Engaging Steve Jobs story/interview from 2005 [long](plus.google.com)
plus.google.com
Engaging Steve Jobs story/interview from 2005 [long]
https://plus.google.com/113758147814858568109/posts/WPr2t6kWuTE
8 comments
This is a really interesting account of an interview. At the same time, I am skeptical of the author's armchair psychology and his speculation about the 'real' Jobs. He pushes his own interpretation so hard that I can only assume it colored his reporting on the interview itself.
I've always had the impression (from afar) that while Jobs may enjoy and want the adoration, he doesn't want to deal directly with those that have this feeling. The rare exception that I've seen are children.
>"We're just who we are. Apple has values we care about; Apple cares about tolerance. We are not a political company, but a company with a set of values."
Some may consider it marketing but I think Jobs truly believes in this.
At the end of the day, I think Jobs just wants to simply be known as someone who made the world a better place than it was before or, more accurately, to make technology accessible to everyone.
>"We're just who we are. Apple has values we care about; Apple cares about tolerance. We are not a political company, but a company with a set of values."
Some may consider it marketing but I think Jobs truly believes in this.
At the end of the day, I think Jobs just wants to simply be known as someone who made the world a better place than it was before or, more accurately, to make technology accessible to everyone.
In a good interview, the interviewer cleans it up by dropping the awkward bits: take a one hour conversation, remove the "Ahhs," "Ummms," the "Unfortunately I can't discuss that"s, and the stuff parroted from press releases. You're left with a whole lot less material, but it's usually pretty good.
You can do the opposite, too.
You can do the opposite, too.
To reinterpret this reporter's vignette of Jobs, to me the encounter with him shows a man with an enormous level of intention and focus, and a brief view of the techniques he might use to deal with the hugely complex decisions and situations that must come with being Apple's CEO.
It seems certain that Jobs was meditating just prior to the interview, drawing deep within himself to clear his consciousness, re-center, and get back on track with his plans.
It seems certain that Jobs was meditating just prior to the interview, drawing deep within himself to clear his consciousness, re-center, and get back on track with his plans.
I like "human interest" pieces and I like Steve Jobs. Ergo ...I liked this article. I don't have a problem with someone who is so famous and big that he doesn't have to pander and sell himself or his company, and that's the realm Jobs is in. He's not political -- end of story, next question. Apple's products are no less green than the competitors' -- what part of that answer didn't you understand, reporter? How does it feel to beat cancer and be back in control? Are you kidding me, impudent m'fer? You didn't get the memo about me and my personal life. Next question. One of the comments (at the posting site) said the reporter imposed his own psychobabble slant on the article. I don't have a problem with that. It was a good portrait photograph of Jobs done by a professional.
Speaking of being an armchair psychologist, has anyone actually speculated what conditions he has? I've seen people suggested he has ADHD but there's no way to tell. There's simply too little information about him to even make an educated guess. I guess we'll just have to wait til the biography comes out.
Referring to the author's apology at the top, since when, was 2000 words such a trial for the reader? While the text seems to be biased towards the interviewer's expectations it was readable and far from lengthy..
It's really poor journalistic work. It works better as a demonstration of pseudo-psychology than anything else. Every comment from the author about Jobs is riddled with a-priori, specious extrapolations and non-sequiturs.
It's interesting nonetheless.
It's interesting nonetheless.
Sounds like he failed to think different.