The Full Walter Isaacson/Steve Jobs Interview From 60 Minutes(macrumors.com)
macrumors.com
The Full Walter Isaacson/Steve Jobs Interview From 60 Minutes
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/23/the-full-walter-isaacsonsteve-jobs-interview-from-60-minutes/
12 comments
Not to rain on Walter Isaacson's parade as he sells more copies of this then all biographies combined over the last 10+ years* but when asking Steve about how he didn't care about money that might have been a great time for a professional journalist (head of CNN, Time) to follow up and ask why he cheated Woz out of a few hundred dollars on Breakout (or Kottke, I'm sure there are others).
I haven't read the book yet so he maybe he does and there are some obvious answers (like "that was a mistake and part of why I later rejected my wealth") but that question really should have been asked.
* Mao and Jesus not included. Go crazy with that, Apple haters.
I haven't read the book yet so he maybe he does and there are some obvious answers (like "that was a mistake and part of why I later rejected my wealth") but that question really should have been asked.
* Mao and Jesus not included. Go crazy with that, Apple haters.
Issacson puts that question directly to a number of people in the book, including Steve Jobs - Jobs claims not to remember having shorted Woz on the bonus. At the time, Jobs likely needed the money for a trip to All One Farm to help prepare for the apple harvest.
I think Woz summarized it best: "Jobs is a complex person and being manipulative is just the darker facet of the traits that make him successful"
I think Woz summarized it best: "Jobs is a complex person and being manipulative is just the darker facet of the traits that make him successful"
Great quote by Woz and I stand corrected. Guess I should read the darn book I bought.
Not to go all Most Interesting Man in the World on this tangent but I don't buy many biographies but when I do it's for Steve Jobs.* I imagine many people are doing the same and I think the meta idea of how many copies it will sell will be interesting (not shockingly high because I mean who reads anymore) but 5+ million by xmas might be possible I'd guess. I also wonder how many ipad owners broke their Kindle lock in and bought it on iTunes.
* Technically I guess I also bought Marcus Allen Super Raider when I was 9 or 10 years old in the mid 80s. Here's hoping this is half as good as Marcus Allen Super Raider was to me when I was 9 or 10.
Not to go all Most Interesting Man in the World on this tangent but I don't buy many biographies but when I do it's for Steve Jobs.* I imagine many people are doing the same and I think the meta idea of how many copies it will sell will be interesting (not shockingly high because I mean who reads anymore) but 5+ million by xmas might be possible I'd guess. I also wonder how many ipad owners broke their Kindle lock in and bought it on iTunes.
* Technically I guess I also bought Marcus Allen Super Raider when I was 9 or 10 years old in the mid 80s. Here's hoping this is half as good as Marcus Allen Super Raider was to me when I was 9 or 10.
I've decided to hold off for a bit:
* The Kindle book costs nearly as much as the hardcover. Too much.
* I suspect most of the salient, "juicy" bits will be coming out over the next few weeks, and most of the general outline is already widely known.
* The Kindle book costs nearly as much as the hardcover. Too much.
* I suspect most of the salient, "juicy" bits will be coming out over the next few weeks, and most of the general outline is already widely known.
In the UK the kindle book is actually more than the hardcover.
Regardless of what the book says (I see there are some comments here that it is addressed), have you ever considered that its because he was a 21 year old kid at that point -and shock- people make stupid mistakes throughout their lives? Turns out, people's priorities are allowed to change as they grow and mature.
This seems like such a silly straw man argument and I'm so surprised every time I hear someone make it earnestly. I'm sure Steve stole a cookie when he was 5 years old too, that doesn't mean his whole life was a scheme to acquire cookies.
This seems like such a silly straw man argument and I'm so surprised every time I hear someone make it earnestly. I'm sure Steve stole a cookie when he was 5 years old too, that doesn't mean his whole life was a scheme to acquire cookies.
> Turns out, people's priorities are allowed to change as they grow and mature.
I am reading Anthony Kiedes's autobiography in which he states that he ripped off so many people in his past (mainly drug related) and then later went back to right his wrong. So if anything this could have been an avenue and opportunity for Steve to say "ya know what, I did screw Woz over and we agreed on XYZ"
Furthermore, you are simply assuming and drawing ill-informed conclusions. The OP is basically asking that this question be raised, regardless of whether he is insinuating it's truth. It's disingenuous to make conclusions like "it's not about the money" when there are sources that state otherwise.
I am reading Anthony Kiedes's autobiography in which he states that he ripped off so many people in his past (mainly drug related) and then later went back to right his wrong. So if anything this could have been an avenue and opportunity for Steve to say "ya know what, I did screw Woz over and we agreed on XYZ"
Furthermore, you are simply assuming and drawing ill-informed conclusions. The OP is basically asking that this question be raised, regardless of whether he is insinuating it's truth. It's disingenuous to make conclusions like "it's not about the money" when there are sources that state otherwise.
[deleted]
"and shock- people make stupid mistakes throughout their lives?"
If you had actually read my comment you might have seen where I said maybe the answer was "that was a mistake and part of why I later blah blah" which isn't so different from your shocking idea.
If you had actually read my comment you might have seen where I said maybe the answer was "that was a mistake and part of why I later blah blah" which isn't so different from your shocking idea.
[deleted]
Just like after a certain point, money doesn't make you happier, but before that point it makes you more happier, I think Steve was at a point in his finances that more money would make him happier. That set point is usually what gives you a comfortable life, transportation, a private space you can call your own and the reasonable ability to buy what you need, and security that you'll always be able to have that. A nice upper middle class life style basically.
Well, that is true with almost everyone. It doesn't lead many people to cheat on their business partners however.
It's great that CBS put this online for everyone to view, but I really wish they added captions/subtitles to the video clips. If it's hard to do, why not just add a text transcript so that deaf people like me can understand what's being said?
Your wish has been granted. There's a full text transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-20124391/steve-jobs-re...
Thank you so much for this great find! I really appreciate it.
That episode of 60 Minutes was fantastic, and the audio from Walter's interviews with Jobs was surprising. The best part of the program was the fact that Steve Jobs actually met his biological father years before knowing who his biological father truly was.
Note for hackers: your hero was a non-technical co-founder.
Well, except for the fact that the blue box Woz and Jobs built in 1971 were tested using a frequency counter built by Steve Jobs in prior years.
Maybe building a frequency counter is something that your average non-technical teenager does these days - but I have to believe it was a little more rarified in 1971.
Just because Jobs wasn't as elite a hacker as Woz, doesn't classify him as non-technical.
Maybe building a frequency counter is something that your average non-technical teenager does these days - but I have to believe it was a little more rarified in 1971.
Just because Jobs wasn't as elite a hacker as Woz, doesn't classify him as non-technical.
Also, it's not a zero sum game. We don't have to denigrate anyone to recognize the skills of someone else.
Revering Jobs for what he did, does not in any way diminish the contributions of Woz or Dennis Ritchie or dozens of others.
Revering Jobs for what he did, does not in any way diminish the contributions of Woz or Dennis Ritchie or dozens of others.
I think any technical cofounder would be ecstatic over having a "non-technical" cofounder with his level of technical ability.
Be honest, what % of HN readers actually know more about electronics than Steve Jobs did?
Be honest, what % of HN readers actually know more about electronics than Steve Jobs did?
My understanding is that Jobs didn't really have much practical knowledge about contemporary electronics, and that all the "work" he did at Atari was actually done by Wozniak, who came in during the night shift and played video games with Jobs.
Perhaps, like mosts things in life, the truth lies somewhere between the perceived overstatements of Jobs' achievements and qualities and your "understanding".
I guess you're responding to the fact that I put "work" in quotes, but your comment comes off as unnecessarily snarky. My comment was brief, but I wasn't trying to denigrate Jobs achievements. I used the word "understanding" because I try not to speak categorically about people I don't know and events I didn't witness. Yes, Steve Jobs built a frequency counter when he was 12. But here's how Al Alcorn describes the 19 year old Jobs:
"I figured, this guy's gotta be cheap, man. He really doesn't have much skills at all," Alcorn remembers. "So I figured I'd hire him."
"Jobs never did a lick of engineering in his life. He had me snowed," Alcorn later recalled. "It took years before I figured out that he was getting Woz to 'come in the back door' and do all the work while he got the credit."
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/37762/
"I figured, this guy's gotta be cheap, man. He really doesn't have much skills at all," Alcorn remembers. "So I figured I'd hire him."
"Jobs never did a lick of engineering in his life. He had me snowed," Alcorn later recalled. "It took years before I figured out that he was getting Woz to 'come in the back door' and do all the work while he got the credit."
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/37762/
I didn't intend to come off as snarky and apologise if you feel in anyway aggrieved (you clearly do). I mere intended to point aout that things are never that black and white and often the truth can be found somewhere in-between.
That does not jive with the story of how he had called Hewlett of HP as a teenager to ask for parts for a project he was working on and was offered a job.
Your understanding is built by folklore spun by people with an agenda, not reality.
When Steve Wozniak is your co-founder, its not very hard to decide to just leave the engineering up to him and focus on the other aspects of the business.
But that doesn't mean he lacked practical knowledge. He certainly has garnered a lot of patents over the years for his inventions, many of which are technological.
When Steve Wozniak is your co-founder, its not very hard to decide to just leave the engineering up to him and focus on the other aspects of the business.
But that doesn't mean he lacked practical knowledge. He certainly has garnered a lot of patents over the years for his inventions, many of which are technological.
Note for hackers: it doesn't matter.
Quite frankly I'm getting sick of these "rules" for what constitutes the best way to do something. Isn't that the manifesto of "hacking"...that there is no one way to do something? We all see countless articles on here "How to do this, How to do that". The fact is, all of these rules are just frameworks and how you implement them is up to you as a person. So my note for hackers is: your hero was passionate about what he wanted, that's a good co-founder
The recent story about PG and Dropbox said it best: "This is why one of our rules is that we’ll break any of our rules."
[1] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/10/18/paul-graha...
Quite frankly I'm getting sick of these "rules" for what constitutes the best way to do something. Isn't that the manifesto of "hacking"...that there is no one way to do something? We all see countless articles on here "How to do this, How to do that". The fact is, all of these rules are just frameworks and how you implement them is up to you as a person. So my note for hackers is: your hero was passionate about what he wanted, that's a good co-founder
The recent story about PG and Dropbox said it best: "This is why one of our rules is that we’ll break any of our rules."
[1] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/10/18/paul-graha...
In fact, one of the inspirations of the use of the word "hacker" was that they broke the rules.
This could just be "engineer news", but it is "hacker news" because PG is celebrating those who took unconventional approaches.
That's what a hack is.
The problem is, when a site becomes mainstream popular it brings in a lot of people outside of its core demographic. In this case, there are a lot of people who are not engineers who think that engineering is cool, and want to think that they are elite.
And when someone is a poser, they know they don't measure up, so they try and define who the "legit" ones are.
You see this posturing among teenagers a lot. (maybe a lot of Hacker News visitors are just out of their teens?)
This could just be "engineer news", but it is "hacker news" because PG is celebrating those who took unconventional approaches.
That's what a hack is.
The problem is, when a site becomes mainstream popular it brings in a lot of people outside of its core demographic. In this case, there are a lot of people who are not engineers who think that engineering is cool, and want to think that they are elite.
And when someone is a poser, they know they don't measure up, so they try and define who the "legit" ones are.
You see this posturing among teenagers a lot. (maybe a lot of Hacker News visitors are just out of their teens?)
Emphasis on co-founder.
Some will argue "but woz left!". Cofounders leaving is pretty common. It doesn't diminish their importance so much especially since part of what a tech cofounder can do is ensure the company can run without him.
Some will argue "but woz left!". Cofounders leaving is pretty common. It doesn't diminish their importance so much especially since part of what a tech cofounder can do is ensure the company can run without him.
To be fair to Wozniak, the accident pretty much took him out of circulation for a while.
Few hackers - by which I assume you mean engineers or developers - consider Steve Jobs a "hero." Most would agree he created wonderful products that changed the world, but he isn't much of a hero to a software or hardware hacker. Because as you note, he wasn't technical. Woz is the geek god of the two, because he was building cheap, full fucking computers in a damn garage, by himself. Dennis Ritchie was a hero. Not Steve Jobs.
If anything, hackers are more likely than most to respond negatively to Steve's recent approach toward mobile platforms and use of IP in business... which are the sorts of alienating decisions a technical co-founder can make.
If by "hackers" you meant "people who want to make product(s) for a startup and learned a few things about code to hack out a prototype," you might be more on-target.
If anything, hackers are more likely than most to respond negatively to Steve's recent approach toward mobile platforms and use of IP in business... which are the sorts of alienating decisions a technical co-founder can make.
If by "hackers" you meant "people who want to make product(s) for a startup and learned a few things about code to hack out a prototype," you might be more on-target.
More and more it seems like "hacker" is a religious or ideological term and not an occupational description.
I might be hauled before the Politcal Committee for the Advancement of the Revolution for saying this, but please speak for yourself. I am a hacker and by boyhood hero was Steve. He was an artist whose medium was technology. It doesn't get more hacker-like than that to me.
> I am a hacker and by boyhood hero was Steve. He was an artist whose medium was technology. It doesn't get more hacker-like than that to me.
This is why I predicated my post on the definition of "hacker." If we're going with the 2011, mainstream meaning of the word, where CEOs can be hackers because they help create amazing technology, then I have no input. Go ahead and hack your life, make some awesome music by hacking your violin, hack whatever you like.
This is why I predicated my post on the definition of "hacker." If we're going with the 2011, mainstream meaning of the word, where CEOs can be hackers because they help create amazing technology, then I have no input. Go ahead and hack your life, make some awesome music by hacking your violin, hack whatever you like.
Why do all of our heroes have to be hackers, anyway? I aspire to be an entreprenuer as well. He's not a bad hero to have in that arena. (And not because Jobs was this wonderful human being, either!)
> Why do all of our heroes have to be hackers, anyway?
They don't, and shouldn't be, if you're an entrepreneur. And I agree with you wholeheartedly that Jobs is an incredible hero for an entrepreneur.
They don't, and shouldn't be, if you're an entrepreneur. And I agree with you wholeheartedly that Jobs is an incredible hero for an entrepreneur.
If we say hackers are those who use their skills and technology to accomplish something difficult, Steve Jobs is one of the greats. He used technology to make technology usable, and that's one of the greatest hacks of all.
I built my first computer from scratch because we couldn't afford an Apple //. (maybe I spent more in the end doing it, but I learned a lot.)
When I say, "From scratch", I mean, I designed it (Z80 based) laid out the printed circuit board, exposed it, etched it, populated it, debugged it, and then I did it all over again to get a video board to connect the computer to a TV set. Then, after all of that, I taught myself Z80 assembly in order to get a minimal ROM OS on it.
I soon decided that software was a lot easier to debug than hardware, and that startups were a lot more fun than big companies.
I've learned a great many disciplines and how to hack them, from economics and investing, to marketing and business, as well, as physics, electronics, materials science, metal working, and of course, every bit of software I could learn.
As a political rebel, someone who took LSD when he was young in order to hack his mind, and a full fledged engineer, startup junkie and capitalist... Steve Jobs is, in fact, my hero.
In fact, I think he's the greatest hero this country as had in my lifetime, bar none.
Being a hacker isn't about sitting in a basement making code that nobody will ever use. Or at least, that's not the only way to be a hacker.
Good engineering means solving problems, and the problems that separate Apple products from the abject crap that everybody else puts out, are as worthy of hacker's efforts as any other engineering problems.
In fact, I question the engineering expertise of anyone who pooh-poohs apple's products. I find the tendency here on HN for people to pretend like Apple isn't innovative to be a sure sign that those posters are really not actually hackers. Because hackers know how hard it is, to not only make something work, but make it work well, and make it work well in a way that is really usable.
Frankly, if Steve Jobs is not one of your heroes, you're not a hacker in my book.
When I say, "From scratch", I mean, I designed it (Z80 based) laid out the printed circuit board, exposed it, etched it, populated it, debugged it, and then I did it all over again to get a video board to connect the computer to a TV set. Then, after all of that, I taught myself Z80 assembly in order to get a minimal ROM OS on it.
I soon decided that software was a lot easier to debug than hardware, and that startups were a lot more fun than big companies.
I've learned a great many disciplines and how to hack them, from economics and investing, to marketing and business, as well, as physics, electronics, materials science, metal working, and of course, every bit of software I could learn.
As a political rebel, someone who took LSD when he was young in order to hack his mind, and a full fledged engineer, startup junkie and capitalist... Steve Jobs is, in fact, my hero.
In fact, I think he's the greatest hero this country as had in my lifetime, bar none.
Being a hacker isn't about sitting in a basement making code that nobody will ever use. Or at least, that's not the only way to be a hacker.
Good engineering means solving problems, and the problems that separate Apple products from the abject crap that everybody else puts out, are as worthy of hacker's efforts as any other engineering problems.
In fact, I question the engineering expertise of anyone who pooh-poohs apple's products. I find the tendency here on HN for people to pretend like Apple isn't innovative to be a sure sign that those posters are really not actually hackers. Because hackers know how hard it is, to not only make something work, but make it work well, and make it work well in a way that is really usable.
Frankly, if Steve Jobs is not one of your heroes, you're not a hacker in my book.
Your post seems to suggest that you do not really understand what adgar was saying
The type of person he is calling a hero, someone like Dennis Ritchie, is someone who has created important algorithms or made advances in chip design. These technologies, Ritchie's in particular, are what make Apple products, and in Ritchie's case very near all other computer products, possible to build at all.
There is the Jobs type of innovation, where you integrate work in a useful and pleasing way. Then there is the academic version of innovation, where you are creating or extending the foundations of our collective knowledge. These are hardly comparable.
Many of us find the latter to be far more of a challenge than the former. That's not to say that doing the sort of work that Apple did was at all easy! But beyond such subjective opinions, the real discord that bothers some of us is that the academic type contributions are every bit as important as the contributions of Jobs, yet often go completely unnoticed, or worse, their successes are misattributed up the chain to people like Jobs.
These people deserve every bit as much praise, but usually get none. So Dennis Ritchie died recently. There were some mentions in the news. But by and large Jobs death is dominating the scene. Ritchie's work has arguably touched far more people. It's sad, but I suppose it's human nature to sing the praises of a few at the expense of the rest.
That said, Jobs was a hugely influential person as well and certainly deserves respect. We just need to remember that there are others that also deserve the same sort of respect. The quiet heros.
The type of person he is calling a hero, someone like Dennis Ritchie, is someone who has created important algorithms or made advances in chip design. These technologies, Ritchie's in particular, are what make Apple products, and in Ritchie's case very near all other computer products, possible to build at all.
There is the Jobs type of innovation, where you integrate work in a useful and pleasing way. Then there is the academic version of innovation, where you are creating or extending the foundations of our collective knowledge. These are hardly comparable.
Many of us find the latter to be far more of a challenge than the former. That's not to say that doing the sort of work that Apple did was at all easy! But beyond such subjective opinions, the real discord that bothers some of us is that the academic type contributions are every bit as important as the contributions of Jobs, yet often go completely unnoticed, or worse, their successes are misattributed up the chain to people like Jobs.
These people deserve every bit as much praise, but usually get none. So Dennis Ritchie died recently. There were some mentions in the news. But by and large Jobs death is dominating the scene. Ritchie's work has arguably touched far more people. It's sad, but I suppose it's human nature to sing the praises of a few at the expense of the rest.
That said, Jobs was a hugely influential person as well and certainly deserves respect. We just need to remember that there are others that also deserve the same sort of respect. The quiet heros.
Steve Jobs extended the state of engineering art forward, in significant ways. It is a real engineer, and a real hacker, and a real hero.
The need to diminish what he did as "integrating work in useful and pleasing ways" is either ignorance or dishonesty.
The need to diminish what he did as "integrating work in useful and pleasing ways" is either ignorance or dishonesty.
Frankly, if Steve Jobs is not one of your heroes, you're not a hacker in my book.
That's just silly. Whether you're a hacker or not depends on what you do, not who your heroes are. That's like saying Slash is not a real guitar player if he doesn't worship Jimi Hendrix.
That's just silly. Whether you're a hacker or not depends on what you do, not who your heroes are. That's like saying Slash is not a real guitar player if he doesn't worship Jimi Hendrix.
I never quite understand the hero bit. He was very successful and as such set a great example to follow. But he was in it for the money, and he land-grabbed a lot of stuff away from other people. It's as if somebody would buy all the land in my city. Sure, I would envy him and wonder how to get so much money, but I would not cheer him on for buying the land that used to be my playground.
You make two errors. First, you're wrong to assume he was in it for the money. He could have made a lot more money, and its clear from interviews that money is not what drove him. Secondly, you erroneously presume that capitalism is not a heroic venture. It is. Capitalists like Steve Jobs benefit mankind more than all the efforts of all the charities you could name. This wouldn't normally be so heroic, but in a society filled with people like you who want everyone enslaved to marxist ideology, it is. The idea that he "land grabbed" comes from a lack of understanding of economics, probably due to your education which taught you that an economy was a zero sum game. It isn't.
Capitalism may be a heroic venture, but buying and owning stuff is not the part benefits mankind. I was also oversimplifying with respect to "in it for the money", but the fact is he fought a lot of patent wars. Patents are simply land claims (a ka buying and owning land) and it is not all obvious that they benefit society in a heroic way - capitalism or not.
Also, sorry, but you are just stupid for assuming that I am Marxist just because I criticized some businessman. I never even mentioned any charities. Go find somebody else to vent your frustration to.
Also, sorry, but you are just stupid for assuming that I am Marxist just because I criticized some businessman. I never even mentioned any charities. Go find somebody else to vent your frustration to.
What many real hackers actually think:
"Frankly, if Steve Jobs IS one of your heroes, you're not a hacker in my book."
No, these are people who think that because they run linux and compiled a kernel once, or jail broke their phones, they are "elite". These are the people who inhabited slashdot in 2001 and said, upon introduction of the iPod "no wifi? lame". Who said the iPhone would be a failure because it didn't have a physical keyboard, who denigrated the iPad is "just a big iPod", and who complained that Apple sucked because they had no marketshare, until Apple stared dominating and they used that as an excuse to claim Apple sucked.
In short, just the kind of posers who overwhelm hacker news.
In short, just the kind of posers who overwhelm hacker news.
What I actually meant was that your comment: "Frankly, if Steve Jobs is not one of your heroes, you're not a hacker in my book." is as ridiculous and preposterous as the opposite version I posted. Please don't try to categorize hackers or HN users like that.
> someone who took LSD when he was young in order to hack his mind
I predicated my post on the meaning of the word "hacker." My parents are hackers by your definition and I only made it halfway through your post. In which case I have no disagreement because we're talking about different things - I made sure to say that in my original post.
I predicated my post on the meaning of the word "hacker." My parents are hackers by your definition and I only made it halfway through your post. In which case I have no disagreement because we're talking about different things - I made sure to say that in my original post.
You're being dishonest by quoting that one line, and ignoring the fact that I'm an electronics and software hacker. I guess, in your book, because Woz used drugs, he doesn't qualify as a hacker, eh?
This is just childish posturing on your part, since you're not an engineer. Your idea of a hacker is someone who jailbreaks their phone or installs linux on their PC and thinks they are "elite".
My idea of a hacker is someone who spends their lives designing and building hardware or software and has significant technological skills.
Your "hackers" hate Apple because Apple doesn't compete at the low end of the market selling cheap gadgets, and since your "hackers" have day jobs at retail establishments, they can't afford Apple gear.
My hackers recognize the significant engineering effort that it takes to make what Apple does look easy.
Your "hackers" hate ability and think too much is being made of Steve Jobs, because anti-capitalism has somehow become cool on a sight ostensibly about people who want to start star ups.
My hackers recognize the difficulty in making a dent in the universe with your startup, and applaud Steve Jobs as for doing so.
Steve Jobs' has hundreds of patents. I have a few. How many do you have?
This is just childish posturing on your part, since you're not an engineer. Your idea of a hacker is someone who jailbreaks their phone or installs linux on their PC and thinks they are "elite".
My idea of a hacker is someone who spends their lives designing and building hardware or software and has significant technological skills.
Your "hackers" hate Apple because Apple doesn't compete at the low end of the market selling cheap gadgets, and since your "hackers" have day jobs at retail establishments, they can't afford Apple gear.
My hackers recognize the significant engineering effort that it takes to make what Apple does look easy.
Your "hackers" hate ability and think too much is being made of Steve Jobs, because anti-capitalism has somehow become cool on a sight ostensibly about people who want to start star ups.
My hackers recognize the difficulty in making a dent in the universe with your startup, and applaud Steve Jobs as for doing so.
Steve Jobs' has hundreds of patents. I have a few. How many do you have?
> You're being dishonest by quoting that one line, and ignoring the fact that I'm an electronics and software hacker.
Your being an electronics and software hacker is irrelevant to any argument.
> I guess, in your book, because Woz used drugs, he doesn't qualify as a hacker, eh?
This argument makes no sense. You used "hack" to describe the process of taking LSD, saying that taking LSD is sufficient to make you a hacker, which I pointed out means my technology-phobic parents are also hackers. I did not say taking LSD disqualifies you from being a hacker, merely that it is not sufficient.
> This is just childish posturing on your part, since you're not an engineer.
You should let my employer know! They're wasting money on me if I'm not actually an engineer!
I'm not even going to try to continue past this point.
Your being an electronics and software hacker is irrelevant to any argument.
> I guess, in your book, because Woz used drugs, he doesn't qualify as a hacker, eh?
This argument makes no sense. You used "hack" to describe the process of taking LSD, saying that taking LSD is sufficient to make you a hacker, which I pointed out means my technology-phobic parents are also hackers. I did not say taking LSD disqualifies you from being a hacker, merely that it is not sufficient.
> This is just childish posturing on your part, since you're not an engineer.
You should let my employer know! They're wasting money on me if I'm not actually an engineer!
I'm not even going to try to continue past this point.
Could that video player have been any worse? To click the fullscreen button, you literally have to click on the darkened pixels of the icon. It's not a rectangular click area.
We specifically picked you out.
I'm not familiar with the "60 Minutes" programme, but is there really only 28mins of content? (15min + 13min videos)
I am 16% into my Kindle copy of the biography and so far the only thing that has bugged me is how cold Steve was with Daniel Kottke. He just flat out refused giving him any stock and seemed to discourage others too when they tried giving part of their own stock.
I could understand why he might not have given Wozniak the bonus - at least he gave half of the rest and may be he needed money badly. But the Kottke thing is just unexplainable. Wozniak finally ended up giving some of his options to many other neglected ones including Kottke.
The book is definitely worth a read just in case anyone was still on the fence.
I could understand why he might not have given Wozniak the bonus - at least he gave half of the rest and may be he needed money badly. But the Kottke thing is just unexplainable. Wozniak finally ended up giving some of his options to many other neglected ones including Kottke.
The book is definitely worth a read just in case anyone was still on the fence.
Thanks you, very useful!
Sigh, Videos require Flash.
What I get from this interview is that Steve Jobs was a self centered control freak. That eventually died because of it. Not sure why anyone worships this man.
Why anyone worships Jesus, or a god? Are you sure of that?
Note: I do not worship Jobs, just pointing out the --rather-- obvious.
[deleted]
One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jqSK8Qv4ZY&feature=chann... Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXcfDN6L9d8&feature=chann...