She seems to let Wozniak get about 80-90% into statements and then speedily talk over him to move onto the next point. It doesn't sound like she's actually listening to his answers, just going down her checklist. At one point he explains why he liked Sorkin's approach better than Kutcher's, then she asked a later question as if he had never said that.
It's kind of sad. Woz mentioned numerous times that the problem was showing the pre-firing Jobs behaving and being treated more like he was after having matured, but the interviewer just didn't get it.
She also asked quite a few questions designed in a "X vs. Y, choose now!" style, trying to get a soundbite or setup a narrative (Woz wisely wouldn't fall for it). Between that and the interrupting, it was actually kind of hard to listen to.
Missed opportunities, I guess.
How do you come to the conclusion that she doesn't get his point? Didn't she even react to that with the "is he too visionary in the movie" question line?
> How do you come to the conclusion that she doesn't get his point?
Maybe she did. But it didn't seem to influence the questions she asked. I felt like they could have taped both sides of the interview separately and then just spliced it together. There were almost no follow-up questions, it sounded like she could have ended every part with "Thank you, next question." She asked him some base question and he explained the difference between Sorkin's and Kutcher's approaches. Ten minutes later she asked that very question, without even acknowledging that she already had the answer. Instead of "You touched on the difference in Sorkin's style, could you tell us more..." it was "I hear your working with Sorkin. How did that compare." It gave the impression she wasn't really paying attention to her own interview.
My impression was the whole thing was set out before it started. She had her angle, and she just kept trying to get there. To get him to trash someone, to say the movie was a travesty, to bait him with "is Apple doomed?" again, or to just finish it up and get onto the next segment. No engagement, no feeling, no heart... just hollowness and a missed opportunity.
There are certainly points where he was running on a bit, but it wasn't a good conversation. Very clash of personalities rather than giving someone a topic to talk about and moving on when they've said what they have to say.
Part of that's probably that she just seemed to have a list of fairly specific questions she wanted to run through - which is a terrible way to talk to anyone, especially if you've not done your research into how they like to talk and what they're going to want to talk about properly.
This is a property of American media. When people start talking over each other, I stop watching. I can't take it.
Conversations and interviews are like a game. Each person makes their turn; the next person only gets to go when the current player finishes their turn.
The British media is a little better at this, and I'm talking mainly about BBC News, but it's still not perfect. In fact, you can see the mockery of this in The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert frequently talks over his interviewees; it's part of his character and it hits the nail right on the head.
She did better than I would have. I'd probably be interviewing for 30 minutes, end up with almost no good TV points, and have something that would need to be edited down to 3 minutes.
> She did better than I would have. I'd probably be interviewing for 30 minutes, end up with almost no good TV points, and have something that would need to be edited down to 3 minutes.
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe Woz just isn't someone who can really be interviewed well in a short segment on live TV. If they had taped it they could have edited down his answers or organized it better. Maybe she just had a really difficult job to do on this one.
Bub wow are you right. She is really pushing a possible story with each question. It's interesting she seem to be getting facts wrong. She isn't stepping over PG though, so that's obvious just trying to keep Woz on topic.
The guy who joins in (wasn't watching at the moment, so I missed his name), he sounds like he's genuinely interested in what PG is saying. He's not as polished, but he's doing a better job.
Edit: Just finished watching it. The other gentleman is Cory Johnson, and he's a very good interviewer. He continued to outside Emily Chang throughout the video, asking insightful questions in response to what PG said.
I've read a few different articles where they claimed that when he worked at Atari, they created a shift just for him because no one could stand to work around him. Supposedly it was because he was an unwashed hippie, but I'm inclined to think that Atari's entire staff was made up of unwashed hippies during this time period, so it must have been his personality.
In this case, Woz is saying that the movie portrays Jobs as being a lot more focused, capable, and charismatic than he actually was as a young man. Letting the present color our view of the past is an easy story-telling trap to fall into.
If she was indeed like you said she was, she'd push on through the "no comment" on the question about the movie Woz's making, or the question "Should we see the movie?", or...
She also talks down at him and acts like she is more important than him.
Its a bit old, but quite good.
Of course, when I actually became an adult, I realized the error of my ways, switched to Linux,and over time my admiration only grew for Woz.
I once appeared in a reenactment of a Jobs/Woz story on TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEuJMPBZJ7c . It was a cheesey TV reenactment, and it really doesn't matter which one of the two Steve's I was playing, versus which one was portrayed by my child-hood friend, Travis. But during the filming, I did get to handle a Woz Blue Box, and an Apple I board. It was like touching a Rembrandt, or a Van Gogh.
At the time, I pretended to be Jobs. These days, I say I played Woz.
Woz, to put it bluntly, is the awesomest hacker/engineer, ever. He's just a freakin' god! Everything he's ever done has been 10% pure hacker ethos. The early Apple I's came with a complete explanation of how they were laid out, hardware-wise. The manual was a work of pure joy. You don't get technical writing like that, ever. Nothing was hidden. http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Apple/Appl...
If you like that, ever head of the CL 9? Woz, after leaving Apple due to surviving a freakin' plane crash, decided he wanted to fix the then common remote control. The CL9 Core remote control was a hacker's dream device. You could program it to emit whatever IR signals you wanted, and it came with a manual explaining as much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CL_9
Jobs, on the other hand, was a seriously driven guy. An entrepreneur's entrepreneur. Take that for what you will, the good and the bad. I've always taken it to mean he was good at spotting an opportunity and exploiting it.
I, for one, will always worship the engineer, first.
Publishing details at pretty much that level was the norm at the time, nothing particularly special for Apple. E.g. up until at least '87 or '88 (and quite possibly later), pretty much all Commodore hardware had proper schematics in their manuals, and they provided separate documentation with much more detail.
This may not be a good movie and I believe that Woz believes what he says, but like any eyewitness I also believe his memory is colored heavily by his own POV.
Keep your mind clear and don't worship Jobs or Woz.
It's better to have one person who is Level 100 at skill A and another who is Level 100 at skill B, than 75/25 and 25/75.
"Well-rounded" is another term for "mediocre."
FWIW, they really did appreciate each other. I'm not sure what could have made things work out better - but note that Jobs left too (i.e. kicked out). It's turbulent waters, hard to plan.
fun fact when the iPhone 4S was publicised as having "dual-core graphics", Woz complained that this technical detail was not relevant to users, only the result was. He appreciates Jobs' perspective better than present-day Apple does.
Yes, 10% is what was meant, even if it was unintentional.
All Hail the King Jobs.
;)
1) I like this typo.
2) I can't imagine how you made it. Dvorak keyboard?
I don't think anyone wanted to watch Jobs after seeing the trailer.
If what we are hoping to learn from 'Jobs' or The Social Network is "How did this guy do it? What personal qualities can I emulate, what situations can I apply the same approach in", then it is only valuable if it is accurate.
After all, if the narrative is something the writer more or less made up (i.e. he's missed out the bit where Jobs goes into the wilderness and comes back another person), then what the movie teaches us is coming from the writers head. The writer didn't build a leading company, so I am not really interested in what he thinks about how to do it.
And what does that have to do with linking to a auto playing video? Do you automatically switch tabs after loading it and then get confused which tab has your video?
Yeah, I've been meaning to try that Chrome feature out. I'm still on FF22 at the moment.
Do you automatically switch tabs after loading it and then get confused which tab has your video?
Typically I'll middle-click links to open them in separate tabs without switching to them, then read the tabs later when I have time, sometimes even the next day. So I end up faced with a row of dozens of tabs, one of which is making unsolicited racket.
A lot of people are uncomfortable talking plainly about their own importance or about other people's failings. And then you get the odd megalomaniac who's the opposite. It's refreshing to see someone who's comfortable talking about people honestly.
Is this the view of the general public? That Apple is doomed if they don't release iWatch or whatever that's bigger than the iPhone/iPad?
On the other side, different analysts say both the watch market and the TV market are too small to matter, so Apple is also doomed if they do. That the MP3 player, smartphone and tablet markets were also "too small" before Apple released their products hasn't entered their mind.
The Social Network may not be factually accurate but I enjoyed it and watched it again. I'm guessing this will be similar.
>> "It would have been true to their intent (entertainment)"
OF COURSE their intent is entertainment! It's a movie!
On the one hand, I can imagine where the computing world would be without the work that Jobs did and the people he inspired: probably a bit less shiny, a bit more beige, a bit more square. Deep inside, though, our devices would still work the same way and do the same things. On the other hand, I literally can't imagine where the computing world would be without the work that Ritchie did and the people he inspired. By the mid 80s, Ritchie's influence had taken over, and even back then very little remained of the pre-Ritchie world.
Taken from https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cn...
Geek C comes along and tells Geek B that he's clueless, because Geek Icon B was just a poseur who spent his career harvesting the intellectual fields that had been plowed and sown by the even more obscure Geek Icon C. And so on, ad infinitum.
I halfway expect someone else to stumble on that thread and inform the author that he's an idiot because he doesn't realize that Dennis Ritchie is no more than a pimple on John McCarthy's back (not my opinion, just the sort of binary thinking and argumentation that I've observed in these types of threads).
It's also an example of geek self-importance: the idea that the only thing that matters is writing code. It reduces the value of anyone involved in the creation of a piece of hardware or software who wasn't writing code or soldering stuff to nil. People say this stuff to feel better about themselves at the expense of other people that they feel get too much credit. There's some truth to it, of course, but it's rarely expressed as a gray area. It usually comes in the form of, "hey, you know that guy who everyone thinks did everything? Really, he did NOTHING! Nothing at all. This other guy that most people never heard of did EVERYTHING." Which is just as intellectually dishonest as the idea that the first guy did everything.
Woz has his own fame, so I don't see this as a jealous rant, but I do see it as a guy waving his arms screaming to the public "HEY HEY, I AM STILL HERE! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"
EDIT ---- Yeah down vote me, my bet is you didn't watch the whole video.
I bet ya dollars to doughnuts that Woz did not contact the media first. His phone probably didnt stop for days with media ringing him up trying to goad something out of him.
Personally I'm not impressed with the way Hollywood changes history, especially recent history. For many, Hollywood's version becomes the official version.
PS, I can't downvote and seriously dislike drive-by downvoters. Or people that downvote because they disagree. Or most downvoting in general really...
http://blogs.computerworld.com/mac-os-x/22659/jobs-ashton-ku...
> "Woz is being paid by another company to support a different Steve Jobs film. It's personal for him, but it's also business. We have to keep that in mind."
Seriously? Woz is the guy who gave his Apple stock shares to co-workers he felt were slighted in the IPO. Hello, he's the guy who wanted to give his groundbreaking engineering behind the Apple away for free.
Woz is an engineering legend...but if there were a Hall of Fame for generosity and integrity, he'd be in there too. Shame on the "Jobs" people and it's great to see the lukewarm/negative reviews roll in for their shit sandwich of a biopic.
http://fakevalley.com/steve-jobs-actually-lived-for-150-year...
It's not like there is not considerable source material to work with (even without Isaacson's book if you're concerned about the "other" movie).
It just feels like someone has asked the press to deliberately drum up negative opinions specifically in regards to the true validity of the movie (not, you know, overall quality) and it will likely drive people out in droves.
Can't find details of when or if it's coming to the UK...
