This is a rare and wonderful eulogy. We can nitpick over the details of Fry's grasp of the Apple way, but today it is probably better just to appreciate what Fry gets right about the phenomenon of Steve Jobs. I think one thing he gets right, the thing in any case of most importance to me, is the attitude that Jobs brought to the things he did. The phrase "insanely great" has been knocking about in my brain as a kind of touchstone for that attitude since I first heard it used of the Mac in 84. I was a kid, but the phrase stuck with me, like the voice of conscience, becoming a constant challenge to do better. Beyond the macs and the pods and the phones and the pads, what I feel most grateful to Jobs for is the fact that he supplanted the old clarion cry "good is not good enough" with the much more powerful idea: "great is not great enough." There are other powerful ideas, including the antonymous "Just ship it!" Perhaps the challenge of living well and doing good is to somehow respond to the imperatives implied by both ideas. "Just ship it!" is a useful antidote for the procrastinating and hesitating conscience, but the romantic in me appreciates more the restraints placed on whatever forces lead us to accept mediocrity by having the ideal of the insanely great held before us the proper measure of human achievement.
Reading this on a mac, via the internet.. what a powerful story at this time to come across. It made me look up and out the window and wonder: what is the future of my work? It reminds me to stretch my vision to 10, 20, 50 years into the future (though, if I presume to see 5 years into the future of tech I'd be happy..)
Stephen Fry has a talent with the written word that rarely disappoints. Of the many articles, obituaries and anecdotes about Steve Jobs I've read today, that one is the most compelling read.
You know, I'm generally a huge fan of Fry's, but this article left much to be desired. He was simply factually wrong on a great many points.
"If different companies are making the firmware, software, chips, screens, operating system, radios and cases the results will always be far less coherent and usable devices."
I hope he's just being sloppy with his language (unlikely for Fry) and not actually suggesting that Apple makes all of these components. The latter would suggest an insufficient level of familiarity with the products he extols to be taken seriously. He sounds very much like the ignorant "fanboi" he laments that some will call him.
"The frustratingly silly patent wars that are raging around the world between Google, Samsung, Apple and dozens of other companies would be a sad obsequy to Jobs’s colossal achievements, but with such gigantic sums of money in so huge a market at stake it is little wonder that others will do all they can to “crack” Apple."
What? He seems to think that Apple is the defensive party in the patent mess? Again, a disconnect from reality that is disappointing from someone I hold in such high regard.
I usually quite enjoy Fry's writing, but this piece was sloppy and poorly-researched, if indeed it was researched at all. Disappointing.
As I understood it, he is saying the fact that Apple is the offensive party in the patent mess is a sad obsequy to Jobs’s otherwise colossal achievements.
With regard to your suggestion that Apple is the offensive party in patent disputes, it's important to remember that the roles of offense and defense are reversed when you enter a court. This is because of the presumption of innocence.
When a murderer enters a courtroom, he's the defendant because he is presumed innocent. If the jury returns a guilty verdict, he becomes an offender, and the roles switch back. Following the verdict, it would be justified to view the prosecution as having defended society against the murderer who committed the offense. Prior to the verdict, the jury agrees to see things the other way around.
Likewise, Apple brings suit because, in its view, its patents should defend their innovations against copying. Again, because of the presumption of innocence, Samsung (or whoever) plays the role of defendant until a verdict is returned. Should Apple win their suit, then (under law) Samsung will be viewed as the offender, and Apple will have successfully defended itself against unlawful copying.
Which is a long way of saying that, if you believe that Samsung has unlawfully copied Apple's innovations, then it's entirely correct to view Apple as the defensive party in this patent mess.
I don't know how it is in the States, but here in Germany a patent holder suing in court is always presumed right until the defendant can prove his innocence (if he can). There is no presumption of innocence in patent cases. It's called "reversed burden of proof" or something. The allegation of the patent holder is enough to make a party guilty until proven otherwise. I'm sure it must be similar in the US.
I think that in the first part Fry is being very sloppy with his language, if not actually wrong, although I think I understand what he meant with it. I think what he means is more in the sense of PC open computing, like, you throw in whatever parts there are in marketplace and the thing is meant to work; like in, Google makes Android but don't know what specific hardware it will work on.
I've always had this mental image of all the tech greats knowing each other personally. I presumed Tim Berners-Lee and Steve Jobs had long discussions over a cup of coffee or beer. I'm somewhat bummed that's not the case.
The quality I especially revered in him was his refusal to show contempt for his customers by fobbing them off with something that was “good enough”. Whether it was the packaging, the cabling, the use of screen space, the human interfaces, the colours, the flow, the feel, the graphical or textural features, everything had to be improved upon and improved upon until it was, to use the favourite phrase of the early Mac pioneers “insanely great”. It had to be so cool that you gasped. It had to feel good in the hand, look good to the eye and it had to change things. It changed things because it made users want to use the devices as they had never been used before.
Steve Jobs once said
When you’re a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you’re not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You’ll know it’s there, so you’re going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through.
The fact that the customer agrees with that is a testament of how deeply Jobs spirit is entrenched in Apple's approach and philosophy.
“In most people’s vocabularies, design means veneer. It’s interior decorating. It’s the fabric of the curtains and the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a man-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service.” -- Steve Jobs
I desperately wish I was capable of seeing deeply into the meaning of that statement. I appreciate design, design thinking, human factors, etc..., but not nearly enough to understand it as the "fundamental soul," or how it (what?) expresses (how?) itself (who?).
If anyone here can provide a few words, or a pointer to some great communicator of design, I would very much appreciate it.
Well I suppose he could just mean he has some principles in mind about what a device should feel like to own. For instance the iPod, it was such a leap in usefulness of pocket music players, and this was reflected in not just the technology (1000 mp3s) but also the UI and the physical controls and the build quality and the stylishness. I say stylishness because I think that kind of is part of 'usefulness'... it looked cool to be seen with an iPod, esp. with the white headphones.
In contrast they could have just been like 'oh, great, we have a harddrive that can hold 1000 songs and still fit in your pocket easily!' and put out something that looked and handled like a brick.
But going back to what he wrote, he mentioned interior design, so he was probabaly thinking about architecture. You could have a boring building and make it look nice inside, but isn't it so much better when the architecture itself is amazing and then everything else just builds on that or compliments that.
I like the "awful prophets/awesome profits" contrast. Cleverly phrased. It really underlines the truth about the tremendous success Apple has with all kinds of people, all over the world, no matter what all the "haters" say.
