I think "becoming Steve Jobs" is a far better book.

I feel like the official Isaacson biography was trying to tell a story, and would twist facts and reality to fit that story. This certainly makes for entertaining reading, but is not a great way to study history.

Meanwhile "Becoming Steve Jobs" gives the reader glimpses into Jobs's life, often very contradictory glimpses, ones that don't really tell you what to think. It shows you how complex of a person he really was.

I don’t remember many details from the biography at this point, but I remember not liking it either. It seemed like it was written with the assumption the reader already knew the about Steve’s more public life and career, and skipped over much of it. It didn’t feel like it would be a good source for future generations to learn about Steve, as it seemed to largely ignore the entire reason a book was being written about him. I also remembering it seeming largely negative, trumpeting the views of critics, and while downplaying the good to balance it out. Though this could also be my memory fading, feel free correct me if I’m wrong.

It was my first Isaacson biography, and didn’t leave me excited for another one.

> I also remembering it seeming largely negative

It definitely was, but at least parts of that must have been warranted given Jobs refused to read it, saying something along the lines of "I know I wouldn’t like what it says"

I think that was him trusting the author to be fair and show a balanced view of who he was; maybe that trust was misplaced.

I second “Becoming Steve Jobs.” It actually gives insight into him, rather than just regurgitating what Isaacson thinks are the facts.

Thanks, I’ll check it out.