It's hard for me to know why I should care that Winer doesn't like the book.
It's true that the book is not written by someone with a deep understanding of technology, but this is mostly a story about Steve Jobs the man, and not technical detail. What comes through in the book is that Jobs was a very difficult and troubled person with a tremendous energy to try to do things 'right' (for his definition of right).
I've found it a very enjoyable read. Here you have a book written with the cooperation of a man who knows he's dying and wants to talk about his story. It's an interesting book because it's not a hagiography nor is Jobs making excuses. Early in the book he says straight up that he behaved poorly towards his parents and Lisa Brennan-Jobs and at the same time can't quite recall stiffing Woz out of money for the Atari work.
The thing I've found most interesting is the negative view of Jobs-elitism when it comes to the platform. "We can't just let anyone program for it" (or similar words).
I happen to disagree with this point of view for consumer products. I believe the content should be curated, poured over and held to usability standards. That is the only way that we'll be able to empower ordinary people, people who aren't engineers, programmers, or have ample time to fiddle with the software. If Jobs wanted everyone to be able to use his devices, to make it a household item, then he was going to have to make it fool proof. Jobs recognised that cynical connection, he wasn't just being a cunt for the thrill of it.
Coincidentally, if they weren't elitist on the development end, then they were being elitist on the consumer's side.
I have yet to read the book, but I hope to crack it open this weekend. So take what I say with a grain of salt.
To me it seems like the reason this book may be hard to read for some people is due to the public persona of Jobs over the past decade. He was an icon for all things Apple. How dare this non-technical person speak of Jobs in this light!? Surely he feels this way because he "doesn't get it" and "doesn't get his vision". Seem familiar?
Maybe that's the wrong feeling a person should have. Maybe he's just a brilliant man with flaws like everyone else. Maybe the real Jobs isn't what you pictured in your mind and this book is ruining your perception of Jobs.
Edit: not sure when I hit reply on this comment, but this is a general observation to everyone.
There is some truth to what Dave is saying here. I felt the author made an attempt to romanticize Jobs life to appeal to a wider audience. Starting with the first chapter, where he says 'Abandonment, Special, Chosen' were three words that played a big role in defining Steve's character. And then he goes on to subtly downplay Steve insisting that it actually did not matter.
What is wrong with Steve just making intelligent decisions about products, than attributing it to scars from his childhood? Nothing, except that it isn't as interesting.
In Dave's article, what I really liked was when he said they weren't really all that special. That is so very true. Real life heroes in the tech industry may not be that heroic. They don't need to be, at least to some of us. Sometimes I feel some of the most successful people in our industry (like Steve, Zuck, BillG) are actually peers, who had somewhat better intuition, better timing, better business sense; they certainly did a few things better. But definitely not beyond the comprehension of some people (though, not me) who comment here.
And there are of course people who are actually heroes to me, not merely peers who do a lot better. For example Scott Aaronson, though I understand very little of what he writes. I just know that even if I had chosen a different path in life, that stuff would still be way beyond me.
The ladder we chose to climb was a very short one, unlike the ones the reporters climb. To get to the top meant convincing one or two people we could make a contribution.
IMO, this still applies to software. That is why the whole debate to stay or drop out of school even exists. You don't see lawyers, accountants, doctors, or journalists for that matter debate on the merits of school to advance their career. If you write code, consider yourself lucky to still be living in this "golden period" where just a little skill and ambition is all you need to make an excellent living doing enjoyable work.
To be fair, lawyers, accountants, and doctors all face strict professional requirements to be degree holders. As such, debating the necessity of a degree serves no practical purpose in those fields.
The decreased need for education in software engineering shouldn't be used as an indicator of its competitiveness. On the contrary, one could argue that is actually more competitive, because anyone can enter the field at any time.
We were young and stupid, and the world told us we were the super-exceptional people that Jobs apparently believed he was until he died. That's what makes this so hard to read. We weren't that special.
Dave Winer is an exceptional person but I don't like how he writes as if he was a complete equal to Steve Jobs. Just because Dave Winer doesn't think of himself as special, doesn't mean Steve Jobs wasn't special.
The people that think they are super-exceptional, are often the ones that end up being super-exceptional.
If there were a biography of Dave Winer, I would read it. I might not like it all that much, but I would certainly read it and probably garner some great insight from it.
Reading the PPS in Winer's post about who should write a Jobs book made it clear to me that I think I will like this biography. I honestly didn't think anyone liked "Breaking Windows".
Walter Isaacson wrote the definitive biography of Einstein, so I believe he can grasp the technicals. The reason the book is not overly technical because like Apple itself, it's better to put people in front of technology.
His Einstein biography was great, but very heavy on his personal life and professional interactions, while weak on the science. "Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein" by Abraham Pais is much better on his science.
Actually I think he misunderstood what programmers and hardware engineers do. And he had no grasp of the creative process of tech, which is presumably what the book is about.
It's silly that you would write as if you were a peer to Jobs. Only a handful of people were, people like Gates, Ellison, Grove. Even those guys aren't special in the big way Jobs was. It's not required that you like him to acknowledge his special place in the tech world.
Stating that "The ladder we chose to climb was a very short one, unlike the ones the reporters climb" is kind of bullshit. Dave is a blogger who feels like bloggers are the new news reporters, and that news reporters would be as great as him if they would only grow a pair, or something. But reporting the news is not easy. For most reporters it's like bringing a spork to a machine-gun battle, every single day of the week.
This is not a book about Apple and it's not a book about technology. It's not supposed to be "The Soul of a New Machine." It's about Steve Jobs. Did Dave not look at the cover before he started reading? It's all right there.
I'm confused. I think you're wrong on the substance and also contradicting yourself.
Reporters do have a harder time than devs. There are a lot of solo devs, they're even exalted for their indie developer-dom.
But there aren't exalted indie investigative reporters (if there even is such a thing as indie investigative reporters). Being a reporter does mean that there's a longer ladder to climb than creating a startup and getting funding.
I'd like to know how Dave Winer expects a new biographer to get the same amount of access to Steve Jobs as Walter Isaacson did. It's hard to interview someone 40 times if, you know, you can't.
Just because a biographer had access to the subject doesn't mean the biography is necessarily better. "Authorized" biographies are notorious for slanting favorably towards their subjects, papering over their flaws and building up their good points.
Sometimes that's just a byproduct of spending a lot of time with someone; you can't spend all those hours with a person without starting to see things at least a little the same way they do. Other times it's a condition they had to agree to in order to get that access in the first place.
It's an interesting take by someone who has been involved since the early days of personal computing. I have not read the Jobs book yet but I have been reading Dave's stuff since sometime in '98 (His writing used to be the second result when searching for scripting) and he is always good for an interesting perspective.
ps. Thank's to the mod's for removing the negative editorializing from the submission title.
Kottke was one of Jobs' friends at Reed, then later traveled with him to India and also was one of Apple's first employees, helping to assemble computers in the garage. He stayed with Apple for eight years.
The story Winer is referring to is how Kottke never got any stock options. According to Isaacson's book, Jobs refused to even talk to him about the issue, instead brushing him off and steering him toward other execs who told him that as a technician he was ineligible for any options.
Eventually, Wozniak ended up giving Kottke some of his own options.
It's a good book, I think, but Dave is right that it gets repetitive at times, and the storytelling is a wee bit exaggerated. 20% is about Steve being an asshole and 20% is about him being a spiritual and emotional kind of guy. Luckily, the remaining 60%, thank heavens, has some actual content.
[+] [-] jgrahamc|14 years ago|reply
It's true that the book is not written by someone with a deep understanding of technology, but this is mostly a story about Steve Jobs the man, and not technical detail. What comes through in the book is that Jobs was a very difficult and troubled person with a tremendous energy to try to do things 'right' (for his definition of right).
I've found it a very enjoyable read. Here you have a book written with the cooperation of a man who knows he's dying and wants to talk about his story. It's an interesting book because it's not a hagiography nor is Jobs making excuses. Early in the book he says straight up that he behaved poorly towards his parents and Lisa Brennan-Jobs and at the same time can't quite recall stiffing Woz out of money for the Atari work.
[+] [-] davewiner|14 years ago|reply
And of course there's no reason you should care what I think.
Can't think of a single reason. :-)
[+] [-] idspispopd|14 years ago|reply
I happen to disagree with this point of view for consumer products. I believe the content should be curated, poured over and held to usability standards. That is the only way that we'll be able to empower ordinary people, people who aren't engineers, programmers, or have ample time to fiddle with the software. If Jobs wanted everyone to be able to use his devices, to make it a household item, then he was going to have to make it fool proof. Jobs recognised that cynical connection, he wasn't just being a cunt for the thrill of it.
Coincidentally, if they weren't elitist on the development end, then they were being elitist on the consumer's side.
[+] [-] xpose2000|14 years ago|reply
To me it seems like the reason this book may be hard to read for some people is due to the public persona of Jobs over the past decade. He was an icon for all things Apple. How dare this non-technical person speak of Jobs in this light!? Surely he feels this way because he "doesn't get it" and "doesn't get his vision". Seem familiar?
Maybe that's the wrong feeling a person should have. Maybe he's just a brilliant man with flaws like everyone else. Maybe the real Jobs isn't what you pictured in your mind and this book is ruining your perception of Jobs.
Edit: not sure when I hit reply on this comment, but this is a general observation to everyone.
[+] [-] jeswin|14 years ago|reply
What is wrong with Steve just making intelligent decisions about products, than attributing it to scars from his childhood? Nothing, except that it isn't as interesting.
In Dave's article, what I really liked was when he said they weren't really all that special. That is so very true. Real life heroes in the tech industry may not be that heroic. They don't need to be, at least to some of us. Sometimes I feel some of the most successful people in our industry (like Steve, Zuck, BillG) are actually peers, who had somewhat better intuition, better timing, better business sense; they certainly did a few things better. But definitely not beyond the comprehension of some people (though, not me) who comment here.
And there are of course people who are actually heroes to me, not merely peers who do a lot better. For example Scott Aaronson, though I understand very little of what he writes. I just know that even if I had chosen a different path in life, that stuff would still be way beyond me.
Don't know if this made any sense. :)
[+] [-] bitsweet|14 years ago|reply
IMO, this still applies to software. That is why the whole debate to stay or drop out of school even exists. You don't see lawyers, accountants, doctors, or journalists for that matter debate on the merits of school to advance their career. If you write code, consider yourself lucky to still be living in this "golden period" where just a little skill and ambition is all you need to make an excellent living doing enjoyable work.
[+] [-] wes-exp|14 years ago|reply
The decreased need for education in software engineering shouldn't be used as an indicator of its competitiveness. On the contrary, one could argue that is actually more competitive, because anyone can enter the field at any time.
[+] [-] seanmccann|14 years ago|reply
Dave Winer is an exceptional person but I don't like how he writes as if he was a complete equal to Steve Jobs. Just because Dave Winer doesn't think of himself as special, doesn't mean Steve Jobs wasn't special.
The people that think they are super-exceptional, are often the ones that end up being super-exceptional.
[+] [-] davewiner|14 years ago|reply
Do you know of a mathematical formula that allows you to compare two whole human beings?
To think otherwise is an exceptional form of hubris. And of course that extends to you and to everyone else who comments here.
And now that he's gone, I'm more of a person than he ever will be. I believe that's the sad truth of what death means, Sean. Gone is gone.
[+] [-] camworld|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shareme|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hack_edu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davewiner|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] snorkel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Thrymr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davewiner|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staunch|14 years ago|reply
It's silly that you would write as if you were a peer to Jobs. Only a handful of people were, people like Gates, Ellison, Grove. Even those guys aren't special in the big way Jobs was. It's not required that you like him to acknowledge his special place in the tech world.
[+] [-] tptacek|14 years ago|reply
One tends to get the sense that any time Winer writes something negative, his real concern is that people aren't paying him enough attention.
[+] [-] davewiner|14 years ago|reply
I like your honesty. You know you don't know what you're talking about, and you have the guts to say it.
[+] [-] jeffreymcmanus|14 years ago|reply
This is not a book about Apple and it's not a book about technology. It's not supposed to be "The Soul of a New Machine." It's about Steve Jobs. Did Dave not look at the cover before he started reading? It's all right there.
[+] [-] knowtheory|14 years ago|reply
Reporters do have a harder time than devs. There are a lot of solo devs, they're even exalted for their indie developer-dom.
But there aren't exalted indie investigative reporters (if there even is such a thing as indie investigative reporters). Being a reporter does mean that there's a longer ladder to climb than creating a startup and getting funding.
[+] [-] cruise02|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andymboyle|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smacktoward|14 years ago|reply
Sometimes that's just a byproduct of spending a lot of time with someone; you can't spend all those hours with a person without starting to see things at least a little the same way they do. Other times it's a condition they had to agree to in order to get that access in the first place.
[+] [-] gigamonkey|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andymoe|14 years ago|reply
ps. Thank's to the mod's for removing the negative editorializing from the submission title.
[+] [-] audionerd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mlinsey|14 years ago|reply
The story Winer is referring to is how Kottke never got any stock options. According to Isaacson's book, Jobs refused to even talk to him about the issue, instead brushing him off and steering him toward other execs who told him that as a technician he was ineligible for any options.
Eventually, Wozniak ended up giving Kottke some of his own options.
[+] [-] albedoa|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stdbrouw|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exit|14 years ago|reply