Think different about Jobs
Isaacson's book is a hatchet job, with many errors, and some downright dishonest statements.  It is a shame that Jobs cooperated with that hack.<p>In numerous passages, Isaacson will quote Jobs saying something perfectly truthful[1], and then follow it up with a claim that Jobs is lying.  Most of the time, he doesn't provide any evidence that Jobs is lying, just the assertion, because, as Isaacson is careful to tell us many times in the book, Jobs is famous for his "reality distortion field".  I guess this means that Isaacson doesn't have to back up his assertions, and of course Steve Jobs isn't around to defend himself.<p>One example of this is Jobs talking about how NeXT's software gave the Mac new life.  Isaacson says this is a lie, and then goes on to quote Bill Gates who says none of the NeXT code made it into OS X.   Now, this is an obvious and bald faced lie on Gates' part, but Isaacson doesn't know any better.  He's decided that Jobs is a liar, and therefore , whenever someone says anything that disagrees, it must be evidence that Jobs was lying.<p>Reality is, OS X is NeXTSTEP with the Mac UI put on top of it, and at this point another 10 years of evolution.  Gates was lying for whatever reasons Gates lies (and gates really is pathological in this regard).<p>Another example is how he treats the statements of Alvy Ray Smith.  One of the really nice things about the PBS show on Jobs a few weeks ago was getting to see Alvy.  He's clearly disgruntled.  And this makes sense, given the extreme difficulties Pixar had in the early years before they were able to start doing features. As a result, as the company kept needing money, and since they couldn't' get outside Capital, they kept using Jobs' capital, and other founders would get diluted as Jobs would buy more and more shares by putting more and more money into it to keep it afloat.  In Isaacson's book, however, this isn't really explained, and it comes off as if Jobs was ripping off the others.  Isaacson takes Alvy at face value.... but doesn't seem to ask Catmull or others about it.<p>This makes Isaacson a sucker for anyone who has any "dirt" on Jobs, and he clearly didn't ask Steve about many of these claims (or if he did, he didn't put Steve's response in the book.)<p>The book is an excellent piece of propaganda.  It pretends to glorify someone who it is obvious the public recognizes as a major positive impact on society, while subtly and at every turn, engaging in character assassination.<p>For the past 30 years, I've seen constant repetition of lies about Apple.  I'm not really surprised to see Isaacson do a hatchet job-- as every other book about Jobs has been one as well.  His is a little more classy, but a hatchet job none the less.<p>If you think you've got nothing to learn form Steve Jobs, or that he was a bad guy, well, that reflects a lot more on you than on him.<p>It's sad that, now that he's died, it seems the haters-- all of whom seem to be completely ignorant about the history of Apple and constantly repeating the same mindless party line-- feel that they are free to keep posting these bullshit stories and voting them up.<p>Its time to stop.  I know you kids think its cool to bash Steve Jobs because "android android derp derp derp!" but this is Hacker News.  This is the site for technology enthusiasts who want to do Startups. If you don't respect Steve Jobs for taking a garage startup all the way to being larger than Exxon Mobile in 30 years, by doing a small number of products exceedingly well, I don't think you should be hanging out here.<p>[1] I've had Apple products for 25+ years. I've been following the company for that long and have met a fair number of their executives over the years and a lot of Apple employees.  I'm extremely well versed in all things Apple, to the point that I caught many innocent errors in the book.  There are things I don't know about, of course, such as current plans, and things Jobs said that were private.  But when I say "something perfectly truthful", I mean, the statement is something I know to be a fact from an independant source (not Steve Jobs) and it is at least a fair statement of the facts (leaving room for some of the statements being opinions. On at least one occasion, Isaacson calls an opinion a lie.)