But, as a thought experiment, which is more important to you? What phone would you rather carry? An iPhone 4S modified to run Android or Windows Phone 7? Or a top-of-the-line HTC, Samsung, or Nokia handset running iOS 5?
What computer would you rather use? A MacBook running Windows 7, or, say, a Lenovo ThinkPad running Mac OS X 10.7?
对我来说,答案很简单这是对我来说最重要的软件我选择一个诺基亚流光运行iOS 5 / iPhone 4 s运行任何其他操作系统,我选择了ThinkPad运行Mac OS X / Mac运行Windows没有犹豫。
事实是他可能会打碎任何这样的假设的设备对最近的墙在盛怒之下,但是,如果被迫选择,我相信乔布斯会与软件。1The hardware and the software are both important; Jobs clearly cared deeply about both但是我认为工作最终认为软件是更重要的这是他全部的解释一键设计的iPhone,在舞台上在Macworld Expo 2007年1月,讨论的问题与现有的智能手机市场上乔布斯说:
They all have these keyboards that are there whether you need them or not to be thereAnd they all have these control buttons that are fixed in plastic and are the same for every applicationWell, every application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly optimized set of buttons, just for itAnd what happens if you think of a great idea six months from now? You can’t run around and add a button to these things他们已经装船。
So what do you do? It doesn’t work because the buttons and the controls can’t changeThey can’t change for each application, and they can’t change down the road if you think of another great idea you want to add to this product.
嗯It turns out, we have solved it! We solved it in computers 20 years agoWe solved it with a bit-mapped screen that could display anything we want把任何用户界面And a pointing device我们用鼠标解决它Right? We solved this problem所以我们怎么把这个移动设备?
What we’re going to do is get rid of all these buttons and just make a giant screen.
Now, you know, one of the pioneers of our industry, Alan Kay, has had a lot of great quotes throughout the yearsAnd I ran across one of them recently that explains how we look at thisExplains why we go about doing things the way we do, because we love software.
And here’s the quote: “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.”
You know, Alan said this 30 years ago, and this is how we feel about it.
有很多是错的沃尔特•艾萨克森的乔布斯的传记,但其治疗软件是本书的最深刻的缺陷Isaacson doesn’t merely neglect or underemphasize Jobs’s passion for software and design, but he flat-out paints the opposite picture.
“Before Steve came back, engineers would say ‘Here are the guts’ — processor, hard drive — and then it would go to the designers to put it in a box,” said Apple’s marketing chief Phil Schiller. “When you do it that way, you come up with awful products.” But when Jobs returned and forged his bond with Ive, the balance was again tilted toward the designers“Steve kept impressing on us that the design was integral to what would make us great,” said Schiller“Design once again dictated the engineering, not just vice versa.”
On occasion this could backfire, such as when Jobs and Ive insisted on using a solid piece of brushed aluminum for the edge of the iPhone 4 even when the engineers worried that it would compromise the antennaBut usually the distinctiveness of its designs — for the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad — would set Apple apart and lead to its triumphs in the years after Jobs returned.
“Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks likePeople think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design isIt’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”
这是基本原则和我共享工作Design was not just about what a product looked like on the surfaceIt had to reflect the product’s essence“In most people’s vocabularies, design means veneer,” Jobs told Fortune shortly after retaking the reins at Apple“But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of designDesign is the fundamental soul of a man-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers.”
我认为工作意味着他所说的财富,这是一个试图沟通相同的核心真理但“设计是它是如何工作的”是一个更好的声明,苹果的哲学Talk of a “product’s essence” (Isaacson’s words) or “the fundamental soul of a man-made creation” (Jobs’s) only serves to separate, conceptually, the art of design from the cold hard science of engineering只有五个字,“设计是它是如何工作的”表达简洁和准确,工程应该可以的艺术设计的一部分。
Design and engineering are, indeed, often in opposition — engineering constraints affect design; design goals affect engineering tradeoffs但它们不是独立的努力哲学问题是哪一个的一个子集席勒告诉艾萨克森,乔布斯重返苹果公司之前,设计发生在工程过程的结束在后,工程成为了设计过程的一个组成部分这一转变使世界上所有的差异。
On occasion this could backfire, such as when Jobs and Ive insisted on using a solid piece of brushed aluminum for the edge of the iPhone 4 even when the engineers worried that it would compromise the antenna.
In many consumer product companies, there’s tension between the designers, who want to make a product look beautiful, and the engineers, who need to make sure it fulfills its functional requirementsAt Apple, where Jobs pushed both design and engineering to the edge, that tension was even greater.
Far less documented are the subsequent stages of Jobs’s career: the NeXT years and his return to Apple作为一个与工作这些年来,艾萨克森反复转向比尔盖茨。
To some people, calling it a reality distortion field was just a clever way to say that Jobs tended to lieBut it was in fact a more complex form of dissemblingHe would assert something — be it a fact about world history or a recounting of who suggested an idea at a meeting — without even considering the truth.
I.e., Jobs had the ability to make people believe whatever he said, whether it was true or not但并不是每个人都:
But Gates was one person who was resistant to Jobs’s reality distortion field, and as a result he decided not to create software tailored for the NeXT platform.
I think Isaacson viewed Jobs’s RDF as something very much akin to the Jedi mind trick — something that worked against most people, but not those with strong minds这可能是真的但我认为艾萨克森很关心自己被“耐药”,他选择了治疗的工作告诉他是错误的。
一个例子是最重要的是别人23章,“第二次降临”,对苹果的故事1996年收购NeXT,乔布斯的回归上下文,当时吉尔·阿梅里奥已经决定,苹果需要到外面的公司继承了经典的Mac OS选项:收购或下,或许可Sun Solaris或微软的Windows NT(Licensing Windows NT was, according to Isaacson, what Amelio favored early on — which goes to show just how profoundly fucked Apple was at the time.) On page 302, Isaacson writes:
After informing Gassée that Apple was buying NeXT, Amelio had what turned out to be an even more uncomfortable task: telling Bill Gates”他进入轨道,”阿梅里奥回忆道Gates found it ridiculous, but perhaps not surprising, that Jobs had pulled off this coup“Do you really think Steve Jobs has anything there?” Gates asked Amelio“I know this technology, it’s nothing but warmed-over UNIX, and you’ll never be able to make it work on your machines.” Gates, like Jobs, had a way of working himself up, and he did so now: “Don’t you understand that Steve doesn’t know anything about technology? He’s just a super salesmanI can’t believe you’re making such a stupid decision… He doesn’t know anything about engineering, and 99% of what he says and thinks is wrong你到底在购买垃圾?”
Years later, when I raised it with him, Gates did not recall being that upsetThe purchase of NeXT, he argued, did not really give Apple a new operating system“Amelio paid a lot for NeXT, and let’s be frank, the NeXT OS was never really used.” Instead the purchase ended up bringing in Avie Tevanian, who could help the existing Apple operating system evolve so that it eventually incorporated the kernel of the NeXT technologyGates knew that the deal was destined to bring Jobs back to power“But that was a twist of fate,” he said“What they ended up buying was a guy who most people would not have predicted would be a great CEO, because he didn’t have much experience at it, but he was a brilliant guy with great design taste and great engineering tasteHe suppressed his craziness enough to get himself appointed interim CEO.”
事实上,这是完全错误的NeXTStep不是UNIX“温暖”苹果的确得到下一个在Mac的硬件上运行的操作系统Mac OS X 10.0 Mac和未来技术的混合,但它显然是下一个系统与Mac技术集成,而不是相反iOS系统,权力的iPhone和iPad NeXTStep的直接后裔即使最初的iPod,这不是基于未来技术,使用下开创的分层导航栏视图的概念。
盖茨使它听起来好像苹果的下一个收购是有效的只有人才收购它实际上是一个人才和技术收购,和当时的技术现在是iOS和Mac OS X的基础。
不仅仅是艾萨克森是错误的的东西; it’s that he was wrong about the most important thing in Jobs’s career有一个长达数十年的故事弧的软件系统开始下萨克森完全错过。
阅读有关的工作之后,人们很容易屈服于一个Jobsian-style二进制的世界观Total shit, or the greatest thing ever; five stars, or zero stars你可以了,看看我的批评谴责艾萨克森的书总屎,零星星这将是一个错误。史蒂夫•乔布斯不是文学,但这是一本好书,但是唉几个漏洞和严重的错误。