Artsy, easy, down-and-dirty but down-and-dirty because he got into the technology!
Successful organizations are run by individuals, not boards! And, those individuals must be down-and-dirty with the technology first and foremost, MBA stuff second–e.g., Intel compared to Fast Cap!
Ike slow-growth was “too slow.” Now we’ve got nothing but management and business majors completely out of touch with factory floors not-to-mention cubicle cops throughout the public sector talking big with their own butts first and foremost!
This a first from my MacBook Air due to a semiconductor engineer daughter in Silicon Valley tired of the tune from her old man that it was he who imposed lasers on the lithography industry in addition to hearing about up his letters-to-the-editor–latest submitted yesterday on this very subject!
My man Herman in Grand Rapids — so many automation proposals rejected by his management bosses — would be an excellent Sat am interview! He, much more than I in retirement, has read virtually everything related.
I am not sure IPod was revolutionary as much as evolutionary.
If you look back, there was a perfect confluence of factors that evolved to allow that product.
1) Mp3 format invented and used.
2) The Internet and bandwidth finally got to the point where you could download a 4MB MP3 in a reasonable time.
3) Napster drove GBs of MP3s into the home and started the MP3 craze.
4) Flash memory got to be cheap and dense.
5) CPUs had another turn of the crank which allowed enough gas for micro devices.
6) Small high quality displays just entered and touch screens just on the edge.
7) Other companies such as Creative Nomad and Rio player and Sony started the market. As a hardware company, Apple was in a unique position to create their own player using all above and
had an OS. It was about zero risk for them. It was not core for Apple or Microsoft. Sony missed the boat.
9) Adding a phone to the IPod was a required next step. Every said, “now add a phone to it”.
We also have to remember the thousands of engineers that spent many years working on that and supporting tech.
I enjoyed your review. Steve Job was an interesting guy with wonderful creative God given abilities. It is so sad that he did not achknowlege his creator.
Hi Bob: Steve Jobs was adopted…maybe he had a sense of abandonment as a result of that he wanted a lot of control in his life. Part of that control was maybe putting himself in the center of the universe instead of God. It is difficult to say what was going on in his head. But at the end of the day, he did a lot of amazing things. Created a lot of jobs for a lot of people. And basically change the world in many regards. So my focus is to look at the things he did so well and to learn from them. And also to look at the mistakes he made—although I am not as interested in doing that publicly–I am more into lifting folks up (and I know you know that). My focus is what he did right and how do we learn from that. And certainly in a quiet, respectful way we look and what he did wrong and learn from it. Certainly, it is a difficult thing and I don’t have all the answers… Paul
Sam Carpenter talks about getting behind and slightly elevated, in my words exterior. I don’t get that Steve Jobs was much on brainstorming, maybe he was, I do get that he got exterior to society, you might say he was more exterior than Masterson? It gets back to purpose which is the fuel of greatness. Jobs had a greater purpose and he truly changed the world as have other greats many who you have talked about George Washington, Louis Zamperini, Jefferson, Lincoln,Lewis and Clark, et al.
I hear you regarding the quality of the people but at the same time I got one of the best solutions (my earth shattering tool cart idea)from a homeless guy who used to be a door hanger. A bit of a digression but his main malady was blaming his ex wife for all of his troubles the opposite of blame is to help which I think, and you have mentioned in the past, is the ability to help, the health of an individual can be determined by his willingness to help which is germane to this subject?
Hi Pat: Steve Jobs was big time into brainstorming. He often times drew his people together and they hashed over problems. He was very abrupt about the way he did it, but he did it often. As I replied back to another commenter this morning, every year he would take 100 of his top people–quantifying those people by if he was to have a lifeboat to go start another company, which people would he take–on a retreat and they would put up on a big whiteboard what were the big issues facing Apple and the new innovations they needed to be focused on. They would put 20-30-40 ideas up there and then he would ceremonially keep crossing things off the list until they got to 3 top items. Those were the 3 items Apple had the time and energy to work on. It was all as a result of a brainstorming event.
What I did notice about Steve Jobs—and I don’t like to pick on him at all because he brought so much to the table that we can get lost in his brilliance and want to pick him apart–but he wasn’t good at giving other credit. In the book it suggest that sometimes other people would come up with an idea, and he would lay on it for a couple of weeks and then the next thing you know, he was calling it his idea. But Steve Jobs was brilliant, whatever way you slice it, so I just like to focus on the good things he did. Certainly learn from the bad, but focus on the good. Paul
Ok Paul I stand corrected. I wouldn’t discount the exterior idea though, really in either case the innovator is exterior and not a small point. Notice how a lot of better ideas come from the executive who is exterior to the situation not necessarily from the worker down in the ditch. Don’t confuse this with top down though as the worker down in the ditch could just as easily come up with idea it is just that he has to get out of the ditch to look at it methodology. Isn’t this what you espouse?
As far as the credit idea goes I have noticed that before about leaders in that you give them an idea and they somehow think that it was their idea. There is a bit of a danger in this because you can be cause or effect, you can be interested or interesting. Obviously cause or interested it desirable. You will see with celebrities that become addicted to being interesting which puts them at effect and creates their many maladies. Interested on the other hand is where you will see people at cause such as with the greats. The problem is that everyone wants admiration (I notice that it is one of the tools in your tool box in that you admire people and there is nothing wrong with that) and it resolves many things, but if one lets it put him at effect he is cooked.
this sets me thinking …. Steve Jobs is among many with equal talent and ability and yet not all suceed, so what is the X Factor? could there be a degree of luck? could it be simply ensuring the people you work with are of a similar mindset with the same ambitions and aspirations?. I may form a better understanding once I have read the book.
Thanks for another interesting show, You have prompted me to get hold of the book. It will be interesting to see how Apple get on without Steve Jobs – will his legacy live on?
In ready fire aim Michael Masterson talks about innovating by determining where the market is headed and innovating off of existing products, it appears that this is what Steve Jobs was doing.
He also talks about brain storming with 2 other people. I have seen this in 2 ways one where I will get exterior to the problem and I will come up with an idea or I have come up with ideas by brainstorming with another person. I suppose either way getting exterior is key.
Hi Pat: Great Observations. That is exactly what Jobs was doing in my estimation, as well. The difference is, he was playing for global stakes. Unlike Masterson, who was very successful in his own right. But Jobs was envisioning the needs of the world when he made his calculations. It is really staggering, how successful and accurate he was.
In regards to brainstorming. For me, the most important thing is the quality of people, not the number of people. If I get truly innovative people who are not concerned with who gets credit or who came up with the idea, but genuinely wants to bring the most elegant solution to the table, that is the ultimate brainstorming group.
Artsy, easy, down-and-dirty but down-and-dirty because he got into the technology!
Successful organizations are run by individuals, not boards! And, those individuals must be down-and-dirty with the technology first and foremost, MBA stuff second–e.g., Intel compared to Fast Cap!
Ike slow-growth was “too slow.” Now we’ve got nothing but management and business majors completely out of touch with factory floors not-to-mention cubicle cops throughout the public sector talking big with their own butts first and foremost!
This a first from my MacBook Air due to a semiconductor engineer daughter in Silicon Valley tired of the tune from her old man that it was he who imposed lasers on the lithography industry in addition to hearing about up his letters-to-the-editor–latest submitted yesterday on this very subject!
My man Herman in Grand Rapids — so many automation proposals rejected by his management bosses — would be an excellent Sat am interview! He, much more than I in retirement, has read virtually everything related.
I am not sure IPod was revolutionary as much as evolutionary.
As a hardware company, Apple was in a unique position to create their own player using all above and
If you look back, there was a perfect confluence of factors that evolved to allow that product.
1) Mp3 format invented and used.
2) The Internet and bandwidth finally got to the point where you could download a 4MB MP3 in a reasonable time.
3) Napster drove GBs of MP3s into the home and started the MP3 craze.
4) Flash memory got to be cheap and dense.
5) CPUs had another turn of the crank which allowed enough gas for micro devices.
6) Small high quality displays just entered and touch screens just on the edge.
7) Other companies such as Creative Nomad and Rio player and Sony started the market.
had an OS. It was about zero risk for them. It was not core for Apple or Microsoft. Sony missed the boat.
9) Adding a phone to the IPod was a required next step. Every said, “now add a phone to it”.
We also have to remember the thousands of engineers that spent many years working on that and supporting tech.
BTW – Newt Gingrich actually said government need Lean Six Sigma, not another committee.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61481.html
I enjoyed your review. Steve Job was an interesting guy with wonderful creative God given abilities. It is so sad that he did not achknowlege his creator.
Hi Bob: Steve Jobs was adopted…maybe he had a sense of abandonment as a result of that he wanted a lot of control in his life. Part of that control was maybe putting himself in the center of the universe instead of God. It is difficult to say what was going on in his head. But at the end of the day, he did a lot of amazing things. Created a lot of jobs for a lot of people. And basically change the world in many regards. So my focus is to look at the things he did so well and to learn from them. And also to look at the mistakes he made—although I am not as interested in doing that publicly–I am more into lifting folks up (and I know you know that). My focus is what he did right and how do we learn from that. And certainly in a quiet, respectful way we look and what he did wrong and learn from it. Certainly, it is a difficult thing and I don’t have all the answers… Paul
Paul
Sam Carpenter talks about getting behind and slightly elevated, in my words exterior. I don’t get that Steve Jobs was much on brainstorming, maybe he was, I do get that he got exterior to society, you might say he was more exterior than Masterson? It gets back to purpose which is the fuel of greatness. Jobs had a greater purpose and he truly changed the world as have other greats many who you have talked about George Washington, Louis Zamperini, Jefferson, Lincoln,Lewis and Clark, et al.
I hear you regarding the quality of the people but at the same time I got one of the best solutions (my earth shattering tool cart idea)from a homeless guy who used to be a door hanger. A bit of a digression but his main malady was blaming his ex wife for all of his troubles the opposite of blame is to help which I think, and you have mentioned in the past, is the ability to help, the health of an individual can be determined by his willingness to help which is germane to this subject?
Hi Pat: Steve Jobs was big time into brainstorming. He often times drew his people together and they hashed over problems. He was very abrupt about the way he did it, but he did it often. As I replied back to another commenter this morning, every year he would take 100 of his top people–quantifying those people by if he was to have a lifeboat to go start another company, which people would he take–on a retreat and they would put up on a big whiteboard what were the big issues facing Apple and the new innovations they needed to be focused on. They would put 20-30-40 ideas up there and then he would ceremonially keep crossing things off the list until they got to 3 top items. Those were the 3 items Apple had the time and energy to work on. It was all as a result of a brainstorming event.
What I did notice about Steve Jobs—and I don’t like to pick on him at all because he brought so much to the table that we can get lost in his brilliance and want to pick him apart–but he wasn’t good at giving other credit. In the book it suggest that sometimes other people would come up with an idea, and he would lay on it for a couple of weeks and then the next thing you know, he was calling it his idea. But Steve Jobs was brilliant, whatever way you slice it, so I just like to focus on the good things he did. Certainly learn from the bad, but focus on the good. Paul
Ok Paul I stand corrected. I wouldn’t discount the exterior idea though, really in either case the innovator is exterior and not a small point. Notice how a lot of better ideas come from the executive who is exterior to the situation not necessarily from the worker down in the ditch. Don’t confuse this with top down though as the worker down in the ditch could just as easily come up with idea it is just that he has to get out of the ditch to look at it methodology. Isn’t this what you espouse?
As far as the credit idea goes I have noticed that before about leaders in that you give them an idea and they somehow think that it was their idea. There is a bit of a danger in this because you can be cause or effect, you can be interested or interesting. Obviously cause or interested it desirable. You will see with celebrities that become addicted to being interesting which puts them at effect and creates their many maladies. Interested on the other hand is where you will see people at cause such as with the greats. The problem is that everyone wants admiration (I notice that it is one of the tools in your tool box in that you admire people and there is nothing wrong with that) and it resolves many things, but if one lets it put him at effect he is cooked.
Pat: Listen to my reply. Thanks, Paul
this sets me thinking …. Steve Jobs is among many with equal talent and ability and yet not all suceed, so what is the X Factor? could there be a degree of luck? could it be simply ensuring the people you work with are of a similar mindset with the same ambitions and aspirations?. I may form a better understanding once I have read the book.
Thanks for another interesting show, You have prompted me to get hold of the book. It will be interesting to see how Apple get on without Steve Jobs – will his legacy live on?
In ready fire aim Michael Masterson talks about innovating by determining where the market is headed and innovating off of existing products, it appears that this is what Steve Jobs was doing.
He also talks about brain storming with 2 other people. I have seen this in 2 ways one where I will get exterior to the problem and I will come up with an idea or I have come up with ideas by brainstorming with another person. I suppose either way getting exterior is key.
Hi Pat: Great Observations. That is exactly what Jobs was doing in my estimation, as well. The difference is, he was playing for global stakes. Unlike Masterson, who was very successful in his own right. But Jobs was envisioning the needs of the world when he made his calculations. It is really staggering, how successful and accurate he was.
In regards to brainstorming. For me, the most important thing is the quality of people, not the number of people. If I get truly innovative people who are not concerned with who gets credit or who came up with the idea, but genuinely wants to bring the most elegant solution to the table, that is the ultimate brainstorming group.
Thanks, Paul