If Steve Jobs were alive today, should he be in jail?

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by elcreative

According to other reports, things have improved since your quoted post of over two years ago...

Well, that's okay then. Phew. Do they get piss breaks now?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Well, that's okay then. Phew. Do they get piss breaks now?

Guess sarcasm used to mask relevancy of quote to now...

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

But that doesn't make him particularly fair or good -- he simply looks like a fairer and less egotistical guy. He's quieter and more restrained, but that doesn't mean his actions are innately more moral.

He had Balmer to throw chairs around. Jobs was more restrained than Balmer.

I've heard Gates compared to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I think Gates and microsoft are all Hyde all the time. Jobs might have had a smidgen of Jekyll, but if Apple had ever had the market share of microsoft the damage to users that did not fit the Apple profile would have been worse.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Every coin has two sides. A genius on one hand, a law-breaker on the other.





http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/bu...aries-too.html

What's the point of this post or thread?

Jobs is already dead. And while he was still alive, he was never convicted of any crime. Some people may don't like that, but it is what it is.

Was he a jerk? Probably. Most people that were interviewed for his bio/book (I read it, by the way) agreed on that.

But Jobs was a successful person. As a company's leader, he brought Apple from bottom and raised it to what it was or it is now. He had some failures, but successes as well.

And let's face it ... if you are John Doe, you will never be treated the same as if your name is Barack Obama, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates. If someone can't deal with it, well... sorry ... do something more important or creative with your life so you can also be recognized at that level too.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by jocampo

And let's face it ... if you are John Doe, you will never be treated the same as if your name is Barack Obama, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates. If someone can't deal with it, well... sorry ... do something more important or creative with your life so you can also be recognized at that level too.

Or we can choose role models who were prepared for obscurity even as the quality of their work left no option after their deaths but artistic immortality.

Emily Dickinson, John Keats, Charles Ives and Gerard Manley Hopkins are all examples of people who gave themselves to creative work exhaustively -- all the while knowing that obscurity and even social denigration were the likely result.

They have one trait in common with Jobs: Their artistic ideal was more important to them than social standing, health and other human concerns. The difference was that they were unconcerned about their own social standing and health, not other people’s.

As someone who's spent a fair amount of his studio career around rock stars, I can tell you that the kind ones are memorable, but the indifferent and occasionally cruel ones are typical.

We'd love to believe that the powerful are considerate of others and grateful for the advantages they enjoy. Rarely have I found that to be the case. That Jobs was often neither is more indicative of the temptations of his position than his idiosyncrasies as a man.

Would society be more humane if conduct and not financial success were its measure of individual worth? It’s a fun idea, but I have zero faith that human beings would accept such a system without undermining its fairness systematically, as they have in virtually every instance in which a government has tried to impose a sense of collective conscience.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

As someone who's spent a fair amount of his studio career around rock stars, I can tell you that the kind ones are memorable, but the indifferent and occasionally cruel ones are typical.

There are kind rock stars?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by jocampo

What's the point of this post or thread?

Jobs is already dead. And while he was still alive, he was never convicted of any crime. Some people may don't like that, but it is what it is.

Was he a jerk? Probably. Most people that were interviewed for his bio/book (I read it, by the way) agreed on that.

But Jobs was a successful person. As a company's leader, he brought Apple from bottom and raised it to what it was or it is now. He had some failures, but successes as well.

And let's face it ... if you are John Doe, you will never be treated the same as if your name is Barack Obama, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates. If someone can't deal with it, well... sorry ... do something more important or creative with your life so you can also be recognized at that level too.

In my opinion it is not about recognition, it is about the law. We are told that the laws apply to everyone, but it turns out that that is not true.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

In my opinion it is not about recognition, it is about the law. We are told that the laws apply to everyone, but it turns out that that is not true.

Again, the USA judicial system took a look and found no legal problems or reason to be prosecuted.

If you don't trust on our system or you believe our system is broken, that's a separate conversation.

And yes, laws apply to everyone, but you get better representation with a better and more expensive lawyer. That's true for USA and also for most Democratic countries. It's life my friend. And won't change. Time to accept reality of life.

And I think I'm done on this particular thread about criticizing or defending Jobs. He's dead already. And Like it or not, he was a successful entrepreneur and CEO. People who hate it, will hate it for ever. People who love him, will won't change their mind either. I'm personally not on either side, but engaging on black and white discussions about one of the another is just a waste of time to me.

[Penforhire]

A had a brother-in-law who worked at Apple and saw Jobs regularly. He was every bit the ass that matched his reputation. However, he was also the visionary and gatekeeper that made Apple the consumer product juggernaut it is today. I respect him for the latter, not the former.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I respect him for the latter, not the former.

Yup. While it's possible that the former correlates in some way with the latter, they are not inseparable.

As Lt. Columbo put it in one of my favorite episodes, "Murder Under Glass":

"I respect your talent, but I don't like anything else about you."

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

He was every bit the ass that matched his reputation. However, he was also the visionary and gatekeeper that made Apple the consumer product juggernaut it is today. I respect him for the latter, not the former.

And I respect your distinction.

You know that the outcome of a conversation's predetermined when pointing out any redeeming quality in the subject causes people to dismiss you as the equivalent of a drooling stooge.

The measure of our independence shouldn't be obligatory bitterness or enthusiasm. When there's that much pressure to feel a particular way about someone, we're not really talking about perceptions of people. We're being solicited for declarations of allegiance.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by jocampo

Again, the USA judicial system took a look and found no legal problems or reason to be prosecuted.

The thread is about the legal issues that the USA judicial system took a look at *after* Jobs died.

[little and large]

I couldn't wish a painful death upon anyone.

[speakingtohe]

If he was nicer and less ruthless perhaps Apple would no longer exist
http://blog.bufferapp.com/nice-guys-finish-poorest

[ApK]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

If he was nicer and less ruthless perhaps Apple would no longer exist
http://blog.bufferapp.com/nice-guys-finish-poorest

That article explicitly says being a jerk is not required.