I can as easily see them being constructive usability criticisms: details that the engineers steeped in developing it missed, but concrete things that would stop actual customer adoption.
You realize that's a thing, right? People do that on both a conscious and subconscious level. Some people actively play those manipulation games, especially creative sales people. Some people merely benefit from that tactic without fully appreciating that they're doing it.
I wasn't there, so I can't weigh in. It could be that Kay was projecting, and it could be that Kay is a perceptive person and was merely recognizing a young cocky kid using an old power tactic.
Anyway, knowing what we know about Job's obsession with getting things right (as he saw it), you do think that his sniping at specific look and feel issues was just to put the engineers down?
To me, it's a more cohesive picture if I interpret his actions as being motivated by obsession to UX/asking more of engineers ( I know these guys weren't working for him).
But, as you said, neither of us were there.
I'm still not sure you do realize it. People are motivated by a lot of things, and sometimes people are willing to do dirty, shitty, manipulative tactics to get what they want.
One person said Jobs was as focused as a monk, but without the empathy. But that's one person, right?
> you do think that his sniping at specific look and feel issues was just to put the engineers down?
Funny you mention that. You know when he called up Bob Belleville from Xerox, he told him his work was shit and everything he had done was meaningless and that he should work for him. Do you think he was "obsessed with getting things right" and simply being critical, or does it sound like someone who is feeling out an engineer's low self-esteem much in the same way a pimp feels out a prospective ho?
You still don't think Jobs was above putting down the Xerox engineers to elevate himself and denigrate their own self-esteem?
He lied to Woz about money is his first business dealing and took credit for his work. He made sport of humiliating a prospective employees by asking if he was a virgin and then humiliating him in front of other people.
You may not realize it, but putting people down is a tactic actually works on some people. Some people have a capacity to insult people and make those people love them. I know, because I've worked with a number of these guys. They're usually in sales, and they're usually pretty good at it.
Jobs was a lot of things, and it could very easily argued he had an incredible capacity to be cruel, callous, petty and manipulative, especially in his younger days. I'm sure he could be a great guy too, but it's clear he also had a capacity to be a giant flaming asshole.
It sounds like you tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. That's not a bad thing, but sometimes you have to recognize that some people simply don't mind manipulating people. Does that round out your cohesive picture?
> But, as you said, neither of us were there.
Sure, but you're the only one who's discounting the account of the person who was there just because it doesn't fit your cohesive picture.
Anyway, I like to give benefit of doubt when attributing intent to people's actions. As evidenced by the responses, seems like I'm off the mark here. Over and out :)
First, it’s worth understanding that many people (perhaps even a thousand or more) had seen live demos of the Alto and Smalltalk before Steve. This is because Steve showed up in 1979, and the Alto and Smalltalk had been running for 6 years (starting in the first half of 1973), and we were a relatively open lab for visiting colleagues and other interested people (like Herbie Hancock and Al Gore).
Could be wrong: I wasn't there :)
Jobs was throwing off first impressions, not deep or well considered insights. The question is why a person would go negative in such a situation.
