Re:The trouble with Steve Jobs
by sanj on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @08:48AM
(#129674)
This line worries me:
"...chafe at his insistence on setting uniform prices for their songs and videos on iTunes..."
because it ignores keen business insight by presenting it as another example of Jobs's mercurial nature.
Joel does a good job of explaining why this is important. It is about the way that the music industry uses pricing as a signal. And Jobs wants to own that signal:
"And Apple? Apple wants the signaling to come from what they promote on the front page of the iTunes Music Store. In the battle between Apple and the recording industry over who gets to manipulate what songs you buy, Apple (like movie theaters) is going to be in favor of fixed prices, while the recording industry is going to want variable prices."
Re:The trouble with Steve Jobs
by Electro on Thursday March 06, 2008 @02:18PM
(#130749)
Ironically, fixed prices means people are able to afford to buy more music and help the less popular artists earn more money. Incidentally it also makes the more popular artists easier to hear and thus more popular.
Control or not, Jobs' fixing the price is a good thing for the music industry. A book is usually around $5 for paperback, a movie is usually around $10 in theaters, yet the price of CDs vary from popular to unpopular and that doesn't make any sense.
I regularly buy books I'm not 100% sure I'll like, because it's $5. I go see movies I'm not 100% sure I'll like, because it is ALWAYS $10. I don't buy music I'm not 100% sure I'll like, because it can cost $20 for a popular CD. I've bought DVD boxsets for $20! That's a damn months entertainment for less than a 40-minute album.
The only music I ever buy without hearing nearly every song on the album is from bands I know I like. The problem with this is that I'm a huge music fan, and I can't even remember if I've ever gone a day without listening to music in the last decade; yet I hardly buy any new music, because I can't justify the price risk of getting something bad. I mean its two movies, four books and thats if I'm not going for the $1.50 books off amazon. I once bought around 15 books of amazon because they were all cheap as hell, I haven't even read some of them but the author and publisher still made money off of me, no artist or music company gets free money from me when I'm admittedly stupid enough to allow them to if they had good prices.
Re:The trouble with Steve Jobs
by tptacek on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @01:06PM
(#129815)
This article is really gross and creepy.
It's a stretch, but a defensible one, to report that Jobs concealed a dangerous treatable illness for 9 months.
But what possibly justification can Fortune have for reporting about Jobs' children "out of wedlock", the antics of his absent biological parents after he was given up for adoption, the lack of license plates on his car, or the contents of his secret address book?
It's hard to feel sorry for a billionaire public figure subjected to takedown pieces like this. So I don't feel sorry for him. But this reporter embarassed himself and his publication. This stuff wouldn't even pass muster on Wikipedia.
Re:The trouble with Steve Jobs
by mixmax on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @01:46PM
(#129862)
I see what you're saying, and I understand your motives - but I only partly agree.
When you are such a public figure, and especially when the company that you are the CEO of is so dependent on you, it is simply one of those things you have to deal with. Every job has its downsides, if you're a fisherman you smell of fish, if you're a mechanic your hands are dirty no matter how much you wash them, and if you're a salesman you have a much higher chance of being burned out. The downside of being a public figure is that other people are interested in you personal life.
While I understand that the information disclosed in the article can be seen as a private matter, I can also understand the incentives for bringing it out. It is, after all, of great interest to the shareholders of Apple who the man at the helm really is behind the facade.
For a public CEO it is of course a nuisance. Just like it is a nuisance for a fisherman to come home everyday smelling like fish.
Re:The trouble with Steve Jobs
by Electro on Thursday March 06, 2008 @02:31PM
(#130762)
If you've got untreatable cancer then yeah you should be forced to disclose. However cancer invokes more fear than there is actual risk, if I get skin cancer its 100% treatable, some forms don't even need treating because its merely a skin growth with no health risk except maybe an infection if you cut it off with a blunt knife. Yet if a CEO announced they had 'skin cancer' the stock would drop, even if it is one of the benign forms that doctors treat with wart removers.
I think saving the investors from themselves should be just as big a concern. He is predicted with survival past 10 years, which IIRC the average age of death with someone having that prognosis is in fact only a few years shorter than the average age of death. If Jobs getting cancer means he kicks it at 78 instead of 82, I don't see why it should be disclosed immediately or at all.
Here is the text of the Commencement address by Steve Jobs in 2005 at Stanford where he announces that he had cancer.
Edit: not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's opinions on CNN mentioning his pancreatic cancer, I'm just linking this because I was reminded of it after reading the comment about his cancer and I recall it being an interesting read.
Re:The trouble with Steve Jobs
by robg on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @07:20PM
(#130136)
I agree. It IS personal. People can use whatever justification they want to pry into seamy details, but unless he was given a date of expiration, it's his information to do with what he wants.
Re:The trouble with Steve Jobs
by staunch on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @11:22AM
(#129746)
They chose to write a story "Steve Jobs is a loose cannon putting investors at risk". The problem is that he's just so damn good at what he does the article comes across as really awkward and forced. Too funny.
Re:The trouble with Steve Jobs
by moog on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @09:02AM
(#129681)
When Steve retires, a lot of OS X fans could switch to Linux, figuring Apple will never recover from the loss. Maybe hackers will then take the task of turning Linux into the best OS seriously.
"...chafe at his insistence on setting uniform prices for their songs and videos on iTunes..."
because it ignores keen business insight by presenting it as another example of Jobs's mercurial nature.
Joel does a good job of explaining why this is important. It is about the way that the music industry uses pricing as a signal. And Jobs wants to own that signal:
"And Apple? Apple wants the signaling to come from what they promote on the front page of the iTunes Music Store. In the battle between Apple and the recording industry over who gets to manipulate what songs you buy, Apple (like movie theaters) is going to be in favor of fixed prices, while the recording industry is going to want variable prices."
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/11/18.html
Control or not, Jobs' fixing the price is a good thing for the music industry. A book is usually around $5 for paperback, a movie is usually around $10 in theaters, yet the price of CDs vary from popular to unpopular and that doesn't make any sense.
I regularly buy books I'm not 100% sure I'll like, because it's $5. I go see movies I'm not 100% sure I'll like, because it is ALWAYS $10. I don't buy music I'm not 100% sure I'll like, because it can cost $20 for a popular CD. I've bought DVD boxsets for $20! That's a damn months entertainment for less than a 40-minute album.
The only music I ever buy without hearing nearly every song on the album is from bands I know I like. The problem with this is that I'm a huge music fan, and I can't even remember if I've ever gone a day without listening to music in the last decade; yet I hardly buy any new music, because I can't justify the price risk of getting something bad. I mean its two movies, four books and thats if I'm not going for the $1.50 books off amazon. I once bought around 15 books of amazon because they were all cheap as hell, I haven't even read some of them but the author and publisher still made money off of me, no artist or music company gets free money from me when I'm admittedly stupid enough to allow them to if they had good prices.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
It's a stretch, but a defensible one, to report that Jobs concealed a dangerous treatable illness for 9 months.
But what possibly justification can Fortune have for reporting about Jobs' children "out of wedlock", the antics of his absent biological parents after he was given up for adoption, the lack of license plates on his car, or the contents of his secret address book?
It's hard to feel sorry for a billionaire public figure subjected to takedown pieces like this. So I don't feel sorry for him. But this reporter embarassed himself and his publication. This stuff wouldn't even pass muster on Wikipedia.
When you are such a public figure, and especially when the company that you are the CEO of is so dependent on you, it is simply one of those things you have to deal with. Every job has its downsides, if you're a fisherman you smell of fish, if you're a mechanic your hands are dirty no matter how much you wash them, and if you're a salesman you have a much higher chance of being burned out. The downside of being a public figure is that other people are interested in you personal life.
While I understand that the information disclosed in the article can be seen as a private matter, I can also understand the incentives for bringing it out. It is, after all, of great interest to the shareholders of Apple who the man at the helm really is behind the facade.
For a public CEO it is of course a nuisance. Just like it is a nuisance for a fisherman to come home everyday smelling like fish.
One of my favorite Steve Jobs quotes: "You've baked a lovely cake, but you've used dog-shit for the icing."
I think saving the investors from themselves should be just as big a concern. He is predicted with survival past 10 years, which IIRC the average age of death with someone having that prognosis is in fact only a few years shorter than the average age of death. If Jobs getting cancer means he kicks it at 78 instead of 82, I don't see why it should be disclosed immediately or at all.
Here is the text of the Commencement address by Steve Jobs in 2005 at Stanford where he announces that he had cancer.
Edit: not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's opinions on CNN mentioning his pancreatic cancer, I'm just linking this because I was reminded of it after reading the comment about his cancer and I recall it being an interesting read.
Actually, maybe I do mean FreeBSD... with the GUI on top plus all the drivers!