Search This Blog

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Steve Jobs, Storyteller


The beginning, the middle, and the end.
DAVID ZAX
Among the many things that made Steve Jobs, who died yesterday, a genius was the fact that he was, at heart, a storyteller.
The word comes up again and again in his interviews and presentations. "Well, I'll tell you a story," he told Playboy, a multi-millionaire at 29. "Today I want to tell you three stories from my life," hesaid in 2005 to a group of graduating Stanford students. The idea of a beginning, middle, and an end haunted Jobs, and motivated him. Especially the idea of an end: "almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important," he told those students.
When Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple in 1985, he mulled what to do next. He might have become something like Bill Gates in retirement, devoting all his efforts to the philanthropic foundation he founded. Something tugged him in another direction. He bought a company called Pixar from George Lucas, and spent the next ten years nurturing it and repeatedly bailing it out. And then, well, you know the rest of the story. Jobs was already a very wealthy man, but the IPO and acquisition of Pixar by Disney is what made Jobs a billionaire.
And it wasn't just one corner of Hollywood that a Jobs company transformed. Among Apple's many achievements, the importance of a piece of software--Final Cut Pro--is sometimes overlooked. It is not an overstatement to say that the intuitively designed digital editing program owned by Apple has transformed the way movies are made. Several Academy Award nominees for Best Editing have been forged on Final Cut Pro software, and one winner (The Social Network, somewhat fittingly). The program has transformed the face of independent filmmaking too, as one of the essential components that has lowered the cost and generally eased the process of making a film. (It's a testament to the program's importance that its recent, ill-designed update caused such an uproar.)
But the most transformative effect Steve Jobs had on the way we tell stories surely came from his iRevolution, from the proliferation of those sleekly designed, elegant devices that have changed the way we interact with each other. I compose this post on a MacBook; much of the reporting I've done in my career that informs it was facilitated with an iPhone. I swear by both. As do millions of happy customers who have similarly used Steve Jobs's products to tell the stories of their lives--to schedule their appointments, calculate their routes, send their emails, browse their favorite corners of the web, or watch their favorite Pixar movies.
Storytelling was in his veins, in fact. Jobs's biological sister (he was put up for adoption; she, born later, was not) became an acclaimed novelist, writing a book clearly inspired by him.
Steve Jobs's own story came to a close yesterday, sooner than he or anyone would have liked. But as he said in a Smithsonian oral history interview conducted in 1995:
"I've always felt that death is the greatest invention of life. I'm sure that life evolved without death at first and found that without death, life didn't work very well because it didn't make room for the young. It didn't know how the world was fifty years ago. It didn't know how the world was twenty years ago. It saw it as it is today, without any preconceptions, and dreamed how it could be based on that. We're not satisfied based on the accomplishment of the last thirty years. We're dissatisfied because the current state didn't live up to their ideals. Without death there would be very little progress."
It came too soon, but death's hovering presence was what drove Steve Jobs to achieve what he did. A new generation doesn't know what the world was like without Apple devices. Hopefully the next visionary is among them, and will deliver new twists and turns in what could rightly be the greatest story in human history: the epic of technological progress.

Apple's Real Problem? Competition from Itself



Should you buy the latest iPhone, or get the 3GS for free? At this point, there's little difference between the two.
CHRISTOPHER MIMS 
The '57 Chevy of phones has yet to be exceeded (cc Gonzalo Baeza)
Apple's genius -- making it so that the hardware behind its mobile devices is, to the average consumer, invisible and irrelevant -- is also, perhaps unavoidably, its achilles heel. Announcements like today's, which are mostly about upgrades of the internals to the existing iPhone 4, are bound to disappoint.
This disappointment derives not from the substance of the upgrades. (A phone that is seven times faster, pulls data down better than ever, includes an awesome camera and an AI-powered voice-recognizing digital assistant is nothing to sneeze at.)
Rather, the problem is that Apple's core competency thus far has been in making us not care about the guts of its phones. As Dan Frommer notes:
Remember that what makes an iPhone an iPhone is mostly software. Apple's iOS is still what matters the most, and that doesn't need a new case design to be great.
There will always be phones with larger displays, better cameras, and faster or more affordable data plans than the iPhone. But so far, developers have yet to figure out how to use that power to give consumers an experience that is substantially different from a middle-of-the-road iPhone like the 3GS.
So I would argue that the real competition for the iPhone 4S isn't the Samsung or HTC whatsit --it's free 3GSes or whatever else is on sale at your favorite carrier.
In our household, we've got both a 3GS and an iPhone 4. You'd think the technology journalist would have the latest and greatest, but no. I got my phone first, so that's the one I'm stuck with. The thing is, occasionally we borrow each other's phones. And functionally, there's no difference, except that I'm less worried about breaking my 3GS, because of its superior case design.
The simple fact of the matter is that for most tasks, the real bottleneck is the performance of the network. Smart phones have hit a plateau -- what was a new and transformative technology has become mundane for the early adopters. And it's going to stay that way. Smart phones, like computers, have become tools. All that matters now is the software.

How Technology Made Occupy Wall Street Both Irrelevant and Ubiquitous




Who knew Skynet would be a financial, rather than a defense network?
CHRISTOPHER MIMS 
How can you 'occupy' an abstraction? By invading the network on which it depends.
Watching the protest in lower Manhattan metastasize from an eager call for volunteers on various social networks to a full-on movement has been a dizzying exercise in the power of technology to render protest both irrelevant and remarkably powerful at the same time.
Perhaps this is the condition of all political movements in the 21st century, but Occupy Wall Street feels like a post-post-something exercise in the ability of social networks, citizen journalism and the always-on news cycle to amplify the power of symbols. It's also a demonstration of the futility of trying to shut down an industry that has more or less completely dematerialized.
Consider for a moment that even if hundreds of thousands of protesters showed up, it would not actually be possible to "occupy" Wall Street in a way that would shut it down. If protestors wanted to actually impinge the functioning of the markets, they'd have to occupy not Wall Street itself, whose trading floor is now all but irrelevant to movement in the markets, but a nondescript warehouse just off the New Jersey Turnpike where the vast majority of trades actually take place, electronically.
Even then, you can bet that Direct Edge and the New York Stock Exchange have some of the world's best fail-over plans for their sprawling data centers, and who knows where the backup systems are. Some day they might be "in the cloud," at which point they would be at once ubiquitous and untouchable. (Who knew Skynet would be a financial, rather than a defense network?)
On the flip side, it seems to hardly matter that the protestors are in a small semi-public park, not Wall Street itself, and are mostly getting in the way by making the NYPD look bad. That's because the real power here is the ability of this movement to have a voice in social networks and a news cycle that is no longer solely controlled by broadcast media.
For example, there's this gem from The Atlantic Wire: "Media Non-Coverage of Occupy Wall Street Gets Lots of Media Coverage."
Boiling it all down, what we have is a fairly abstract protest movement whose tactics are entirely appropriate to the abstraction its members inveigh against. Protestors aren't articulating their goals all that well and that's just fine, because it's clear that what they're against is a system that is nebulous not only because it is complicated and remote, but also because physically, it is as ephemeral as the Internet itself.