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.
I like your suggestions for a more tech savvy bio, but like the grandparent I think Isaacson has done a pretty good job. I totally agree that so much of the story has become rehearsed myth that it's kind of annoying to see it regurgitated here and there although, to give one example, I think Isaacson does a great job of dealing with the relationship between Woz and jobs when so many others simply accept Woz's evolving "standard version".
I didn't say you shouldn't read it -- I didn't even say I wouldn't finish it myself. I just said why it was painful for me to read it. And why the story is so well-rehearsed, and how the myth has replaced the actual events. So many people are reading so much more into what I wrote than what I actually wrote (and think).
Right. To some extent, the review is criticizing something Isaacson pretty clearly didn't set out to do—explain technology. Isaacson wants to look at Jobs's contradictions and paradoxes—the kindness and cruelty in a single package, indifference tempered by sudden engagement, a frequently binary worldview, the lack of consistency from the outside, the habits that we'd normally dismiss as bizarre, like dietary ones, that might also be tied to success.
Now, I can understand why someone might not be interested in those things, but to me that doesn't invalidate the book.
BTW, I started it and wrote about the first 50 or so pages here: http://jseliger.com/2011/10/24/the-steve-jobs-biography . Note that the book itself is actually nicely and well-made; it feels like a Jobesian artifact, instead of the usual publishing industry pablum.
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.
Exactly - Accounting as an example had a much lower bar of entry, similar to programming today. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen -"Hey Arthur Andersen, your a bright kid, you should come work for us") It is very possible programming follows a similar path requiring more and more professional requirements to get a ticket to play.
You have to be a CPA to sign certain kinds of reports that investors depend on and to do certain kinds of audits, but there is a lot of work in accounting without any profession-wide degree or certification requirements.
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.
Even the conviction that any two people are "complete equals" does not lead to the conclusion that any two people's legacies will be equivalent. It's not difficult to see why a biography, romanticized or not, was written about Steve Jobs.
But of course there's really no such thing as "complete equals". Put me in a foot race with any other healthy 35 year old, or compare my oil painting output with that of any trained artist, and you'll quickly see why.
> But of course there's really no such thing as "complete equals". Put me in a foot race with any other healthy 35 year old, or compare my oil painting output with that of any trained artist, and you'll quickly see why.
Ah, well that's a bummer. You know, it's funny, when you only read someone online without any face to face context, you kind of mentally fill in a profile of them that probably has no bearing on reality. I had you mentally pictured as something from the Age of Pericles, a mix of track and field style athletics, a little painting, a little sculpting, a little philosophy, a little music, a strong understanding of people, a thorough writer of both poetry and practical arts, a solid craftsman, a strong orator with a bent for rationality and a nuanced sense of justice, and successful in commerce and trade. This is how you've come across in writing, to me at least.
I'm not very familiar with you, so perhaps there is some context missing. But those statements are extraordinarily odd.
No one is equal - or perhaps you know of some physical or natural law that demonstrates this supposed equality? If anyone was equal to another they would be identical and indistinguishable.
I know of a mathematical formula that allows me to compare to whole human beings: what value have I received from your existence vs. another's existence? It's an imperfect formula, no doubt, but it's not equivalent to null. Specific people have far greater influence on any given individual than all people have influence. Therefore, they are superior people from the perspective of that individual.
The last statement lacks sufficient context for me to comment: "And now that he's gone, I'm more of a person than he ever will be" - I can't determine the meaning. I suppose it's something like: any person that is alive at this moment is better than any person that has ever lived and died. And that's not supreme hubris? (Perhaps there is some indication you're referring to the potential of a person living vs. the potential of a person dead, though that ignores the reality of continuing influence and inspiration that some dead people retain while a living person likely never achieves at a similar scale.)
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.
I obviously can't read your mind. I can only report the perceptions of someone who hasn't slavishly followed your career, but has had occasion to read many of your blog posts as they're submitted to places like HN.
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.
Which is why so much of this stuff turns on the reputation of the biographer. An authorized biography by a hack is unlikely to have much merit. The presumption is that Walter Isaacson (a) cares very much about his reputation and (b) stakes it on this biography.
You can't call this biography "slanted" without suggesting that Isaacson sold himself out. He may have, but that's a serious accusation.
I'm not calling this biography slanted -- how would I know, I haven't even read it yet -- I'm challenging the assertion that a biography written with access to the subject is automatically better than one written without it.
Yes, that's what I meant. I bet there are recordings too. It would be enormously selfish to keep those for himself, but I agree with you that it's unlikely. However, by asking for it, it seems to increase the likelihood that it will happen, however slightly. The question should be raised. Maybe after Isaacson dies he'll will them to a museum, library or university.
I would expect he is under no legal obligation. But he ought feel a professional obligation to history that others may be able to use the recordings/transcripts to draw their own conclusions. He is a biographer, after all; he never got to interview Einstein, he had to rely on the records of others that were preserved. That doesn't mean the transcripts must be released immediately, but I would expect that others will eventually have access.
How often does this actually happen? I'm not altogether that knowledgeable in this area, as I am neither a biographer nor a historian. But I don't know where the "professional obligation to history" comes from. He's making a commercial product, not doing a research paper for a public university.
And sure, it'd be nice to see his source material eventually. But I'd rather see the coherent package of his research in a narrative book form rather than his notes. I'll trust Isaacson to tell the story of Steve Jobs through his own interpretation, as that is all that a biography can be.
I'm not an expert, either, and I don't know of much precedent for interviews like this with an individual author being publicly released (say, on the web, rather than in a university archive), but private archival materials are used by historians and biographers all the time. I don't know whether Isaacson or his publisher own the rights, but I'm sure others will ask for access in the future.
I'm not sure about characterizing a biography as a "commercial product"; although although it is the source of the author's livelihood, and the publisher is a for-profit entity, it is a complex entity as a product. The author depends in this livelihood in having access to materials from others, it is not unreasonable to think he may reciprocate in some circumstances. In any case, in future years (after the initial sales peak of the bio), releasing the source documents may even cause a revival of interest that helps residual sales.
I would assume they're actually under obligation to not release them. Most people that sit down for these things would rather every word they've spoken does not see the light of day.
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.
Kottke was a close friend to Jobs and an early Apple employee; when the time of the Apple IPO came around, Jobs denied him any stock options. Wozniak, on the other hand, gave shares to employees he felt had been left out, including Kottke...
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.
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.