Wired on Bill and Steve: Part Two

A particularly curmudgeony opinion piece by Tony Long revisits the Leander Kahney article from last week. For those that are just tuning in, both authors write for Wired. Kahney's article suggested that Bill Gates deserved more admiration than Steve Jobs because Gates gives large amounts of money away publicly.

The short and simple summary of what I wrote last week is that the appreciation that Jobs receives for leading Apple and Pixar is different than appreciating charity work.

Jobs and Wozniak created Apple's culture of artists and renaissance men and women. This culture is responsible for products that appeal on an intellectual and sometimes visceral level. Consumers and columnists may simply think of Apple's products as "user friendly" and "attractive", but the technical elite can look at Mac OS X or an iMac and see how much thought went into them. As a result, Apple has broad and sweeping influence over all sorts of design, which brings attention to Apple's CEO.

Street Cred Cast as 'Hero Worship'

Now, to step back and put this in perspective, the Gates Foundation does nothing even remotely similar to what Apple and Pixar do. Only when Gates takes on the persona of Microsoft chairman does the comparison make sense.

In that context, Jobs rightfully gets more cultural credit. One only has to look at Vista screenshots to see who's following who. Pixar has obviously done something right as well since Disney has handed over creative control of feature animation and theme parks to Pixar. That's without touching on the cultural cues that companies like Google took from Apple.

In any case, Long contends that he doesn't even care about the relative merits of Gates and Jobs. He's concerned about giving them too much credit at all:

The issue for me is you, dear reader, and your blind hero worship. What gives with that, anyway?

You know who you are. You're the guy who shows up faithfully at every Macworld convention, camping out to be first in line for Jobs' keynote. You hang on every syllable the great man utters, as words like 'genius' and 'God' fall from your lips. Jeez, the Deadheads weren't that servile when they were following Jerry Garcia around.

Unfortunately, Long has twisted Macworld into something that it isn't. People are there for the excitement of the event and the fact that whatever Apple announces will likely influence their work and recreation. For most people, Macworld is fun. They're not there because they need to know what the CEO ate for breakfast. There are playful comments about Jobs's iconic status, but it's not at all as serious as Long makes it out to be.

The whole rock star persona strikes me as a very subtle running joke (even if it does fit well when other executives walk onstage and exude about as much charisma as cardboard). If there's anything about Jobs's personality that earns respect, it's the anti-executive identity that shows up from time to time.

Blame the Computers

Long then takes an unexpected turn into blaming microchips for the world's problems (does he know he works for Wired?):

What I want to know is why guys who manufacture computers or make software are worthy of being elevated to near-deity status by you techno-utopians. Technology, this manna from heaven that was supposed to free us from our chains, has done nothing of the sort. On the contrary, while computer technology may increase personal productivity, it's only complicated the nature of class struggle by eliminating jobs, weakening labor unions and dispersing workers.

A very black-and-white view of the world. I actually think you'd have a hard time arguing against the idea that personal computers and the internet has given individuals a voice or tools they wouldn't otherwise have. Would I be reading Long's column if the internet didn't exist? Would Penny Arcade have an audience? Would I know people in at least 16 different countries?

The fact that computers are complicated than we'd like is a bit beside the point. This is the case with cars, taxes, assembling furniture, legal agreements and so on. It's not specific to technology, it's just that most of use computers more frequently than we dive into law books.

I'll save my admiration for the guy making minimum wage who still finds the time and a few bucks to help someone less fortunate than he is. Or the schoolmarm who teaches your children how to read. Or the doctor who provides affordable medical care to a needy community instead of setting up a lucrative practice in Beverly Hills.

Those are all good silhouettes to praise, but there's no need to save admiration for specific purposes. It's not as if I have a jar of admiration sitting on the shelf. I can admire a artist for a painting a mural or a programmer for making a piece of software without running out of admiration for selfless acts.

Then again, maybe he's just pushing buttons.

Comments Temporarily Disabled

I had to temporarily disable comments due to spam. I'll re-enable them soon.