Michael Jordan was the greatest athlete of his time but an absolute asshole.

Martin Luther King had an affair (multiple? I forget.)

Musicians in general seem like pretty terrible people, with many notable exceptions.

> he was clearly also a deeply unethical business leader not to be emulated

MLK's affair has nothing to do with his contributions to the civil rights movement, the latter being the reason that (some) people admire him.

But GP is claiming that the very accomplishment for which (some) people admire Steve Jobs (his success) was obtained via unethical means that should not be admired.

Also, some people may choose to admire Jobs because of how he did whatever took to reach his goals regardless of ethics involved.

Evidently when Jobs was alive, he did what he did despite what people thought of him.

[0] http://rapgenius.com/J-cole-she-knows-lyrics

That you use MLK to defend Steve Jobs troubles me.

I don't see how I'm defending Jobs. I certainly don't think he's a particularly good person, though I admire his achievements.

The problem with the Steve Jobs "legend" is that it is told in such a biased way that many people believe that:

  - he was a Genius
  - he succeeded against the odds
  - Poor Apple was copied by competitors after inventing everything, and had to resort to patents to defend themselves. *(Miserables music playing in background)*

Therefore I'm not sure if there is anything much to admire of Jobs once you remove the layers of lies surrounding his story.

There are many more hackers who would deserve their story to be told rather than him.

The US music-products trade organization doesn't even use the phrase "musician" -- it uses "music makers". Try to find the word "musician" on http://www.namm.org/about

I think Japan is a lot more honest about this, in that these people are just called "idols" and aren't expected to originate any sort of authentic thought or message; they're just transparently icons in the employ of greater corporate forces, who go on talk-shows, and get talked about by paparazzi... and sometimes perform music.

And why is "having an affair" a character flaw? Because christianity?

To me it doesn't matter who someone admires. It's what they take from it that matters.

Also you can dig up endless dirt on the successful. As a rule of thumb anyone who's remotely very successful has exploited unethical behaviour some point in their life. You can do that with anyone really.

"We were then marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs. We could understand not being classed with whites, but to be placed on the same level as the Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized -- the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals." - Ghandi

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/irene-monroe/the-gandhi-none-o...

It is Gandhi the old, not Gandhi the young, who is respected. No one is born a Mahatma. Except may be Jesus :)

Regarding him being a wife-beater, I want to know your sources. I know for a fact that RSS propagates a lot of lies about Gandhi and Nehru family. I firmly believe he practiced non-violence and was NOT a wife-beater, WAS against caste-system, WAS against British rule over India. His secrets that are coming to light now (such as his sexual deviations) are things that were public when he was alive but almost nobody cared, or cared enough to propagate. Today, his legacy is major political problem for India and so it is being dug-up by some, while others want to hide it.

Whether he was responsible of India's independence or not, I don't know if it can be debated after 70 years of the fact. And I don't think one will ever get to the 'facts' by debating on this point. The maximum one can do is to read more and form informed opinions.

On-topic, while I agree that 'you can dig up endless dirt on the successful', the topic here is not the dirt, it is the person himself. Gandhi didn't become Mahatma because he was a 'racist' or 'wife-beater' etc. But Steve Job became successful due in large part to him being an asshole.

Certainly ascribing all of Jobs's ideas to other people from whom he copied them is a pretty good heuristic for ignoring people too.

That said: I suspect Jobs's view of the anti-solicitation deal was not that he was lowering compensation (although no doubt it had this effect) but keeping employees focused on his projects. After all, being chased by headhunters is very distracting, and if the net effect is you get a great offer, a better counter-offer, and stay, as far as Jobs is concerned you've just wasted a bunch of his time.

People admire Steve Jobs because he repeatedly built and led teams who built and launched products that transformed major industries. The ability to do that is extremely rare and valuable.

There's a lot to be said about his character, especially how he treated others (although it appears to me that he matured quite a bit after his departure from Apple in the 80ies). But I don't think you can diminish his role at the biggest turnaround in IT history so far.

Apple did plenty of 'standing still' back when Steve Jobs was around.

Citation? Most of the Apple-centric bloggers I read admire Jobs for the company that he created, not for the way he got there. Perhaps you're mistaking admiration with fascination: a lot of famous people are ruthless, but it's rare for that ruthlessness to be directed towards something other than money or power. Jobs's life is full of unbelievable stories, and people talk about them because it's fun, not because they think they're a good example of how to run a business.

You should probably delete that part. It is moronic to ask for a citation of an opinion. Your point is otherwise interesting.

Second, "that is not what people admire in him" is not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. Fortunately, the internet is effectively a giant paper trail, so whether or not that statement is true, finding evidence of people's opinions should be a no-brainer -- especially if you consider certain high-profile bloggers to be representative of the general zeitgeist.

*Or worse yet, to admire someone for where they are knowing that they got there through unethical means, which is the case with SJ.

Personally, I try to avoid black-and-white assessments of people, even if I vehemently disagree with them. I used to be an all-out Windows guy, but I started reading Apple bloggers because they had some of the most insightful and intelligent commentary on the state of the computer industry, product design, and programming. If you choose to ignore them just because they might have praise for someone you hate, you're only hurting yourself.

Nor is threatening other companies with legal action...

What would you find unethical? Surely there's a line somewhere.

If an "extreme no poach" agreement does, however, limit my future choices, then such information should be disclosed to me prior to employment. Even this more extreme form isn't inherently deceitful if disclosed. If not disclosed, then it would be unethical.

Note that California (and likely US Federal) law makes no poach agreements of any form illegal, thus making disclosure quite tricky. Of course, their illegality also makes it much easier for partner firms to cheat.

Thus, under the circumstances, the "soft no poach" agreement would be ethical: It requires no employee disclosure to remain ethical. The "extreme no poach" agreement, however, can not be rendered ethical in the current legal environment.

In reality, the no-poach agreements Jobs and others held expressly forbid firms from hiring the other's employees even if the position was sought solely by the employee herself.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about what Jobs actually did vs the perception people have of him. But there's no doubting that the former category includes a number of meaningful and industry-defining accomplishments.

Unfortunately, those like you who aren't done constantly arguing an equally biased anti-Jobs/Apple view seem to think that rehashing the truly dick part of who Steve could be discounts what he did (often by citing other folks involved / inspired, as if it doesn't take a village to build a revolutionary product). I'm not really sure I'd ever miss interacting with such an ideologue.