Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Book Reveals Apple's Steve Jobs Was First Choice for Google CEO

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the do-no-evil-while-wearing-a-black-turtleneck dept.

Google 167

A Reader notes, Steven Levy's latest book, In The Plex: How Google Thinks, Works and Shapes Our Lives, lifts the lid on the secretive world of Google, revealing how the founders fell out with Apple's Steve Jobs and what happened in the search engine's exit from China. Levy claims that when Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page were on the hunt for a chief executive they wanted Steve Jobs to take the job. Obviously, he didn't, and later the two companies became fierce rivals rather than allies.

cancel ×

167 comments

How different things could have been (3, Insightful)

McGuirk (1189283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35769996)

It makes you wonder how things would have turned out if Jobs had accepted the offer. Then again, the competition between the two is likely to still lead to some new innovations that might not surface otherwise.

Re:How different things could have been (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770032)

"Don't be evil" could not have been the motto with that douChEO in charge

Re:How different things could have been (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770156)

"Don't be evil" could not have been the motto with that douChEO in charge

Youtube wouldn't be using Flash right now, though.

Re:How different things could have been (3, Insightful)

joh (27088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770318)

"Don't be evil" could not have been the motto with that douChEO in charge

Youtube wouldn't be using Flash right now, though.

And Google Apps would be a joy to use instead of the total mess it is.

Re:How different things could have been (1, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771002)

"Don't be evil" could not have been the motto with that douChEO in charge

Youtube wouldn't be using Flash right now, though.

And Google Apps would be a joy to use instead of the total mess it is.

Only for those who would drink the koolaid, and then only on Mac.

Re:How different things could have been (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771466)

and cost $250 for a license unless you used a shiny white computer.

Re:How different things could have been (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771576)

Not if it was anything like itunes

Re:How different things could have been (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770322)

No, but it would still be using a patent-encumbered format.

Re:How different things could have been (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770650)

You mean like one it currently uses. H.246

Re:How different things could have been (1)

leenks (906881) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770358)

I don't have Flash. I can use YouTube.

Re:How different things could have been (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770478)

Well you can thank Apple and the other members of the WHATWG [wikipedia.org] for that.

Re:How different things could have been (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771670)

only partially. there is definitely not 100% h.264 or webm coverage on youtube right now

Re:How different things could have been (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770884)

Google wouldn't have bought YouTube if Jobs was in charge. YouTube was and continues to be a huge den of Copyright infringement.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770662)

I think a week old cheeseburger could have made a more useful comment.

Re:How different things could have been (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770444)

I'm not sure that Jobs could possibly have been induced to take the offer: He already has more money than he could conceivably spend on any hobby that isn't "tell financial minion to write check for value of liquid holdings to somebody"(and, unlike many wealthy CEOs, he doesn't seem to have any wildly expensive hobbies), so he is unlikely to be buyable.

His work with Apple(which obviously gooses the value of his stock holdings; but for which he doesn't get paid nearly what he easy could demand) seems to be entirely about pursuing his perfectionism wherever it leads him, even if that means killing profitable products(hello iPod Mini...), stomping on backwards compatibility in ways that upset important partners(Yo Adobe, 64 bit carbon is dead, we didn't bother to tell you until the last second; because Cocoa is just better.) and trading marketshare for margin whenever necessary(nearly all the Macs, the continued lack of a 1 socket mini-tower type config).

Google, on the other hand, really only does relentless perfectionism on the back end(datacenter efficiency and search algorithms). Most of their user-facing stuff is not bad; but is proudly beta, low margin, and basically about being good enough to serve its strategically vital cash cows.

Unless Jobs suddenly developed an intense hatred of publicity, in which case he might well be a good recruit for some position in Google's back-end operations, a gig with Google would run strongly against his tastes, and he already has enough money, and not enough interest in money, that Google couldn't easily buy him.

Re:How different things could have been (1, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770720)

Plus Jobs is a complete narcissist, he would have trouble functioning in an environment where there were identifiable people who could replace him as opposed to his easily cowed, faceless board of directors at apple.

Re:How different things could have been (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770654)

As big a fan I am of Steve, his golden touch is with physical objects. I don't know if he understands search. Would gmail, my favorite google product, have been free to the general public or behind a paywall destined for obscurity forever?

I'm hesistant to say more, because he showed with NeXT an understanding of software, so I can't fault him with that, although I can't grasp OS X gui or some mac software beyond the basic, how to do things I take for granted in Windows as trivial methods easily discovered.

IMO, it wouldn't have turned out well for either party. Like putting a soda executive in charge of a computer company.

Re:How different things could have been (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770732)

Steve doesn't necessarily understand physical objects, he has a knack for promoting and supporting people that know what they're doing. He wasn't responsible for the iPod, iPad, iPhone or any number of other gizmos that they've had great luck with, he was however responsible for ensuring that the people who were had the resources and support to make a quality product.

Re:How different things could have been (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771014)

However, he also knows how to push people who come to him with a substandard product. Brilliant people can still put forward crappy work if allowed.

Re:How different things could have been (1)

a_hanso (1891616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35772124)

His 'knack', i think, is for having a very clear picture in his mind about how a device should look, feel and behave. He keeps pushing the implementation team until they bring him that device.

Google phones would probably be cooler ... (2, Funny)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771274)

It makes you wonder how things would have turned out if Jobs had accepted the offer.

Well, google phones probably would have been cooler and much more popular. ;-)

Had seen this in some TV show (1)

cranil (1983560) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770014)

I wonder what would have happened though...

good thing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770016)

good thing google has contributed so much to open source, imagine if steve jobs was CEO. We would get nothing!

Re:good thing (4, Insightful)

skribble (98873) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770184)

. o O { don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll...}

Re:good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770226)

I'm a troll? Well maybe a little, I shouldn't have said we get nothing but you can not seriously argue we would have gotten anywhere near the amount we have from google. Apple summer of code anyone?

Re:good thing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770420)

WebKit.

Re:good thing (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770534)

WebKit was only reopened for Apple to receive development and testing [webkit.org] from other companies and organizations. Going over the logs it seems that Google submits more changesets than Apple does these days. WebKit was not a contribution from Apple; the move was purely motive-based.

Apple and open source reminds me of this: http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/ [microsoft.com] . "We value openness as a company...."

Re:good thing (3, Informative)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770586)

WebKit was a derivative of KHTML, a GPL'd system.

Re:good thing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771286)

It was derived for the major components. But the GPL is slowly being excised from WebKit. Anything that can be licensed BSD in WebKit has already done so. I think all ObjC platform code is BSD currently.

I just scanned the latest WebKit nightly.

Files matching ".cpp .h .mm" in trunk/Source: 8726

GPL files in JavaScriptCore: 245 out of 688
GPL files in WebCore: 1705 out of 5437
GPL files in WebKit: 228 out of 1417
GPL files in WebKit2: 34 out of 937
------------------
GPL files = 2212 (2212 in directory)

BSD files in JavaScriptCore: 403 out of 688
BSD files in WebCore: 3510 out of 5437
BSD files in WebKit: 1115 out of 1417
BSD files in WebKit2: 897 out of 937
------------------
BSD files = 5925 (5940 in directory)

In two years the GPL will likely be no longer in WebKit.

Re:good thing (1)

DynamiteNeon (623949) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771600)

Webkit. Just one example. I'm not a fan of Steve Jobs at times, and while it could be argued that Apple may not be as giving as some other companies, it doesn't mean they don't participate.

Re:good thing (1)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771686)

they open sourced webkit because they had to, because it was based off the gpl khtml from kde.

First post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770044)

First post

Wired has it this month (5, Informative)

scotch51 (108624) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770048)

Actually Jobs was choice number 3, after Sergey and Larry as co-CEO.

Wired has it this month, from the same author. Oddly I don't recall a book reference.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/mf_larrypage/ [wired.com]

Good thing he didn't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770060)

If Jobs ran Google it would only find things approved by king Steve and he'd try to control the content of those. That clown is twice the megalomaniac that Gates is.

Re:Good thing he didn't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770312)

Don't worry, it's clear that you have them both beat in arrogance.

Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770066)

from them.

Jobs and Gates seem to display sociopathic, if not psychopathic characteristics. Is that necessary to succeed in business today?

Or perhaps it has always been true. Have any studies been done that rate the sociopathic/psychopathic levels of captains of industry?

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (3, Interesting)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770130)

Yes, and it's true that sociopathy is more prevalent in corporate management than it is in other parts of society.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, for the most part, just a case of different people with different personalities finding roles in society where their traits are assets rather than liabilities. If you could wave a magic wand and remove the influence of so-called "sociopaths" from human history, we'd all find ourselves back in the caves, if not the trees.

Likewise if everyone behaved like a stereotypical CEO, we'd have destroyed ourselves long ago. It takes all kinds.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (3, Insightful)

microbox (704317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770274)

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, for the most part, just a case of different people with different personalities finding roles in society where their traits are assets rather than liabilities.

You have to be kidding. Bullying and walking over people is never an asset in a civilized society. Only about 2% of people are like that, and they cause almost all of the problems.

If we didn't have the problem of sociopaths and psychopaths (pigs might fly), then our political and business system would actually be ethical, since 98% of the population doesn't have much of a problem with being ethical.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (2, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770376)

Bullying and walking over people is never an asset in a civilized society

And your degree in behavioral psychology is from the University of ________?

The fact is, progress depends on people who are willing to place their own interests -- or those of their "tribe" -- above those of others. Your statement suggests that you're either 12 years old, or have spent all your life in a Zen monastery.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (1, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770768)

You do realize that psychology isn't actually science, right? And that argumentum ad hominems just make you look like a dumbass.

Most humans, despite the beliefs to the contrary are more or less decent people, there's just this nasty tendency towards confirmation bias that makes it seem otherwise. People tend to be social and without those 1-2% individuals that behave like that, I'm really not convinced that people would behave like that.

That being said, there's no way of knowing because we'll never get rid of those sorts of people in the population at large long enough to actually answer the question.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770976)

So if psychology isn't a science, what basis could any of the generalizations in your post possibly have? Almost every sentence you wrote contains at least one such statement, unbacked by any cited research. Not only that, but you seem to be saying that such research would be unscientific by its nature.

If psychology is a science, then it is entitled to ask and answer questions regarding the interaction of sociopathic personalities with society as a whole. Practitioners can determine whether people like Gates and Jobs meet objective criteria for sociopathy, or whether they're just a couple of guys you don't like very much.

Conversely, if psychology is strictly a domain for amateur pundits, then my opinion is as valid as the goofy Ayn Rand-villain positions put forth by the other posters in this thread, isn't it?

Re: But that's the problem with sociopaths (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770782)

By definition they don't give a damn about anyone except for themselves. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopaths_in_society [wikipedia.org]

sociopaths are "antisocial personalities whose behavior is a consequence of social or familial dysfunction". (emphasis mine)

I don't believe sociopaths are the generators of scientific progress that makes everyday life better. I see them more as the tapeworms of society leeching from our collective capacity for goodwill and like a tapeworm inducing all sorts of illnesses in the collective body.

Re: But that's the problem with sociopaths (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770904)

whose behavior is a consequence of social or familial dysfunction

This is a common misconception. There is something genetic going on as well.

Re: But that's the problem with sociopaths (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35772110)

Psychopathy is caused genetic abnormalities or damage to the brain, sociopathy is caused by lack of socialization.

Re: But that's the problem with sociopaths (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771018)

OK, now, that's an interesting point. You're saying that sociopathy is an objective condition that can't be diagnosed by random people on Slashdot?

Then we really are wasting our time in this thread, aren't we? It's as if the whole premise -- the suggestion that Gates and Jobs and other 'captains of industry' are clinically-diagnosable sociopaths with dysfunctional backgrounds or genes -- was just so much verbal diarrhea from the get-go.

Imagine that.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770856)

The University of Saint Thomas. Moving onto a PhD now.

As one sentient being to another -- you might know less than you think you do.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771060)

So what's your opinion on the topic of the thread, as a soon-to-be-qualified psychologist? Are you able to diagnose various CEOs and corporate founders with clinical sociopathy over the Internet, or are you just muttering under your breath about some guys who did some stuff that you don't personally approve of?

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35772356)

98% of the population doesn't have much of a problem with being ethical.

Wait! What planet do you come from? It must be nice there.

My experience is that, speaking in quite general terms (and accepting many notable exceptions), people are petty, unthinking, and generally don't make a great effort to be terribly aware. I can't consider anything about that to be a strong argument for any sort of reasonable, fair, ethical base amongst the general population. I don't dispute that most people don't have a problem with ethics, per se, but would say that it is probably rather rare to encounter folks who universally apply a strong set of ethics (and that is ignoring the concept that possibly what they consider to be ethical may not be the same as what I'd consider to be ethical). Who hasn't sped where they probably shouldn't have at least once or twice - or downloaded mp3s or the like - or any other of a large number of things which argue against the '98% are ethical' claim suggested above.

I could be way off base, or just generally cynical, but from my experience, the sunshine-and-roses view of humanity is pretty unrealistic, and the best most of us can hope for is enlightened self interest [wikipedia.org] (please pardon the wikipedia reference). Folks like Jobs got ahead by understanding this, accepting and embracing it, and ultimately being savvy enough to use it to play others like a well-tuned instrument. I'd suggest that this, rather than being 'evil' or 'psychopathic' is, rather, a common leadership trait.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (0)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770296)

If you could wave a magic wand and remove the influence of so-called "sociopaths" from human history, we'd all find ourselves back in the caves, if not the trees.

They 80s just called, they want their "Greed Is Good" slogan back.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (0)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770332)

The '60s are still on hold. They want to know if it's OK to start trusting anyone over 30 yet.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (0)

carou (88501) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770512)

They 80s just called,

And didn't you warn them? About Chernobyl, Challenger, and Lockerbie?

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (0)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770836)

+1, xkcd.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35772066)

> This isn't necessarily a bad thing, for the most part, just a case of different people with different personalities finding roles in society where their traits are assets rather than liabilities

It's a terrible thing; those traits are only assets *to the sociopath*, not to society. They're still bad for society, and, when in a position of power, they can do much more damage than they otherwise could.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35772168)

[citation needed]

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (3, Informative)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770152)

Jobs did steal, he pocketed cash that was meant for Steve Wozniak.

http://www.woz.org/letters/general/91.html [woz.org]

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (5, Interesting)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770704)

Or, as it really happened:

Jobs was working for Atari.

Atari offered Jobs $750 to create a Breakout prototype in 4 days, with a $100 bonus for every chip he eliminated from the original estimate of ~100 chips.

Jobs told his friend Woz about the project, and offered to split the $750 if Wozniak made the prototype. Jobs never told Wozniak about the bonus.

Wozniak produced a prototype with an incredible 50 fewer chips than the estimate. However, Atari decided not to use the prototype, since for all its efficiency it was the hardware equivalent of a mass of spaghetti code only Wozniak could understand. The final Breakout game had close to the original design estimate of 100 chips.

Atari kept their end of the bargain though, paying Jobs $750 for the prototype and a huge $5000 bonus.

The same year, Jobs left Atari and used the money to found his own startup, Apple Computer, along with Wozniak.

Wozniak left Apple five years later after crashing his light plane, with an estimated net worth at the time of $45,000,000.

So I'm sure Woz cried his way to the bank on that one.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770742)

If the story is true, at the time Jobs intentionally screwed over his supposed friend for money. What's the relevance of what happened after?

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (4, Informative)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770970)

So If I didn't pay you a small sum of money—money I never said I'd pay you—and then invested said money in a company which gave you a job doing exactly what you always wanted to do, which you worked at for five years and retired at 30 a multi-millionaire, I'd be screwing you over?

Oh, and if you'd rather hear from Woz himself [woz.org] :

Comment from E-mail:
According to the site, you resigned from Apple. Is this true? And was you actually cheated by Jobs for $5000?

Woz:
No, I never resigned from Apple, and I still receive a small paycheck because I want to be an employee forever. The press constantly tries to make it out that Steve and I are enemies but we are not and have not been. You'll find virtually no negative words and definitely not a single person who ever saw us argue or fight. It's just something that the press likes to say. The Wall Street Journal once printed that I was leaving Apple because I was disgusted, even though I'd told the reporter that was not the case. If it were true, it's hard to imagine me staying on the payroll with employee agreements in effect. Every book from then on printed that story and it became history.

I'm sorry that the story about Steve cheating me ever got out. First, it concerns something from long ago and even our memories are suspect. Second, it's good to forgive small things. Third, I would have gladly split money the way it was if he just said that he needed it. We were both like that. For example, around that time Steve went to India and ran into someone who had lost their plane ticket home. Steve actually gave that person his own ticket. Steve had no money but trusted the person to replace it, and sure enough the replacement was mailed to him and he got home.

I got a great excuse to design a video game for Atari and that was worth more than any money to me. If I'd gotten more money, I might have wound up buying a computer kit or constructing a different kind. Many good things about the Apple I and Apple ][ came from not being able to afford expensive parts.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771650)

So If I didn't pay you a small sum of money—money I never said I'd pay you—and then invested said money in a company which gave you a job doing exactly what you always wanted to do, which you worked at for five years and retired at 30 a multi-millionaire, I'd be screwing you over?

A lie of omission is still a lie. Jobs is a fucking snake in the grass, Chinese slave owning, thief, and liar.

Of course, he's worth billions of US dollars, so that's all forgivable as long as your precious AAPL stocks don't drop too much. Right?

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (1, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771054)

To soften the blow and make Jobs look like less of an asshole than he is?

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35772170)

If the story is true, at the time Jobs intentionally screwed over his supposed friend for money.

If Woz was happy with the split of the $750, how did Steve actually screw him?

What's the relevance of what happened after?

Because it's obvious that your condensed understanding of a one-sided telling of the story didn't provide the same shocking reaction to Woz that it did to you.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (4, Insightful)

joh (27088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770462)

I always felt that those people who insist in demonizing Jobs and Gates look much more psychopathic than Jobs and Gates. They are surely less grounded and in touch with reality, even if just because they did *not* manage to get large companies up and running from nothing. They're purely negative and destructive, just reacting to something they don't understand or don't like, with no means to do something successful on their own.

I'm not saying there are no psychopaths in the industry but mostly you find them in meager positions of power that cater to their special "talent". The "captains" mostly are bright and realistic guys, even if often with an iron will and/or personal quirks. Like it or not but success is the most clear indicator for psychological health we have. There are exceptions in certain dysfunctional communities, but usually true madness sinks to the bottom. Describing Jobs as a sociopath just because he has very clear (and obviously very correct) ideas how devices for the masses should work is, well, mad.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (1, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770794)

Whatever it is that you're smoking, I want some.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770960)

I always felt that those people who insist in demonizing Jobs and Gates look much more psychopathic than Jobs and Gates. They are surely less grounded and in touch with reality, even if just because they did *not* manage to get large companies up and running from nothing. They're purely negative and destructive, just reacting to something they don't understand or don't like, with no means to do something successful on their own.

Absolutely true. If you aren't a baker, don't try and tell me the bread is stale.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (0)

elgo (1751690) | more than 3 years ago | (#35772034)

Hi, Steve Jobs! Don't worry, you're not a sociopath. After all, "Like it or not but success is the most clear indicator for psychological health we have."

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771212)

If you read the story about Woz and Jobs, you get a pretty clear picture: Woz is not a sociopath and retired after he got enough money for the rest of his life. Jobs didn't stop there, he kept on working as the CEO of various companies, driven by something else than earning enough money to live comfortably, like Woz did. This drive is the thing all CEOs of the large companies need to have, otherwise they wouldn't be in that seat.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (2)

a_hanso (1891616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35772060)

It's not really sociopathy that you see in business leaders. It's alpha male characteristics. Almost everybody in slashdot is a 'beta' -- they pull the weight of the herd, but they don't lead. They *can't* lead because they have stronger 'do unto others' brain wiring than alphas do. So we resent those who are not encumbered by it. There's no justice in it, but its reality. At least I think it is.

Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35772158)

Jobs and Gates seem to display sociopathic, if not psychopathic characteristics. Is that necessary to succeed in business today?

No, it's just necessary to drive ad-hits on sites like Slashdot.

Thankfully jobs turned down Google (0)

rogerdugans (902614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770074)

How different would things be-
Google search would be:
just as simple
Prettier
Slower
Not work as well
Only return approved results

Google would not:
Lead the market in Search or advertising
Have created Android
even pretend to "not be evil"

Let us all give thanks that Steve Jobs did not become CEO of Google!

Re:Thankfully jobs turned down Google (2)

nxtw (866177) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770136)

Google didn't create Android in reality, either [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Thankfully jobs turned down Google (2, Interesting)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770368)

There's not a lot of things they actually did create : Android, Youtube, Picasa, Google Groups (Deja News), Blogger where all acquired and that's not even counting the ones directly built on foundations they bought from others like Google Maps, Lattitude or Google Docs. Google is hugely overrated, they can hardly keep themselves from lousing up their few original creations like Gmail by bolting on Google Buzz or the search engine by only recently allowing people to block sites from their search results.

Phew! (-1)

joh (27088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770106)

The only thing that saves us from all-powerful Google is its sheer incompetence in appealing to non-geeks. Imagine Google knowing how to make things truly popular, easy to use, and fun! The world would wriggle in Google hands. We would be lost, freedom and privacy gone forever.

Apple and Google in competition is perfect: Apple will always be too expensive and greedy to be really dangerous, preferring profits over power. Google will always be too geeky and inept to be dangerous, even if Google could be the next worst thing after a Big Brother style government.

Re:Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771128)

You suck at trolling, dude. Try another job...

And thus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770114)

the TOTAL lack of magical amazing shit in google is explained

Totally different corporate cultures. (5, Interesting)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770128)

Here's the impression I get:

Apple is a dictatorship run by an obsessive-compulsive designer. It works its employees hard to produce well-integrated, very refined products, following one man's vision.

Google is a confederacy of teams joined by a common culture. People within the organization have considerable freedom to pursue their own agendas, and Google tries to harness this energy to make its search business more profitable, even if it means taking a scattershot approach.

Apple has OCD. Google has ADD.

Re:Totally different corporate cultures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770256)

+1

Re:Totally different corporate cultures. (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770660)

And we're better off with both of them.

Re:Totally different corporate cultures. (1)

aralin (107264) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770744)

I've got OCD and ADD, so I should be as good as Google and Apple combined :)

Re:Totally different corporate cultures. (2)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771618)

I think that makes you Sony. Sorry. Hopefully, though, you didn't pick up the paranoid schizophrenia.

Also different ideas of how to make money (3, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771064)

Google's idea is basically to make money on their search technology, which means on ads. To that end they develop new things that help get people using their search, and make those things free. They aren't concerned about monetizing a given product so long as that product helps drive their primary business.

Apple's idea is to make a ton of profit on all their hardware. Anything they introduce, they want high margins on. It is designed to be profitable as it is, not to try and drive other business. They tie their products together, but as a way to get you to buy more products.

It's probably a very good thing Jobs didn't get hired on at Google because I think Bing and/or Yahoo would have crushed them now. Apple's strategy is not a bad one, as is clear by the money they make, but it is not one that would work in the market Google is in.

Re:Also different ideas of how to make money (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35772360)

Apple's idea is to make a ton of profit on all their hardware. Anything they introduce, they want high margins on. It is designed to be profitable as it is, not to try and drive other business. They tie their products together, but as a way to get you to buy more products.

Seems to me that with the iPhone/iPad and the "30% of everything" you're describing the old Apple. The new Apple seems quite busy making money on software too. Not that I have noticed the hardware getting any cheaper because of it...

Re:Totally different corporate cultures. (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771144)

Apple once had ADD too - back when they were flush with cash in the early days. It damn near killed them when the glory ebbed and they were left with the habits of being wealthy but nearly stone broke.

Re:Totally different corporate cultures. (2)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771704)

Apple has OCD. Google has ADD.

Hey, fun! So I suppose Microsoft has Borderline Personality Disorder. Oracle has a thing with spousal abuse (Poor Sun!). Canonical has Asperger's. And Yahoo! was the retarded kid they finally institutionalized in Redmond.

Where in DSM-IV do other tech companies fall?

Re:Totally different corporate cultures. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35772180)

Here's the impression I get:

Apple is a dictatorship run by an obsessive-compulsive designer. It works its employees hard to produce well-integrated, very refined products, following one man's vision.

Google is a confederacy of teams joined by a common culture. People within the organization have considerable freedom to pursue their own agendas, and Google tries to harness this energy to make its search business more profitable, even if it means taking a scattershot approach.

Apple has OCD. Google has ADD.

It's great for us when they compete.

It's the Daily Mail (0)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770132)

Probably cherry-picked words to create a non-existent controversy - and YOU'RE PAYING. Oh and Google causes cancer. Oh wait it cures it.

See: Wired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770278)

Wired ran an article adapted from the book, and the info about Jobs was in there. It was an interesting read.

Wired, April 2011, page 80: An Unconventional CEO by Steven Levy

If we thought Google is evil now (0, Troll)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770284)

If Jobs led Google: In order to search for anything, we would need little hand-held keyboardless Google devices that ran only on one proprietary Google OS, which would randomly blow up and fail to work while held in your left hand, and any search result that violated Google's decency standards (which would forbid nudity or the mention of homosexuality) would be blocked.

Re:If we thought Google is evil now (1)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771642)

Not quite. If Steve Jobs ran Google:

The button called "I'm feeling lucky" would look like a "Go" in some exotic font which cost $500,000 to make.

It would be the only button.

The button presently called "Google Search" wouldn't exist, and he'd fire anybody who suggested it.

Quoth Steve Jobs With Goatee: "Customers don't want to search! They don't want pages of all that crap on the Internet! They want to Go. Google is pronounced Go-gle. Not Goo-gle."

innovation sucks (0)

epine (68316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770292)

Innovation: one-click shopping and the two-point affine transformation.

If the pinch gesture is the "best thing" about any of Apple's products, Jobs will be answering to Zeus in the afterlife, with Eudoxus pressing the case against.

Zeus will also want to know why Jobs favoured that gaunt, black font named after a frigid hinterland rather than the voluptuous and pleasing Helenica, while in the background the inventor of the Antikythera clucks in disbelief, "All you have to show for immortality is the pinch gesture and a faim font?"

The Undiscovered Punchline (1)

epine (68316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770500)

s/Eudoxus/Eudoxus, who won't yield an iota,

The subconscious mind sometimes plays hard to get. It had to be a plant to be that good. Doh!

Re:The Undiscovered Punchline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770944)

Kill yourself.

Founders at Work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35770370)

Published in 2007 already stated this...

Re:Founders at Work (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35772214)

Published in 2007 already stated this...

Yeah, but since 'Antennagate' failed to stick, Slashdot has had to find other ways to make their ad-meter spin.

THANK FUCKING GOD! (0, Flamebait)

Chas (5144) | more than 3 years ago | (#35770642)

That's all we needed was another organization with this jacktard at the top encouraging retarded elitism.

Re:THANK FUCKING GOD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771106)

As much of a douche as I think Jobs is, I still like Pixar.

Re:THANK FUCKING GOD! (1)

MBC1977 (978793) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771490)

Not that I really care either way, but why is elitism bad again?

Re:THANK FUCKING GOD! (2)

Chas (5144) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771790)

Not that I really care either way, but why is elitism bad again?

A MERITOCRACY isn't bad.

Elitism, people who are blindly convinced that they (and their choice) are superior, and are offensive about it to others?

Yes. Bad.

Not visual enough (1)

anyaristow (1448609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35771124)

Google doesn't make things that are visual enough. How would the job interest Jobs?

How close we came to catastrophe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35771860)

Google is increasingly the oracle of all human knowledge, it's too important to humanity to give it both a silly name AND a douchebag control freak sociopath the helm.

So I was reading how it all came down to a radar operator in Soviet Russia who refused to believe that the blib on his radar was an American missile and saved us from a nuclear holocaust. It's estimated something like that happend about 50 times in the cold war. Then I read about how if CFCs weren't 10% cheaper than BFCs, a 1000 times more potent ozone depleting agent, we'd have no ozone layer and a collapsing biosphere. There have been a lot of other near misses I'm sure.

So I'm reading that we've again we've been spared a very very dark future.

New book... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35772258)

old news.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...