell but had a little spring in his step... Then he seemed very mellow, he saw me looking a little nervous after I recognized him from about 100 feet away and when we passed, he looked me in the eyes briefly, and he gave me the most gracious, friendly grin. Kinda of a grin that made me feel at ease, something that never happened before on earlier passings. It showed me that day that he also had a very mild, benevolent side to his personality as well. As I'm retired at age 55, and set up for life, I'm very grateful to have worked at a company so successful, with a leader so dynamic, intelligent and hard working.
Can't wait to see it. there are always two sides to every story.
You honestly believe this movie will provide another "side"? What this movie will focus on are the same old aspects that have been beaten to death a million times. It's not attempting to enlighten anyone with ANY new insight, but simply repackaging the most negative memes in a sexier way to make $$$.
As I see it from the previews and commentary so far, the problem is not in showing the negatives in Jobs's charater and behavior. It's in the relentless concentration on those negatives while ignoring the more important transcendance of the youthful outrages, plus the counterbalancing of his continuing abrasiveness. His family years and his unmatched business accomplishments and his developing philosophy of product realization attest to this growth in character.
In other words, the film takes the stupid route and fails to portray the full human being in his time. The result, I predict, is a destructive character assassination that will do much harm. It's vital that we understand this man and this company and prevent its getting subverted.
Believe me, it is possible. It happened to a very great corporation, the greatest of its era, AT&T. I watched it get taken down in the wrong way for the wrong reasons, and we lost two huge reservoirs of engineering, science and know-how, Western Electric and Bell Labs,
Yes, I agree with that assessment of the documentary. And I'm not prejudging it: I've seen the whole damn thing.
The Wozniak remark annoys the crap out of me. That fat pudge has been drawing a salary from Apple of $120k for doing nothing, the moment Steve got back to Apple. He's more than been compensated for doing nothing since the early days.
...as opposed to all the hagiographies, so many, that only show his good side and gloss over his many failures? Or all the "if only Steve Jobs were alive today he'd never let this happen..." claims by "believers" you get in the forums, ignoring that he often did exactly what they said he'd never do.
The man was a mean, self-centred, uncharitable bastard, maybe that was necessary to get done what he did, but it was a fact and it does make a fascinating mix.
What fascinates me most is his professed Buddhist beliefs and his lack of charity and almost megalomanic ruthlessness to people. But religion and hypocrisy are a marriage made in heaven.
He was against charity or you just don't see him doing photo ops at soup kitchens or seeing him sign over comically large checks to the cause-of-the-year so you've labeled him as uncharitable?
I think this isn't like most things, though. Gibney's left out the entire story of Jobs's redemption (from what I can tell so far), and one of the greatest atonements in history, the resurrection of this little company he and Woz founded and which Jobs sent into the future to change the world. It looks like that framework is missing. There's no middle for the truth to lie in.
Pretty sure his "redemption" came from reconciling with his daughter and friends like Woz, whom he had burned badly on his downward spiral, not from rebuilding Apple.
But hey, if money is higher in your book than morality, sure, what you said.
He was against charity or you just don't see him doing photo ops at soup kitchens or seeing him sign over comically large checks to the cause-of-the-year so you've labeled him as uncharitable?
There is more than one meaning to the word "charitable" unless you have a one eyed view and it is only money.
However he is on record as having stopped Apple's donations in the '90s, being arbitrarily vicious with employees who could not defend themselves, famously always parked in the Handicapped spot next to Apple's entrance and seems to have made no provision in his will for worthy causes but found time and money for a spectacularly expensive, pointless and ugly, luxury yacht.
There was the belated, and comparatively small donation he made late in life to the hospital that treated him (how unusual) and all the rest is attributed to the Jobs family, ie his wife.
There is an unfortunate habit of people to make excuses for people they admire (for other reasons) so they neatly fall into either saint or sinner categories. Nobody does that, but Steve Jobs clearly was a ruthless and very very effective business man who had a lot of unpleasant personal traits and behaviour. He serves a purpose for society, but does not deserve uncritical adulation unless you really are whitewashing his life.
There is more than one meaning to the word "charitable" unless you have a one eyed view and it is only money.
However he is on record as having stopped Apple's donations in the '90s, being arbitrarily vicious with employees who could not defend themselves, famously always parked in the Handicapped spot next to Apple's entrance and seems to have made no provision in his will for worthy causes but found time and money for a spectacularly expensive, pointless and ugly, luxury yacht.
There was the belated, and comparatively small donation he made late in life to the hospital that treated him (how unusual) and all the rest is attributed to the Jobs family, ie his wife.
None of that is evidence that he wasn't charitable and there are certainly plenty of people that knew him that have said differently.
He serves a purpose for society, but does not deserve uncritical adulation unless you really are whitewashing his life.
Such a weird leap to make. Is that an attempt to bait me?
No educated person should cast judgment on a book or film without having seen it first, with your own eyes.
Since one among us has apparently seen the film and has informed us of its negativity ahead of time (and thank you for that), we now know what to look for when we watch the film for ourselves.
But one thing to keep in mind is that not all of us are equally observant or critical or mindful. Some of us are liberal, some conservative. Some of us are timid, and others bold. Some of us are engineers, others therapists. These differences alter and vary our individual perception of people and things. Dwell deeply on the statement, "one man's trash is another's treasure." And so our views on films and books will vary wildly.
Eddy Cue supposedly hated this Documentary film and yet he and Tim Cook and even Mr. Job's own wife are alleged to have heaped nothing but praise upon the recent tome, "Becoming Steve Jobs." The support of that book by Apple itself was unprecedented. For that very reason I bought a hardbound copy of that book when it first came out, adding it to my already full library of books on Apple and Jobs, hoping the new book would tell me something I'd not heard before. But as I closed the last page I wondered to myself how in the world Mr. Cue or Mr. Cook or Mrs. Jobs could have united and said, "this is the first to have gotten it right," meaning "it showed Steve in the proper positive light." They poo-poo'd all other books and videos as negative while praising that one book. That would make anyone think, "Man, this must be a really fabulous book then!" But how do you feel while you read it and after you've read it? That's key.
You can read my 3-star review of "Becoming Steve Jobs" on Amazon here:
I did not mention China in that Amazon book review, but Becoming Steve Jobs does blast Jobs and Apple for basically having kill people at Apple factories there, toward the end of the book. As such, I find it hard to believe that this Documentary Movie would be "much more negative" on Jobs than the highly acclaimed "Becoming Steve Jobs" book. But you are free to cast your own judgment, fully understanding that none of us (to my knowledge) knew Jobs personally or dealt with him regularly. We only know what we have read about him, what we've seen in films, and perhaps what we saw and heard of the man live at MacWorld Expos in years past.
Regardless of our beliefs on the man, regardless of whether one says it's been for the better or the worse, Steve Jobs really did do things that changed the world. If you use an Apple product and like it, give Steve some credit. Jobs lies at the heart of Apple, even to this day.
The only cases I have come across is of donations of Apple equipment, not in themselves significant donations, and much like that of a cigar tycoon giving away the odd sample.
Show me. I haven't found it and I looked just in case something slipped under the radar.
If you do a search you'll find Apple execs talking about Steve's kindness as well as potential anonymous donations, like a $150,000,000 to the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
Now the latter you'll say doesn't count because it's anonymous and we know you want it to her verified, but that the point I was making. You want the donation to have been set in stone with a value, a name, and a clear money trail. Why? What does it matter except for narcissists to make themselves feel better.
This also goes along with the quote previously stated in this thread, "You don’t care about how they feel! You’re being vain, you want them to like you.” Bill Gates is charitable, given away his ill-gotten fortune, and you feel the ends justifies the means. That's fine, many agree with you, but I'm still wondering how you're so shallow as to label someone as uncharitable simply because you follow the breadcrumbs back to the bronze statue they had made of themselves. I bet Donald Trump has only even made a calculated donation and made sure that his name was clearly attributed each and every time. Is that really the right message you want to be sending?
Why does being pragmatic or expecting people to be their best mean you're not charitable? Do you think your parents wanting their children to become independent and learned as cruel, and coddling to the point of co-dependncy as kind? I certainly don't, which is why that above quote is so dead on. Your kids and your employees aren't your friends. Get them to earn your respect through a work ethic, not get them to like you.
PS: Accessibility features in Apple's OSes existed long before Steve Jobs was dead, but if Jobs was so against anything to help others why did they exist at all?
Comments
Absolutely and this documentary is one side(d).
In other words, the film takes the stupid route and fails to portray the full human being in his time. The result, I predict, is a destructive character assassination that will do much harm. It's vital that we understand this man and this company and prevent its getting subverted.
Believe me, it is possible. It happened to a very great corporation, the greatest of its era, AT&T. I watched it get taken down in the wrong way for the wrong reasons, and we lost two huge reservoirs of engineering, science and know-how, Western Electric and Bell Labs,
Uh, this was obvious from the trailers, and "mean-spirited" came to my mind as well. Every single scene in the trailer shows Jobs in a nasty light, and the intent of this movie is clearly to demonize and perform character assassination of the worst kind in order to attract viewers. It's clear this movie is nasty, one-sided, and unobjective. What a superficial and lazy portrayal, of course ignoring the later parts of Jobs life because it doesn't fit the nasty agenda and narrative. What a filthy way to make money.
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.
One thing I'll remember all my life, (besides once meeting him in the elevator with my bike at my side), I saw him shortly before I retired, about six months before he died, while I was walking past him in the hall in IL 6. At that time he was skinny as hell but had a little spring in his step... Then he seemed very mellow, he saw me looking a little nervous after I recognized him from about 100 feet away and when we passed, he looked me in the eyes briefly, and he gave me the most gracious, friendly grin. Kinda of a grin that made me feel at ease, something that never happened before on earlier passings. It showed me that day that he also had a very mild, benevolent side to his personality as well. As I'm retired at age 55, and set up for life, I'm very grateful to have worked at a company so successful, with a leader so dynamic, intelligent and hard working.
I feel like there's a pretty good image of him, and even he admitted he was an immature ass when young.
Don't make the guy into a saint. He had some great abilities and luck was on his side many times. But there is no reason to build him up as anything but a good old fashioned human. Faults and all.
Great story, thanks for telling it.
Can't wait to see it. there are always two sides to every story.
You honestly believe this movie will provide another "side"? What this movie will focus on are the same old aspects that have been beaten to death a million times. It's not attempting to enlighten anyone with ANY new insight, but simply repackaging the most negative memes in a sexier way to make $$$.
Yes, I agree with that assessment of the documentary. And I'm not prejudging it: I've seen the whole damn thing.
The man was a mean, self-centred, uncharitable bastard, maybe that was necessary to get done what he did, but it was a fact and it does make a fascinating mix.
What fascinates me most is his professed Buddhist beliefs and his lack of charity and almost megalomanic ruthlessness to people. But religion and hypocrisy are a marriage made in heaven.
He was against charity or you just don't see him doing photo ops at soup kitchens or seeing him sign over comically large checks to the cause-of-the-year so you've labeled him as uncharitable?
Pretty sure his "redemption" came from reconciling with his daughter and friends like Woz, whom he had burned badly on his downward spiral, not from rebuilding Apple.
But hey, if money is higher in your book than morality, sure, what you said.
He was against charity or you just don't see him doing photo ops at soup kitchens or seeing him sign over comically large checks to the cause-of-the-year so you've labeled him as uncharitable?
There is more than one meaning to the word "charitable" unless you have a one eyed view and it is only money.
However he is on record as having stopped Apple's donations in the '90s, being arbitrarily vicious with employees who could not defend themselves, famously always parked in the Handicapped spot next to Apple's entrance and seems to have made no provision in his will for worthy causes but found time and money for a spectacularly expensive, pointless and ugly, luxury yacht.
There was the belated, and comparatively small donation he made late in life to the hospital that treated him (how unusual) and all the rest is attributed to the Jobs family, ie his wife.
There is an unfortunate habit of people to make excuses for people they admire (for other reasons) so they neatly fall into either saint or sinner categories. Nobody does that, but Steve Jobs clearly was a ruthless and very very effective business man who had a lot of unpleasant personal traits and behaviour. He serves a purpose for society, but does not deserve uncritical adulation unless you really are whitewashing his life.
None of that is evidence that he wasn't charitable and there are certainly plenty of people that knew him that have said differently.
Such a weird leap to make. Is that an attempt to bait me?
Really?
Show me. I haven't found it and I looked just in case something slipped under the radar.
No educated person should cast judgment on a book or film without having seen it first, with your own eyes.
Since one among us has apparently seen the film and has informed us of its negativity ahead of time (and thank you for that), we now know what to look for when we watch the film for ourselves.
But one thing to keep in mind is that not all of us are equally observant or critical or mindful. Some of us are liberal, some conservative. Some of us are timid, and others bold. Some of us are engineers, others therapists. These differences alter and vary our individual perception of people and things. Dwell deeply on the statement, "one man's trash is another's treasure." And so our views on films and books will vary wildly.
Eddy Cue supposedly hated this Documentary film and yet he and Tim Cook and even Mr. Job's own wife are alleged to have heaped nothing but praise upon the recent tome, "Becoming Steve Jobs." The support of that book by Apple itself was unprecedented. For that very reason I bought a hardbound copy of that book when it first came out, adding it to my already full library of books on Apple and Jobs, hoping the new book would tell me something I'd not heard before. But as I closed the last page I wondered to myself how in the world Mr. Cue or Mr. Cook or Mrs. Jobs could have united and said, "this is the first to have gotten it right," meaning "it showed Steve in the proper positive light." They poo-poo'd all other books and videos as negative while praising that one book. That would make anyone think, "Man, this must be a really fabulous book then!" But how do you feel while you read it and after you've read it? That's key.
You can read my 3-star review of "Becoming Steve Jobs" on Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2RTN46SWYBPHP/
I did not mention China in that Amazon book review, but Becoming Steve Jobs does blast Jobs and Apple for basically having kill people at Apple factories there, toward the end of the book. As such, I find it hard to believe that this Documentary Movie would be "much more negative" on Jobs than the highly acclaimed "Becoming Steve Jobs" book. But you are free to cast your own judgment, fully understanding that none of us (to my knowledge) knew Jobs personally or dealt with him regularly. We only know what we have read about him, what we've seen in films, and perhaps what we saw and heard of the man live at MacWorld Expos in years past.
Regardless of our beliefs on the man, regardless of whether one says it's been for the better or the worse, Steve Jobs really did do things that changed the world. If you use an Apple product and like it, give Steve some credit. Jobs lies at the heart of Apple, even to this day.
The only cases I have come across is of donations of Apple equipment, not in themselves significant donations, and much like that of a cigar tycoon giving away the odd sample.
If you do a search you'll find Apple execs talking about Steve's kindness as well as potential anonymous donations, like a $150,000,000 to the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
Now the latter you'll say doesn't count because it's anonymous and we know you want it to her verified, but that the point I was making. You want the donation to have been set in stone with a value, a name, and a clear money trail. Why? What does it matter except for narcissists to make themselves feel better.
This also goes along with the quote previously stated in this thread, "You don’t care about how they feel! You’re being vain, you want them to like you.” Bill Gates is charitable, given away his ill-gotten fortune, and you feel the ends justifies the means. That's fine, many agree with you, but I'm still wondering how you're so shallow as to label someone as uncharitable simply because you follow the breadcrumbs back to the bronze statue they had made of themselves. I bet Donald Trump has only even made a calculated donation and made sure that his name was clearly attributed each and every time. Is that really the right message you want to be sending?
Why does being pragmatic or expecting people to be their best mean you're not charitable? Do you think your parents wanting their children to become independent and learned as cruel, and coddling to the point of co-dependncy as kind? I certainly don't, which is why that above quote is so dead on. Your kids and your employees aren't your friends. Get them to earn your respect through a work ethic, not get them to like you.
PS: Accessibility features in Apple's OSes existed long before Steve Jobs was dead, but if Jobs was so against anything to help others why did they exist at all?