Woz Remembers Steve Jobs' Ambition to Change Humanity (siliconvalley.com) 47
The Bay Area Newsgroup reports on Steve Wozniak's new interview with longtime Apple evangelist Guy Kawasaki on Kawasaki's Remarkable People podcast. Woz reveals he's still on the Apple payroll -- he never left it -- and he's still receiving about $50 a week "out of loyalty. Because what could I do that's more important in my life?"
Woz also remembered how the ways he'd differed from Steve Jobs made them a complementary pair: "I had a lot of values about disdaining money. I had the computer skills, the engineering skills. Steve had electronics knowledge, to a decent level. He could understand us (engineers), but he couldn't design things. He hung on to the marketing principles -- how do things look to the eye, that kind of beauty. And turning my design, the Apple II, into a product...
"From the day we met, he was talking about people who changed humanity forever," Wozniak said. "He wanted to be one of them. He wanted to be that important person in life. This was his big chance. Now he was founder of a company. That's a title...."
"His personality changed the day that he was founder of a company with big money," Wozniak said. "He had been a fun guy, go running off to concerts with me, chasing concert paraphernalia, driving around, playing pranks. We had a lot of fun times. He all of a sudden disdained that," Wozniak said. "Didn't want to talk about jokes, fun, kid things. Only (in a) business suit, talking business talk, learning how to speak it. He got kind of strict and wanted to make sure the world got a message. That all the computer thinking came from him."
Still, Wozniak said Jobs' new personality didn't bother him, or have an effect on what he wanted to do at Apple. "I didn't care a bit," Wozniak said. "He was kind of like the smartest person in the room. Steve was getting what he wanted. I got what I wanted, a lab to run into even late at night. I was very much allowed to be the inventor."
Woz also remembered how the ways he'd differed from Steve Jobs made them a complementary pair: "I had a lot of values about disdaining money. I had the computer skills, the engineering skills. Steve had electronics knowledge, to a decent level. He could understand us (engineers), but he couldn't design things. He hung on to the marketing principles -- how do things look to the eye, that kind of beauty. And turning my design, the Apple II, into a product...
"From the day we met, he was talking about people who changed humanity forever," Wozniak said. "He wanted to be one of them. He wanted to be that important person in life. This was his big chance. Now he was founder of a company. That's a title...."
"His personality changed the day that he was founder of a company with big money," Wozniak said. "He had been a fun guy, go running off to concerts with me, chasing concert paraphernalia, driving around, playing pranks. We had a lot of fun times. He all of a sudden disdained that," Wozniak said. "Didn't want to talk about jokes, fun, kid things. Only (in a) business suit, talking business talk, learning how to speak it. He got kind of strict and wanted to make sure the world got a message. That all the computer thinking came from him."
Still, Wozniak said Jobs' new personality didn't bother him, or have an effect on what he wanted to do at Apple. "I didn't care a bit," Wozniak said. "He was kind of like the smartest person in the room. Steve was getting what he wanted. I got what I wanted, a lab to run into even late at night. I was very much allowed to be the inventor."
this pretty much confirms (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this pretty much confirms (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, it takes an asshole to drive a company to success. Look at any successful chief executive.
Second, unfortunately, those days are over for Apple. They are coasting on the momentum of Job's ideas and visions. or can you tell me what new and innovative product they've brought to market that wasn't already in Steve's plan?
Apple is now just another IBM. HP, Dell, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying the corporate world needs more assholes? REALLY?
Re: this pretty much confirms (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
“There were actually three different Walts: the dreamer, the realist, and the spoiler. You never knew which one was coming to the meeting.”
I don't agree with you, but I was reminded of that quote.
Re: this pretty much confirms (Score:5, Informative)
The man abandoned his kid. He used to fire people for the pettiest shit imaginable and ran a fucking sweat shop out of Cupertino in the 80's.
All those little asian kids Tim Cook gets shit about letting work in factories? Yeah that all happened under Jobs. The man was 100% fucking sociopath. Was he good at some things? Definitely but that doesn't excuse his behavior and should not white wash any of it.
Re: this pretty much confirms (Score:3)
Sshhhh, the fanboys need their hero, don't spoil their worship with awkward facts!
Re: (Score:2)
The man abandoned his kid. He used to fire people for the pettiest shit imaginable and ran a fucking sweat shop out of Cupertino in the 80's.
All those little asian kids Tim Cook gets shit about letting work in factories? Yeah that all happened under Jobs. The man was 100% fucking sociopath. Was he good at some things? Definitely but that doesn't excuse his behavior and should not white wash any of it.
It's not even unusual that highly successful people are horrible in other ways. Much like how Michael Jackson was amazing as a musician but was also a child molester. You're spot on that Jobs was a terribly flawed individual as well as a visionary.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that why he parked in the handicap parking, his vision rather then being an asshole who didn't give a shit about others?
Re: (Score:1)
Your sig should read, "When fascism comes to America, it will be draped in the flag and carrying a bible" [wikipedia.org]
I doubt that anybody has called Ben & Jerry an asshole recently, problem is that your straw man is pretty weak
Maybe you can dig up some other rhetorical nonsense to throw at it
Re: (Score:2)
Ben and Jerry's annual revenue is a rounding error in Apple's financials.
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple Wearables division would be a top25 S&P500 company by revenues if it went on it’s own. The Apple Watch alone would a top50 one.
"Success". (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, if "success" is stealing as much money from victims in return for glass beads, as humanoidly possible, and single handedly regressing computer literacy to the beforetime, then yeah. Such success. Much genius. Wow.
Unfortunately, we humans are not Ferengi (maybe you are). So our value system is a little different, and not based on money. But on progress, well-being, and the development of knowledge, understanding and abilities.
And there, plain old Unix principles, like scripting shells, everything being a file, and small tools that do one thing and do it right, are miles ahead of brain-dead iOS or user-crippling macOS.
Plan9 is where we should have headed.
Re: "Success". (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:this pretty much confirms (Score:5, Informative)
Woz was the inventor, Jobs was the businessman.
As a garage business grows into a big business, there are two threats - the inventor stops being allowed to invent, or the businessman doesn't adapt as the business scales. Miraculously, Apple didn't run into either of these problems. Woz was allowed to continue to invent, and Jobs switched gears to take Apple from a small business to a market giant.
Hate on Jobs all you like - he did exactly what Apple needed him to do. He was agile and aggressive at the start, and switched gears to ruthless and unyielding when Apple needed him to.
So you are saying... (Score:2)
... Apple was a very successful pathogen because of him.
Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Social Chameleon (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like a Social Chameleon. No true personality, just kind of went with whatever personality was needed to achieve his personal goals. At least that is my Internet diagnosis. And on the Internet we all are experts.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a Social Chameleon.
It sounds to me like he grew up.
Is that what "America" calls it? (Score:2)
Or just you?
Because we just call that a creepy untrustworthy psychopath.
But maybe that is the norm wherever you live.
In that case, congratulations! You fulfilled the definition of a separate species: If the two groups can't mate and produce offspring anymore.
You're homo psychopathis now. Cause no homo sapiens would ever want to procreate with you.
We'd kill it with fire. ...But we're not like you.
Re: (Score:2)
But also don't forget that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. When you mix these two, it means we're all dog food and tennis ball experts.
Re:Why do people idolize the rich? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do people idolize the rich? (Score:4, Insightful)
Like being rich is something special, is it?
Being rich isn't special. What is special is making your own riches.
It seems like all the rich people could care less about the rest of us, so why is it so many people seem endlessly fascinated by the overly affluent? Just curious.
I find it curious on how business people are considered evil for their wealth but people in sports and entertainment are not. What's the difference? My guess is that it is because people will have an inherent understanding of just how hard it is to excel in sports, music, acting, and other skills that these wealthy people demonstrate with great regularity.
People cannot see the effort it takes to excel in business. Everyone has some exposure to running a business. Just managing one's own spending is a necessary life skill and required of any person in business. People understand things like making a sale, be that in their own business or making the sale on convincing a child to go to bed.
In sports the people that get rich are those that can do well every day, and better than average nearly every time. A missed point here and there won't kill a professional player's career but doing this too often means someone better will just replace them. This is the same in business. Being good in business means being able to make a sale more often than the others, and this is a rare skill.
I'm quite disturbed at people that think wealthy people in business did not "earn" their money. That all they did was sit on their ass at a desk while others made money for them. Perhaps in later years, after these people made most of their money and lost some of their "touch" they became a figurehead of the company. What they did to make their money was to see what others didn't see, made decisions that others did not make, take risks that others would not dare, and do this in ways that were consistently profitable.
I'll see enormously wealthy people like Paris Hilton and I'm not seeing all that many that have much respect for her. She's rich from being rich, and famous for being famous. Contrast to this is someone like Kobe Bryant, someone that earned his money by excelling in playing basketball, and earning respect among fans and other players for his skill.
Wealth can be inherited, but it takes skill to earn wealth.
To make lots of money means caring about the needs of others. Even a plumber can become wealthy but that requires caring enough about others to meet their needs. This means working long hours, doing above average work, and this comes with compensation. People that earned their wealth did so by lifting up others. This can be by entertaining them, keeping the water running, or making computer hardware and software. Maybe some of these people are assholes much of the time, but they have to understand that unless the customer is happy then they won't give up their money for products and services.
A wealthy person in business got there by caring enough about people to make a sale, and doing so over and over again. It's when they stop caring is when they stop making money.
Re:Why do people idolize the rich? (Score:4, Insightful)
SOME wealthy people..."got there" by means and manner you so praise, not all. Some people pursue wealth with all of the qualities you describe and fail to achieve it. Great wealth is an outlier, period. So, it's very "special" and any philosophy of HOW it's achieved absent a framework of probablilty and statistics is as spurious as a prosperity gospel.
Re: (Score:2)
SOME wealthy people..."got there" by means and manner you so praise, not all.
Yes, that's true, and I did not claim otherwise.
Some people pursue wealth with all of the qualities you describe and fail to achieve it. Great wealth is an outlier, period. So, it's very "special" and any philosophy of HOW it's achieved absent a framework of probablilty and statistics is as spurious as a prosperity gospel.
To become wealthy requires skill, some measure of the concern for the needs of others, and having this and more with consistency. This is required but insufficient. One part is just pure dumb luck. The ability to produce a product, or perform a service, that people are willing to buy is a large part of making money. People with the skill to market themselves can more readily make money. Those that reach the rare levels of wealth to be outliers are those t
Re: (Score:2)
If you are implying that an outsized portion of the richest people have gotten their wealth via inheriance and no work of their own: only ~13% did. More than 56% have gotten there entirely off their own effort.
Another thing worth noting is the eternal rotation at the very top. If you look at the Forbe’s lists of 30, 20, 10 years and today, they sure change a fair bit.
Not people. Only Americans. (Score:2)
This isn't a thing over here in Europe.
Quite the opposite actually.
With money in general. It isn't treated as attractive over here.
(Not saying Americans aren't people. You knwo how I mean it.)
Used to like Woz, then I heard him speak (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: Used to like Woz, then I heard him speak (Score:1)
Says the guy who gets glowy eyes at the sight of his idol, Godking Jobs of Grandeuria Inflativie. The marketer who used Woz, and threw him away like a used condom.
Sorry, it's more likely that you are the dick.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is literally what Jobs wanted. (Score:2)
An obedient yes man to micromanage.
I suspect that that was more important to him than the company's survival after his death.
It was always all about him.
Obvious, I know. But it had to be said.
The marketer gaining fame again.... (Score:3)
...while the actual creator is left by the sidelines.
As always with such sleazebags.
If you ever have an idea, make damn surr your marketer, sales drone, accountant and manager are positions *below* you, and know it!
Do not *ever* let them get on an equal level with you, or they will take over everything and starve you out. Treat them like a category 4 biohazard necessary evil.
Re: (Score:1)