'Drunk' e-mailing Steve Jobs
We're all aware of the perils of "drunk dialling" an ex - but for Ryan Tate at media gossip blog Gawker, e-mailing Apple boss Steve Jobs - with a stinger cocktail on hand late one night while the wife was away - really paid off.
The nocturnal back-and-forth was prompted, as Ryan explains, because Apple's latest advert for the iPad really ticked him off.
It was then that Mr Tate put his late-night wrath to work with an e-mail to Mr Jobs that resulted in a hearty online conversation that covered everything from pornography to freedom and from "Apple doing the right thing for its users" to Microsoft.
The exchange is published at Gawker.
As Mr Tate said, the dialogue is all the more interesting given the Gizmodo blog's legal issues with Apple over the handling of a new iPhone prototype. Court documents in that fight were unsealed by a judge on Friday. Gizmodo is owned by Gawker Media. Wired magazine has a copy of the documents.
You can bet your bottom dollar, given Mr Tate's success engaging Mr Jobs, that every blogger/journo on the planet will soon be e-mailing the Apple co-founder as a result of this.
Er... talking of which...
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~25~RS~)
Comments
Well atleast Jobs seems to reply to people who email him.
Try getting a reply from the guy in charge of the FA Premier League. I even copied to press into the emails I sent, where I had to write "This is not for your attention, it is for the attention of Mr Scudamore".... that I wrote to the helpdesk who replied instead. Scudamore I believe doesn't even know the emails exist even though there are questions that need immediate answers, questions the media are not willing to ask for strange reason!
Complain about this comment
I love the fact that guy feels free just to publish private emails.
Complain about this comment
This is interesting, and it certainly shows an Orwllian side to Steve Jobs, and by extension Apple itself - though, of course, total control is already a well known and documented attutide of Apple, in both it's products and ruuning of the company itself.
@MJ - Pretty much all responses Steve Jobs gives are published, and he knows that very well I'm sure. And if he didn't want them published, he'd have either not sent them in the first place or have the police raiding the guy's house right about now.
Complain about this comment
I am disappointed that a guy from a reputable publication had the opportunity of a lifetime to ask Steve Jobs the questions that are worryign consumers but instead he just drunkenly rambled on. The swearing doesn't bother me, i do not mind if people use swearing to drive their point home, but If you remove the swear words and still do not have a succinct argument then that is a problem.
I do praise Steve jobs for answering, but calling this technology a revolution, and his definition of freedom leaves a lot to be desired.
I am not a fan of Steve, and his arguments fell flat with me but in the end, if this is the future of web standards, I am afraid of thefreedoms we have appreciated in the past.
Complain about this comment
@eboni : he was drunk ! ergo he's not likely to offer a lucid barrage of paxman-esque pointed and structured questions..
had he been sober, I doubt he would have even considered emailing Steve, and then the world would be a less interesting place for those of us who have an interest in understanding Steve's big issues with cross-compilation and the deployment of flash on his devices.
as Ryan concludes, it's his toy, if he wants to restrict it so be it, but it doesn't mean the exchange between them wasn't interesting.. the timing and the addition of alcohol (at least on one end of the conversation) serve only to open a window onto how Ryan actually feels.. a lot of his comments were from the heart and that is always refreshing and interesting IMHO
Complain about this comment
Interesting stuff. The author obviously wanted to get his personal point across and didn't expect a reply. The replies from SJ are really interesting, fascinating even.
"Revolutions are about Freedom" apparently!
So Steve Jobs wants to give us the freedom to not have freedom. He wants us to experience what I see as the happiness of slavery.
Yep I used the term "slavery". I did this because you are restricted in what you can do with your product even though it has the capacity to do it. You are restricted in what software you can use your product with. You are restricted in where you can get that software from and from shopping around for the best deal. And finally you are restricted in what hardware you can use with your product. I see that as technological slavery.
That's cool though. If you buy an iPhone or an iPad then you have to be fine with that. I have learned from experience that it's not for me (I like my iPhone but I hate iTunes) but if people want that then thats fine. However, I don't believe that Apple can ever produce any product that could be considered excellent with that corporate ethos. But hey, thats just my opinion.
In a more serious note Apple products have been trendy for the last decade (with massive sales) but I think we are starting to see the trend change. In the last 6months the criticism of Apple, their policies and their products (iPad WiFi) has really developed. I think the problem of product slavery is going to be a loser for Apple because in the long run slavery isn't slavery if the slaves can walk away any time they like. Tech users (even casual users) are fickle creatures and Facebook and it's recent problems are a perfect example of how a brand can loose it's cool very quickly.
Just my thoughts (iPhone and PC user).
Complain about this comment
Don't really understand why anyone freedom is being infringed here. It is the developer’s choice what platform they develop for - no one is forcing anyone to develop for the iPhone or any Apple device for that matter as there are plenty of alternative platforms to develop (e.g. Android, Microsoft).
As SuperG points out, If consumers start feeling "enslaved" they are free to walk away and try another product and perhaps in time Apple might think again about this current strategy – but the point is that they are free to choose the strategy like any other business (so long as there is no monopoly – which there isn’t currently and looking very unlikely to be with competitors getting into this space quickly).
So what exactly is the problem here - what are these freedoms that we have experienced in the past they are in danger of being taken away??
Complain about this comment
I do not really understand why any ones freedom is being infringed here. It is the developer’s choice what platform they develop for - no one is forcing anyone to develop for the iPhone or any Apple device for that matter as there are plenty of alternative platforms to develop for (e.g. Android, Microsoft).
As SuperG points out, if consumers start feeling "enslaved" they are free to walk away and try another product and perhaps in time Apple might think again about this current strategy – but the point is that they are free to choose the strategy like any other business (so long as there is no monopoly – which there isn’t currently and looking very unlikely to be with competitors getting into this space quickly).
So what exactly is the problem here - what are these freedoms that we have experienced in the past that are in danger of being taken away??
Complain about this comment
I agree with Steve.
Complain about this comment
Seems to me that Mr.Tate had an opportunity to really explore some cool ideas, with one of the Feudal lords of the technocracy, and he wasted it on non-issues.
The iPad is obviously not a revolution, nor is any aspect of corporate america, not just apple, that interested in transforming the world or a revolution or being Green, unless you count "Benjamins" as Green. A true revolution would re-distribute the apple cart, no pun intended here, and rip the status quo a new ass*@*&, which would in turn force a re-invention or re-model of a consumer based mentality that constantly looks to distracting technological modalities to spur true innovation, rather then nurturing and fostering real critical thinking, artistry and craftsmanship.
Corporate feudalism and maintaining the status quo is an inherent aspect of a consumer based technocracy. Disseminating information and the means of distribution regarding art, images, words, music, etc...and the tools that are being used to deconstruct the already destabilized and failing economic modality, through marketing strategy and re-packaging of old ideas, is a much more pressing arena for discussion then a commercial add campaign and an idiotic and obviously non-sequitor based marketing campaign.
From WIKI: "Friedrich Hayek argues for the classical liberal view that market economies allow spontaneous order; that is, "a more efficient allocation of societal resources than any design could achieve."[4] According to this view, in market economies sophisticated business networks are formed which produce and distribute goods and services throughout the economy. This network was not designed, but emerged as a result of decentralized individual economic decisions."
Jobs nailed it when he responded one can simply choose NOT to participate and let the technology evolve as it will, Tate responded with a certain kind of sophomoric belligerance that again ignored the historical precedent and missed the true opportunity for a meaningful dialog.
Mr. Tate had an opportunity to discuss real concerns like; the re-allocation and distribution of intellectual property and the destabilization of the economics of individuality and the artist. The actual impact that that has on true revolution. You had an opportunity to bend the ear of a corporate feudal lord who has single-handedly been responsible for a large amount of the re-distribution of tremendous resources and economic attributes, away from the individuals and true revolutionary thinkers and artists out there, and diverting those precious resources into his own coffers, and instead you whined about non-issues that are self-resolving as the historical imperative of techno-evolution so clearly points out. Does Mr. Tate even remember Beta video tape?
...or what about the environmental impact that 1 million IPads produce? How is that a revolution? How is he able to maintain the moral highground when kids in China are disassembling old Macs for trace elements in incredibly toxic work environments. Planned obsolescence and environmental impact are much more significant issues from a true revolutionary point of view. Revolution sees the inequity in the status quo and seeks change along lines that the powers that be resent. You could have pointed out that inherent contradiction as a basis for argument rather then a pissing match over a few lines of code.
Mr. Tate wrote that he was engaged in a Flaming dialog, but his flame was seriously tepid given the scope of the opportunity.
The details of how a specific disseminating technology evolves are meaningless, the bigger issue is the reductivist attitudes of the noblesse oblige corporate mentality. You had one good point; that it is not within his corporate pervue to determine global moralities, but he actually answered you in a meaningful way by calling into question Mr. Tate's ability and history to innovate and create, as opposed to just critiquing others. Which, by the way, he did not respond to.
Given the opportunity, I would have had a completely different conversation.
Complain about this comment
I actually agree with Steve Jobs on the blocking of "ported" iPhone apps. Why, because we see it in the real world.
Look at the world of video games. large parts of every video gaming platform (be it PCs, Consoles or Arcade Machines) are full of "Half-Hearted" ports of programs from other platforms, that either show signs of lazyness (Games ported to PC prompting the user to "Press Start") or ports of games that do not use the various features of the console the game has been ported to (look at the Wii's catalogue here for the most graphic examples, games that are designed for other consoles that either don't use, or use very poorly the Wii's motion sensor controller).
Apple are trying to cut out all of that crud, and ensure that the apps that appear on the iPad are actually designed for the iPad, not an afterthought. Since part of Apple's brand is its "premium Experience" factor, to allow programs that are designed for the lowest common denominator would clearly hurt their brand.
Complain about this comment
Honestly, who cares about this embarrassing tittle tattle between a pair of egomaniacs?
What about the *really* important news, which is that Google have just open sourced their video codec, a video codec that stands more chance of becoming a web standard than that proposed by Jobs, a man who has basically painted his company and it's products into a corner?
Will the BBC even bother to report this news, or do you consider email bitch slapping to be more newsworthy?
Complain about this comment
Chad, so in your opinion Fart Apps are not crud then, unless they're ported? Oh-kay.... ported or not, there's a mountain of crud in the app store, the quality of the apps has *nothing* to do with the frameworks or compiler used to create them, in fact a decent framework will often drive up the quality.
Don't delude yourself that Apple are restricting your choices for your own best interest - they're not, they're so not.
Complain about this comment
Mmmm, I'm with Steve. The fact is, the iPad IS for "moms" (and kids, and anyone else who just wants to get on the web and use it for consuming). I think it's a brilliant gadget, perfect for all those people who don't need the full processing power or tech that a 'proper' laptop provides, and there are tens of millions of them. It is so NOT for developers, content creators, designers etc etc.
Many, many people would like to start their kids off on computing early, but worry about what they will access. Yes, there are some parental controls around, but we all know they're not as efficient as they need to be. And while I don't yet know how successful the iPad is at blocking porn, I'm more comfortable getting one for either my mum or my kids than a laptop.
Personally, as a designer, I love, and use, both Adobe's and Apple's products. I'd rather the 2 companies worked together than against each other. But if Apple want to draw a line against Flash, then it's up to Adobe to step up and make it work, not just waste time and money bleating about how unfair it all is. The iPad will, in a few years, be as popular (if not more so) than the iPhone. And as a designer, my clients are already asking me why they can't see their websites on their iPhones. So I've dropped Flash: as much as I like Flash and what it can do, if it doesn't work on the gadgets my clients want to view the web on, then I won't use it. The ball is firmly in Adobe's court: if they don't want Flash to die, then make it work. Adobe are just being lazy: they didn't develop Flash, they bought it from Macromedia and rebranded it. Now they need to improve it so it works better across platforms.
So I don't have any problem with Apple wanting some form of quality control on their products. PC's have a free-for-all, and look at what you've got: endless rubbish, viruses, so much distracting stuff that gets in the way of you doing what you actually wanted to do. In an age of information overload, Apple's attempt at stemming some of the tide, and restricting it for a better quality user experience, is fine by me.
Complain about this comment
@Graphis
The thing that concerns me about your post is this.
"And as a designer, my clients are already asking me why they can't see their websites on their iPhones. So I've dropped Flash: as much as I like Flash and what it can do, if it doesn't work on the gadgets my clients want to view the web on, then I won't use it."
Thats a dangerous precedent my friend.
The suggestion that "Some of my clients can't see some content on some devices at the moment so I won't use it" is generally poor practice. Web content can easily be tailored to be device specific and non-Flash alternatives can be served if Flash isn't supported. Without some solid analysis about how your clients and (more importantly) their clients access the content you are not giving the best advise. In it's simplest form you are suggesting to your clients that because Steve Jobs has blacklisted some technology its dead across the whole web. Not true.
What if Steve Jobs decides that the mobile Safari browser will not support JavaScript/AJAX/JQuery and gives the reason that Java is a slow language and JavaScript generally isn't coded well? Do you stop supporting that on all client sites?
My point is that dismissing an established technology due to trends can lead to problems. It's like advising all your clients to use Macs because they are cool without understanding their internal networking infrastructure first or their legacy software dependancies.
A good designer and/or developer educates clients on trends while anticipating the need for all user types.
Until someone produces an alternative technology to replace all the functions of Flash and ActionScript it isn't going to go away. Silverlight is close but not there yet.
Complain about this comment
Disappointing that, 24 hours after the announcement, there is still no Google/VP8/WebM coverage on the BBC Tech site, no discussion of what this announcement means for web users or content creators, or Apple for that matter (who may, very publicly, have backed the wrong horse).
Mind you can't say I'm surprised, it's a bit geeky (technical) and it does have the potential to show up Jobs, which would tend to go against the BBC attitude of only ever promoting his products.
Complain about this comment
SuperG@15
No, I don't think it's a dangerous precedent at all. If my clients express a desire for 'no Flash' it's my job to deliver what they want. Otherwise they go to someone who will. On the other hand, if they insist on Flash, I give it to them. It's not my fault Flash won't work on the iPhone. And it's not my place to speak up on behalf of developers everywhere. (As a matter of interest, I like Flash a lot, and my own website is built entirely from it.) I'm not "advising" my clients: I'm simply responding to their requests: they want to see their own websites on the technology they own. What's wrong with that?
If they want a particular effect, and there's a non-Flash alternative, then I'll use that. If there isn't, I'll explain why they can't have it. I can "educate" them all you want, but the bottom line is what they say, goes. It's called the real world, I believe. Most clients don't actually care what software is used to build their websites as long as it does what they want it to do. That's all that matters to them. Flash is just a piece of software, and there's nothing that special about it. Unless Adobe can make it work to Apple's satisfaction, it's dead, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
I've not bothered to read the exchange as Jobs's opinion & stance are widely known anyway. What is interesting is those who don't see Jobs & Apple's decision to not support Flash as a bad one for the web and how the web was built. Why should a company have to pay extra to get a website changed so it can support Apples pad type devices? The person who thinks that because Apple refuse to support Flash will mean the demise of Flash, is deluded. Who is the biggest seller of handheld web devices? Nokia and they happily support Flash.
Personally I've always had a dislike for Mr Jobs since the 80's when in a similar fashion with his hardware he felt it was necessary for example to introduce an Apple printer port even though everyone else used the standard centronics or serial printer ports. He is still doing it today, insisting that if you buy an Ipod you have to use iTunes. Even more shocking, you can't even use your iPhone without registering it with iTunes first and they sneakily fool people into handing over their bank details at the same time, even though you only need an iTunes voucher.
Before I get accused of being anti-Apple, I'm not, I use their hardware & OS at work, I have bought 2 iPod Touches for my daughters, I am just anti the way Jobs thinks his way is always right. I believe in choice and if Jobs wants to develop closed systems and people want to follow him then that is their choice. Personally I'll walk my own path.
Complain about this comment
#17 @Graphis
It's one thing for you to follow your client's wishes, but it's quite bizarre that they're asking you to make their sites non-Flash when iPhone makes up just 15% of the smartphone market, never mind the total internet usage share. Perhaps your clients are asking for mobile-only sites, but if they're not then I think it's them that need the reality check - you can't base decisions about which technology you use on such a small sector of your audience.
SuperG is right, it's a dangerous precedent. It's perhaps a precedent that has been thrust upon you by ignorant clients, but it's a dangerous precedent nonetheless. Do we just allow Steve Jobs to be in charge of web standards? Should Apple replace the W3C? No - Apple should be cajoled into being more open. Tying the software to the hardware is not a good thing. Those who say "no one is forcing people to develop for the iPhone" are missing the point - that's like telling someone who isn't happy with something in their country that no one is forcing them to live there. It's not choice, it's exclusion.
It's been bad enough trying to get Microsoft to make IE conform to web standards without Apple deciding thet they're going to stop playing ball as well. Adobe has tried to make Flash work on the iPhone, but Apple keep moving the goalposts, so to say they need to make Flash work for the iPhone doesn't really make sense - why bother, when Apple will just change things again?
Complain about this comment
Maggie,
Did you get a job at the onion?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-social-networking-site-changing-the-way-oh-chr,17465/
Complain about this comment
Ahem. As a completely un-experienced and unstable developer (I like to hack things). I do actually agree with Apples stance to an extent. Adobe are running a monopoly on the graphics industry (What alternatives do graphic offices have to illustrator and photoshop) and almost have the same power when it comes to web development. Now don't get me wrong. Code your website how you see fit but when it comes to bought applications I expect it to have been made in some form of Obj C.
It's all very well saying that you can "export" flash as Obj C for the iPhone but the the code you get is not as efficient as if you had made it in Obj C yourself.
I mainly feel for the developers which have spent years and years learning how to hard code expansive and interesting applications to then see someone else doing something similar with little knowledge compared and what look and feel like similar results.
^Some might say I have argued against myself but in truth developing decent efficient apps on any machine requires a good knowledge of api and kernels which Flash doesn't take into account.
The main problem which people keep on complaining about is how distribute web video (Graphis and Super G' posts). This in essence is what the "war" is about. The fact that Flash is the monopoly for web video needs to be changed. Actionscript is OK for a beginner and is very versatile but so is BASIC. It is by no means as versatile as SDKs. (I accept this point can be seen as ignorant as I haven't used action script to a high level of functionality)
I don't blame Apple or Steve Jobs for refusing Flash. Adobe have been selling Apple users Emulations of PC versions of creative suite for the past 10 years. Now that should be illegal. Now finally CS5 will be actually written in cocoa it might actually not crash macs as bad as it has in the past. But the beef between the two companies is not going to end so soon. 10 years is a long time.
And all this nonesense about OPEN WEB. C'mon people don't be ignorant for ignorant sake. The web and technology have never ever really been all that open as far as markets go. Windows is still the main killer in innovation in online wars. Apple are not that much better and trying to encourage HTML5 is a good thing. Googles (Oh yeah the most used, richest online company who are still trying to set me up with some russian bride on some dodgy looking advert) Android will not stay open for all that long as linux is an open sourced program. Not many people want to things for free.
Complain about this comment
This article is about a bragging "autograph hunter" who is happy to admit that his life drips out of control when his wife isn't around. He shouldn't be sharing the Jobs email exchange, but doing the right thing would deny him is moment in the sun.
If I were a drinks company I'd start mail bombing him now, preferably before his wife gets home to straighten him out ;-)
Complain about this comment
I totally agree with Steve Jobs approach to porn on the iPad, but then I don't and never have gotwhy people get pleasure from it. I can see the commercial aspects and the profits that can be made from it. It is obviously a matter of personal choice. Perhaps that now failing rival company, Microsoft could increase its revenues by embracing porn and manufacture a pad, the 'Porn Zune', dedicated to pornography and leave the iPad un-polluted.
Complain about this comment
Maggie and Steve, sitting in a tree.....
Complain about this comment
i think you should all get all life geeks!
but i have to say i never buy apple products ever since i bought a song off itunes and realised i could only play it on an ipod - its my song so i should be able to play it on any mp3 player i want to! so stev jobs talking of freedom is complete nonsense.
its sad so many people buy into the apple nonsense - the phrase style over substance springs to mind.
Complain about this comment
Nicely done - I like the way you managed to embed the ad right there in the second paragraph - that's subtle enough that most people would think you were just being helpful - I'm sure a cheque is in the post.
Complain about this comment
This continual BBC coverage for Apple is staggering. A friend of mine is actually analysing the volume of coverage as part of a media degree and the statistics are quite shocking. Watching spooks, are we really supposed to believe that M15 run a network of Macs???
If only their products were as slick as their marketing department.
As for Mr Jobs approach. Its a real shame. The power seems to have truely gone to his head. Some of the Apple products are fantastic, but their controlling obsession has reached a tipping point, and I'm even starting to see Mac heads movings away.
Like it or not, Windows 7 is as stable as OS now, and with Steve's ever increasing grip, more and more Mac users will move back to the down and dirty world of MS and linux. It may not be perfect, but its virtually free in comparison and customisable too.
No matter how good Apples products are, people don't want to be slaves, especially tech heads.
Apple has become the Lexus of computing. It will always have a market for those that want nice, relatively trouble free transport.
But the majority don't want to be perscribed what a car should be.
Complain about this comment
Freedom this freedom that. You want freedom from the constraints put upon you, don't buy the technology. If you're satisfied with what you can do with it... then knock yourself out. Steve Jobs is not trying to stop anybody's freedoms. You have the freedom to not buy the latest gadget.
Complain about this comment
@22 Adobe have been spending a lot of time trying to shift to 64bit code (according to them) in terms of Photoshop and the Creative Suite. When they started they said it would be a very slow process. I don't recall PC users getting so het up when PS was solely optimized for Macintosh. In fact I remember a lot of crowing about it. As for the lack of alternatives to photoshop and illustrator, you may just not be looking hard enough - but for most design agencies using freelance staff having an application they're all familiar with is usually the most cost effective method.
Apple have given false claims to their hardware and software before (anyone remember "the world's first RISC processor desktop computer"?) and have maintained their sealed proprietary nature despite the OS move to a GNU format... As long as people are aware that's what their buying into, I can't see it as a problem.
The Flash arguments resemble the situation an English company (Acorn Computers) had in the 1990s with Apple - after signing agreements regarding tech sharing for the education market, Apple, as far as I'm aware, failed to assist Acorn in cross-compatability of products.
/geek!
Complain about this comment
As a life long Nokia lover and someone that never "got" this faciantion for all that is apple I have to agree with SJ about wanting control over what goes into my product.
I look on in envy at the 7 iphone users at work at their slick interface, smooth operating system cos it works, every time, all the time. My so called "smart phone" crashes, hangs, is slow to load (Nokia N97) because content is always approved or stable and these are ones downloaded from the Ovi store.
If you ran a business you would want quality control over everything you did, no one is forcing anyone to buy an iphone or ipad, if you dont like his business ethic, go buy something else.
Complain about this comment
I emailed Steve Jobs, asking if it was really necessary to agree to 92 pages of Ts & Cs when I installed the latest version of iTunes. I mean, does any one actually read all that? No response as yet. Ah well, worth a try.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS