HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Some good examples by Elon Musk and Steve Jobs described in this article.

https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/why-intelligent-minds-like...

This was probably one of Steve Job's most impressive example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

⬐ gcanyon

I clicked to double check, but I knew what Jobs clip you were linking to. That answer is so well done.

> But ultimately the people outside the company who said it was a poor move from a user POV turned out to be right.

Survivor bias? I'm sure there were people outside the company who said removing the headphone jack was a poor move, removing the CD drive was a poor move, moving to Intel was a poor move, removing the HDMI was a poor move, removing the F-keys was a poor move etc.

Eventually, some of those moves were reverted, some were not. Steve Jobs was exactly right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

   - you can please some of the people, some of the time. 

   - some mistakes will be made along the way. That's good, because at least some decisions are being made - when we find the mistakes, we'll fix them.

Dunno why the author didn't just listen to the man himself on why OpenDOC failed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

It didn't help that Apple was broke and Steve was more focused on keeping Apple alive than funding pie in the sky initiatives that may or may not work out - as Apple continued to bleed money.

A little of column A, a little of column B - in the end it didn't survive.

But don't take my word for it - from the man himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

Like this you mean? https://youtu.be/FF-tKLISfPE

⬐ pstuart

And what an artful response.

⬐ charlesu

That was 1997 at a conference. There was no social media or cancel culture.

My point is that you can be fired for insulting the wrong rich or the wrong anybody if it’s caught on camera and gets enough views and it brings shame to your lord. You’re not free when you clock out or leave the office. As an employee, you’re a representative of your company 24/7 whether you like it or not.

Jobs was all of that and more. Modern personal computing wouldn't exist without his insistence at making "Computers for the rest of us". There were many quite pissed at Apple for selling pre-assembled, ready to use computers. It was thought that unless you could assemble your machine you didn't deserve it.

Heck you see a lot of that attitude today in many open source projects.

And that's just one way he pushed modern computing into what it is today. Did he perform every detail himself? Nope - that would be absurd. But he took things that until that time no one else correlated, and he correlated and pushed for them. Often with amazing presence. And it wasn't willy-nilly, either.

I mean just look at the way he handled this OpenDoc troll:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

How many can compose themselves and deliver that kind of a response that quickly? Not many.

So yeah, those who try to dismiss Jobs as just a marketing or product guy are only displaying their profound ignorance. I don't think Jobs was perfect - far from it. But he certainly did make a dent in the universe, and many others too - perhaps it is a good thing that people like Jobs are pretty rare but there is no doubt we would all be a lot poorer if he hadn't existed.

Amen. Or as Jobs said, "You've got to start with the customer experience first and work backwards to the technology. You can't start with the technology and try to figure out how you're gonna sell it"

https://youtu.be/FF-tKLISfPE

⬐ SiVal

And yet, iPad.

⬐ yibg

What about it? Are you claiming the iPad started from the user experience or technology?

⬐ qubex

What do you mean by that? I’ve been using iPads as my main computing devices for the past five years (and almost exclusively for the past three). It depends on your workflows.

⬐ SiVal

I'm responding to "You can't start with the technology and try to figure out how you're gonna sell it", not saying iPad is bad.

I was referring to the remarkable history of iPad, which was designed to have certain features, not designed for a particular use. Jobs started on it before iPhone, attempting to combine his and Ive's favorite features: simple, multitouch, thinner!, no keyboard, no mouse, no stylus, no buttons, lightweight, handheld (not used plugged it), great screen, etc.

It was not designed as a "solution" but as a great...thing...that would turn out to be great for...something. It was his baby, and he insisted that they keep working on it until they found a use, which they did: they turned it into an iPhone.

That was smaller (screen size) than Jobs had planned, so he made them keep going on bigger versions. They would be so wonderful, they would be great at...something. When they released the first one in 2010, they were intentionally vague about its target market. They presented it as maybe a substitute for laptops for productivity apps, they presented it as sort of a better Kindle for reading, as an artist's tool (for artists who fingerpaint), etc., with the hope that with such a great collection of features, it would be like the original LaserWriter and turn out to be perfect for some market.

Regardless of what that market would end up being, it did in fact start with the technology that two passionate designers wanted to exist for its own sake without knowing in advance what it would end up being used for.

https://youtu.be/FF-tKLISfPE

Transcription at: https://austenallred.com/steve-jobs-insult-response-transcri...

> The hardest thing is, how does that fit into a cohesive larger vision that’s gonna allow you to sell 8 billion dollars — 10 billion dollars of product a year? One of the things I’ve always found is that you’ve got to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. You can’t start with the technology and try to figure out where you’re going to try to sell it. I’ve made this mistake probably more than anybody else in this room, and I’ve got the scar tissue to prove it.

Jobs provides a thoughtful answer here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

I disagree completely.

First, stop using the term "marketing" for "sales and advertisements". It is not.

Real Marketting is "the study of the markets", that is, what people need or wants. Apple in times of Steve Jobs was amazing in Real Marketing.

Apple created revolutionary new products like the mac, Ipod, Iphone, Ipad that sold (and curently sell) in the tens of millions each year. No other company has been able to do so at that scale.

Lots of people wrongly believe that people is brainwashed to buy what they don't want or need, because they don't understand.

They do not understand that it is the other way around. You design what is going to be sold like hotcakes. Because people want it or need it.

It is not even a secret: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

By the way for a lot of years I wanted a laptop that was done in metal(instead of using plastic with flame retardants) and Apple was the only one doing it. With batteries that lasted lots of hours, lightweight, and silent.

Those were essential for me as a traveler. People that could not understand would believe(because they did not have my needs) I was stupid for buying something 3x more expensive than a 3kgs crappy plastic laptop.

⬐ JohnFen

> They do not understand that it is the other way around. You design what is going to be sold like hotcakes. Because people want it or need it.

Apple never rose much above 10% market share in computer sales, though, which implies that it was addressing a boutique market, not what most people want.

⬐ SenHeng

Audio is a little garbled, here's a transcribe from r/Apple [0]

Man: "Mr. Jobs, you're a bright and influential man. It's sad and clear that on several counts you've discussed you don't know what you're talking about. I would like, for example, for you to express in clear terms, how, say Java, in any of its incarnations, expresses the ideas embodied in OpenDoc. And when you've finished with that, perhaps you could tell us what you personally have been doing for the last seven years."

Jobs: "Uh... You know, you can please some of the people some of the time, but...

One of the hardest things, when you're trying to affect change, is that people like this gentlemen are right in some areas. I'm sure there are some things OpenDoc does, probably even more that I'm not familiar with, that nothing else out there does. And I'm sure that you can make some demos, maybe a small commercial app, that demonstrates those things. The hardest thing is, how does that fit into a cohesive larger vision that's gonna allow you to sell 8 billion dollars - 10 billion dollars of product a year?

One of the things I've always found is that you've got to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. You can't start with the technology and try to figure out where you're going to try to sell it. I've made this mistake probably more than anybody else in this room, and I've got the scar tissue to prove it. And I know that it's the case. As we have tried to come up with a strategy and a vision for Apple, it started with "What incredible benefits can we give to the customer? Where can we take the customer?" not starting with, "Let's sit down with the engineers and figure out what awesome technology we have and then how are we going to market that. And I think that's the right path to take.

I remember, with the LaswerWriter - we built the world's first laser printer, as you know, and there was awesome technology in that box. We had the first Canon cheap laser printing engine in the United States. We had a very wonderful printer controller, we had Adobe's PostScript software in there, we had AppleTalk in there, just awesome technology in the box. And I remember seeing the first print-out come out of it. Just picking it up and looking at it, and thinking, "You know, we can sell this." Because you don't need to know anything about what's in that box. All we have to do is hold it up and go, "do you want this?" And if you can remember back to 1984 before laser printers, it was pretty startling to see that. People went, "Whoah. Yes."

That's where Apple's gotta get back to. I'm sorry that OpenDoc is a casualty along the way, and I readily admit there's many things in life that I don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking about. So I apologize for that too. But there's a whole lot of people working super, super hard right now at Apple. You know - Avie, John, Guerrino, Fred, I mean the whole team is working - burning the midnight oil, and hundreds of people below them - to execute on some of these things, and they're doing their best.

And some mistakes will be made along the way, by the way. That's good. Because at least some decisions are being made. We'll find the mistakes, and we'll fix 'em. And I think what we need to do is support that team. Going through this stage, as they work their butts off - they're all getting calls to go do this, do that, the valley's hot - none of them are leaving. And I think we need to support them, and see them through this, and write some damn good applications out in the market. Mistakes will be made, some people will be pissed off, some people will not know what they're talking about, but I think it's so much better than where things were not very long ago. And I think we're gonna get there.

0: https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/3faz2u/steve_jobs_in...

I find Solid incredibly interesting academically, and watch it with interest, but I'm sadly skeptical that it'll find traction— it requires both substantial development resources (as apps need to be rewritten to its standards) and a change in consumer behaviour.

I'm reminded of this Steve Jobs response from WWDC 1997 [1]:

> One of the things I've always found is that you've got to start with the customer experience and work backwards for the technology. You can't start with the technology and try to figure out where you're going to try to sell it. And I made this mistake probably more than anybody else in this room. And I got the scar tissue to prove it.

The beauty of the implementation I described is that it could work with any existing (web) app with little-no development effort while leveraging affordance users already have from using Touch/Face ID to authenticate Keychain, Apple Pay etc.

Until a proposal like Solid is widespread, I'd love for a browser/password manager vendor I trust (for me, Mozilla or Apple) to integrate with a privacy-forward email vendor for unique email addresses to provide a less 'fingerprinted' approach to auth, useful today with all legacy (web) apps.

[1] https://youtu.be/FF-tKLISfPE

⬐ davidy123

I don't disagree with what you're saying. But it's also reasonable to focus just on working with those who see the same thing you do, and develop widely usable systems based on that. That's where everything comes from, basically. If we keep pandering to the lowest common denominator, the results will always be compromised.

GDPR is having a big impact on these discussions. Organizations don't want to own data any more. It would be a true tragedy of more collapsing of the net if it came down to using one of a few big providers, without alternate options. Yet we're seeing this happen, since many sites now only offer login via social media, with no option via email. IMO, these sites should be boycotted.

⬐ nadc

Relatedly, it seems Apple is planning to make 'Sign in with Apple' mandatory for every iOS developer using any third party sign in: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/3/18651344/wwdc-2019-apple-f...

Watch Jobs in his prime a year later describing his philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

I am very far from an Apple fanboy but gosh, this guy totally gets it.

I appreciate the long response, and I kind of feel bad because I meant my question in a rather different way. And (assuming you even notice my response at this point) perhaps I'm going to take us down a road of talking past each other.

My question is about incentives. An unchallenged organization, I would think, would have the tendency to perpetuate itself, and sing its own praises, and deem itself very important.

Let me put it this way: The analogous question isn't what Microsoft does to maintain quality. The question is, how does the world at large maintain Microsoft's quality (and efficiency?). A decade or so of security embarrassments and OSX's and Linux's better reputation got them to step up their security game. Recently, Apple's design got them to step up their design game. If you asked a manager for a canceled project inside the company they might have a great process plan, a great argument for why they need more time and resources, and a great explanation for why they and their team are important. But they may have no sense of the needs of the outside world. This exchange between Steve Jobs and an (apparent) Apple employee highlights this mentality, vs the mentality of an entrepreneur who does respond to the outside world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

It very well may be that the FDA does a fantastic job of filtering out bad stuff. And, as (I may as well come out and say it) a libertarian, perhaps I am guilty of not appreciating all the work that has gone into setting it up. But it doesn't mean that they have a sense of the correct amount of rigor to apply, money to spend on various aspects of their operation, etc. That's why we like to see competition in the field of certification.

"That a business should go bankrupt before 1 bad drug is approved." and "some of the largest fines against businesses in history" are great examples of perhaps being a bit too rigorous or punitive. You can always apply more and get at least marginally safer drugs. But you may also get fewer drugs through the process, or more expensive drugs, or companies that decide not to even bother starting the process (which you'll never hear about), and (maybe) more people die on net as a result.

I will grant to you, taking your claims at face value, that you make a convincing case that the FDA at least hasn't gotten lax for the lack of outside corrective influence. I guess the mechanism for improvement there is simply human dedication, and I will buy that argument.

And then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

Don't forget Cyberdog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xjkm_fSM1g

You could drag and drop files into that browser in 1997! Sadly some Youtube videos are hard to find.

Should be here somewhere https://www.youtube.com/user/EveryAppleVideo

⬐ setpatchaddress

CyberDog was actually compelling for end users, unlike most OpenDoc components. Best Mac web browser UI until Safari, and best mail client for a long time. Became obsolete due to the progression of web standards very quickly, though.

⬐ Esau

I thought Claris Emailer was the nicest email program of the Mac OS 8 era.

⬐ abrowne

I remember finding and using CyberDog for while. I think one of the features was the "back" action was fast (instead of basically reloading the previous page from scratch), which sounds boring, but then noticeable when using another browser.

I also seem to remember that much the team went on to work on IE for Mac, which was an entirely different code base from Windows IE.

A "Retina"-density foldable screen is a number of years away, and it'd mostly be a cool tech trick. You're missing the fact that you'd have to amp up computational power to match that of a regular desktop computer.

Steve Jobs said it best here[1], where he discusses tech for tech's sake versus what tech enables you to do. What would a flexible, expandable, HD screen enable you to that you couldn't do already?

Your question is the billion-dollar question that YC was founded for. Anyone you ask will have a different answer, if at all.

I honestly think the Tesla company's products are going to cause an energy revolution. I think Elon Musk is the biggest "visionary" right now. The handheld computing space is pretty saturated at the moment.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

"By the way, the Retina image on the blog post was 46kb over the wire which is bigger than all the JS in his app."

Boom Baby!

Sorry, I just love how you picked up on that. Yeah, lets complain about size of our code, but hey look at my pretty high-res image!

"The lady doth protest too much, me thinks".

Anyway, at the end of the day its about creating an experience that gets the job done (and ultimately get more $$$ in your pocket). Many of the problems I see (here and in the office) are debates on which framework is the best for this and that. Though those are good debates to have, one shouldn't sacrifice the end goal for the "proper" software solution.

Jobs said it best here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

As `teovall noted, any particular reason you linked a version covered with SEO keywords with only a few views of the video instead of the one with 2.5 million (which has the exact same title but is remarkably lacking in SEO spam)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE is the original, for anyone who's curious.

⬐ padobson

Yeah yeah, work backwords from the user experience and find/build the technology to make that happen. Peachy.

What I want to know, is, where can I get a pair of those acid-wash jeans with the stark, black patches on them?

Cool video, by why not link to the original copy with 2.5+ million views instead of some copy with a bunch of SEO keywords and only 38 views?

Here's the original:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

I have heard several variants of this opinion, from several people, and it always blows my mind.

Steve Jobs practically invented garish colored plastic housings. Don't you remember the iMac? In translucent 'Bondi Blue' and then every color under the sun? And how somehow just about every product on earth -- even like kitchen gadgets and car air fresheners and shit -- suddenly started coming out in weird-colored plastic housings?

And then how Apple-under-jobs returned to that playbook for their music player line?

I think the people who now say Steve Jobs wouldn't have made a cheaper colored-plastic-clad iPhone are the same ones who now say he would never have worn stonewashed jeans with huge non-functional thigh and knee patches.[1]

[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

⬐ city41

> Steve Jobs practically invented garish colored plastic housings.

And then he and Ives went onto Titanium and ultimately settled on aluminum. They've not made a plastic computer since. Jobs most likely would see plastic as a regression.

⬐ Oletros

> And then he and Ives went onto Titanium and ultimately settled on aluminum. They've not made a plastic computer since.

Macbook from 2006 to 2011 says Hi!

⬐ city41

It's currently 2013 in case you didn't know :)

⬐ veidr

Actually, right now I am anxiously awaiting the latest model of Apple's flagship computer, which will ship later this year and is made out of plastic:

http://www.apple.com/mac-pro

⬐ Oletros

It is not plastic

⬐ veidr

Oh really?? Cool; just because it isn't true that Steve Jobs wouldn't release a plastic computer, that doesn't mean I want to spend ten grand on one... :-D

So what material is it? Do you have source for that info?

"Google Reader founder Chris Wetherell said that if the idea came to him in today’s Google, he would leave the company and build it on his own rather than put it at the mercy of Google leadership."

Guess what dude?! If I were in that position and I were primarily worried about my project "being at the mercy of Google" (or any company that I don't have sufficient control over, for that matter), I would have left _anytime_. It should not be something you realize _today_. This is just whining over a "wrong" (presumably; assuming you would have pulled it off well) tradeoff you, yourself, made back in the day. It's not "today's Google vs. back then's Google". This is the tradeoff that you make anytime you decide to work for someone else; this is obvious and was obvious back in the day. If you had not seen it, the blame is wholly on you.

Google Reader would not have been a guaranteed success that it was without Google's resources. If one does not have the balls to take the risk of working at his or her own startup, he or she is not entitled to the benefits either. In hindsight, it's too easy to say "I would have gone and pulled it off independently".

I personally think Larry overall has been focusing on what matters and under his awesome leadership, Google is performing far better than Eric's time and this whole situation is not dissimilar to what happened at WWDC1997 and Steve's response to the random questioner in the audience:

"...the hardest thing is how does that fit in to a cohesive larger vision that's gonna allow you to sell 8 billion dollars... 10 billion dollars... a product a year."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

⬐ wpietri

Why in the world are you being a dick about this? The whining and lack of balls are all things you are brining to the article; they're not in the text.

The guy did what he thought was right at the time. He's not complaining about it. He's just saying that under today's conditions, he would have chosen differently.

He also didn't say he would have pulled it off independently. Just that today he would leave and build it on his own.

Given that other people are doing that successfully (I just paid good money to NewsBlur), it seems like a pretty sound evaluation to me. And I'll note that the guy did leave and do something independently, so it sounds like he has plenty of balls to me.

⬐ mehrdada

The title implies all that. At least that's how I see it.

My main point: in my view, the logical reasoning process that leads to the decision of inventing Google Reader inside Google or outside Google should be independent of Google culture at the time. It is a function of how much control you have over the company and your situation and goals, but not the company culture, so the correct decision with respect to the goals should not have changed over time. Logically, he should have always assumed that his product may get axed at the king's will and should have accounted for this risk in his calculations. The fact that leadership/culture can change against your will is a risk that existed from the start.

(To be honest, I don't have anything personal against this guy. I liked his product. What I meant to say was much more general when I mentioned "having balls": I really meant you cannot retrospectively claim credit for something you did not actually go and do, and the tone of that article irritates me in this respect. It might very well be the article writer's fault, not the guy himself.)

⬐ massless

Actually, mehrdata, I think you might be reading a lot more into my statements than are actually present. While cultures evolve, I feel lucky we were able to make Reader within Google. I think that its being at Google made it a better product.

When asked if I would build it in today's Google my answer was "no" given that Google is clearly uninterested in this project at the moment. Seems kinda obvious, really.

I feel that epistasis more accurately guessed at the unpublished feelings I've had. The following are all things I think simultaneously right now...

Google is a great company

Google makes great things

Google is not interested in pursuing Reader

Communication around Reader's value (or how to improve it) within Google was unclear

There may be confusion for inventor-types within Google on how to proceed in today's Google, though that's possibly remedied by better communication internally

I'm glad you liked Reader. No need to guess about my actual thoughts about the past since I can summarize: Thanks to a great company with great people, Google Reader was made into a service that was many times better than I ever could have built alone in my apartment. There's no way to know if that success could have been achieved somewhere else. Everyone working on Reader knew it could have been cancelled at any time. It wasn't cancelled for a long time. I'm glad we got to experiment with the idea and the experience.

⬐ piyush_soni

Wait. When asked if you would build it in Today's Google, your answer would be no, because Google is clearly uninterested in this project at the moment. :). I mean really, if Google is uninterested, it's Google who effectively said No isn't it?

⬐ massless

Er, no. At the risk of getting all Primer on this, the hypothetical situation posed allowed for a history where Reader was never invented but somehow magically I retained the knowledge of how Google would have evolved in the (hypothetical-to-them) event Reader had been launched there.

Given that knowledge, I certainly wouldn't choose to build it in today's Google given I'd be armed with data suggesting it would not be supported. This point, while kind of mindless and diverting, doesn't seem very useful, though.

Actually, there's a bunch of causality minefields here; we should both be concerned that we could inadvertently violate Novikov's self-consistency principle. My conclusion is for us to back away slowly from the thread – I don't want either of us to accidentally become our own grandfathers.

⬐ mehrdada

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you cleared this up. I'm sorry if I read too much through your statements.

The last feeling you mentioned is totally aligned with I was trying to say: to emphasize if you are an inventor type, you'd want to evaluate the risk of serving at the pleasure of the king carefully; it isn't necessarily a bad value proposition, but it certainly carries the risk of getting derailed or axed. Same goes for people who sell their companies to others; you cannot expect them to move forward with your initial vision.

⬐ wisty

> Guess what dude?! If I were in that position and I were primarily worried about my project "being at the mercy of Google" (or any company that I don't have sufficient control over, for that matter), I would have left _anytime_.

If you don't have a boss, your boss is either your VC, or your customers. Guess what - they can suck more than Google (at least, Google back in 'the day').

⬐ None

None

⬐ cmpxchg8

Au contraire. This is exactly the Google of today vs back then's Google.

The Google of today focuses only on social and mobile and, GoogleX aside, will not green-light anything that will not benefit those two. You can ask anybody who works there how the 20% project time policy has changed or how certain teams have all the resources and cool stuff while others struggle.

Android under Sundar Pichai is not much better than it was under Andy, although I'm glad the latter is gone. And Vic Gundotra, well, he's one big hypocrite.

Google is still a great place to work, but the politics and trying to create the next Facebook have pretty much ruined its culture.

⬐ epistasis

> This is just whining over a "wrong" (presumably; assuming you would have pulled it off well) tradeoff you, yourself, made back in the day. It's not "today's Google vs. back then's Google".

I don't see any whining about a wrong, I see somebody saying that Google is different today from when it was back when he first made Reader. I don't see him regretting making Reader, just saying that today, because of cultural changes at Google, he'd do it outside of Google rather than inside of Google.

This is not somebody regretting their actions, this is somebody saying that Google's culture is different today then it was back then. Clearly you're a fan of this new culture, and that's just fine, but don't miscontrue his words.

⬐ mehrdada

>> I don't see any whining about a wrong

I don't think it was a wrong decision either--hence the quotes. I think it was not easy to pull it off outside Google.

>> I see somebody saying that Google is different today from when it was back when he first made Reader

I do not deny that there might have been a fundamental culture change at Google. My point, precisely, is that a culture change is orthogonal to the fundamental fact that at someone else's company, they have the ultimate control over your invention. That's one big reason people go (and went) start start-ups. This is what has never changed and it's the employee's fault if they do not realize this when they accept their employment offer.

>> Clearly you're a fan of this new culture

I've never accepted an offer from Google. What I said does not necessarily imply that I'm a fan of the internal culture, or would have liked new Google management better if I were an employee. I am assessing the overall vision of Google leadership and their output from the outside and believe they are doing a very good job, and the credit for a company doing well should first and foremost go to the utmost leadership.

I like the new management better because they seem to have a much more coherent and focused vision, waste less resources, and while they obviously make mistakes too, overall, they have shown boldness in their actions. Even if I'm not particularly happy with the act of shutting down Google Reader, I like that they are bold and have the courage to execute what they think is right. Cutting a fairly successful product does not directly imply good leadership, but it does imply boldness which is highly correlated with good leadership.

⬐ epistasis

> This is what has never changed and it's the employee's fault if they do not realize this when they accept their employment offer.

My point is that he already realizes this. And that within one Google culture, he felt comfortable handing it all over to Google and taking advantage of all their resources and clout, and that in today's different Google culture, it's not a clearcut decision anymore, and in particular, pursuing a project that management sees as being at odds with the core mission of Google+ would probably be a bad idea. So I don't think you have any news for him, despite your initial claims.

⬐ mehrdada

If his primary concern had been Google Reader staying alive, he arguably had "false sense of comfort" back then, and this is exactly what I am saying. He made a mistake in evaluating risks.

The news is not for him, of course, as it would have been useless. The news is for anyone else who feels like safely innovating within a big company with _any_ culture today. There is a trade-off that you always take. Know it well when you make it. It can be much easier to leverage a big company's resources; on the other hand, your product may not follow your initial vision or get a bullet in its head. "The culture seemed cool back then so I was fooled by recruiter propaganda telling me I have control, blah, blah..." is not an excuse.

EDIT: To clarify, all of this post presumed it would have been successful if he'd done it outside Google, something he seems to imply by his statement. I want to reiterate that I personally object to this very assumption, so I think he made the right trade-off, in which case, it's all fine, but he should not post a rant that implies doing it outside Google would have been catch-free.

This is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

For those not initiated, OpenDoc was a multimedia document format developed by Apple before Steve Jobs came back to Apple, which was when he violently killed OpenDoc.

⬐ learningram

Wish he was alive for a few more years :(

⬐ gcb0

Killed it and allowed Microsoft to boss them around another couple of decades thanks to office monopoly. Google is now getting close to end this.

⬐ mynameisvlad

Google ending Microsoft Office's monopoly.

That's funny.

⬐ gcb0

Well, my place of work uses google drive exclusively. That's 60.000 people less paying office licenses for Microsoft...

⬐ hayksaakian

Honestly not unthinkable in this day and age. Maybe office becomes the corporate niche thing, and everyone uses g docs or a tablet/phone app at home.

⬐ norswap

gdocs still has a long way to go. It's a harmless toy compared to Office, and I'm very far from being a power user.

⬐ dredmorbius

I suspect an interpretation, if not grandparent's, is that one monopoly is being traded for another.

⬐ orionblastar

First this shows that Jobs was a class-act. Instead of responding to the insult with another insult or calling him wrong, Jobs admitted he didn't know much about OpenDoc (He was not at Apple when it was invented) and could not find a way to make enough use of it for Apple to earn money (Apple was losing money on it) and that he learned from past mistakes not to invent the technology first and then market it, but instead cater to what the user needs and fill that need and make it a good experience for the customer.

What Jobs was doing for the past several years before returning to Apple was building up Next and Pixar, the technology at Next saved Apple by evolving into Mac OS X and also merging with Mac OS technology.

OpenDoc was Apple's answer to the Amiga IIF (Intelligent Interface Format) and Microsoft's OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) it allowed different software to share document objects, pictures, and the like between software and even platforms. Apple had problems with it using too much memory and could not find a good use for it. MS-Office used OLE to share Word, Excel, Powerpoint etc objects between applications. I programmed with it to control Word objects and other objects and exchange data, fill in Word templates with data from SQL Server for mailing lists and cover letters for FAX transmissions and other things.

Jobs was right to terminate OpenDOC, the Apple Laserwriter, the Apple Newton and other projects because Apple could not sell them and they cost more money to support than they brought in. Other companies made laser printers cheaper than Apple, even if Apple had a laser printer out first. The Newton didn't quite work correctly in handwriting recognition, and the Palm Pilot worked better than the Newton. OpenDoc wasn't finished and was using up resources and money at Apple that Jobs needed to divert to other things in order to save the company.

I can see why this guy thought Jobs was a jerk or a phony, Jobs didn't know what OpenDocs could do and he admitted to it, sometimes you just don't know things. I guess the guy liked OpenDoc and wanted to see it continue. Apple also had Cyberdog and other projects like MKLinux that they canceled. Good ideas yes, but they just didn't bring in enough money. Jobs learned to innovate to the customer experience based on the customer's needs. The customer did not need or want OpenDoc, the Newton, The LaserWriter, MKLinux, Cyberdog, etc so Jobs had to cut them out. Then replace them with things the customer did want and need like a lower cost Macintosh called an iMac, the iPod music player and the iTunes music store, a new Macintosh operating system called Mac OS X, the Safari web browser, etc. Those happened to do better and earn more money for Apple because the customer had a better experience with them and it filled their needs and wants.

⬐ bijouthings

If you consider cutting all charities out and not having plates on his car so he could park in handicap spaces a class act, yep, he was.

⬐ whtvr_mike

Of special interest: how he frames the process as starting with the customer needs instead of the existing technology. And how he has the scar tissue to prove that's the way to do it.

Nothing on 60 minutes or the endless techblog coverage has come close to exposing what exactly it was that made him think so very different.

Or maybe, as a bizdev guy, it's just my own biases showing.

Good observation, I think that's exactly what we're seeing.

It's an interesting balancing act that can sometimes go against the very grain of tech companies, especially one the size of Google. Everything we as mere mortals in the tech business are taught is to try things, fail quickly, iterate.

Jobs approach was to do a few things and do them well. Indeed, he felt the most important thing one could do, as an agent of change in that type of role, was to learn to effectively say no. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

Page has always been very smart and a phenomenal software engineer, but his new role is different. I believe Page finds himself in a somewhat similar position to Jobs in 1997, and it will be very interesting to see how he does as a technology leader.

⬐ willifred

What are the similarities in position between Jobs/Apple in 1997 and Page/Google now?

⬐ jroseattle

The companies are certainly in different spots -- Apple was floundering in 1997, while Google is growing in 2011. But I do see common threads for the roles that both Jobs played then and Page is playing now.

Jobs returned to Apple after a 10+ year hiatus. So, while returning to his roots, they were not the same team he had left behind. He had to reconstruct much of the company's management structure, which he felt was fraught with engineering mismanagement. (Saw an interview with Jobs from back then, but can't seem to find the source of those comments now.)

Page, in assuming the role as head of the company earlier this year, was taking ownership of a management team and organization that had largely been put in place by Schmidt (remember when he was needed for "adult supervision"). While Page was certainly there during that duration, he also didn't have direct responsibility for the rest of the organization. It's not an exact parallel, but Page certainly had a new organization from when he gave up the reins a decade ago. (And, he quickly responded by re-aligning several key management members).

But more so than environmental, it is the state of product development in Google I find most similar.

Jobs inherited a company that was spinning its wheels on various ideas, but not doing anything particularly well. Any vision the company held was certainly not reflected in the products it brought to the marketplace.

Page inherits a situation where, outside of search, Google doesn't do anything particularly well. I don't mean they suck, just that their product offering isn't much of a differentiator from competitors, or provides a compelling experience for users. I'm sure arguments can be made to counter my subjective opinion, but there are no product or services from Google that rivals the popularity of it's web search.

Referring back to Jobs's 1997 WWDC speech, it was about setting the bar for finding exactly what they should be working on, without regard to whether something had traction or if it was a good technical idea. I believe Page has to make those very same considerations right now.

⬐ willifred

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I now see that there are a number of parallels—but I still think the contrasts are more striking.

First of all, Eric Schmidt did an excellent job. In 2011, Page inherited a that is hugely profitable, practically owns search, and has successfully expanded into many other markets. While there's no doubt that he'll do many things differently, you can pretty much guarantee it's not going to be anything on the order of the massive purges Apple experienced in the late 90s. Apple in 1997 was mortibund; almost nobody thought Jobs had a serious chance at turning it around.

Schmidt successfully did for Page and Brin what John Sculley was supposed to do for Jobs; provide guidance for an inexperienced founder until they can assume the chief executive role.

And while I agree with much of what you wrote, I take exception to the idea that, outside of search, Google 'doesn't do anything particularly well'. They have a range of excellent and successful products, most of them well integrated into their core business. I refuse to accept the idea that, for example, Maps, Gmail and Android aren't products 'done well'.

⬐ jroseattle

Certainly, Page will be buoyed by the results of Schmidt's tenure. The pressure on Jobs to improve the situation is certainly greater than the pressure on Page, at least in that respect.

My comment about Google and there other products is that they don't do anything exceedingly well over the competition outside of search. It's not that their products aren't done well, they just don't differentiate the company. Maps, as you point out, is a fine product -- but there are other map products that are just as good. Gmail vs. other web-based mail? Android vs. iOS? While fine products, they don't put Google head-and-shoulders above the market.

By comparison, nearly every product offered by Apple is considered best-in-class. The iPod. The iPhone. The iPad. The iMac desktops & laptops.

To be sure, achieving was Apple has achieved is no small matter, even for the bright minds at Google. And, it's not to say that if they don't reach that point, Page's tenure as CEO amounts to failure. But, I believe the expectations are for Google to achieve some of that best-in-class dominance, because of their position in search.

I've been following Steve Jobs since I was a kid, about 30 years ago. Woz was more my hero then, but I read everything I could about Jobs even then, and ever since.

I think Jobs transformed himself on a fundamental level. The young Steve seemed arrogant and self centered. Getting pushed out of Apple seems to have been a kick to the soul, and then in his 10 years away, he seems to have changed everything about him that was bad. Just check out how he responded to the insult given to him at the 1997 after WWDC session. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE

Now that enough time has passed, all the people who were bashing Jobs from 1990-2011 are back bashing Jobs again.

But I think these stories are the real guy.

I was in his presence on a couple of occasions. You can fake some things, but its really hard to fake who you are. Everyone has their good and bad days... but one thing I can say about Steve, he was always genuine.

Made him a great salesperson, too, cause even if he was wrong, he believed.

So, I am grateful for these anecdotes. I'm eternally grateful for the 2005 commencement address. He was so private, and for good reason, and until the biography comes out these are some of the few views we have to him as a person. (I think the biography is going to be very revealing, and surprising when it comes out, since he's such a "control freak" but I think he didn't exercise any control, and people will be shocked.)

⬐ Tyrannosaurs

I think these stories show that, like all of us, any one line summary of who we are is going to be a gross over simplification.

He wasn't all bad, he wasn't all good, he was a human and like all of us he was a mix of things we're proud of, things we're ashamed of and things which are somewhere in between.

If he was a complete arse he'd never have held on to the talent he did at Apple and Pixar and never have held down a marriage. On the other hand there are too many stories about him being a dick to people to suggest that he certainly had that within him.

But I do think that within the few weeks of his death the respectful thing to do is to remember the better things and then over time we can let history work out the truth.

⬐ chugger

1) Silicon Valley's prodigal son is banished from his company.

2) Grows up

3) Comes back to become one of the greatest visionaries of our time. Inspires millions.

4) Dies young.

⬐ jforman

Reminds me of The Hero's Journey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero%27s_Journey (the pattern of separation, initiation, and return common to many hero myths).

⬐ quizbiz

There is a wonderful argument about product strategy in there. Steve Jobs says, ""you've got to start with customer the video and work backward to the technology"".

Direct link to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE