Voices

Steve’s greatest job: the editor to Apple visionaries

October 20, 2011


When Steve Jobs, CEO and co-founder of Apple Inc., died a fortnight ago, my dad went out and bought an iPhone. This emotional response was hardly atypical: rock stars, journalists and politicians alike lauded the man whose sense of showmanship had helped him transcend the shadowy ranks of the business world into the stratosphere of celebrity and brought sleek premium electronics to the hands of millions of Americans.

Arguably the most recognizable CEO on the planet, Jobs’s charisma and keen eye for aesthetics helped Apple become a technology behemoth whose annual revenue exceeds $60 billion.  The company’s shareholders benefitted greatly from his success, rewarded with a share price currently hovering around the $400 mark, up 430 percent from when Jobs regained control of the company in 1997. And so, the legend goes, Jobs became the poster boy of globalization, enshrined forever as the idol of conservative, free-market philosophy.

Well, almost. There’s something about Jobs that makes conservatives a tad uncomfortable. Steve was no straight-laced nerd; he publicly reveled, for a while at least, in the bachelor lifestyle and described dropping acid as “one of the best experiences of my life.” More galling than that, he has no public record of giving to charity. Indeed, when he returned to Apple in 1997, one of his first actions was to abolish the company’s charitable giving arm, insisting it should be the shareholders’ choice of whether or not to donate their money to charity.

Honestly, I have no problem with this stance. After all, why someone would bother to do all in their power to dodge government taxes for a couple decades only to then hand the bulk of their money over to what is likely a more wasteful organization (I’m looking at you, Bill Gates) escapes me. Moreover, to judge the professional legacy of a tech entrepreneur on the size of his heart is like criticizing a quarterback’s performance on the basis of his inarticulate post-game interview.

No, my beef with the way Jobs will be remembered lies in the fact that he will be portrayed as some kind of omnipotent figure who not only ran Apple, but also designed its software, inspected each unit, and was at the store to personally hand you your purchase, $100 rebate and all.  Steve Jobs was, without a doubt, a marvelous innovator with sharp business acumen, but to brand him a full-blown genius is to negate the efforts of Steve Wozniak, Jef Raskin, and thousands of other Apple employees along the way.

Jobs was never a programmer or engineer. His greatest talent was how he added value to everything he touched. “Value added” is a concept that refers to the extra features of a product that go beyond what would normally be expected, that provide the product with something more than normal while adding little or nothing to production cost, (e.g. placing the logo of a small horse on a polo shirt).

In the United States, it has been estimated that, on average, 30 percent of a given product’s price is generated purely from the addition of these extra features. Steve Jobs was the king of added value. His brilliance in this regard can be seen in the minimalist architecture of the iPod, the sleek packaging of each and every product, even in the excitement generated by his presentations.

Nowhere is this concept more clearly elucidated than in an example given by Jobs himself in his Stanford commencement speech, a video recording which was tweeted, retweeted, posted, and pasted ad infinitum over social media following his death. In it, Jobs explains what gave the otherwise unremarkable Apple computers an edge in a competitive market: fonts. Apple computers were the first to indulge consumers’ artistic sensibilities by giving them a choice of which script to write with—simple, virtually costless, and totally unique.

On the day of his death, the internet was flooded with tributes to Steve Jobs. Public figures threw the terms visionary and genius around like they were going out of style. Even President Obama chimed in with a memorable quote, saying, “The world has lost a visionary. And there may be no greater tribute to Steve’s success than the fact that much of the world learned of his passing on a device he invented.”

Yet to think of Jobs as having invented all or indeed any of Apple’s currently marketed devices is to vastly conflate his role in his company’s fortunes and to reinforce the utterly flawed representation of successful entrepreneurs as messianic figures, conquering heroes of laissez-faire ideology. Jobs was not a god. His role was much closer to that of a newspaper editor. He took peoples’ primary creations, cut them down to size, presented them in an aesthetically pleasing manner, and changed the fonts. Steve Jobs should be remembered above all else as The Great Editor.



Read More


Subscribe
Notify of
guest

2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GTownFan

This article is doubly ironic and quite delightfully so:

First, there’s the article that Steve Jobs believed that Obama was insufficiently pro-business. And, to add insult to injury, Steve Jobs said that Obama had to break the teacher’s union in order to effect any real education reform. Square that circle…

Second, you release this article the day after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced that research, conducted with its funding, may have reached the breakthrough Malaria vaccine. If that works, Bill Gates and the pharma firm that he works with will go down as some of greatest life-savers in all of human history.

Or, Gates could have done as you said, and allowed more money to be spent by the federal government to prop up the school teachers which are failing our kids, according to Steve Jobs.

Justanotherfan

@GTownFan

1) Square what circle? I really don’t understand what you’re driving at here…

2) The malaria vaccine, which produces immunity in a wonderful breakthrough and anyone with even a small part in it deserves credit. BUT it was not developed by Bill Gates… It was developed by GlaxoSmithKline and PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative; an organisation which receives some of its funding from another organisation (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) that is funded by Bill Gates. If it works, Bill Gates will probably go down as a great life-saver. And this is precisely what the article has in mind when it talks about the “utterly flawed representation of successful entrepreneurs as messianic figures”. You remember that Bill Gates provided some of the money to fund the project, but you do you remember the names of the scientists who actually developed the vaccine? Was it even reported by the press? What about the members of the Glaxo board who directed money towards this project? The members on the board of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation who did the same? The other investors in the B and G foundation (apart from Warren Buffett)? Do you know the name of anyone involved in this massive project whose name wasn’t BIll Gates? Until you do, please enlighten me of the incentive people have in pursuing these kinds of goals on their own. It’s wonderful that Bill was involved in this breakthrough (slap on the back), but his money will run out, and when it does, it will be hard in future to make more of this kind of breakthrough.

3) Gates, as well as being a huge fan of progressive taxation

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/technologybrierdudleysblog/2014937453_gates_on_yahoo_deal_microsoft.html

was the richest man in the world. Paying 10% more to the gov’t each year would unlikely have stopped him from creating the B and M Gates foundation, if the motivation was already there…