Biographer: Jobs refused early and potentially life-saving surgery(cbsnews.com)
cbsnews.com
Biographer: Jobs refused early and potentially life-saving surgery
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/20/60minutes/main20123269.shtml
14 comments
I just need to mention that tremendo's link to sciencebasedmedicine contains a MUCH higher quality of commentary than the half-dozen other articles I've read on the subject. I know an upvote ought to be enough, but it didn't seem so.
I'm sure he's resting just fine. This is a biography that is for us to contemplate and discuss. It's quoting his own words.
Edit: removed "authorized" from biography since I don't know for sure.
Edit: removed "authorized" from biography since I don't know for sure.
You could have left authorized in. Walter Isaacson was his official biographer.
I recall Stephen Fry's great comments on Steve Job's "Apple stands at the intersection of technology and the liberal arts." statement.
But it has always bothered me that the age of reason also means the age when the scientific principle and liberal arts not only split but often end up with an "us vs. them" relationship.
This may be one of the least coherent and strangest things I've ever tried to express on the Internet. But I suspect that if we as a civilization were not capable of making a distinction between the hard sciences and the liberal arts, then Steve Jobs would have sought early medical treatment and would be alive today and for many years more.
Allow me to try and explain. The leading smart people used to be expected to know both the "science" of the day and the arts.
But then we get the age of reason and people start to specialize in one or the other, but rarely both. And we do end up with two separate and often defined against each other areas of knowledge.
Does this make sense? Just google image search for Millau Viaduct and tell me that product of engineering isn't also art.
I think the world has lost something by this split. I think engineering and science have lost a bit to. But I also suspect the liberal arts have lost a lot by not requiring a thorough knowledge of the hard science as a foundation.
Hell, I wish doctors were required to learn and know A LOT more math and statistics.
Somewhat ironically math is still considered an art at our universities.
But by not requiring a deep, and I mean deep knowledge of hard science for any liberal arts degree, our great institutions have created an artificial separation between learned people.
And there's also this distinct sense of mystique, an accidentally created legend about non-science "knowledge". This sense that the demon haunted world contains nuggets of powerful knowledge which would be evaporated if the light of the candle that is science would shine on them.
This mythical belief plagues society in surprising ways.
I think Steve Jobs decision to first try "alternative medicine" is party because of this.
And while every typical western (North America and Europe) university has "core" requirements, I think that's a joke. I think if instead everyone had to learn an almost equal share of hard science and liberal arts for any degree, then we'd have a better civilization.
But it has always bothered me that the age of reason also means the age when the scientific principle and liberal arts not only split but often end up with an "us vs. them" relationship.
This may be one of the least coherent and strangest things I've ever tried to express on the Internet. But I suspect that if we as a civilization were not capable of making a distinction between the hard sciences and the liberal arts, then Steve Jobs would have sought early medical treatment and would be alive today and for many years more.
Allow me to try and explain. The leading smart people used to be expected to know both the "science" of the day and the arts.
But then we get the age of reason and people start to specialize in one or the other, but rarely both. And we do end up with two separate and often defined against each other areas of knowledge.
Does this make sense? Just google image search for Millau Viaduct and tell me that product of engineering isn't also art.
I think the world has lost something by this split. I think engineering and science have lost a bit to. But I also suspect the liberal arts have lost a lot by not requiring a thorough knowledge of the hard science as a foundation.
Hell, I wish doctors were required to learn and know A LOT more math and statistics.
Somewhat ironically math is still considered an art at our universities.
But by not requiring a deep, and I mean deep knowledge of hard science for any liberal arts degree, our great institutions have created an artificial separation between learned people.
And there's also this distinct sense of mystique, an accidentally created legend about non-science "knowledge". This sense that the demon haunted world contains nuggets of powerful knowledge which would be evaporated if the light of the candle that is science would shine on them.
This mythical belief plagues society in surprising ways.
I think Steve Jobs decision to first try "alternative medicine" is party because of this.
And while every typical western (North America and Europe) university has "core" requirements, I think that's a joke. I think if instead everyone had to learn an almost equal share of hard science and liberal arts for any degree, then we'd have a better civilization.
Jobs may not have acted irrationally. Have you looked into the procedure that he needed? It is not a tonsilectomy. Here is the latest I found about the surgery:
"Over the last 15 years major pancreatic centers in the United States have developed excellent results for the Whipple surgery. In almost all the major centers the death rate from this surgery is now less than 5%."
That is a 1 in 20 chance of dying on the operating table - makes base jumping seem safe.
"Over the last 15 years major pancreatic centers in the United States have developed excellent results for the Whipple surgery. In almost all the major centers the death rate from this surgery is now less than 5%."
That is a 1 in 20 chance of dying on the operating table - makes base jumping seem safe.
Seriously, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_procedure. If you are a visual learner, check the illustration here: http://www.patientedu.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/PrintOnly.aspx...
"A Whipple involves removing the head of the pancreas, the duodenum, the common bile duct, the gallbladder, and often part of the stomach (see illustration). Surgeons then seal off the end of the small intestine and reattach what's left of the bile duct, pancreas (body and tail), and stomach."
It sounds like something Dr. Frankenstein would do.
It is a major rearranging of your guts, with potentially severe dietary restrictions for life.
"A Whipple involves removing the head of the pancreas, the duodenum, the common bile duct, the gallbladder, and often part of the stomach (see illustration). Surgeons then seal off the end of the small intestine and reattach what's left of the bile duct, pancreas (body and tail), and stomach."
It sounds like something Dr. Frankenstein would do.
It is a major rearranging of your guts, with potentially severe dietary restrictions for life.
It's something that my father-in-law had to go through a couple of years ago (the all "let's take out half of his intestines away"). Ironically, he was later diagnosed as not having had pancreatic cancer, which is good, because he's still alive. But yeah, it's a hell of a surgery, he was on the surgery table for 7 hours straight and after a couple of hours the main surgeon just wanted to give up, but somehow my brother-in-law bribed the lead-nurse and she convinced said surgeon to do his best, which he did (this is Romania, things like these happen).
There was an oncologist speculating on Quora that Jobs had to have the Whipple because he waited so long and the cancer presumably spread. Had he acted promptly it would have been a much less complicated surgery.
To each his own though -- whatever drove Jobs to seek alternative medicine first is part and parcel of the personality that gave us all he did.
To each his own though -- whatever drove Jobs to seek alternative medicine first is part and parcel of the personality that gave us all he did.
He had to have the Whipple because of where his tumor was located (the head, not the tail, of his pancreas).
Which is still a much better chance than trying to defeat the cancer with alternative medicine...
It depends. If you look at the peer-reviewed research, you'll see that pharmaceuticals and surgery are not the only option (depending on the disease, of course).
I started http://www.reddit.com/r/altmed/ (non-pharmaceutical medicine based on peer-reviewed research) because in the cancer lab I work in we review this stuff all the time but it doesn't seem to have sunk in to the mainstream yet. Based on my understanding of the research, there are some things everybody with cancer should be doing which research suggests may raise survival rates (eg. proper vitamin D levels, high magnesium intake, lots of antioxidants, etc).
I started http://www.reddit.com/r/altmed/ (non-pharmaceutical medicine based on peer-reviewed research) because in the cancer lab I work in we review this stuff all the time but it doesn't seem to have sunk in to the mainstream yet. Based on my understanding of the research, there are some things everybody with cancer should be doing which research suggests may raise survival rates (eg. proper vitamin D levels, high magnesium intake, lots of antioxidants, etc).
"Non-pharmaceuticals" and "alternative medicine" are distinct but overlapping sets. In any case, to quote Tim Minchin: "Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proven to work? Medicine."
And peer-reviewed research is great and all, but it's unrealistic to expect things to sink into the mainstream when research can only currently suggest rather than actively recommend. Antioxidants are one of the most mainstream "cancer-protectors" in the UK, but among positive studies you will also find negative studies; particular antioxidants that are good, and some that actually lower survival rates![0] Certainly they're easy steps that people can take which are unlikely to have a negative impact, but it is not an option on the same footing as pharmaceuticals and surgery. Not even close.
[0] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/07/us-antioxidants-id...
And peer-reviewed research is great and all, but it's unrealistic to expect things to sink into the mainstream when research can only currently suggest rather than actively recommend. Antioxidants are one of the most mainstream "cancer-protectors" in the UK, but among positive studies you will also find negative studies; particular antioxidants that are good, and some that actually lower survival rates![0] Certainly they're easy steps that people can take which are unlikely to have a negative impact, but it is not an option on the same footing as pharmaceuticals and surgery. Not even close.
[0] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/07/us-antioxidants-id...
From what I understand, your main point is that there is no need to call it "alternative" medicine because something is either medicine or it is not.
I agree with your sentiment. The problem lies with our current crop of medical professionals. Many doctors do not continue learning after residency. They tend to get stuck in their habits and stay there. Those that do continue to learn often will not look at anything unless it is a traditional pharmaceutical drug.
To give you an example, if a woman presents with menstruation issues most doctors will prescribe a progesterone product of some sort. This will jump-start a woman's cycle. On the surface, the problem is solved.
Dig deeper, and you find studies like this one (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039128X99...) which present clear evidence that simply getting vitamin D levels normalized might solve the deeper problem, with essentially zero side effects, and restore the menstrual cycle.
Many doctors would never think to do this, because it simply doesn't fit into the current traditional-medicine paradigm. This paradigm is basically, "Find symptoms, diagnose, prescribe pharmaceutical drug." Even if non-pharmaceutical drugs (such as vitamin D) exist for the disease, doctors won't use them.
AFAIK, Europe and Japan are light years ahead on this front. They act more according to your philosophy, "If it's medicine, we will use it." But in the US, almost all traditional doctors fit into the pharmaceutical mold.
This, in my opinion, is what is meant by "alternative" in alternative medicine. It is an alternative to the paradigm of "pharmaceuticals only," and not what you imply, an "alternative to medicine."
The next thing you said is "but it's unrealistic to expect things to sink into the mainstream when research can only currently suggest rather than actively recommend."
All drugs (pharmaceutical or otherwise) fit into this category. The research comes out, which suggests a certain outcome. Doctors look at the research (or in many cases they read pamphlets or marketing material from pharmaceutical companies or follow recommendations from their hospital employer), and if they find the research compelling they will recommend the drug based on that. This is true of all medicine, and peer-reviewed research is the best way to get a good picture of what the science currently says. You seem to suggest that peer-reviewed research only carries a small amount of weight, and I respectfully disagree.
Finally, hand-picking antioxidants and setting it up against surgery and pharmaceuticals is a straw-man. For every disease, you will find a variety of potential treatments. You will find treatments from the world of surgery, from pharmaceutical medicine, and from non-pharmaceutical medicine. A good doctor (or a motivated and intelligent patient) has the task of sifting through the research to find out which option is best, or if a variety of options should be combined.
To use your example on cancer, popping some antioxidants isn't the alternative to pharmaceuticals and surgery. A complete solution that takes into account the whole picture is the reasonable answer.
That will probably include things like the following:
* Surgery if it is the type of cancer that can be treated with surgery
* Pharmaceutical drugs that have shown promise in treating that particular cancer
* Checking and maximizing vitamin D blood levels (helps the cells express p53, among other things, which helps cancer cells begin apoptosis aka suicide)
* Checking and maximizing intracellular magnesium levels (very important co-factor for vitamin D)
* Ensuring powerful anti-cancer antioxidants are in the diet (spirulina, chlorella, resveratrol, etc.)
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. :-) I'm pre-med, and I feel quite strongly about the subject. Sorry for the essay!
I agree with your sentiment. The problem lies with our current crop of medical professionals. Many doctors do not continue learning after residency. They tend to get stuck in their habits and stay there. Those that do continue to learn often will not look at anything unless it is a traditional pharmaceutical drug.
To give you an example, if a woman presents with menstruation issues most doctors will prescribe a progesterone product of some sort. This will jump-start a woman's cycle. On the surface, the problem is solved.
Dig deeper, and you find studies like this one (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039128X99...) which present clear evidence that simply getting vitamin D levels normalized might solve the deeper problem, with essentially zero side effects, and restore the menstrual cycle.
Many doctors would never think to do this, because it simply doesn't fit into the current traditional-medicine paradigm. This paradigm is basically, "Find symptoms, diagnose, prescribe pharmaceutical drug." Even if non-pharmaceutical drugs (such as vitamin D) exist for the disease, doctors won't use them.
AFAIK, Europe and Japan are light years ahead on this front. They act more according to your philosophy, "If it's medicine, we will use it." But in the US, almost all traditional doctors fit into the pharmaceutical mold.
This, in my opinion, is what is meant by "alternative" in alternative medicine. It is an alternative to the paradigm of "pharmaceuticals only," and not what you imply, an "alternative to medicine."
The next thing you said is "but it's unrealistic to expect things to sink into the mainstream when research can only currently suggest rather than actively recommend."
All drugs (pharmaceutical or otherwise) fit into this category. The research comes out, which suggests a certain outcome. Doctors look at the research (or in many cases they read pamphlets or marketing material from pharmaceutical companies or follow recommendations from their hospital employer), and if they find the research compelling they will recommend the drug based on that. This is true of all medicine, and peer-reviewed research is the best way to get a good picture of what the science currently says. You seem to suggest that peer-reviewed research only carries a small amount of weight, and I respectfully disagree.
Finally, hand-picking antioxidants and setting it up against surgery and pharmaceuticals is a straw-man. For every disease, you will find a variety of potential treatments. You will find treatments from the world of surgery, from pharmaceutical medicine, and from non-pharmaceutical medicine. A good doctor (or a motivated and intelligent patient) has the task of sifting through the research to find out which option is best, or if a variety of options should be combined.
To use your example on cancer, popping some antioxidants isn't the alternative to pharmaceuticals and surgery. A complete solution that takes into account the whole picture is the reasonable answer.
That will probably include things like the following:
* Surgery if it is the type of cancer that can be treated with surgery
* Pharmaceutical drugs that have shown promise in treating that particular cancer
* Checking and maximizing vitamin D blood levels (helps the cells express p53, among other things, which helps cancer cells begin apoptosis aka suicide)
* Checking and maximizing intracellular magnesium levels (very important co-factor for vitamin D)
* Ensuring powerful anti-cancer antioxidants are in the diet (spirulina, chlorella, resveratrol, etc.)
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. :-) I'm pre-med, and I feel quite strongly about the subject. Sorry for the essay!
He was faced with the choice of:
roll a D20, if you don't get 20 roll again to see how many years you live.
Or
Roll a D8 to see how many years you live.
He chose the D8 and then tried the first choice when he realized he had rolled a 3
roll a D20, if you don't get 20 roll again to see how many years you live.
Or
Roll a D8 to see how many years you live.
He chose the D8 and then tried the first choice when he realized he had rolled a 3
Except he was told by any sane, rational doctor that waiting 9 months is the equivalent of rolling nothing. You can't let a tumor sit around for 9 months hoping bamboo shoots and green tea enemas cure your cancer. I can't see how this is remotely rational.
Those are our odds. His odds, considering his vast wealthy, would be potentially better (better doctors, hospitals, etc). So in other words he chose a the best high-risk naturopath approach over the best low-risk surgical approach. He found the best woo merchants out there and he paid for it with his life. I'm not sure why so many are defending him. Yes, he made consumer goods slightly better than his competition, but he's still human and made a pretty terrible mistake. If anything, we should publicize this so other people don't make this mistake.
Those are our odds. His odds, considering his vast wealthy, would be potentially better (better doctors, hospitals, etc). So in other words he chose a the best high-risk naturopath approach over the best low-risk surgical approach. He found the best woo merchants out there and he paid for it with his life. I'm not sure why so many are defending him. Yes, he made consumer goods slightly better than his competition, but he's still human and made a pretty terrible mistake. If anything, we should publicize this so other people don't make this mistake.
I've known a few people, close friends parents and a family member die of cancer. You can struggle on through chemo and radiation therapy for 4-5 years or you can go in 6 months. I'm not sure I can say which one is best. The ops are by no means magic cures, if you survive the op you are in a lot of pain from chemo and radio therapy. Example, Morphine sickness is pretty horrific. Quite common for people to reject it and take the pain because you feel so bad on it.
Having seen that and if I knew that I had a cancer which was very unlikely to be cured I would definitely consider not going through with the surgery. Better to die quickly than live in constant pain for another 5 years?
Its easy to make the stretch to trying a bit of alt medicine. It's is not going to make things any worse than they are, if anything the placebo effect of feeling you are in control is probably quite strong.
I don't think it's easy for a healthy person to understand what's going through someones mind when they're faced with this.
Having seen that and if I knew that I had a cancer which was very unlikely to be cured I would definitely consider not going through with the surgery. Better to die quickly than live in constant pain for another 5 years?
Its easy to make the stretch to trying a bit of alt medicine. It's is not going to make things any worse than they are, if anything the placebo effect of feeling you are in control is probably quite strong.
I don't think it's easy for a healthy person to understand what's going through someones mind when they're faced with this.
Green tea actually does have cancer-fighting properties, it's anti-angiogenic. It's also involved in preventing and/or reversing the methylation of epigeneteic cancer genes.
That sounds nice, but is there good evidence that this actually happens, or that if it happens that it improves outcomes or quality of life? A bit of time on Google finds http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cam/green-tea-review, which at least found that it probably wouldn’t make things any worse.
That depends on how much you value right now.
A risk of going immediately, or the guarantee of a few more nows with the potential of going sooner than "normal" later?
It's not a trivial decision.
A risk of going immediately, or the guarantee of a few more nows with the potential of going sooner than "normal" later?
It's not a trivial decision.
> In almost all the major centers the death rate from this surgery is now less than 5%.
That implies the worst major centers have a maximum of 5% death rate. Steve Jobs would certainly go to one of the best hospitals, which I assume would have a much lower rate.
That implies the worst major centers have a maximum of 5% death rate. Steve Jobs would certainly go to one of the best hospitals, which I assume would have a much lower rate.
Nope. If there was any big variation between those worse and best "major centers", there would have been an examination and heads would have rolled (plus lawsuits). Big differences in death rates is not what differentiates a worse and a better clinic.
Rationality says that this is a pretty good chance, infinitely better if you include the probability of dying from cancer.
Yes, as opposed to 20/20 chances of dying of the same cancer outside the operating table.
I find it dangerously bizarre and stupid when people try to separate science, art and physical.
A talk I listened to a few weeks ago that was delivered at BYU (Meaning some of it is spoken in a religious context) called "Why Scientists Should Read Shakespeare and Why Humanists Should Understand Einstein" covered this same/similar principle.
A talk I listened to a few weeks ago that was delivered at BYU (Meaning some of it is spoken in a religious context) called "Why Scientists Should Read Shakespeare and Why Humanists Should Understand Einstein" covered this same/similar principle.
Well I'll be darned.
I don't think I've ever seen this, but maybe I did and forgot it wasn't my idea. So I fully admit I've never had an 100% original thought.
I don't think I've ever seen this, but maybe I did and forgot it wasn't my idea. So I fully admit I've never had an 100% original thought.
> But I also suspect the liberal arts have lost a lot by not requiring a thorough knowledge of the hard science as a foundation.
Okay, but how? 10-year Bachelor's degrees? Part of the reason why the world is getting more specialized is that there is more knowledge out there to be known. A thorough knowledge of the hard sciences is not something you can squeeze into a semester.
Okay, but how? 10-year Bachelor's degrees? Part of the reason why the world is getting more specialized is that there is more knowledge out there to be known. A thorough knowledge of the hard sciences is not something you can squeeze into a semester.
Exactly. Cramming such amounts of knowledge into every individual is terribly inefficient.
I could only care slightly less for Steve Jobs, but this comment was an excellent read. lol @ doctors needing to know more stats, so true.
"But by not requiring a deep, and I mean deep knowledge of hard science for any liberal arts degree, our great institutions have created an artificial separation between learned people."
But I think it goes both ways; I'd like to see more hard scientists with a strong background in the liberal arts.
Reminds me of how Oxford (it might still do so) calls their Physics degree/certification a degree in Natural Philosophy.
"But by not requiring a deep, and I mean deep knowledge of hard science for any liberal arts degree, our great institutions have created an artificial separation between learned people."
But I think it goes both ways; I'd like to see more hard scientists with a strong background in the liberal arts.
Reminds me of how Oxford (it might still do so) calls their Physics degree/certification a degree in Natural Philosophy.
> But I think it goes both ways; I'd like to see more hard scientists with a strong background in the liberal arts.
Exactly, I actually kind of have a little bit of sympathy for a guy like Oppenheimer that cited John Donne and the Bhagavad Gita after the first nuclear test (even though even the thought of nuclear bombs almost makes me sick to my stomach), but I suspect that today's scientists are not that versed in "liberal arts".
Exactly, I actually kind of have a little bit of sympathy for a guy like Oppenheimer that cited John Donne and the Bhagavad Gita after the first nuclear test (even though even the thought of nuclear bombs almost makes me sick to my stomach), but I suspect that today's scientists are not that versed in "liberal arts".
I try to be one of those scientists who is also well-versed in the humanities.
There are very few rewards for it, though, apart from a smug feeling of superiority to everybody and a massive further decrease in the number of people with whom I have anything in common. :)
There are very few rewards for it, though, apart from a smug feeling of superiority to everybody and a massive further decrease in the number of people with whom I have anything in common. :)
Wait a minute, being knowledgeable in the humanities should vastly increase the number of people with whom you have something in common!
[deleted]
I found this interesting too: "he saw Apple staffers turn into "bizarro people" by the riches the Apple stock offering created. Isaacson says Jobs vowed never to let his wealth change him."
I wonder what he'll consider to be bizarro.
I wonder what he'll consider to be bizarro.
I've always wondered about Steve's decision to severely limit stock distribution at Pixar when it had its IPO. What he did was apparently legal, but many staffers there felt like they were treated unfairly. A theory I've been considering is that Steve did it to avoid changing the people who made Pixar what it was[1]. I mean, Steve certainly didn't seem like he cared about having the money, except maybe to say "told you so" to all those who doubted him after his removal from Apple. Just something that seems to fit with the facts that I'm aware of.
[1] Of course, John Lasseter, for one, ended up with a load of money and nobody could argue that he changed. He just went from collecting toy train sets to having actual train sets installed in his backyard.
[1] Of course, John Lasseter, for one, ended up with a load of money and nobody could argue that he changed. He just went from collecting toy train sets to having actual train sets installed in his backyard.
Didn't he do the same thing during Apple's IPO? I was under the impression that Apple employees only received stock because Woz voluntarily gave up some of his own to form an employee pool.
It's this tight-fisted aspect of Jobs that makes it difficult for me to appreciate him on a non-professional level.
It's this tight-fisted aspect of Jobs that makes it difficult for me to appreciate him on a non-professional level.
When you work with people you could at least respect their right to make their own mistakes and to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I found the previous sentence more interesting.
"Another aspect of Jobs' character revealed was his disdain for conspicuous consumption."
I definitely see some incongruency there!
"Another aspect of Jobs' character revealed was his disdain for conspicuous consumption."
I definitely see some incongruency there!
Why? Did jobs show off his Ferrari, did he wear $10,000 bespoke suits? Did he buy anything at all that demonstrates status and wealth?
Jobs was NOT a conspicuous consumer. At all. All of his purchases were justified based on utility - albeit as someone who appreciates art, he considered beauty to be a utility. Psychologists like Maslow would agree with that.
Beauty leads to good feelings as surely as food and shelter do. He bought stuff for himself, not to show off.
Jobs was NOT a conspicuous consumer. At all. All of his purchases were justified based on utility - albeit as someone who appreciates art, he considered beauty to be a utility. Psychologists like Maslow would agree with that.
Beauty leads to good feelings as surely as food and shelter do. He bought stuff for himself, not to show off.
im guessing the OP was referring to the fact that apple products could be considered as a conspicuous consumer item
If Apple products were a conspicuous consumption item, they'd have diamonds embedded, and gold plating. And they'd cost enough in order to not be owned by practically everybody, because conspicuous consumption loses its appeal when you have the same phone as the fourteen-year-old ghetto kid on the bus.
A statement that may have some degree of truth to it (disclaimer: I own at least 4 of these products and indirectly worked on them), but strange to rant about it on HN of all places.
[deleted]
Are you referring to the perception of Apple as a luxury brand?
I also wonder if that's Apple the first time (IPO) or the second time (when the stock surged so much).
It's probably the first time since, by the second time, he would've already been very rich and, by then, money would've changed him, if it was going to at all.
I was extremely surprised to read that the guy in charge of a company that almost exclusively produces highly expensive 1st-world gadgetry was himself disdainful of conspicuous consumption.
There's a difference between consumption and conspicuous consumption.
True, but Apple products have strong aspects of both. They make some great and highly useful stuff, but there is truth in the jokes about people not buying the 4GS because other people can't tell it's better the new model. Look also at the Apple commercials, which are chock full the message that Apple products are high status. Hell, the word chosen from the dictionary to advertise the iPad is "erudite" while classical music plays in the background.
What Apple has done has brought technology into the realm of mainstream consumption, not conspicuous consumption. People have said the same thing about Macs since forever. "People buy Apple products to be noticed." When you're selling hundreds of thousands of phones each day, you no longer become conspicuous.
Jobs has said himself (I'm referencing his 1997 WWDC keynote) that it's not necessarily better to "think different". He said he didn't care about being different, he wanted to be better. And if being better was being different, then so be it.
Jobs has said himself (I'm referencing his 1997 WWDC keynote) that it's not necessarily better to "think different". He said he didn't care about being different, he wanted to be better. And if being better was being different, then so be it.
> When you're selling hundreds of thousands of phones each day, you no longer become conspicuous.
No true. Increased availability of a product certain reduces the status associated with it, but products serving the purpose of conspicuous consumption exist at almost every level of affordability. There are some product which only the top 0.1% can afford and others which 90% of the population can afford. (Even the homeless community has a hierarchy partially defined by possessions.) Further, the degree to which a product exists to be conspicuously consumed is a continuum, in which the iPhone sits around the middle (although falling, due to it's sales).
Do you really think people, when deciding whether to buy an iPad, don't factor in the fact that all of their friends will ooh and ahh over it when they first see it?
No true. Increased availability of a product certain reduces the status associated with it, but products serving the purpose of conspicuous consumption exist at almost every level of affordability. There are some product which only the top 0.1% can afford and others which 90% of the population can afford. (Even the homeless community has a hierarchy partially defined by possessions.) Further, the degree to which a product exists to be conspicuously consumed is a continuum, in which the iPhone sits around the middle (although falling, due to it's sales).
Do you really think people, when deciding whether to buy an iPad, don't factor in the fact that all of their friends will ooh and ahh over it when they first see it?
Aw c'mon, Apple products don't count as "conspicuous consumption". They're fairly small and unobtrusive. Sure, they're a bit self-marketing (white earphones and big illuminated Apple logos on the back of your laptop) but that's not conspicuous consumption.
Gucci is conspicuous consumption. Bugatti is conspicuous consumption. Diamonds in your teeth is conspicuous consumption. Personal electronics are just plain ol' regular consumption.
Gucci is conspicuous consumption. Bugatti is conspicuous consumption. Diamonds in your teeth is conspicuous consumption. Personal electronics are just plain ol' regular consumption.
The same arguments about how apple products are not conspicuous consumption can be applied to gucci and bugatti.
If you get a real pair of gucci shoes from the store (not from the department stores), you really feel like you are walking on air, and you can walk for miles in these dress shoes without forming boils on your feet.
I don't have a bugatti yet :P But BMW and porsches drive effortlessly and brake effectively, which really help when a taxi cab tries to cut you off.
Now, tying this back to apple, the macbook airs are lighter than most netbooks yet still perform better than many monster dell laptops. It's somewhat nonsensical to try to argue that apple products aren't as lavish as gucci or bugatti.
If you get a real pair of gucci shoes from the store (not from the department stores), you really feel like you are walking on air, and you can walk for miles in these dress shoes without forming boils on your feet.
I don't have a bugatti yet :P But BMW and porsches drive effortlessly and brake effectively, which really help when a taxi cab tries to cut you off.
Now, tying this back to apple, the macbook airs are lighter than most netbooks yet still perform better than many monster dell laptops. It's somewhat nonsensical to try to argue that apple products aren't as lavish as gucci or bugatti.
I refuse to take lectures on conspicuous consumption from somebody called "Veyron".
Seriously though, I concede that there's a gradient from "sensible consumption" to "conspicuous consumption". I'd classify a Mercedes as "sensible" rather than "conspicuous", unless you plate it in gold like this guy:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/23/gold-fingers-mercedes-c63...
I also concede that Gucci shoes (which aren't that expensive or that ostentatious) aren't the best example. I was thinking more of a Gucci t-shirt. But I probably should have chosen a different brand.
Seriously though, I concede that there's a gradient from "sensible consumption" to "conspicuous consumption". I'd classify a Mercedes as "sensible" rather than "conspicuous", unless you plate it in gold like this guy:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/23/gold-fingers-mercedes-c63...
I also concede that Gucci shoes (which aren't that expensive or that ostentatious) aren't the best example. I was thinking more of a Gucci t-shirt. But I probably should have chosen a different brand.
seriously? even if those personal electronics are priced at a hefty premium over their counterparts?
> seriously? even if those personal electronics are priced at a hefty premium over their counterparts?
Which has ceased to be the case for Apple products for quite a while now.
Which has ceased to be the case for Apple products for quite a while now.
Whether they are or not (and that's a very boring debate I don't wanna get into)... no, not unless the premium is huge and obvious.
Wikipedia sez: "Conspicuous consumption is spending on goods and services acquired mainly for the purpose of displaying income or wealth." That's not a very good description of why people buy Apple products. They're just not expensive enough or pointless enough to make a good target for your conspicuous-consumption dollars.
This is what conspicuous consumption in the consumer electronics field looks like:
http://www.goldphoneshop.com/
Wikipedia sez: "Conspicuous consumption is spending on goods and services acquired mainly for the purpose of displaying income or wealth." That's not a very good description of why people buy Apple products. They're just not expensive enough or pointless enough to make a good target for your conspicuous-consumption dollars.
This is what conspicuous consumption in the consumer electronics field looks like:
http://www.goldphoneshop.com/
We really don't know how much Apple charges for their hardware because they bundle their software with it, and they don't tell us how much the software costs either.
If we assume Windows and OS X took similar developer efforts, the smaller market for OS X means it is going to cost a lot more than Windows in order to recoup the costs of development. That is simple economics. Looking to iOS, it has a much larger market and Apple's mobile devices are quite competitive price wise, which supports the software cost factor.
You might find a higher sticker price on a Mac, but it is a pretty safe assumption that the added cost is to get you into OS X. Which just so happens to be the only reason why you would consider purchasing a Mac in the first place.
If we assume Windows and OS X took similar developer efforts, the smaller market for OS X means it is going to cost a lot more than Windows in order to recoup the costs of development. That is simple economics. Looking to iOS, it has a much larger market and Apple's mobile devices are quite competitive price wise, which supports the software cost factor.
You might find a higher sticker price on a Mac, but it is a pretty safe assumption that the added cost is to get you into OS X. Which just so happens to be the only reason why you would consider purchasing a Mac in the first place.
You might find a higher sticker price on a Mac, but it is a pretty safe assumption that the added cost is to get you into OS X. Which just so happens to be the only reason why you would consider purchasing a Mac in the first place.
You might find a higher sticker price on a Gucci, but it is a pretty safe assumption that the added cost is to get you into Gucci. Which just so happens to be the only reason why you would consider purchasing a Gucci in the first place.
You might find a higher sticker price on a Gucci, but it is a pretty safe assumption that the added cost is to get you into Gucci. Which just so happens to be the only reason why you would consider purchasing a Gucci in the first place.
Hey, why even buy a luxurious PC? Just throw some parts together and install Linux. There couldn't possibly be any reason to choose a difference operating systems except status, right?
There is no hefty premium over COMPARABLE counterparts. People just compare any junk say Dell with the same hardware specs (memory, processor, disk, chipset, etc) to a MBP.
Open a Dell and a MBP though, and take a peek.
Have the same money been spend on the Dells internal case design? Is the Dell assembled with the same attention to detail? Does the Dell sport various small and big innovations, from the mag safe adapter to auto-inverted Ethernet port, non protruding camera, lid magnets, etc? Does the Dell have a unique in industry machined aluminum "concrete" case design? Is it as light? Is it as thin? Is is as sturdy? Was even the industrial designer designing the Dell as well paid and respected by his peers as Ives? Oh, and does the Dell hold its resale value just as well?
Now, if you take a high-end Sony or Lenovo laptop, with comparable construction, it's often the case that the Apple laptop is cheaper or same price.
Oh, and regarding tablets, media players and phones, Apple completely smoked the competition in pricing. Wasn't the Samsung tablet for example like $799 for a version competing (badly) with the $499 iPad?
Open a Dell and a MBP though, and take a peek.
Have the same money been spend on the Dells internal case design? Is the Dell assembled with the same attention to detail? Does the Dell sport various small and big innovations, from the mag safe adapter to auto-inverted Ethernet port, non protruding camera, lid magnets, etc? Does the Dell have a unique in industry machined aluminum "concrete" case design? Is it as light? Is it as thin? Is is as sturdy? Was even the industrial designer designing the Dell as well paid and respected by his peers as Ives? Oh, and does the Dell hold its resale value just as well?
Now, if you take a high-end Sony or Lenovo laptop, with comparable construction, it's often the case that the Apple laptop is cheaper or same price.
Oh, and regarding tablets, media players and phones, Apple completely smoked the competition in pricing. Wasn't the Samsung tablet for example like $799 for a version competing (badly) with the $499 iPad?
People just compare any junk say Dell with the same hardware specs (memory, processor, disk, chipset, etc) to a MBP.
you prove my point. To you computer isn't just a piece of commodity. It IS a status symbol, a thing to revere.
I guess it is the same to me since I write this from my MBP.
you prove my point. To you computer isn't just a piece of commodity. It IS a status symbol, a thing to revere.
I guess it is the same to me since I write this from my MBP.
It isn't just a status symbol. That cheapens what Apple offers.
My father was a mechanic who bought tools from a specific supplier that was regularly 3-5x more expensive than generic tools. The reason? They would last 10x longer and work twice as well.
I see my MBP as a tool. It is worth the premium for quality.
My father was a mechanic who bought tools from a specific supplier that was regularly 3-5x more expensive than generic tools. The reason? They would last 10x longer and work twice as well.
I see my MBP as a tool. It is worth the premium for quality.
I really think you need to look up what "conspicuous consumption" means. It isn't just about buying a slightly better, slightly more expensive version of a product. It's about spending money purely for the sake of showing off how much money you can afford to spend.
Appreciating a product for being well-made doesn't make it a status symbol. People can like quality products themselves, not just the showing-off of them.
I think he's making a point about components and the laptop's manufacturing: even if you do find a Dell with components that compare to a MBP, that Dell is made of cheap plastic with a WiFi antenna that works intermittently, comes with bloatware, etc.
And features those nice Intel Inside, Windows 7, NVIDIA, Jeremy was here, etc stickers...
I don't see how I "proved your point".
A "status symbol" means I use it to increase my social status. Which I do not, or don't even care about. I do, however, care about the small (and large) details though, because they make my life better.
Is wanting a less heavy laptop wanting a "status symbol"? Or thinking that a magnetic lid is better than an ugly protruding prone-to-break piece of plastic? Or wanting a laptop with a nice case design? By your logic, anyone wanting a beautiful spouse is because he wants to use him/her as a status symbol. How about appreciating beauty for what it is and how it makes US feel?
"Commodity" does not mean that you are equally satisfied with anything as long as it does the basics of what you want. Food is a commodity too, but I prefer a nice restaurant to a fast food joint, because it is better there, even if both can equally take care of my hunger.
A "status symbol" means I use it to increase my social status. Which I do not, or don't even care about. I do, however, care about the small (and large) details though, because they make my life better.
Is wanting a less heavy laptop wanting a "status symbol"? Or thinking that a magnetic lid is better than an ugly protruding prone-to-break piece of plastic? Or wanting a laptop with a nice case design? By your logic, anyone wanting a beautiful spouse is because he wants to use him/her as a status symbol. How about appreciating beauty for what it is and how it makes US feel?
"Commodity" does not mean that you are equally satisfied with anything as long as it does the basics of what you want. Food is a commodity too, but I prefer a nice restaurant to a fast food joint, because it is better there, even if both can equally take care of my hunger.
There was also a detailed answer related to this a few days ago on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Steve-Jobs/Why-did-Steve-Jobs-choose-no...
EDIT: Please see the link to the answer comment below, which I hadn't seen until now. As always, a grain of salt and all that...
EDIT: Please see the link to the answer comment below, which I hadn't seen until now. As always, a grain of salt and all that...
Side comment:
The mobile version of that link was exceptionally painful. A short article was split to 5 pages. Wow.
CBS's mobile site is atrocious. Their online content is often riddled with poor grammar and typos as well. I consider CBS to be a premier journalistic institution, but their website makes them look like a high school newspaper. It's too bad, really.
There is a 'view full story' button at the bottom that gives you a single page.
So click "next" 4 times. It was annoying, but not a big deal...
In actual usage, it can often end up being significantly more than 4 times, especially in mobile where you might end up going through a tunnel, or leaving cell reception entirely before you finish the article.
Oh, good point! Thanks!
I thought a much detailed explanation was found in another article that was posted to HN earlier this month [1].
The article referred to a 2008 blog post about that.
---
[1] http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to... and HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3080176
The article referred to a 2008 blog post about that.
---
[1] http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to... and HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3080176
I don't think his decision to refuse surgery was a 'stupid decision', he was just being human. Steve's success in tech should not make him in the eyes of people be super human. Even in tech, successful people make lot of mistakes; history just records successes.
I don't think his decision to refuse surgery was a 'stupid decision', he was just being human.
I'm afraid I don't see the distinction between "being human" and "making stupid decisions".
I'm afraid I don't see the distinction between "being human" and "making stupid decisions".
In the context of Kroft asking "how such an intelligent man could make such a seemingly stupid decision", human are naturally afraid of surgery, no want want their body open unless they have no choice; Steve too.
Just because he is a human doesn't mean that it's not a stupid decision, it will always be a stupid decision nothing will change that.
That implies that living at all costs is the "smart" thing to do.
[deleted]
Maybe there is more to the actual story but the article provides zero support to the headline as per the the surgery being 'life-saving'. It is even referenced as a 'stupid decision' to have put it off.
Pancreatic cancer has a dismal 5-yr survival rate - much less a 'cure' rate. This feels like a tabloid-y headline given the apparent lack of reality behind that statement.
Pancreatic cancer has a dismal 5-yr survival rate - much less a 'cure' rate. This feels like a tabloid-y headline given the apparent lack of reality behind that statement.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/...
"Jobs sought to assure colleagues that he was not suffering from a more common -- and more deadly -- cancer of the pancreas."
Jobs: "I had a very rare form of pancreatic cancer called an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor, which represents about 1 percent of the total cases of pancreatic cancer diagnosed each year, and can be cured by surgical removal if diagnosed in time (mine was)."
If he really had an "islet cell neuroendocrine tumor" he really had the chance to live much longer than he lived, had he accepted the operation earlier. Note he also didn't have to lie in "mine was." It was diagnosed in time, but he waited with the operation the nine months.
"Jobs sought to assure colleagues that he was not suffering from a more common -- and more deadly -- cancer of the pancreas."
Jobs: "I had a very rare form of pancreatic cancer called an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor, which represents about 1 percent of the total cases of pancreatic cancer diagnosed each year, and can be cured by surgical removal if diagnosed in time (mine was)."
If he really had an "islet cell neuroendocrine tumor" he really had the chance to live much longer than he lived, had he accepted the operation earlier. Note he also didn't have to lie in "mine was." It was diagnosed in time, but he waited with the operation the nine months.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pancreatic-...
Jobs had a rare form of the cancer, known as neuroendocrine cancer, which grows more slowly and is easier to treat, explains Leonard Saltz, acting chief of the gastrointestinal oncology service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. "Survival for many years or even decades with endocrine cancer is not surprising." For that type, the sort that Jobs had, "survival is measured in years, as opposed to pancreatic cancer, which is measured in months."
Jobs had a rare form of the cancer, known as neuroendocrine cancer, which grows more slowly and is easier to treat, explains Leonard Saltz, acting chief of the gastrointestinal oncology service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. "Survival for many years or even decades with endocrine cancer is not surprising." For that type, the sort that Jobs had, "survival is measured in years, as opposed to pancreatic cancer, which is measured in months."
This was also discussed in this blog post, shortly after his death:
http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to...
http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to...
[deleted]
A nicely written article. However, this point:
As one of the commenters emphasizes, what's truly incredible is that he even considered waiting nine months before seeking state-of-the-art treatment. An intellectual environment where smart people make decisions like that is not healthy for any of us. That's the real reason why we should fight woo where we find it, as if it were a cancer in itself.
"In retrospect, we can now tell that Jobs clearly had
a tumor that was unusually aggressive for an insulinoma."As one of the commenters emphasizes, what's truly incredible is that he even considered waiting nine months before seeking state-of-the-art treatment. An intellectual environment where smart people make decisions like that is not healthy for any of us. That's the real reason why we should fight woo where we find it, as if it were a cancer in itself.
I think Steve Jobs acted stupid.
"The first 90 percent of the task takes 10 percent of the time. The last 10 percent takes the other 90 percent."
Do you see where I'm going ? If you believe there's some truth in this saying (quote, murphy law, whatever it is) then you should fix problems as early as possible. Granted, you don't always have time for that, and this saying applies mostly to such situations. Software projects, for example. But if you have an opportunity to fix a complicated problem/task early, don't procrastinate. There are often unexpected complications. Solve them early. If you start earlier, the chance you into the deadline is smaller.
I think it's perfectly possible that Steve Jobs acted brilliant in some situations and plain stupid in this case. There are no 100% brilliant and 100% stupid people. It's not binary, a smart person is not immune to stupid actions.
http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidit...
"The first 90 percent of the task takes 10 percent of the time. The last 10 percent takes the other 90 percent."
Do you see where I'm going ? If you believe there's some truth in this saying (quote, murphy law, whatever it is) then you should fix problems as early as possible. Granted, you don't always have time for that, and this saying applies mostly to such situations. Software projects, for example. But if you have an opportunity to fix a complicated problem/task early, don't procrastinate. There are often unexpected complications. Solve them early. If you start earlier, the chance you into the deadline is smaller.
I think it's perfectly possible that Steve Jobs acted brilliant in some situations and plain stupid in this case. There are no 100% brilliant and 100% stupid people. It's not binary, a smart person is not immune to stupid actions.
http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidit...
Surely I can't be the only person that wants to just read the book without having Isaacson spill all the beans before my copy comes in the mail. With each one of these excerpts he teases I lose more and more respect for the man. He's riding this thing pretty high and it's starting to be in bad taste.
This is already one of the most anticipated biographies ever. There's not really any need to seek more attention.
This is already one of the most anticipated biographies ever. There's not really any need to seek more attention.
It's not exactly fair to put that on the author. Authors have publishers and it's my understanding that publishers require publicity. It's in the contract. Maybe Walter could try to take a moral stand, but I'm not going to blame him for not rocking the boat here.
Anyway, I've been able to relate some of the book excerpts to friends who previously weren't planning to read the book but now plan to. And as for this 60 minutes interview, I'm truly looking forward to hearing some of the excerpts in Jobs' own words on tape, which isn't something that could be included in the book anyway.
Anyway, I've been able to relate some of the book excerpts to friends who previously weren't planning to read the book but now plan to. And as for this 60 minutes interview, I'm truly looking forward to hearing some of the excerpts in Jobs' own words on tape, which isn't something that could be included in the book anyway.
To be fair I agree with the notion of publisher driven publicity. Perhaps he's obligated.
I suppose my real problem is that the contents of the book are being pieced out to the media before it is available. From my past reading about Jobs this kind of frenzy wouldn't seem to suit his tastes, and you can be damn sure he'd be pissed about information leaking prior to release. I stand by the "bad taste" statement as there is strong evidence that the subject of Isaacson's work wouldn't appreciate what he's doing.
I suppose my real problem is that the contents of the book are being pieced out to the media before it is available. From my past reading about Jobs this kind of frenzy wouldn't seem to suit his tastes, and you can be damn sure he'd be pissed about information leaking prior to release. I stand by the "bad taste" statement as there is strong evidence that the subject of Isaacson's work wouldn't appreciate what he's doing.
When you're selling a product, there's always the need to seek more attention. We all cared about Steve but this book is a product that is intended to be sold.
It's a biography about steve jobs. Im pretty sure there will be no issues with sales.
This publicity makes the difference between 5 billion copies and 6 billion copies. 5 billion copies is a lot, but why leave money on the table?
(Yes, I know they won't really sell 6 billion copies.)
(Yes, I know they won't really sell 6 billion copies.)
Lose respect? Cut him some slack. He has worked hard on the biography and is promoting it ahead of release. It's what people do prior to the release of a book, movie, startup, etc. Should he be hiding out under a rock or something? It's on you to avoid articles about the book if you think they will spoil your reading experience.
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Isaacson is "seeking more attention."
I think the attention-people (media) are begging for his early words and competing intensely for his time/words. The publisher may also have some stipulation in Isaacson's contract about how available he is to make himself to interviews with media outlets. Not saying I have evidence that's the way it's going down - just that such factors are at least as arguable as a hypothesis that Isaacson is an attention-monger.
I think the attention-people (media) are begging for his early words and competing intensely for his time/words. The publisher may also have some stipulation in Isaacson's contract about how available he is to make himself to interviews with media outlets. Not saying I have evidence that's the way it's going down - just that such factors are at least as arguable as a hypothesis that Isaacson is an attention-monger.
What puzzles me the most is why above (ary's) comment is down voted.
Um, authors going on tours shortly before and after the publication of their books is a pretty age-old tradition. In fact, it may be something mandated in his contract. And guess what, not everyone is you and not everyone was so interested in Jobs that they pre-ordered the book.
And if Jobs cured his cancer they would be saying how much of a smart man he was to try this alternative cure.
It's easy to pretent you have 20/20 hindsight on other peoples lives.
It's easy to pretent you have 20/20 hindsight on other peoples lives.
> And if Jobs cured his cancer they would be saying how much of a smart man he was to try this alternative cure.
Not really. "Spontaneous remission is rare but it happens, lucky man!" would be the far more likely response.
Not really. "Spontaneous remission is rare but it happens, lucky man!" would be the far more likely response.
That said, for those interested, an actually well reasoned and knowledgeable piece on the subject comes from Science Based Medicine: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-death-of-s...
Some quotes:
"Did Jobs significantly decrease his chance of surviving his cancer by waiting nine months to undergo surgery? It seems like a no-brainer, but it turns out that that’s actually a very tough question to answer.
... So, is it possible, even likely, that Jobs compromised his chances of survival? Yes. Is it definite that he did? No, it’s not... In fact, based on statistics alone, it’s unlikely that a mere nine months took Jobs “from the high end to the low end of the survival rate,”
Now, let's hope this thread dies instead.