Trash talk isn't productive, even if Sorkin did have a couple of points. While it's easy to delve into word parsing and point out that Cook didn't specifically mention the upcoming Steve Jobs movie, he did broadly disparage media coverage about Jobs... even without having viewed or read some of the material in question.
It just seems like Tim Cook is a little too protective of Jobs' legacy. Case in point is that Apple executives went out of their way to poo-poo on Walter Isaacson's authorized biography... Jobs himself was completely on board with putting his history on display, warts and all. And considering that he continues to be such a fascinating public figure, I don't think it's a terrible disservice to publish new details about his life, even if some of the material is less than flattering (I take issue with inaccuracies, of course). At this point, regardless of whatever may or may not be said of the man he'll always be revered as an icon of American ingenuity and a very important figure in the computer industry, and nothing can change that.
Anyway... the use of the word "opportunistic" comes off as unnecessarily cynical to me. Sorkin apologized, and obviously doesn't want to stir up controversy; but I think Cook would do just as well to ease off of his defensiveness of Jobs.
I agree one hundred percent completely. I was going to make some comments a few days ago when this issue first popped up but was too lazy to type and post it.
Regardless of Tim and Arron's comments, the apple fanboys come out with their blind support of the Apple leader. I'm not sure who is worst with their zealotry the android fanboys or the apple ones. Some people on here drink too much kool-aid.
History will show that Apple has done more for the advancement of China labor reform than any other entity. Any student of history, which you are certainly not, understands the process that an economy goes through from pre-industrial to industrial to post-industrial. Apple is leading China in its industrial phase, raising the standard of living for the millions of workers involved in the assembly of its products and throughout its entire massive supply chain. Do you imagine a manufacturer of any other product in China, out off the spotlight that Apple and a few other forward thinking companies have placed upon themselves with their human rights reporting and monitoring, provides anywhere near the pay, the workplace safety, worker education, and opportunity as Apple?
Do you realize that the suicide rate among workers assembling Apple products is far lower than that of American white collar office workers, just in case you are thinking of bringing that up?
Do you have any clue about global trade and industry? Do you suppose Saudi Arabia should grow all its own food rather than importing food from America? Do you realize that by buying food from America, Saudi Arabia and other desert countries could be seen by people with your mindset as exploiting AMerican and Mexican laborers, since it would be far more expensive to grow the same food in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, by your thinking, American farmer workers should earn far more to reflect the enormous cost of growing food in the Saudi Arabian desert. And America shouldn't import oil from the Middle East either, according to your thinking. Nope, nobody should buy products or services from any region where those products or services can be had for less than in the importer's own country. That seems to be your thinking.
The only reason Apple has been called out on these child labor issues is NOT because those issues occur ONLY in the manufacture of Apple products, but because attacking the largest and most successful company on earth makes for far better news headlines than talking about any of the thousands of factories in China where virtually every product on American store shelves is manufactured, in conditions far worse and with not a care about worker health, safety, pay, or happiness by the factory management. In a world where the pressure of competition swayed a large and apparently healthy company like Volkswagen to cheat on emissions tests, do you suppose the management of factories across China are immune to those same competitive pressures, while operating on even thinner margins? No.
Hey, but thanks for playing.
Nicely done.
The next time some fool in his dressing gown tries to present any old crap they've read on the internet as the gospel truth, I'll point them at this comment.
It's really no big secret that Jobs was an extremely driven individual! He wasn't known for his exceptional social skills - and I'm not at all surprised if his social awkwardness extended to his family. Perhaps a bigger surprise to me is that a man of his genius intellect would even choose to be distracted by family obligations!
Nevertheless he left his fingerprints all over society -both domestic and global. His innovation has touched the lives of countless millions and made their lives easier and in many ways more fulfilled.
I don't doubt that he didn't win many "Father of the Year' awards, but his mind wan't wired to be a daddy - he saw a chance to change the world. I'd say he succeeded - for better or worse!
Im an apple fan and just because he said something that had some assumptions facts does not mean that im going to boycott a artful movie about steve jobs. Critics are loving it and apparently fasbender did fantastic for the role.
That being said, apple has been publicly called out for low wage child labor and only after being called out and receiving bad press did apple change its policies, create policies and enforce policies. There are still questionable labor practices, and it is still VERY opportunistic to employe chinese to build apple products instead of manufacturing in america, because the wages per hour are so low there. And most of them are still in poverty/ live much lesser lives than low wage workers in the usa. We have labor and wage laws to protect humans rights to life happiness and prosperity. Apple wants to avoid those human rights and be opportunistic by cutting labor costs knowing it affects people in the same economic ways.
Apple also continues to do very little about memory capacity, ram, processor speeds until this very fall. Yet apple charges 700-1000% of the devices actual costs. That is why apple is sitting on over 150 billion in cash. Because its leaders are opportunistic.
Apple charges 30% of music, videos, movies, books, and app downloads. Apple rakes in billions for work it did not do. The cost of running and maintaining the app store would be roughly around 1.5-2.5% of app revenues. But apple takes from other peoples work anyways because they simply can. Because apple is opportunistic.
Apple raised its pricing for insurance on its devices. Even though prices per part were already broken down plus average labor costs to replace a iphone part, and applecare plus the fix fee are generally 600% more than it actually costs apple for the part and labor. Therefore apple is raising insurance on applecare out of opportunism.
Doing good business is great. Profiting is great. But taking from people just because you can, because you developed an ecosystem that surrounds peoples lives is just greedy opportunism.
Actually I did have a clue. You'll find it when I referred to the mindless vitriolic hysteria that people engage in when it touches on Apple. See my Crips vs Bloods remark. Cook is guilty at the very least of a clumsiness if he wasn't directing his remarks at least partially at Sorkin. And in that case, a person of honor and class would feel he owes Sorkin an apology, seeing as his own blow came first<span style="line-height:1.4em;">. He is far too powerful and his words carry far too much weight for him to be careless about his condemnations. I know you won't see it that way. See my earlier remark about class and honor. Let's leave it there, and agree to disagree. Unlike you, I don't especially find anything of value in the silly lather you've got yourself into.</span>
Nah, doing a biopic of your friend four years after his death, which you can tell from the trailer is an overwrought soap opera version of the most important founding events of the life you're still living at Apple, that is striking the first blow.
The biopic is by nature a contaminating dramatic form, because it reduces a complex life to a TV movie formula. Sorkin would know that he should never expect anyone close to Steve Jobs as friend or family to sit through his movie without gagging on its "dramatizations"—Sorkin would know this if he weren't submerged in Hollywood's corrupt exploitation values.
Actually I did have a clue. You'll find it when I referred to the mindless vitriolic hysteria that people engage in when it touches on Apple. See my Crips vs Bloods remark. Cook is guilty at the very least of a clumsiness if he wasn't directing his remarks at least partially at Sorkin. And in that case, a person of honor and class would feel he owes Sorkin an apology, seeing as his own blow came first<span style="line-height:1.4em;">. He is far too powerful and his words carry far too much weight for him to be careless about his condemnations. I know you won't see it that way. See my earlier remark about class and honor. Let's leave it there, and agree to disagree. Unlike you, I don't especially find anything of value in the silly lather you've got yourself into.</span>
May I ask what you "think" you know about the Crips vs Bloods feud?
Only because your location of "Dunwich Fish Market" puts you currently in the UK... and I'm just guessing you know as much about the previously mentioned feud as you do about Tim Cook, Steve Jobs, Sorkin, Hollywood, media, or Apple.
Did Sorkin ever meet Jobs? I mean, Tim Cook worked side-by-side with Steve Jobs for decades. Tim saw Jobs at his best, and at his worst. So, if anyone has an idea who the "real" Steve Jobs is - I would guess that it is Tim Cook and not Sorkin.
So, for Sorkin to pretend that he "knew" Jobs well enough to make a movie, that would almost by definition be "opportunistic".
Buy Apple if you find value in their product. Don't buy if you don't agree with the price or don't want it.
Interesting comments from Radarthekat (you should read it). I agree it may be that businesses like Apple can incentive countries to recognize human rights. Not going to happen overnight but it's moving that way.
Actually I did have a clue. You'll find it when I referred to the mindless vitriolic hysteria that people engage in when it touches on Apple. See my Crips vs Bloods remark. Cook is guilty at the very least of a clumsiness if he wasn't directing his remarks at least partially at Sorkin. And in that case, a person of honor and class would feel he owes Sorkin an apology, seeing as his own blow came first. He is far too powerful and his words carry far too much weight for him to be careless about his condemnations. I know you won't see it that way. See my earlier remark about class and honor. Let's leave it there, and agree to disagree. Unlike you, I don't especially find anything of value in the silly lather you've got yourself into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
Did Sorkin ever meet Jobs? I mean, Tim Cook worked side-by-side with Steve Jobs for decades. Tim saw Jobs at his best, and at his worst. So, if anyone has an idea who the "real" Steve Jobs is - I would guess that it is Tim Cook and not Sorkin.
So, for Sorkin to pretend that he "knew" Jobs well enough to make a movie, that would almost by definition be "opportunistic".
Sorkin is a wordsmith; he writes fictional dialog, with maybe a few quoted lines thrown in. He doesn't actually need to ever meet his characters (did he ever meet Zuckerberg?), he just researches them or creates them.
I'm not against this per se, but coincidentally, I happened to watch a docudrama/documentary about Hyman Rickover last night, the creator of the U.S. Nuclear Navy, and one can see the same traits that many people that change the world have; they don't follow the rules, and they speak their minds. There are many individuals that change the world, and not all have the characteristics that Steve Jobs had over his lifetime, but there are often many similarities, and significant flaws. Capturing these characteristics in a film is like capturing lightning in a bottle, and maybe Sorkin was able to accomplish that; I would hope so.
This controversy won't change whether I do or don't see the film, which is directed by the talented Danny Boyle. But I do believe that Sorkin's acknowledged skills as a wordsmith failed him massively in his targeted response and vague apology to Tim Cook's general comment. Perhaps Sorkin was more concerned about how he is perceived than the quality of the product that he produces?
Let that product speak for itself; if it captures honest portrayals of Steve Jobs, then it was a worthwhile pursuit for Sorkin, and that "opportunistic" comment from Tim Cook will have lost its perceived sting.
Actually I did have a clue. You'll find it when I referred to the mindless vitriolic hysteria that people engage in when it touches on Apple. See my Crips vs Bloods remark. Cook is guilty at the very least of a clumsiness if he wasn't directing his remarks at least partially at Sorkin. And in that case, a person of honor and class would feel he owes Sorkin an apology, seeing as his own blow came first<span style="line-height:1.4em;">. He is far too powerful and his words carry far too much weight for him to be careless about his condemnations. I know you won't see it that way. See my earlier remark about class and honor. Let's leave it there, and agree to disagree. Unlike you, I don't especially find anything of value in the silly lather you've got yourself into.</span>
No apology. Cook expressed an opinion. Sorkin lied.
Steve was a great man who little men think they can understand and encapsulate in less then 2 hours.
On that basis, then you have to hate every film biography ever made, including "Funny Girl" (Fanny Brice), "Man of A Thousand Faces" (Lon Chaney), "Gandhi", "Lawrence of Arabia", "Patton", "Malcom X", "Ray" (Ray Charles), "Serpico", etc. (although several were more like three hours).
A well-made bio can work in two hours. Whether this is one or not I can't say until I've seen it (unlike many here who seem to have the uncanny ability to evaluate a work they haven't seen). The negativity from people who haven't even seen the film is really remarkable and demonstrates to me once more that people don't let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions. It's one thing to feel that one can't believe anyone playing Steve except Steve and quite another to badmouth the movie just because it happens to show negative aspects of Jobs' being.
I happen to believe that almost all great people are highly complex characters and they all have negative aspects to who they are. That's either because of ego or because their relentless focus gave them no time for niceties and it's part of what made them great. Some are/were borderline 'on-spectrum'. We have to accept the bad with the good. In Jobs' case, it's quite clear that there were many negative aspects to his character and to negate them is to live in denial.
Gotta learn how to use that "Quote" button my friend. Else I'd give a "thumbs up" boost to your rep... But you might just be aiming at me with your comment. That would be unfortunate
Sorkin writes but he seems to not listen. I saw Tim Cook's interview, and at no point did Cook mention Sorkin, or his specific movie. Cook said he hasn't seen Man in the Machine or Sony's Steve Jobs, he doesn't seem pleased with the trend. "I think that a lot of people are trying to be opportunistic, and I hate this; it’s not a great part of our world."
So, Sorkin was never specifically attacked by Cook. Sorkin's apology saying both he and Cook went over the top is simply a lie. Cook never went over the top in any way. Only Sorkin did.
Sorkin's an ass -- and I'm not going over the top when I say that.
Sorkin did move too fast - he based his work on the first biography, which is somewhat crappy compared to the newer one, Becoming Steve Jobs. Between that issue and losing Christian Bale, I think it's too bad he can't just start over now. Seth Rogen doesn't seem right for Woz either.
I'm guessing that Sorkin (like so many journalists before him) just took the shot to get a big media buzz. But if he actually believes that Apple is condoning unethical working practices in manufacturing, he's not as smart as I thought. Granted, Apple is a difficult company to understand. But yikes, what a terrible thing to say about Tim!
Jobs was very influential. But great man? It does seem he matured at the point of coming back to Apple. Before that, he seemed anything but great.
I guess one has to evaluate and compare the flaws we all have and determine whether those flaws are so significant as to substantially alter one's opinions of other's character. How does one balance the character of a younger Jobs with an older Jobs?
It doesn't seem the older Job's made amends for being the younger Jobs. That says something to me.
Frankly, I'm not a fan of Isaacson's writing. He seems to do his research but there is little richness to his writing and storytelling. There are better historians -- McCullough, Kearns, the Ken Burn's Team.
But, let's be fair to Isaacson. He was pushed to write the Jobs biography and pushed again to publish it when he did. Making a movie about Jobs based on a hastily written and hastily published book -- well maybe Cook's word "opportunistic" does apply to the Sorkin work.
The book Isaacson was writing before being corralled to write the Jobs biography was The Innovators. Much more interesting.
Comments
I agree one hundred percent completely. I was going to make some comments a few days ago when this issue first popped up but was too lazy to type and post it.
Regardless of Tim and Arron's comments, the apple fanboys come out with their blind support of the Apple leader. I'm not sure who is worst with their zealotry the android fanboys or the apple ones. Some people on here drink too much kool-aid.
History will show that Apple has done more for the advancement of China labor reform than any other entity. Any student of history, which you are certainly not, understands the process that an economy goes through from pre-industrial to industrial to post-industrial. Apple is leading China in its industrial phase, raising the standard of living for the millions of workers involved in the assembly of its products and throughout its entire massive supply chain. Do you imagine a manufacturer of any other product in China, out off the spotlight that Apple and a few other forward thinking companies have placed upon themselves with their human rights reporting and monitoring, provides anywhere near the pay, the workplace safety, worker education, and opportunity as Apple?
Do you realize that the suicide rate among workers assembling Apple products is far lower than that of American white collar office workers, just in case you are thinking of bringing that up?
Do you have any clue about global trade and industry? Do you suppose Saudi Arabia should grow all its own food rather than importing food from America? Do you realize that by buying food from America, Saudi Arabia and other desert countries could be seen by people with your mindset as exploiting AMerican and Mexican laborers, since it would be far more expensive to grow the same food in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, by your thinking, American farmer workers should earn far more to reflect the enormous cost of growing food in the Saudi Arabian desert. And America shouldn't import oil from the Middle East either, according to your thinking. Nope, nobody should buy products or services from any region where those products or services can be had for less than in the importer's own country. That seems to be your thinking.
The only reason Apple has been called out on these child labor issues is NOT because those issues occur ONLY in the manufacture of Apple products, but because attacking the largest and most successful company on earth makes for far better news headlines than talking about any of the thousands of factories in China where virtually every product on American store shelves is manufactured, in conditions far worse and with not a care about worker health, safety, pay, or happiness by the factory management. In a world where the pressure of competition swayed a large and apparently healthy company like Volkswagen to cheat on emissions tests, do you suppose the management of factories across China are immune to those same competitive pressures, while operating on even thinner margins? No.
Hey, but thanks for playing.
Nicely done.
The next time some fool in his dressing gown tries to present any old crap they've read on the internet as the gospel truth, I'll point them at this comment.
Nevertheless he left his fingerprints all over society -both domestic and global. His innovation has touched the lives of countless millions and made their lives easier and in many ways more fulfilled.
I don't doubt that he didn't win many "Father of the Year' awards, but his mind wan't wired to be a daddy - he saw a chance to change the world. I'd say he succeeded - for better or worse!
Im an apple fan and just because he said something that had some assumptions facts does not mean that im going to boycott a artful movie about steve jobs. Critics are loving it and apparently fasbender did fantastic for the role.
That being said, apple has been publicly called out for low wage child labor and only after being called out and receiving bad press did apple change its policies, create policies and enforce policies. There are still questionable labor practices, and it is still VERY opportunistic to employe chinese to build apple products instead of manufacturing in america, because the wages per hour are so low there. And most of them are still in poverty/ live much lesser lives than low wage workers in the usa. We have labor and wage laws to protect humans rights to life happiness and prosperity. Apple wants to avoid those human rights and be opportunistic by cutting labor costs knowing it affects people in the same economic ways.
Apple also continues to do very little about memory capacity, ram, processor speeds until this very fall. Yet apple charges 700-1000% of the devices actual costs. That is why apple is sitting on over 150 billion in cash. Because its leaders are opportunistic.
Apple charges 30% of music, videos, movies, books, and app downloads. Apple rakes in billions for work it did not do. The cost of running and maintaining the app store would be roughly around 1.5-2.5% of app revenues. But apple takes from other peoples work anyways because they simply can. Because apple is opportunistic.
Apple raised its pricing for insurance on its devices. Even though prices per part were already broken down plus average labor costs to replace a iphone part, and applecare plus the fix fee are generally 600% more than it actually costs apple for the part and labor. Therefore apple is raising insurance on applecare out of opportunism.
Doing good business is great. Profiting is great. But taking from people just because you can, because you developed an ecosystem that surrounds peoples lives is just greedy opportunism.
Meme identified: Apple is greedy.
Nah, doing a biopic of your friend four years after his death, which you can tell from the trailer is an overwrought soap opera version of the most important founding events of the life you're still living at Apple, that is striking the first blow.
The biopic is by nature a contaminating dramatic form, because it reduces a complex life to a TV movie formula. Sorkin would know that he should never expect anyone close to Steve Jobs as friend or family to sit through his movie without gagging on its "dramatizations"—Sorkin would know this if he weren't submerged in Hollywood's corrupt exploitation values.
Worthy of signature status.
A wall of troll noise from a blandersonsf can cause one to lose more than the thread.
May I ask what you "think" you know about the Crips vs Bloods feud?
Only because your location of "Dunwich Fish Market" puts you currently in the UK... and I'm just guessing you know as much about the previously mentioned feud as you do about Tim Cook, Steve Jobs, Sorkin, Hollywood, media, or Apple.
Which is collectively: Nada+Zilch=Zero.
So, for Sorkin to pretend that he "knew" Jobs well enough to make a movie, that would almost by definition be "opportunistic".
Interesting comments from Radarthekat (you should read it). I agree it may be that businesses like Apple can incentive countries to recognize human rights. Not going to happen overnight but it's moving that way.
Actually I did have a clue. You'll find it when I referred to the mindless vitriolic hysteria that people engage in when it touches on Apple. See my Crips vs Bloods remark. Cook is guilty at the very least of a clumsiness if he wasn't directing his remarks at least partially at Sorkin. And in that case, a person of honor and class would feel he owes Sorkin an apology, seeing as his own blow came first. He is far too powerful and his words carry far too much weight for him to be careless about his condemnations. I know you won't see it that way. See my earlier remark about class and honor. Let's leave it there, and agree to disagree. Unlike you, I don't especially find anything of value in the silly lather you've got yourself into.
Did Sorkin ever meet Jobs? I mean, Tim Cook worked side-by-side with Steve Jobs for decades. Tim saw Jobs at his best, and at his worst. So, if anyone has an idea who the "real" Steve Jobs is - I would guess that it is Tim Cook and not Sorkin.
So, for Sorkin to pretend that he "knew" Jobs well enough to make a movie, that would almost by definition be "opportunistic".
Sorkin is a wordsmith; he writes fictional dialog, with maybe a few quoted lines thrown in. He doesn't actually need to ever meet his characters (did he ever meet Zuckerberg?), he just researches them or creates them.
I'm not against this per se, but coincidentally, I happened to watch a docudrama/documentary about Hyman Rickover last night, the creator of the U.S. Nuclear Navy, and one can see the same traits that many people that change the world have; they don't follow the rules, and they speak their minds. There are many individuals that change the world, and not all have the characteristics that Steve Jobs had over his lifetime, but there are often many similarities, and significant flaws. Capturing these characteristics in a film is like capturing lightning in a bottle, and maybe Sorkin was able to accomplish that; I would hope so.
This controversy won't change whether I do or don't see the film, which is directed by the talented Danny Boyle. But I do believe that Sorkin's acknowledged skills as a wordsmith failed him massively in his targeted response and vague apology to Tim Cook's general comment. Perhaps Sorkin was more concerned about how he is perceived than the quality of the product that he produces?
Let that product speak for itself; if it captures honest portrayals of Steve Jobs, then it was a worthwhile pursuit for Sorkin, and that "opportunistic" comment from Tim Cook will have lost its perceived sting.
No apology. Cook expressed an opinion. Sorkin lied.
You fact-checked on Google? Wow, how diligent.
You're facts are 500-1000% wrong.
I just checked on wikipedia.
Steve was a great man who little men think they can understand and encapsulate in less then 2 hours.
On that basis, then you have to hate every film biography ever made, including "Funny Girl" (Fanny Brice), "Man of A Thousand Faces" (Lon Chaney), "Gandhi", "Lawrence of Arabia", "Patton", "Malcom X", "Ray" (Ray Charles), "Serpico", etc. (although several were more like three hours).
A well-made bio can work in two hours. Whether this is one or not I can't say until I've seen it (unlike many here who seem to have the uncanny ability to evaluate a work they haven't seen). The negativity from people who haven't even seen the film is really remarkable and demonstrates to me once more that people don't let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions. It's one thing to feel that one can't believe anyone playing Steve except Steve and quite another to badmouth the movie just because it happens to show negative aspects of Jobs' being.
I happen to believe that almost all great people are highly complex characters and they all have negative aspects to who they are. That's either because of ego or because their relentless focus gave them no time for niceties and it's part of what made them great. Some are/were borderline 'on-spectrum'. We have to accept the bad with the good. In Jobs' case, it's quite clear that there were many negative aspects to his character and to negate them is to live in denial.
I wonder if Cook will also apologize. I think he should as well. But probably not.
Why would he? Tim Cook was right about Aaron trying to capitalize on the death of Tim's friend/co-worker.
Gotta learn how to use that "Quote" button my friend. Else I'd give a "thumbs up" boost to your rep... But you might just be aiming at me with your comment. That would be unfortunate
Sorkin writes but he seems to not listen. I saw Tim Cook's interview, and at no point did Cook mention Sorkin, or his specific movie. Cook said he hasn't seen Man in the Machine or Sony's Steve Jobs, he doesn't seem pleased with the trend. "I think that a lot of people are trying to be opportunistic, and I hate this; it’s not a great part of our world."
So, Sorkin was never specifically attacked by Cook. Sorkin's apology saying both he and Cook went over the top is simply a lie. Cook never went over the top in any way. Only Sorkin did.
Sorkin's an ass -- and I'm not going over the top when I say that.
I'm guessing that Sorkin (like so many journalists before him) just took the shot to get a big media buzz. But if he actually believes that Apple is condoning unethical working practices in manufacturing, he's not as smart as I thought. Granted, Apple is a difficult company to understand. But yikes, what a terrible thing to say about Tim!
Jobs was very influential. But great man? It does seem he matured at the point of coming back to Apple. Before that, he seemed anything but great.
I guess one has to evaluate and compare the flaws we all have and determine whether those flaws are so significant as to substantially alter one's opinions of other's character. How does one balance the character of a younger Jobs with an older Jobs?
It doesn't seem the older Job's made amends for being the younger Jobs. That says something to me.
Frankly, I'm not a fan of Isaacson's writing. He seems to do his research but there is little richness to his writing and storytelling. There are better historians -- McCullough, Kearns, the Ken Burn's Team.
But, let's be fair to Isaacson. He was pushed to write the Jobs biography and pushed again to publish it when he did. Making a movie about Jobs based on a hastily written and hastily published book -- well maybe Cook's word "opportunistic" does apply to the Sorkin work.
The book Isaacson was writing before being corralled to write the Jobs biography was The Innovators. Much more interesting.