The woman doing the interview really seems to do a poor job.
She seems to let Wozniak get about 80-90% into statements and then speedily talk over him to move onto the next point. It doesn't sound like she's actually listening to his answers, just going down her checklist. At one point he explains why he liked Sorkin's approach better than Kutcher's, then she asked a later question as if he had never said that.
It's kind of sad. Woz mentioned numerous times that the problem was showing the pre-firing Jobs behaving and being treated more like he was after having matured, but the interviewer just didn't get it.
She also asked quite a few questions designed in a "X vs. Y, choose now!" style, trying to get a soundbite or setup a narrative (Woz wisely wouldn't fall for it). Between that and the interrupting, it was actually kind of hard to listen to.
Absolutely disagree. In my opinion, she does a good job in guiding Wozniak through the interview while still being respectful. Yes, it is obvious that she wanted to have some specific questions answered, but that is nothing bad, it prevents people from rambling and makes the interview interesting. And it wasn't my impression that she interrupted mid-sentence or even just often.
How do you come to the conclusion that she doesn't get his point? Didn't she even react to that with the "is he too visionary in the movie" question line?
>The woman doing the interview really seems to do a poor job.
She seems to let Wozniak get about 80-90% into statements and then speedily talk over him to move onto the next point.
This is a property of American media. When people start talking over each other, I stop watching. I can't take it.
Conversations and interviews are like a game. Each person makes their turn; the next person only gets to go when the current player finishes their turn.
The British media is a little better at this, and I'm talking mainly about BBC News, but it's still not perfect. In fact, you can see the mockery of this in The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert frequently talks over his interviewees; it's part of his character and it hits the nail right on the head.
I was expecting an utter disaster, but I don't really agree she did this. Woz is always a great interview subject, but he tends to ramble and go into odd-ball directions. I'm not an interviewing expert, but I can't imagine it is easy to steer an interview with someone like Woz.
She did better than I would have. I'd probably be interviewing for 30 minutes, end up with almost no good TV points, and have something that would need to be edited down to 3 minutes.
I haven't seen the movie, but wasn't Jobs' personality pretty much the same throughout his life?
I've read a few different articles where they claimed that when he worked at Atari, they created a shift just for him because no one could stand to work around him. Supposedly it was because he was an unwashed hippie, but I'm inclined to think that Atari's entire staff was made up of unwashed hippies during this time period, so it must have been his personality.
I completely agree. I felt she wanted a certain answer to some of the questions. When it became clear that he wasn't going to give her that answer, she would cut him off and ask another question. I felt she was rude, but also indicative of the current mainstream media.
I didn't have that feeling at all. At times (one of the first questions - How did Ashton do it as an actor?), he just keeps telling about how Steve Jobs was different before he got away, and the interviewer did a good job trying to steer the interview in the direction of the questions.
If she was indeed like you said she was, she'd push on through the "no comment" on the question about the movie Woz's making, or the question "Should we see the movie?", or...
This is just the way Bloomberg does it's interviews: breathless high-anxiety no-thinking-allowed Q&A SECTOR SPIDER TIME FOR AN ALTERNATIVE GET YOUR BLOOMBERG RADIO APP FREE FOR ANDROID AND IPHONE COMMERCIALS in between paid-shills for various financial products.
I completely agree and I had to come back here to express my disgust. She is really irritating me the way she cuts him off with comments that show she isn't listening (or she is too stupid to understand what he is saying). Example: He says Steve Jobs initially was visionary but not good at executing. But when he came back he had improved at execution and had the maturity to run things. She retorts "was he visionary?"
She also talks down at him and acts like she is more important than him.
> "Woz is being paid by another company to support a different Steve Jobs film. It's personal for him, but it's also business. We have to keep that in mind."
Seriously? Woz is the guy who gave his Apple stock shares to co-workers he felt were slighted in the IPO. Hello, he's the guy who wanted to give his groundbreaking engineering behind the Apple away for free.
Woz is an engineering legend...but if there were a Hall of Fame for generosity and integrity, he'd be in there too. Shame on the "Jobs" people and it's great to see the lukewarm/negative reviews roll in for their shit sandwich of a biopic.
In the heady days of my youth in the early 90's I was foolishly of the opinion that Apple would one day rule the world, and that Steve Jobs would be seen as some sort of Christ figure. I kinda looked up to him in that fashion, at the time, even before he'd come back to Apple after Next.
Of course, when I actually became an adult, I realized the error of my ways, switched to Linux,and over time my admiration only grew for Woz.
I once appeared in a reenactment of a Jobs/Woz story on TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEuJMPBZJ7c . It was a cheesey TV reenactment, and it really doesn't matter which one of the two Steve's I was playing, versus which one was portrayed by my child-hood friend, Travis. But during the filming, I did get to handle a Woz Blue Box, and an Apple I board. It was like touching a Rembrandt, or a Van Gogh.
At the time, I pretended to be Jobs. These days, I say I played Woz.
Woz, to put it bluntly, is the awesomest hacker/engineer, ever. He's just a freakin' god! Everything he's ever done has been 10% pure hacker ethos. The early Apple I's came with a complete explanation of how they were laid out, hardware-wise. The manual was a work of pure joy. You don't get technical writing like that, ever. Nothing was hidden. http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Apple/Appl...
If you like that, ever head of the CL 9? Woz, after leaving Apple due to surviving a freakin' plane crash, decided he wanted to fix the then common remote control. The CL9 Core remote control was a hacker's dream device. You could program it to emit whatever IR signals you wanted, and it came with a manual explaining as much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CL_9
Jobs, on the other hand, was a seriously driven guy. An entrepreneur's entrepreneur. Take that for what you will, the good and the bad. I've always taken it to mean he was good at spotting an opportunity and exploiting it.
I, for one, will always worship the engineer, first.
> The early Apple I's came with a complete explanation of how they were laid out, hardware-wise.
Publishing details at pretty much that level was the norm at the time, nothing particularly special for Apple. E.g. up until at least '87 or '88 (and quite possibly later), pretty much all Commodore hardware had proper schematics in their manuals, and they provided separate documentation with much more detail.
Please. Woz's answer to the top thing wrong with the movie was that it overglorified Jobs as too much of a personality. But later he says Jobs was the best technology leader of our time.
This may not be a good movie and I believe that Woz believes what he says, but like any eyewitness I also believe his memory is colored heavily by his own POV.
Keep your mind clear and don't worship Jobs or Woz.
Rather than picking one over the other, I would say that it would have been best if Jobs had had a little more Woz in him (to appreciate the tech more), Woz had had a little more Jobs (to sell himself more), and they had continued to work together. Apple would be an even bigger player than it is today, I think.
If we wait long enough, we will also find out that Steve Jobs invented practically everything around us - the bits, the bytes, the electricity, atoms and molecules. Hack, he was the first fish out of the water that gave raise to the man kind millions of years later.
I love Woz's honesty. I actually think the issues he brings up would have made for a better film - because they illuminate all the ways Jobs failed early in his career... and ultimately learned from his failures to realize the success of his later iYears. Real conflict and real resolution. But that's a different film, it sounds like. (The one I wish they'd made).
People had similar things to say about The Social Network. It was wrong about history, but it was also a good movie on its own. We will see if "Jobs", as a movie, can stand on its own.
But a movie isn't just a movie. Every movie has a narrative that makes a point, and that makes it valuable.
If what we are hoping to learn from 'Jobs' or The Social Network is "How did this guy do it? What personal qualities can I emulate, what situations can I apply the same approach in", then it is only valuable if it is accurate.
After all, if the narrative is something the writer more or less made up (i.e. he's missed out the bit where Jobs goes into the wilderness and comes back another person), then what the movie teaches us is coming from the writers head. The writer didn't build a leading company, so I am not really interested in what he thinks about how to do it.
What is wrong with the interviewer? Towards the end she kept pushing Woz to say that Apple is in decline. Even after Woz repeatedly said that he didn't believe so.
Is this the view of the general public? That Apple is doomed if they don't release iWatch or whatever that's bigger than the iPhone/iPad?
Not the general public, but I listen to Bloomberg financial radio a lot, and know-nothing finance types definitely believe that Apple needs another product - any product - immediately.
On the other side, different analysts say both the watch market and the TV market are too small to matter, so Apple is also doomed if they do. That the MP3 player, smartphone and tablet markets were also "too small" before Apple released their products hasn't entered their mind.
Was this movie meant to be a documentary? I was under the impression it was supposed to be more like The Social Network. Some facts but mainly just entertainment.
The Social Network may not be factually accurate but I enjoyed it and watched it again. I'm guessing this will be similar.
If it was mainly for entertainment, they should have called it Blow Jobs, you know. It would have been true to their intent (entertainment), and more accurate to the content of the movie.
Please don't link directly to auto-playing video pages. At least not until browser vendors get their acts together and indicate which tabs are generating sound. (No, I'm not interested in a long list of excuses as to why that's hard to do.)
And what does that have to do with linking to a auto playing video? Do you automatically switch tabs after loading it and then get confused which tab has your video?
Anyone else think that all this negative press is on purpose? I mean, really. They've taken one of the most iconic men of this nascent century and apparently slapped together a movie about him.
It's not like there is not considerable source material to work with (even without Isaacson's book if you're concerned about the "other" movie).
It just feels like someone has asked the press to deliberately drum up negative opinions specifically in regards to the true validity of the movie (not, you know, overall quality) and it will likely drive people out in droves.
I know this is going to sound petty, but I just think Ashton Kutcher was a bad choice. He is too dumb to play Jobs. I would go for someone with more intellect, perhaps Daniel Day-Lewis, somebody edgey, Peter Fonda, Duston Hoffman, I dunno, it is not that I do not like Kutcher, it just seems like he is too dumb to play Jobs. Is it just me?
[+] [-] MBCook|12 years ago|reply
She seems to let Wozniak get about 80-90% into statements and then speedily talk over him to move onto the next point. It doesn't sound like she's actually listening to his answers, just going down her checklist. At one point he explains why he liked Sorkin's approach better than Kutcher's, then she asked a later question as if he had never said that.
It's kind of sad. Woz mentioned numerous times that the problem was showing the pre-firing Jobs behaving and being treated more like he was after having matured, but the interviewer just didn't get it.
She also asked quite a few questions designed in a "X vs. Y, choose now!" style, trying to get a soundbite or setup a narrative (Woz wisely wouldn't fall for it). Between that and the interrupting, it was actually kind of hard to listen to.
Missed opportunities, I guess.
[+] [-] onli|12 years ago|reply
How do you come to the conclusion that she doesn't get his point? Didn't she even react to that with the "is he too visionary in the movie" question line?
[+] [-] coherentpony|12 years ago|reply
This is a property of American media. When people start talking over each other, I stop watching. I can't take it.
Conversations and interviews are like a game. Each person makes their turn; the next person only gets to go when the current player finishes their turn.
The British media is a little better at this, and I'm talking mainly about BBC News, but it's still not perfect. In fact, you can see the mockery of this in The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert frequently talks over his interviewees; it's part of his character and it hits the nail right on the head.
[+] [-] dizzystar|12 years ago|reply
She did better than I would have. I'd probably be interviewing for 30 minutes, end up with almost no good TV points, and have something that would need to be edited down to 3 minutes.
[+] [-] bredren|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phaus|12 years ago|reply
I've read a few different articles where they claimed that when he worked at Atari, they created a shift just for him because no one could stand to work around him. Supposedly it was because he was an unwashed hippie, but I'm inclined to think that Atari's entire staff was made up of unwashed hippies during this time period, so it must have been his personality.
[+] [-] wusher|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guidopallemans|12 years ago|reply
If she was indeed like you said she was, she'd push on through the "no comment" on the question about the movie Woz's making, or the question "Should we see the movie?", or...
[+] [-] jmomo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asgard1024|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkuria|12 years ago|reply
She also talks down at him and acts like she is more important than him.
[+] [-] patcon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RockyMcNuts|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|12 years ago|reply
http://blogs.computerworld.com/mac-os-x/22659/jobs-ashton-ku...
> "Woz is being paid by another company to support a different Steve Jobs film. It's personal for him, but it's also business. We have to keep that in mind."
Seriously? Woz is the guy who gave his Apple stock shares to co-workers he felt were slighted in the IPO. Hello, he's the guy who wanted to give his groundbreaking engineering behind the Apple away for free.
Woz is an engineering legend...but if there were a Hall of Fame for generosity and integrity, he'd be in there too. Shame on the "Jobs" people and it's great to see the lukewarm/negative reviews roll in for their shit sandwich of a biopic.
[+] [-] VonGuard|12 years ago|reply
Of course, when I actually became an adult, I realized the error of my ways, switched to Linux,and over time my admiration only grew for Woz.
I once appeared in a reenactment of a Jobs/Woz story on TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEuJMPBZJ7c . It was a cheesey TV reenactment, and it really doesn't matter which one of the two Steve's I was playing, versus which one was portrayed by my child-hood friend, Travis. But during the filming, I did get to handle a Woz Blue Box, and an Apple I board. It was like touching a Rembrandt, or a Van Gogh.
At the time, I pretended to be Jobs. These days, I say I played Woz.
Woz, to put it bluntly, is the awesomest hacker/engineer, ever. He's just a freakin' god! Everything he's ever done has been 10% pure hacker ethos. The early Apple I's came with a complete explanation of how they were laid out, hardware-wise. The manual was a work of pure joy. You don't get technical writing like that, ever. Nothing was hidden. http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Apple/Appl...
If you like that, ever head of the CL 9? Woz, after leaving Apple due to surviving a freakin' plane crash, decided he wanted to fix the then common remote control. The CL9 Core remote control was a hacker's dream device. You could program it to emit whatever IR signals you wanted, and it came with a manual explaining as much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CL_9
Jobs, on the other hand, was a seriously driven guy. An entrepreneur's entrepreneur. Take that for what you will, the good and the bad. I've always taken it to mean he was good at spotting an opportunity and exploiting it.
I, for one, will always worship the engineer, first.
[+] [-] vidarh|12 years ago|reply
Publishing details at pretty much that level was the norm at the time, nothing particularly special for Apple. E.g. up until at least '87 or '88 (and quite possibly later), pretty much all Commodore hardware had proper schematics in their manuals, and they provided separate documentation with much more detail.
[+] [-] bsdetector|12 years ago|reply
This may not be a good movie and I believe that Woz believes what he says, but like any eyewitness I also believe his memory is colored heavily by his own POV.
Keep your mind clear and don't worship Jobs or Woz.
[+] [-] derefr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JosephHatfield|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fudged71|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ateev|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hayksaakian|12 years ago|reply
Its a bit old, but quite good.
[+] [-] dirkgently|12 years ago|reply
All Hail the King Jobs.
[+] [-] hkmurakami|12 years ago|reply
;)
[+] [-] saraid216|12 years ago|reply
1) I like this typo.
2) I can't imagine how you made it. Dvorak keyboard?
[+] [-] Dewie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] subdane|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juandopazo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sethbannon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jared314|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FaceKicker|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-social-network/
[2] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jobs/
[+] [-] shubb|12 years ago|reply
If what we are hoping to learn from 'Jobs' or The Social Network is "How did this guy do it? What personal qualities can I emulate, what situations can I apply the same approach in", then it is only valuable if it is accurate.
After all, if the narrative is something the writer more or less made up (i.e. he's missed out the bit where Jobs goes into the wilderness and comes back another person), then what the movie teaches us is coming from the writers head. The writer didn't build a leading company, so I am not really interested in what he thinks about how to do it.
[+] [-] rch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timkeller|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esusatyo|12 years ago|reply
Is this the view of the general public? That Apple is doomed if they don't release iWatch or whatever that's bigger than the iPhone/iPad?
[+] [-] julespitt|12 years ago|reply
On the other side, different analysts say both the watch market and the TV market are too small to matter, so Apple is also doomed if they do. That the MP3 player, smartphone and tablet markets were also "too small" before Apple released their products hasn't entered their mind.
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|12 years ago|reply
The Social Network may not be factually accurate but I enjoyed it and watched it again. I'm guessing this will be similar.
[+] [-] dirkgently|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CamperBob2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] christianmann|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dubcanada|12 years ago|reply
And what does that have to do with linking to a auto playing video? Do you automatically switch tabs after loading it and then get confused which tab has your video?
[+] [-] npguy|12 years ago|reply
http://fakevalley.com/steve-jobs-actually-lived-for-150-year...
[+] [-] purephase|12 years ago|reply
It's not like there is not considerable source material to work with (even without Isaacson's book if you're concerned about the "other" movie).
It just feels like someone has asked the press to deliberately drum up negative opinions specifically in regards to the true validity of the movie (not, you know, overall quality) and it will likely drive people out in droves.
[+] [-] gsands|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zw123456|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] evli|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesjguthrie|12 years ago|reply
Can't find details of when or if it's coming to the UK...