Nearly four years after Steve Jobs died, a debate is still raging. Does Jobs deserve to be admired?
That is the underlying question that emerged in a new documentary released over the weekend by Alex Gibney in Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine. It is also a question that lies beneath the surface of the upcoming biopic by Aaron Sorkin, Steve Jobs, which premiered at the Telluride Film Festival on Saturday last week and opens on Oct. 9.
Jobs, of course, was a complicated leader: brilliantly creative and obsessive about every last detail, yet so maniacal that he could make his colleagues cry and, yes, there is no getting around it, at times, he created his own truth. (That is the polite way of putting it.)
Gibney, who directed the recent HBO documentary Going Clear about Scientology, explained what appeared to be his rationale for pursuing a documentary about Jobs in a voice-over at the beginning of the film.
“When Steve Jobs died, I was mystified,” Gibney said, as he showed images of people all over the world mourning the loss of Jobs.
“What accounted for the grief of millions of people who didn’t know him? I’d seen it with John Lennon and Martin Luther King, but Steve Jobs wasn’t a singer or a civil-rights leader,” he said.
“The grief for Jobs seemed to go beyond the products he left behind. We mourned the man himself. But why?” Gibney said.
Gibney, a remarkably talented and persuasive filmmaker, uses the next two hours to seemingly make the case that Jobs, the man, does not deserve the iconic status he attained. Through a series of interviews — including one with the mother of a child Jobs denied was his own until much later — Gibney paints Jobs as “ruthless, deceitful and cruel.”
Gibney retreads a laundry list of Jobs’ sins: backdating options, factory conditions in China and secret agreements with Silicon Valley rivals to prevent employee-poaching.
However, all these efforts to paint Jobs as a hero or a villain miss a larger truth: He can be both and still be worthy of acclaim. More than 700 million of his iPhones have been sold around the world, with a new version scheduled to be unveiled yesterday. Hundreds of millions of people spend more time with their iPhones — and all the copycat and directive devices — than just about anything else on any given day. Think about this: He managed to create an emotional attachment between humans and a device.
Say what you want about the man, but you do not have to be an “Apploonian” to appreciate he has an authentic claim to changing the world during this last generation.
Not surprisingly, most people who have had a huge influence on the world have been flawed, some deeply so. It should go without saying, but most people happen to be flawed in one way or another.
Gibney held out Lennon and King as somehow more worthy of the wave of grieving that took place after they died than Jobs, but both men, in truth, were terribly troubled, too.
Lennon’s own son, Julian, told The London Telegraph in 1998: “I felt he was a hypocrite. Dad could talk about peace and love out loud to the world, but he could never show it to the people who supposedly meant the most to him: his wife and son. How can you talk about peace and love and have a family in bits and pieces — no communication, adultery, divorce?”
King had his own personal demons: It is well chronicled that he was a serial adulterer.
Sadly, it does appear that being flawed in one area might help in others. In an article in The Atlantic titled Why It Pays to Be a Jerk, author Jerry Useem quotes several studies that show that nice guys do not usually win.
Donald Hambrick, a management professor at Penn State, told the magazine: “To the extent that innovation and risk-taking are in short supply in the corporate world, narcissists are the ones who are going to step up to the plate.”
Of course, not everyone thinks Jobs was a jerk. Eddy Cue, Apple’s senior vice president for Internet software and services, wrote on Twitter that he felt the Gibney film was “an inaccurate and mean-spirited view of my friend. It’s not a reflection of the Steve I knew.”
However, the black hat-white hat version of Jobs may be too confining.
In a fascinating interview last year with Graydon Carter of Vanity Fair, Jony Ive, Apple’s famed designer and longtime friend of Jobs, recounted a telling story. He remembered a time when Jobs had been tough — too tough, in Ive’s estimation — on his team and Ive pulled him aside and told him to be bit nicer.
“‘Well, why?” Jobs said. “Because I care about the team,” Ive said.
“And he said this brutally, brilliantly insightful thing, which was, ‘No Jony, you’re just really vain,’” Ive said. “He said: ‘You just want people to like you, and I’m surprised at you because I thought you really held the work up as the most important, not how you believed you were perceived by other people.’”
That story and the documentary left me with two questions: Would you rather do something extraordinary that benefits the lives of millions of people? Or be liked by several hundred? And does it have to be an either-or question?
The answer, like Jobs, is complicated.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Heavy rains over the past week have overwhelmed southern and central Taiwan, with flooding, landslides, road closures, damage to property and the evacuations of thousands of people. Schools and offices were closed in some areas due to the deluge throughout the week. The heavy downpours brought by the southwest monsoon are a second blow to a region still recovering from last month’s Typhoon Danas. Strong winds and significant rain from the storm inflicted more than NT$2.6 billion (US$86.6 million) in agricultural losses, and damaged more than 23,000 roofs and a record high of nearly 2,500 utility poles, causing power outages. As
The greatest pressure Taiwan has faced in negotiations stems from its continuously growing trade surplus with the US. Taiwan’s trade surplus with the US reached an unprecedented high last year, surging by 54.6 percent from the previous year and placing it among the top six countries with which the US has a trade deficit. The figures became Washington’s primary reason for adopting its firm stance and demanding substantial concessions from Taipei, which put Taiwan at somewhat of a disadvantage at the negotiating table. Taiwan’s most crucial bargaining chip is undoubtedly its key position in the global semiconductor supply chain, which led
RSS