I HATED this list. A few rebuttals to point out why...
Steve Jobs did not create products he created an organization. No. He was partially responsible for the creation. He sat in on design meetings and offered input and feedback. Plus he vetoed bad idea (just as important)
Steve Jobs did not wrest market share from competitors he created new markets: Tell that to Creative Labs and Microsoft. Creative labs had an MP3 player and Microsoft had tablets before apple came along. Apple just did things better.
Steve Jobs did not design anything he gave others freedom to think: Not really. He certainly encouraged people to think for themselves but anyone whose studied Jobs will tell you he stuck to his own vision. Your only way to design a product at Apple under Jobs was to make your case to him and change his vision.
Steve Jobs did not develop new management theories he showed by example: Well how do you think management theory is born? Good management theory comes from people who practiced what they preached.
Steve Jobs was not a futurist he built the future one piece at a time: WHAT?!? You don't build the future one piece at a time unless you have a vision of what it will be like as a whole.
Steve Jobs was not charismatic he spoke from the heart: WHAT?!? What do you think "being Charismatic" means?
Steve Jobs was not a gifted orator he spoke plainly: A gifted orator is someone who is engaging to watch speak. Jobs was engaging.
You're so close to understanding this essay, and yet I fear you're a thousand miles away.
I'm going to kill the poetry by trying to explain it, but try translating each phrase like this: When you read:
"Steve Jobs did not [do X], he [did Y]."
read it as:
"It's not so much that Steve Jobs did [legendary thing X], as that he did [apparently simple thing Y, and did you notice that by doing so he just happened to accomplish X as a side effect?]"
The author agrees with you.
(Note, by the way, that my rephrasing is absolutely bloated with weasel words that diminish its impact. That's why the original author wrote the way he did, at the expense of losing the literalists in the audience.)
>Steve Jobs was not a futurist. He just built the future one piece at a time.
to be almost hypnotically devoid of meaning and disrespectful to the reader. Why not just say what's true? A good reader can be stunned by the truth, without needing to be lead through a difficult contradiction for dramatic effect.
Well sure. I mean, Abe Lincoln could have shortened the Gettysburg Address to "Let's free the slaves and reunite the union", but that wouldn't have had the same impact as the speech he did give.
There's nothing wrong with presenting a difficult idea that has a more dramatic effect. Do you think Moby Dick or War and Peace are considered great due to their simple ways of communicating ideas?
As long as you don't lose accuracy, sure. I think many of these crossed that line. They remind me of the tendency for bloggers to make a link-bait headline that obviously sounds bad, then they spend their whole post redefining what those words mean so at the end, their title is a good thing.
Apologies for the digression, but this subject matters to me. The Gettysburg Address is perhaps the greatest example of writing that's stunning without being difficult to interpret. For that matter of War & Peace is clear and generally free of embellishment.
I agree with scott_s that the whole article is written more in the style of linkbait than a challenging poem.
I had a similar reaction to grandparent. On reflection, my issue is that while the author may intend this as a tribute to steve, it comes across to me as exploitation. The author uses steve's death to advance an ideology. You say "poetry", I say "crass marketing". On the occasion of his death, let steve be steve, not a way to argue a point.
That would be fine if his statements were factually correct. For example, the author's point is Steve Jobs built an organization that created great products. But he also ACTUALLY HELPED BUILD great products. Along with creating the organization.
So he doesn't really agree with me. I see your point about poetic license (and I'll be the first to admit I'm dense in the ways of poetry) but if your poetic license leads to factually incorrect statements you've taken it to far.
There are people who see the results that Steve Jobs helped create, and because they don't understand the process, they think that somehow he had magical instincts, or this was a unique talent.
Then there are those who see the process Steve Jobs utilized and recognize that the process is where he really innovated... and further, by studying and understanding this process, we can do better.
It's obvious that you are in the first group. I quote, from your own blog: "To be honest I don’t think you can learn much from Steve Jobs because he had such an extraordinary talent. His instincts were better than the combined rational thought of an entire industry. So in most things you can’t hope to emulate Steve Jobs."
So long as you believe this, you will never learn from him. That's fine. But when you post on HN and blatantly miss the forest for the trees, you're not going to be abel to successfully debate people who are telling you about the forest.
I think Horace's intention here was to inspire us all to believe that we are closer to becoming great than we think we are. I'm not crazy about the rhetorical device "Steve Jobs was not X", because of its absolute tone.
Read less literally, the reader could take a lot of things away from this list: the value of teamwork, trust, seeing things through, and being yourself. Steve Jobs was unique in many ways, not the least of which was an absolute commitment to the things he believed to be true. There are plenty of people out there today doing that same thing, but their ideas are horrible. Still, I'm thankful for them, for without that dedication there would have never been a Steve jobs.
I agree with you. In fact, the comments contradict one another.
If they did their homework, they would know Jobs holds many design patents.
and this one is funny...
"Steve Jobs was not a visionary. He put the dots together and saw where they led."
vs.
"He created an organization that predictably and reliably created emotionally resonant products."
" He made a company that predictably and reliably made blockbusters."
"He created new markets that attracted and sustained competitors."
" He gave others the freedom to think about what jobs products are hired to do."
"He brought engineering processes to works of creativity and the creative process to engineering."
I'm not sure how you "make a company" and "create new markets" without being a visionary.
All this hype about a geek yet no one really paid attention to another fine gentleman by the name of Ralph Steinman.
I am so sick and tired of people like Jobs getting all this attention and maybe I ought to start using it as a stage to remind people that while Jobs contributions to computer science are important, we ought to give the same attention to others who are equally, if not, great contributors to science. I never knew Jobs earned a nobel prize?
"Steve Jobs was not a visionary. He put the dots together and saw where they led."
That's what being a visionary/genius is -- seeing things and making associations or "connecting the dots" before others do. It's having a rare and valuable perspective on the world.
I know. It's almost as if Apple's incredible rise post OSX/ipod/iPhone have made people totally forget all of his original contributions back in the 80s. I think the first computer I ever used was an Apple II back in elementary school.
And Raskin is quoted there, and Raskin was the guy who wanted the Mac without mouse. I think it's obvious that Jobs in fact designed Mac, in a sense -- realized his vision. It's also very clear that Jobs even cared a lot about every detail of his products.
See also the last link in the article which leads to:
"ultimately, if any single individual deserves the honor, I would have to cast my vote for the obvious choice, Steve Jobs, because the Macintosh never would have happened without him, in anything like the form it did. Other individuals are responsible for the actual creative work, but Steve's vision, passion for excellence and sheer strength of will, not to mention his awesome powers of persuasion, drove the team to meet or exceed the impossible standards that we set for ourselves. Steve already gets a lot of credit for being the driving force behind the Macintosh, but in my opinion, it's very well deserved."
Even if everything he says in this blog is true, I still think Steve designed products. There are many aspects of design, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that Steve did them all on any product, but he did some of them on many products throughout his entire career.
I read this a bit differently than saying that anyone can do what Steve Jobs did.
To speak plainly, to be patient and put the dots together, to lead without charisma are all incredibly difficult things to do. It really does take genius and only the extraordinary amongst us can do it.
If you have a natural, god-given charisma, its very easy to be a leader. No accomplishment there. But you would lead for what purpose?
If you have some uncanny ability to predict the future as a whole, without error, you would be popular for your predictions but you wouldn't build much of anything, because building great things requires trial and error.
If you were merely a design expert, you'd make nice looking things, but you wouldn't be able to scale it, compared to the non-designer that sees the greatness in other designers.
Being foolish and curious really trumps all other skills, but how many people can truly endure being foolish and curious?
My interpretation of this post is a bit different from the others that I see here.
I see this as being about cutting through all the cliches and platitudes that we tend to run into when we talk abou Steve Jobs, and pointing out the truth behind them.
"Steve Jobs was a charismatic visionary with a knack for design who created revolutionary products."
...sounds like something the press would say about Jobs doesn't it?
I think Horace's point is that the potential is in all of us. He's taken each of the things we all think about Steve Jobs and presented a different perspective. I don't agree with the absolute manner in which they're stated, but that's sometimes the nature of writing. No one likes to read writing that is as firm as pudding. It's boring and doesn't challenge the reader.
If you didn't walk away from that list wondering whether you could do things Steve Jobs did, then Horace failed in his intention, which was, I think, to inspire.
I think this is a great list. It's one thing to mourn the loss of a great person, but the most frustrating thing about this is watching all the people on TV and in the mainstream media, and others who don't know much about Apple, say things that show they didn't really understand Steve Jobs at all.
I would disagree with the list in one respect. I believe Steve Jobs didn't have taste. Well, he had some taste, but he didn't have genius level taste. Steve Jobs did, however, know how to identify and listen to people who did have taste, and he worked very hard to learn from the people who did have it who didn't work for him (Eg: from the past, or people like Dieter Rahms who is retired, etc.)
But this is a great list overall.
I do wish the people who have been bashing Apple out of ignorance, and Steve Jobs out of ignorance and based on their preconceived notions or personal projections of their own faults, would at least wait until his body is in the ground before posting their drivel on the internet (I've seen far too much of this on HN already... making the site a lot less classy.)
In life, Steve Jobs didn't bother to respond to every scurrilous lie told about him, I wish, in death, such people would hold off until he's buried before ramping up the hate again.
I was more referring to the "cliffhanger" "didn't" suffix.
I suspect the above post is getting moderated into oblivion because the impression is that I'm complaining about the Jobs coverage, but that's not the case at all. I'm not at all bothered by all the Jobs submissions. He did so much to make me not hate computers.
I don't think comparisons made between he and Edison/Ford/etc are hyperbole at all.
Steve Jobs did not create products he created an organization. No. He was partially responsible for the creation. He sat in on design meetings and offered input and feedback. Plus he vetoed bad idea (just as important)
Steve Jobs did not wrest market share from competitors he created new markets: Tell that to Creative Labs and Microsoft. Creative labs had an MP3 player and Microsoft had tablets before apple came along. Apple just did things better.
Steve Jobs did not design anything he gave others freedom to think: Not really. He certainly encouraged people to think for themselves but anyone whose studied Jobs will tell you he stuck to his own vision. Your only way to design a product at Apple under Jobs was to make your case to him and change his vision.
Steve Jobs did not develop new management theories he showed by example: Well how do you think management theory is born? Good management theory comes from people who practiced what they preached.
Steve Jobs was not a futurist he built the future one piece at a time: WHAT?!? You don't build the future one piece at a time unless you have a vision of what it will be like as a whole.
Steve Jobs was not charismatic he spoke from the heart: WHAT?!? What do you think "being Charismatic" means?
Steve Jobs was not a gifted orator he spoke plainly: A gifted orator is someone who is engaging to watch speak. Jobs was engaging.