24.2.13

The Great P(#)rn Experiment Gary Wilson at TEDxGlasgow HD (Mirrored)


Published on 2 Dec 2012
Mirrored From User: TEDxTalks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82A...

In response to Philip Zimbardo's "The Demise of Guys?" TED talk, Gary Wilson asks whether our brains evolved to handle the hyperstimulation of today's Internet enticements. He also discusses the disturbing symptoms showing up in some heavy Internet users, the surprising reversal of those symptoms, and the science behind these 21st century phenomena.

More About Gary Wilson

Gary is host of www.yourbrainonporn.com. The site arose in response to a growing demand for solid scientific information by heavy Internet erotica users experiencing perplexing, unexpected effects: escalation to more extreme material, concentration difficulties, sexual performance problems, radical changes in sexual tastes, social anxiety, irritability, inability to stop, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms.

As a physiology teacher with a particular interest in the latest neuroscience discoveries, Gary was aware that their symptoms might be the result of addiction-related brain changes. Applying the website's concepts of brain plasticity, many former users have braved withdrawal, reversed their symptoms and restored normal sexual responsiveness.

The site has been linked to from hundreds of threads in forums from over thirty countries, with posts numbering in the thousands. Gary blogs for "Psychology Today" and "The Good Men Project" on the extreme plasticity of adolescent brains, the evolutionary context for today's flood of novel cyber "mates," and the neurochemical reasons why superstimulating Internet delivery has unexpected effects on the brain.

Many thanks to Pat Somers of Slow Moving Pictures for the skillful editing of this video.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)


22.2.13

Richard Dawkins - Astrology, from The Enemies of Reason Part 1



Published on 28 Mar 2012
Is it rational that the dead can communicate with the living and give sound advice on how they should live their lives? What about sticking pins into your body to free the flow of Chi energy and cure your illness? Or the bending of spoons using your mind alone? Is that rational? Richard Dawkins doesn't think so, and feels it is his duty to expose those areas of belief that exist without scientific proof, yet manage to hold the nation under their spell. He will take on the world's leading proponents in their field of expertise, meet the victims who have used them and expose the history of the movements -- from the charlatans who have milked these practices to the experiments and testing that have failed to produce conclusive results.

15.2.13

Feminism explained (video) - A feminist accidentally explains her view of the world.




Feminism explained

Battlefield315 
192 videos
Uploaded on 20 Dec 2010
A feminist accidentally explains her view of the world.
Watch more conversations with a liberal at: http://battlefield315.com

Feminism & the Men’s Rights Movement - BOTH as Ideological Autism

Feminism and the Men’s Rights Movement as Ideological Autism

Feminism and the Men’s Rights Movement 

- as Ideological Autism

Feminism and the Men’s Rights Movement as Ideological Autism

I’m far from the first person to note the similarities between feminists and MRAs, and I think I’ve stumbled across the reason why: both ideologies are motivated by autism. That is, both the feminist and men’s rights’ movements are populated by women and men who are socially awkward and incapable of relating to other people normally. The amount of dysfunction depends on the particular feminist/MRA in question—that’s why we have an autism spectrum—but all of them are mentally disabled to some degree.

In other words, arguing with feminists and MRAs is completely pointless, because it means we have to take seriously the delusions of broken minds.
The idea that feminists/MRAs might be socially retarded first came to me when I read this feminist response to my Michelle Jenneke post. In particular, it was this passage that lit me up:
The best thing about this long discussion of how feminine, how confident, how accomplished, and how generally wonderful Jenneke is, is that Forney has no idea whatsoever if anything he’s saying about her character is true. All he knows, based on this commentary, is that she’s an athlete who looks graceful and happy. That’s it. Oh, and that she’s hot. [...]
Now, in a strict sense, she is right: I’ll likely never meet Jenneke and thus I’ll never get to find out what she’s like. But she’s really pulling the tired “you can’t judge a book by its cover” line that fatties, uggos and other weirdos use to defend themselves. At our deepest levels, we all know it’s bullshit: a person’s outward appearance is a reflection of their soul in nine out of ten cases. A well-dressed businessman, a filthy bum, a scantily-clad woman; if you use your instincts to make snap judgments of people according to their appearance, you’ll be on the money most of the time.

What got me thinking is that feminists may not simply be using that line as a defense mechanism: it might be that they legitimately can’t tell what people are like from looking at them. One of the defining characteristics—hell, the defining characteristic—of autism and Asperger’s is an inability to understand social cues. When Gretchen Koch watches that video of Michelle Jenneke’s “sexy” dancing, it may be that she honestly cannot read the social cues that Jenneke is inadvertently telegraphing through her behavior, cues that I and millions of socially adjusted men instinctively pick up on.

To further drive the point home, Koch has a picture of herself on her blog’s sidebar. There are no good-looking feminists for a reason: when was the last time you met a good-looking person with autism?

But the fun doesn’t stop there!
Koch links to an article from Sociological Images on “daily rituals of objectification culture” that women engage in that they apparently need to stop:
1) Stop seeking male attention. 
Most women have been taught that heterosexual male attention is the Holy Grail and its hard to reject this system of validation, but we must. We give our power away when we engage in habitual body monitoring so we can be visually pleasing to others. The ways in which we seek attention for our bodies varies by sexuality, race, ethnicity, and ability, but the template is the “male gaze.”

Heterosexual male attention is actually pretty easy to give up when you think about it.
  • First, we seek it mostly from strangers we will never see again, so it doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of life. Who cares what the man in the car next to you thinks of your profile? You’ll probably never see him again.
  • Secondly, men in U.S. culture are raised to objectify women as a matter of course, so an approving gaze doesn’t mean you’re unique or special, it’s something he’s supposed to do.
  • Thirdly, male validation is fleeting and valueless; it certainly won’t pay your rent or get you a book deal.  In fact, being seen as sexy hurts at least as much as it helps women.
  • Lastly, men are terrible validators of physical appearance because so many are duped by make-up, hair coloring and styling, surgical alterations, girdles, etc. If I want an evaluation of how I look, a heterosexual male stranger is one of the least reliable sources on the subject.
Fun related activity: When a man cat calls you, respond with an extended laugh and declare, “I don’t exist for you!” Be prepared for a verbally violent reaction as you are challenging his power as the great validator. Your gazer likely won’t even know why he becomes angry since he’s just following the societal script that you’ve just interrupted.
This is the damaged output of a damaged mind. The idea that women should shun male attention is anathema to the very psychology of human beings. All of us, man or woman, crave social acceptance, and sexual attention is a form of social acceptance. Normal women want to be objectified (even if they have trouble admitting it) because objectification is validation, and validation is a basic human need. The average woman gets more sexual attention than the average man, but don’t kid yourselves, guys; we dream of girls falling at our feet, eye-fucking us.

The alternative—being ignored, invisible—is repulsive to the human psyche, so repulsive that the threat of it is one of the easiest ways to manipulate someone.
Because feminists are autistic, they’re incapable of forming meaningful relationships with anyone aside from their fellow mental defectives. The above passage is nothing more than a rationalization of the writer’s inability to get male attention; she pretends it’s a conscious choice rather than the natural outgrowth of her social awkwardness. “You can’t fire me, because I quit!” Attractive women never complain about objectification: it’s always fat, ugly or plain women who do because they either never get any male attention to begin with, or what they do get is of the “no one’s ugly after 2am” variety.
And do I really need to bash David Futrelle? I could write a million words about how broken and pathetic he is, but this video of him (go to 7:03) says it better than I ever could:


(By the way, am I the only one who’s noticed the irony of al-Jazeera hosting a feminist roundtable on “e-patriarchy?” Kind of like a synagogue hosting a discussion of The Culture of Critique.)

But I’ve harped on feminists enough. Time to turn my boomstick of truth on the MRAs.
Enter The Black Pill, a blog of hopelessly confused Forever Aloners trying to argue the existence of the “Paleo-Game Cult,” a catch-all term they apply to anyone not as whiny and morose as them. I first learned of the Black Pill when he disapprovingly commented on my post criticizing Register-Her.com. He’s linked to my posts on other occasions, but being the chickenshit he is, he anonymizes the links so I can’t see where the traffic is coming from; unfortunately, he didn’t count on the Google Alerts I have for my name. A recent post of his takes aim at the “red pill” concept:
 Elam and others believe that to be against feminism and understand mens rights, you have to take the “red pill”.  Only a tiny group of people have taken the “red pill” so they believe that the vast majority of people are “blue pills” which among other things means that they’re feminists.  The only way to go from “blue pill” to “red pill” is some major transformation in thinking according to the “red pills”.  The “red pill” takers can include all sorts of nutjobs as long as they can talk about how they have gone through this supposed transformation.  The first problem with this is the assumption that most men are “blue pill” feminists.  While almost all women are either feminists or de facto feminists, that isn’t true of men.  I have talked to plenty of mainstream joes IRL and in almost all cases, they understood to varying degrees just how much trouble feminism causes.  This is particularly true of men under the age of 35 or so.  They weren’t “blue pills”, not by a long shot.  They don’t need a mental transformation into becoming a “red pill”.
What a load of nerdy bullshit. Another aspect of autism is the inability to process language correctly. Aspies and the autistic have difficulty recognizing nuance or metaphor, taking everything they read and hear at face value. Black Pill attacks the “red pill idea” without realizing that there is no red pill idea: it’s simply a metaphor to describe rejecting mainstream wisdom on women and whatnot. He keeps tilting at windmills in a follow-up post:
Over time more and more men are going to have no idea what the red pill is supposed to be about just like how Martian Bachelor had no idea.  The last Matrix movie came out in 2003 and the only real substantial reference to the red pill is in the first movie which came out in 1999.  Take a man who is 30 in 2020.  The first Matrix movie came out when he was 9.  He may never have seen it.  That’s even more likely for a man who is 25 in 1990.  The first Matrix movie only came out when he was 4.
Yes, that’s right, the “red pill” will become obsolete because of the increasing age of The Matrix. It’s wholly inconceivable that someone will come up with a newer, fresher metaphor that will be more relevant.

It’s a wonder how these people can even tie their shoes in the morning without accidentally strangling themselves with the laces. Oh whoops, that’s shaming language! I’m a mangina!
This isn’t even getting into the perverse glee MRAs take in the advent of sexbots and the like. I defended male porn use in a past article, but I’m not going to pretend that it’s anything other than what it is: a sick outgrowth of a sick society. You can get off on porn, but you can’t get a human connection from it. This is the MRA equivalent of feminists whining about “objectification”: losers trying to spin their loserness into a principled choice.

That’s what the motivation of many MRAs, particularly the ones who haven’t experienced divorce rape or the other ill effects of feminism, boils down to: a justification for their failures with women. Their claims about how they “don’t care” about getting laid are a total lie; if a moderately cute woman were to ever show interest in any of these dorks, their rhetoric of “going their own way” would fly right out the window.

Attention men’s rights’ activists! Tired of getting erections whenever a hot girl crosses your path? Feelings of sexual inadequacy eating away at your busy activism of posting comments on blogs? Try CASTROGOL! One tab of Castrogol every day will annihilate your desire for the opposite sex, leaving you free to play video games in your underwear all weekend without a pang of guilt! WARNING: side effects of Castrogol may include nausea, infertility and spontaneously sprouting a vagina. Please consult your doctor before taking Castrogol.
The MRM is informally considered part of the manosphere because MRAs and “gamers” (Christ I hate that term; anyone who calls me a “gamer” is going to get an uppercut to the jaw) oppose feminism. This is despite the fact that the two groups walk different paths: “gamers” want to improve themselves and grow as men to achieve contentment and fulfillment, while MRAs want to lobby to have men added to the list of liberal victim groups. The two have mixed like oil and water; in other words, not at all. It’s obvious that men, especially young men, don’t want what the MRM is selling: the most popular MRM sites, such as A Voice for Men and Fathers & Families, are eclipsed in popularity by sites like Roosh’s and Chateau Heartiste.

It’s time to throw the MRM out and let it fade into irrelevance.
Feminists and MRAs are equally autistic, the only substantive difference between them being that one group has power and the other is powerless. You don’t debate with the mentally disabled, any more than you would challenge a guy in a wheelchair to pickup basketball. You deal with them through mockery and ridicule. Never take a feminist or an MRA seriously. Don’t accept their frame or debate them. Instead, shower them with derision and insults. Belittle and tear them down at every opportunity. Remind them that we are the normal ones and they are the freaks, and they need our approval if they want to be happy and free.

Mental illness is not a defense. It’s time to take the asylum back from the inmates.

Feminism and the disposable male | A Voice for Men

Feminism and the disposable male | A Voice for Men

Father Smiling Holding Young Son 

Feminism and the disposable male

The #1 video on YouTube on the subject of feminism for more than a year has been “Feminism and the Disposable Male” by A Voice for Men Contributing Editor Karen Straughan, also known as Girl Writes What. If you don’t believe it, just go to YouTube and type in the word “feminism” and if it’s not some brand new sponsored video, this will likely be the top video. And unlike most videos that “go viral,” it has seen not an explosion of views but a steadily increasing number of views. It has ignited a firestorm of hatred against its author. People have put up pictures of her face battered and bloodied to show their hatred for her. She’s called a right-wing extremist, a “back to the kitchen” traditionalist, a misogynist, a woman-hater, a traitor to her vagina–she’s even been called the “Tokyo Rose of feminism.” Much of this is rather amusing since she’s a bisexual atheist who writes erotica professionally, and often doesn’t even vote–not because she thinks women shouldn’t vote, but because, like Penn Jilett, she thinks it’s often a waste of time. Amusingly, she’s also often been called a “feminist extremist” (often laced with many more vulgar epithets).

The fact of the matter is that I personally agree with everything she says in this video. I mean it–every word of it, I agree with. I’ve thought these things for many years. And I’m used to being shouted down and told to shut up for saying these things. But it appears to be even worse when a woman says them. Perhaps that’s because those opposed to what she says particularly hate it when a woman says them? Or is it because they fear that if a woman says them, they can’t dismiss her as a “whiny loser” like they do to men who say these things? I leave it to you to decide.

That said, a number of readers of my blog have complained that they can’t stand listening to Karen (Girl Writes What) talk for 15 minutes. I do not understand this complaint at all, I’ve always found her speaking style compelling, but there’s no accounting for tastes. Although she’s approaching 400,000 views on this one video alone, and has over 13,000 subscribers and growing, some people tell me they want to read her essays rather than listening to them. So in accomodation, I asked Karen for a transcript, and when she said she’d lost it, I went ahead and transcribed it for her in exchange for permission to reprint it. And so, here I present, proudly, my friend Karen’s “Feminism and the Disposable Male.” I hope you like it as much as I do. –Dean Esmay



Not too long ago I had it out with a feminist who had come into a male-safe space from a feminist blog just to scoff at the idea of male disposability. She basically said that the entire concept was a myth, that men’s lived experiences were completely wrong, and that they were just a bunch of whiners who were complaining over nothing.

That got me thinking about the concept of male disposability and how that interacts with the feminist movement. Male disposability has been around since the dawn of time, and it’s based on one very very straightforward dynamic: when it comes to the well-being of others, women come first, men come last. This is just the way it has always been. Seats in lifeboats, being rescued from burning buildings, who gets to eat: really, society places men dead last every time, and, society expects men to place themselves dead last every time.

Humans have always had a dynamic of “women and children first” and that has not changed at all. The 93% workplace death gap has to be evidence of this, if only because there’s nobody with any kind of importance or power who’s interested in changing it at all. In fact I remember reading an article in a British Columbia paper not long ago that described the increasing proportion of female injuries on the job as a huge problem, and the insane thing was the change reflected a decrease in male injuries rather than an increase in female ones. Men’s injuries on the job had gone down because the economic downturn had put so many men out of work in the resource sector that there just weren’t as many trees or pieces of heavy equipment falling on men as there had been before. And yet, this was framed as a huge problem for women that required immediate action to solve. It’s like if men aren’t dying at work that 20 times the rate that women are, we must be doing something wrong as a society.

Back when we were still living in caves that attitude was necessary for human survival. Nature is a really harsh mistress, especially when you think of all the animals that never get to die of old age. Things were a lot different for humans through most of our history on this planet than they are now. Life was dangerous, human settlements were small, isolated from each other, and one big disaster that took out a lot of women pretty much meant the end of the entire shebang for that group of people. So really, the level of importance that a human settlement placed on the well-being of women and children reflected almost always how successful that settlement was. And that can be expanded to encompass entire societies.

I keep hearing from the feminist camp that femaleness has always been undervalued by society and that maleness is preferred. But I’ve always contended that it’s the exact opposite: the feminine is intrinsically and individually valuable, simply because females are the limited factor in reproduction. When it comes to producing babies, every woman counts, whereas biologically one very happy man could probably do the work of hundreds in that regard. So the level of instinctive importance we humans place on the safety and provisioning of women and their children is one of the main reasons why we’ve been able to be so successful that we’ve come to dominate this planet.

While I will concede that this drive to keep women safe from all harm has often resulted in extreme limits being placed on women’s mobility, their agency, their power of decision to direct their own lives, all through history and many cultures, and in many cultures even today, I think it’s telling that those cultures tend to be the most backward. When you consider the restrictions placed on women in places like Afghanistan, and then you consider that if we “bombed them into the stone age” it might be progress, I think you could conclude that the most successful societies had a good balance between allowing women freedom and the ability to choose and direct their own paths in life, and the need to protect them and provide for them.

However, feminists will insist that these kinds of restrictions being placed on women in those kinds of societies are the ultimate form of objectification. You lock up your possessions to make sure they will never be lost or stolen or harmed. Honestly, if I were a guy on a battlefield I might appreciate being objectified in that way. I think if I was going to be an object, I’d rather be a sexual one or somebody’s prized possession than an object that can simply be thrown in the trash or smashed into pieces in the service of somebody else’s purpose.

Feminists also have a very simplistic idea that our willingness to absolve women of their crimes, slap them on the wrist, spare them punishment, comes from a deep disrespect society has for women’s person-hood—not seeing them as full human beings capable of looking after themselves, that we see them as children who don’t know any better. And while there are parallels there in our desire to protect both women and children from not only their own poor decisions but the full consequences of their shitty behavior, it’s really not as simple as they try to make it out to be.

Seriously, even today—even today in 2011!–we fully expect that if it comes down to a man and a woman in a burning building and you can only save one, the expectation is that you choose the woman every single time. So honestly, whose humanity are we placing above whose here? We’re not talking about going to work, we’re not talking about getting an education, we’re not talking about freedom to decide what you want to be in life. We’re not talking about getting to take Tae Kwon Do. We’re talking seats in lifeboats here. The person in the lifeboat is going to survive, no matter how capable or incapable they are of managing their own life, and the person going down with the ship is going to die, no mater how independent, self-sufficient and awesome he is. That’s the equation: one life, more valuable than another, and the woman wins every time.

So honestly, is there any argument, anywhere, that women’s humanity has always been held in higher regard by society than men’s? To be important to society, a woman merely has to be; a man has to do in order for his life to have any meaning to anyone other than himself. I think it was ManWomanMyth who said our society reduces men from human beings to human doings. I really think that’s an apt analogy. We measure a man’s worthiness to wear the title of “man” and therefore the title of “human,” through how useful he is, either to society or to women, and one of the most useful things a man can do even now in the eyes of society is to put women and children before himself.

While I think there is plenty of argument that this attitude is at least partly innate—the way most survival traits are, even collective ones—if it starts in the chromosomes we really do everything we can as a society to reinforce this dynamic. Studies have shown that even though baby boys tend to cry and fuss more than baby girls, parents are quicker to attend to or console a baby girl than they are a baby boy. Even just the level of acceptance of infant male circumcision in our culture, when female genital mutilation was banned pretty much the first afternoon we all heard it existed, really says a lot about the differing expectations we have for males and females. Speaking as a mother, the last thing I would ever have wanted was to hear my child cry, especially when they’re at an age when they’re completely helpless, completely at the mercy of outside forces, and utterly dependent on the adults in their lives for every last thing, and yet even knowing how painful that cut is, we expect baby boys only days old to just suck that up.

Just think about what these very first interactions and experiences, these differences in how we nurture our babies depending on what gender they are, what this teaches them: What do we teach baby girls when we attend to their crying so quickly? We teach them to ask for help because their needs are important. We teach them to let us know when they’re afraid or in pain because it’s important for us to know when they’re sick or in danger or hurt, so we can do something about it. We teach them that when they’re sad or lonely to summon comfort and comfort will be there. We teach them that they’re important. Their needs and well-being, both emotional and physical, are important just because.
And what are we teaching baby boys when we leave them to cry? We teach them that there’s not much point in seeking help because it will be grudgingly given if at all We teach them that they should become self-contained in their ability to deal with emotions like fear, helplessness, loneliness, sadness, pain, distress: we teach them stoicism. We teach them to suck it up. We teach them that their fear and their pain are things that are best ignored. We teach them that their emotional and physical well-being are just not as important as other things.

Given all that, is it any wonder it’s like pulling teeth to get a man to go to the doctor when he’s sick?
What we’re teaching that baby boy is all the things a man needs to know and feel and believe about himself if he’s going to stand in front of a cabin with a rifle while his wife and kids hide inside. We’re preparing him for the day he has to fix a bayonet to a rifle and charge a hill under enemy fire, and we’re preparing him to make a decision to resign himself to an icy fate while women and children escape in the lifeboats. We are teaching him to internalize his own disposability.

And baby girls? By attending to her crying so quickly, by letting her know that she’s inherently important to us, we’re preparing her for the day she has to think of her own safety first, even if it means the man she loves is left standing alone with a rifle in front of a cabin. We’re preparing her to take that seat in the lifeboat. We’re training her to not allow guilt or empathy or acknowledgment of a man’s humanity, or any sense that he might deserve it more, to convince her give her seat to him. Because for millenia, the human species absolutely depended on her feeling 100% entitled to that seat.
And that brings me to feminism. You know, the patriarchy smashers? Those righteous avengers of equality? Dogged dismantlers of every single gender role? What exactly is feminism doing to dismantle this traditional role of the disposable male?

Feminism’s greatest victories have only reinforced in everyone that society still owes women provision, protection, help and support just because they’re women. In its collective dismissal and abandonment of male victims of domestic violence, it only reinforces in men that it’s pointless to ask for help, because men’s needs are of no relevance, and their fear and pain don’t mean anything to anyone. Feminism teaches us to put women’s need at the forefront of every single issue, political or social. Whether that issue is domestic violence law, sexual assault law, institutional sexism, social safety net, education funding, homeless shelters, government funding for shovel-ready jobs—jobs that didn’t stay shovel-ready once women got wind of them.

Everywhere you look—everywhere you look!–there are feminists pushing their way to the front of the line demanding women’s “fair share” of all of the goodies, the good stuff, the loot, the booty, the cookies. Even if women don’t need it. Even if women don’t deserve it. And even if somebody else needs it and deserves it more.

And they get it, because we give it to them.

Feminism has done nothing but exploit this dynamic of the expectation on men to put everybody else before themselves. Especially women. Women’s safety and support, women’s well-being, and women’s emotional needs, always come first. This is the most stunning piece of society-wide manipulative psychology I think I have ever come across. Feminism has been down with old-school chivalry right from the start. They might seem like strange bedfellows, but they’re not. Because both concepts are built on a firm foundation of female self-interest.

We made our way as humans through a really harsh history and we became the dominant force on this planet. One of the reasons we were so successful is because we have consistently put women’s basic needs first. Their need for safety, support, and provision. It was in humanity’s best interest for women to be essentially self-interested, and for men to be essentially self-sacrificing. But we don’t need that dynamic anymore. Our species is in no danger of extinction. We’re 7 billion people clogging up the works here!

What’s the worst that could happen if we all just collectively decided that men were no more disposable than women, and women were no more valuable than men? In fact the greatest danger I see to us right now is that in our desperation to bend over and give women everything they want and everything they say they need, we’ve unbalanced society to the point where we’re in danger of seriously toppling over.

And really? The only difference I see between the traditional role and the new one for men with respect to disposability is that maleness, manhood: it used to be celebrated, it used to be admired, and it used to be rewarded, because it was really necessary, and because the personal cost of it to individual men was so incredibly high.

But now? Now, we still expect men to put women first, and we still expect society to put women first, and we still expect men to not complain about coming in dead last every damn time. But men don’t even get our admiration anymore. All they get in return is to hear about what assholes they are. Is there any wonder why they’re starting to get pissed off?

–Karen (AKA Girl Writes What)

This article updated slightly in February 2013. Karen Straughan’s YouTube channel can be found here and her blog can be found here. I am enormously proud to call her my friend, and while at first the hatred and irrationality directed at her sickened me, I now view that as to be expected: people who question society’s most basic assumptions are often hated, ostracized, and demonized.–DE

Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go?


 

Men not marrying?
How deep does "the problem" go?

girlwriteswhat
girlwriteswhat· 69 videos

Published on 15 Mar 2012
Is it just the risks of Marriage 2.0 preventing men from rushing to the altar? Is it merely a function of the women available to the average man? Is it the divorce rate? The spectre of lifetime alimony and every-other-weekend-dad status? Or is it a deeper problem than even that?

http://www.nationalreview.com/home-fr...

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/0...

http://www.genderratic.com/?p=1140

14.2.13

Prisoner's dilemma & Game Theory - Wikipedia

Prisoner's dilemma & Game Theory - Wikipedia

13.2.13

Dr. F - I was a member of a feminist chain gang

Dr. F ::

"What I can tell you though with the sobriety and clarity of sea air, is that once I was a member of a feminist chain gang and now I am forever a fugitive so very completely and joyously free."
-Dr. F

Confessions of sexist man | Hugo Schwyzer

Confessions of sexist man | Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer is an author, speaker and professor of history and gender studies at Pasadena City College.

Hugo Schwyzer is an author, speaker and professor of history and gender studies at Pasadena City College.

I was raised by a single mother, a Second Wave feminist who had gone to an all-women’s college before earning a doctorate in philosophy. A college professor as well as an activist, my mum raised my younger brother and me to believe that women were our equals. We grew up with feminist magazines on the coffee table, and with League of Women Voters meetings in our living room on Friday afternoons. My mother taught her sons that boys and girls could be friends, and that with a very few exceptions (like giving birth) men’s and women’s roles were interchangeable and flexible.  All of that excellent education, however, was little match for the socialisation I got from my peers, who taught me that signs of weakness were loathsome – and that boys and girls were far more different than my mother had insisted.

At the risk of hyperbole, I grew up to be a bit of a fraud. I intellectually assented to my mother’s feminism, eventually taking university courses in women’s studies. But in my private life, beneath the ever-more sophisticated patter of egalitarian ideals, I was very much a sexist.   As a teen, I wanted to live out the ideals with which I’d been raised. At the same time, my libido and my ego wanted release and validation.   Though promiscuity isn’t incompatible with a belief in women’s equality, chronic dishonesty to the women you claim to love is.  I wanted the reassuring comforts of a relationship - and endless sexual variety with different people. I wanted to be validated for being hot, sexy, masculine - and that validation only seemed to work with “new skin.” It was the late 1980s; I didn’t know that polyamory was a possibility. I doubt I’d have had the courage to ask for it if I had.

[etc]

43 comments

7.2.13

Quotes from Steve Jobs | all about Steve Jobs.com

Quotes from Steve Jobs | all about Steve Jobs.com

 
Sayings of Chairman Jobs
We have an environment where excellence is really expected. What’s really great is to be open when [the work] is not great. My best contribution is not settling for anything but really good stuff, in all the details. That’s my job — to make sure everything is great.
Source: 1983, quoted in Steven Levy's Eulogy | Tagged in: Management
When people look at an iMac, they think the design is really great, but most people don’t understand it’s not skin deep,’ he said. ‘There’s a reason why, after two years, people haven’t been able to copy the iMac. It’s not just surface. The reason the iMac doesn’t have a fan is engineering. It took a ton of engineering and that’s true for the Cube and everything else.
Source: 2000, quoted in Steven Levy's Eulogy | Tagged in: Creativity
(on the iPod) If there was ever a product that catalyzed what’s Apple’s reason for being, it’s this. Because it combines Apple’s incredible technology base with Apple’s legendary ease of use with Apple’s awesome design… it’s like, this is what we do. So if anybody was ever wondering why is Apple on the earth, I would hold this up as a good example.
Source: 2001, quoted in Steven Levy's Eulogy | Tagged in: Apple
Much of the industry has lived off the Macintosh for over ten years now, slowly copying the Mac's revolutionary user interface. Now the time has come for new innovation, and where better than Apple for this to spring from? Who else has consistently led this industry--first with the Apple II, then the Macintosh and LaserWriter? With this merger, the advanced software from NeXT will be married with Apple's very high-volume hardware platforms and marketing channels to create another breakthrough, leapfrogging existing platforms, and fueling Apple and the industry copy cats for the next ten years and beyond. I still have very deep feelings for Apple, and it gives me great joy to play a role in architecting Apple's future.
Source: Apple press release, Dec. 20 1996 | Tagged in: Apple, Competitors
(about Microsoft) They are shamelessly trying to copy us. I think the most telling thing is that Tiger will ship at the end of the month and Longhorn is still two years out. They can't even copy fast.
Source: Apple shareholders meeting, Apr. 21 2005 | Tagged in: Competitors
Our goal is to make the best devices in the world, not to be the biggest.
Source: Apple shareholders meeting, Oct. 19 2010 | Tagged in: Management
When [people] see the iMac, for example, they think we really can produce industry-leading products like this. It's not about charisma and personality, it's about results and products and those very bedrock things that are why people at Apple and outside of Apple are getting more excited about the company and what Apple stands for and what its potential is to contribute to the industry.
Source: Business Week, May 12 1998 | Tagged in: Apple
I used to say that Apple should be the Sony of this business, but in reality, I think Apple should be the Apple of this business.
Source: Business Week, May 12 1998 | Tagged in: Apple, Competitors
It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them
Source: Business Week, May 12 1998 | Tagged in: Creativity
The organization is clean and simple to understand, and very accountable. Everything just got simpler. That's been one of my mantras -- focus and simplicity. Simple can be harder than complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. But it's worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains.
Source: Business Week, May 12 1998 | Tagged in: Management
I get asked a lot why Apple's customers are so loyal. It's not because they belong to the Church of Mac! That's ridiculous. It's because when you buy our products, and three months later you get stuck on something, you quickly figure out [how to get past it]. And you think, ‘Wow, someone over there at Apple actually thought of this!’ And then three months later you try to do something you hadn't tried before, and it works, and you think ‘Hey, they thought of that, too.’ And then six months later it happens again. There's almost no product in the world that you have that experience with, but you have it with a Mac
Source: BusinessWeek, Oct. 12 2004 | Tagged in: Apple
And how are monopolies lost? Think about it. Some very good product people invent some very good products, and the company achieves a monopoly. But after that, the product people aren't the ones that drive the company forward anymore. It's the marketing guys or the ones who expand the business into Latin America or whatever. Because what's the point of focusing on making the product even better when the only company you can take business from is yourself? So a different group of people start to move up. And who usually ends up running the show? The sales guy. John Akers at IBM is the consummate example. Then one day, the monopoly expires for whatever reason. But by then the best product people have left, or they're no longer listened to. And so the company goes through this tumultuous time, and it either survives or it doesn't. Look at Microsoft — who's running Microsoft? (interviewer: Steve Ballmer.) Right, the sales guy. Case closed. And that's what happened at Apple, as well.
Source: BusinessWeek, Oct. 12 2004 | Tagged in: Apple, Creativity
We're both busy and we both don't have a lot of time to learn how to use a washing machine or to use a phone - you get one of the phones now and you're never going to learn more than 5 per cent of the features. You're never going to use more than 5 per cent, and, uh, it's very complicated. So you end up using just 5 per cent. It's insane: we all have busy lives, we have jobs and we have interests and some of us have children, everyone's lives are just getting busier, not less busy, in this busy society. You just don't have time to learn this stuff, and everything's getting more complicated.
Source: BusinessWeek, Oct. 12 2004 | Tagged in: Competitors
And it comes from saying no to 1,000 things to make sure we don't get on the wrong track or try to do too much. We're always thinking about new markets we could enter, but it's only by saying no that you can concentrate on the things that are really important.
Source: BusinessWeek, Oct. 12 2004 | Tagged in: Creativity
That was one of the things that came out most clearly from this whole experience [with cancer]. I realized that I love my life. I really do. I've got the greatest family in the world, and I've got my work. And that's pretty much all I do. I don't socialize much or go to conferences. I love my family, and I love running Apple, and I love Pixar. And I get to do that. I'm very lucky.
Source: BusinessWeek, Oct. 12 2004 | Tagged in: Lifestyle
I've always wanted to own and control the primary technology in everything we do.
Source: BusinessWeek, Oct. 12 2004 | Tagged in: Technology
Our personal belief is that while there's an opportunity to apply software to the living room, the merging of the computer and the TV isn't going to happen. They're really different things. So yes, you want to share some information [between the two], but people who are planning to put computers into the living room, like they are today, I'm not sure they're going to have a big success.
Source: BusinessWeek, Oct. 12 2004 | Tagged in: Prophecies
The reason I went back to Apple is that I feel like the world would be a better place with Apple in it than not. And it’s hard to imagine the world without Apple now.
Source: Financial Times, Jan. 29 2010 | Tagged in: Apple
Software is the user experience. As the iPod and iTunes prove, it has become the driving technology not just of computers but of consumer electronics.
Source: Fortune, Feb. 21 2005 | Tagged in: Apple
We're still heavily into the box. We love the box. We have amazing computers today, and amazing hardware in the pipeline. I still spend a lot of my time working on new computers, and it will always be a primal thing for Apple. But the user experience is what we care about most, and we're expanding that experience beyond the box by making better use of the Internet. The user experience now entails four things: the hardware, the operating system, the applications, and the Net. We want to do all four uniquely well for our customers.
Source: Fortune, Jan. 24 2000 | Tagged in: Apple
That's why I dropped the ‘interim’ from my title. I'm still called iCEO, though, because I think it's cool.
Source: Fortune, Jan. 24 2000 | Tagged in: Apple
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. The iMac is not just the color or translucence or the shape of the shell. The essence of the iMac is to be the finest possible consumer computer in which each element plays together. On our latest iMac, I was adamant that we get rid of the fan, because it is much more pleasant to work on a computer that doesn't drone all the time. That was not just ‘Steve's decision’ to pull out the fan; it required an enormous engineering effort to figure out how to manage power better and do a better job of thermal conduction through the machine. That is the furthest thing from veneer. It was at the core of the product the day we started.
Source: Fortune, Jan. 24 2000 | Tagged in: Creativity
When I got started I was 20 or 21, and my role models were the semiconductor guys like Robert Noyce and Andy Grove of Intel, and of course Bill Hewlett and David Packard. They were out not so much to make money as to change the world and to build companies that could keep growing and changing. They left incredible legacies. […] the rewarding thing isn't merely to start a company or to take it public. It's like when you're a parent. Although the birth experience is a miracle, what's truly rewarding is living with your child and helping him grow up.
Source: Fortune, Jan. 24 2000 | Tagged in: Early years
Now when we see new things or opportunities, we can seize them. In fact, we have already seized a few, like desktop movies, wireless networking, and iTools. A creative period like this lasts only maybe a decade, but it can be a golden decade if we manage it properly.
Source: Fortune, Jan. 24 2000 | Tagged in: Prophecies
Things happen fairly slowly, you know. They do. These waves of technology, you can see them way before they happen, and you just have to choose wisely which ones you're going to surf. If you choose unwisely, then you can waste a lot of energy, but if you choose wisely it actually unfolds fairly slowly. It takes years. One of our biggest insights [years ago] was that we didn't want to get into any business where we didn't own or control the primary technology because you'll get your head handed to you.
Source: Fortune, Mar. 7 2008 | Tagged in: Apple
It's not about pop culture, and it's not about fooling people, and it's not about convincing people that they want something they don't. We figure out what we want. And I think we're pretty good at having the right discipline to think through whether a lot of other people are going to want it, too. That's what we get paid to do. So you can't go out and ask people, you know, what the next big [thing.] There's a great quote by Henry Ford, right? He said, 'If I'd have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me ‘A faster horse.’
Source: Fortune, Mar. 7 2008 | Tagged in: Creativity
We tend to focus much more. People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I'm actually as proud of many of the things we haven't done as the things we have done.
Source: Fortune, Mar. 7 2008 | Tagged in: Creativity
My job is to not be easy on people. My job is to make them better. My job is to pull things together from different parts of the company and clear the ways and get the resources for the key projects. And to take these great people we have and to push them and make them even better, coming up with more aggressive visions of how it could be.
Source: Fortune, Mar. 7 2008 | Tagged in: Management
Recruiting is hard. It's just finding the needles in the haystack. We do it ourselves and we spend a lot of time at it. I've participated in the hiring of maybe 5,000-plus people in my life. So I take it very seriously. You can't know enough in a one-hour interview. So, in the end, it's ultimately based on your gut. How do I feel about this person? What are they like when they're challenged? Why are they here? I ask everybody that: 'Why are you here?' The answers themselves are not what you're looking for. It's the meta-data.
Source: Fortune, Mar. 7 2008 | Tagged in: Management
We've got really capable people at Apple. I made Tim [Cook] COO and gave him the Mac division and he's done brilliantly. I mean, some people say, 'Oh, God, if [Jobs] got run over by a bus, Apple would be in trouble.' And, you know, I think it wouldn't be a party, but there are really capable people at Apple. And the board would have some good choices about who to pick as CEO. My job is to make the whole executive team good enough to be successors, so that's what I try to do.
Source: Fortune, Mar. 7 2008 | Tagged in: Management, Apple
We've got 25,000 people at Apple. About 10,000 of them are in the stores. And my job is to work with sort of the top 100 people, that's what I do. That doesn't mean they're all vice presidents. Some of them are just key individual contributors. So when a good idea comes, you know, part of my job is to move it around, just see what different people think, get people talking about it, argue with people about it, get ideas moving among that group of 100 people, get different people together to explore different aspects of it quietly, and, you know - just explore things.
Source: Fortune, Mar. 7 2008 | Tagged in: Management, Creativity
We do no market research. We don't hire consultants. The only consultants I've ever hired in my 10 years is one firm to analyze Gateway's retail strategy so I would not make some of the same mistakes they made [when launching Apple's retail stores]. But we never hire consultants, per se. We just want to make great products.
Source: Fortune, Mar. 7 2008 | Tagged in: Management
We don't get a chance to do that many things, and every one should be really excellent. Because this is our life. Life is brief, and then you die, you know? So this is what we've chosen to do with our life. We could be sitting in a monastery somewhere in Japan.
Source: Fortune, Mar. 7 2008 | Tagged in: Philosophy
The whole strategy for Apple now is, if you will, to be the Sony of the computer business.
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Apple, Competitors
Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&D. It’s not about money. It’s about the people you have, how you’re led, and how much you get it.
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Creativity
when we laid some people off at Apple a year ago, or when I have to take people out of their jobs, it's harder for me now. Much harder. I do it because that's my job. But when I look at people when this happens, I also think of them as being 5 years old. And I think that person could be me coming home to tell my wife and kids that I just got laid off. Or that could be one of my kids in 20 years. I never took it so personally before. Life is short, and we're all going to die really soon. It's true, you know.
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Management
You go to your TV when you want to turn your brain off. You go to your computer when you want to turn your brain on. Those are not the same.
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Technology
When I was growing up, a guy across the street had a Volkswagen Bug. He really wanted to make it into a Porsche. He spent all his spare money and time accessorizing this VW, making it look and sound loud. By the time he was done, he did not have a Porsche. He had a loud, ugly VW.
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Creativity
The only purpose for me in building a company is so that it can make products. Of course, building a very strong company and a foundation of talent and culture is essential over the long run to keep making great products. On the other hand, to me, the company is one of humanity's most amazing inventions. It's totally abstract. Sure, you have to build something with bricks and mortar to put the people in, but basically a company is this abstract construct we've invented, and it's incredibly powerful.
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Philosophy
My heroes--Dave Packard, for example, left all his money to his foundation; Bob Noyce [the late co-founder of Intel] was another. I'm old enough to have been able to know these guys. I met Andy Grove when I was 21. I called him and told him I'd heard he was really good at operations and asked if I could take him out to lunch. I did that with others too. These guys were all company builders, and the gestalt of Silicon Valley at that time made a big impression on me. There are people around here who start companies just to make money, but the great companies, well, that's not what they're about.
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Philosophy
I don't think much about my time of life. I just get up in the morning and it's a new day. Somebody told me when I was 17 to live each day as if it were my last, and that one day I'd be right. I am at a stage where I don't have to do things just to get by. But then I've always been that way because I've never really cared about money that much. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I feel the same way now as I felt when I was 17.
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Philosophy
That's the moment that an artist really decides who he or she is. If they keep on risking failure, they're still artists. Dylan and Picasso were always risking failure. This Apple thing is that way for me. I don't want to fail, of course. But even though I didn't know how bad things really were, I still had a lot to think about before I said yes. I had to consider the implications for Pixar, for my family, for my reputation. I decided that I didn't really care, because this is what I want to do. If I try my best and fail, well, I tried my best. What makes you become conservative is realizing that you have something to lose. Remember The Whole Earth Catalog? The last edition had a photo on the back cover of a remote country road you might find yourself on while hitchhiking up to Oregon. It was a beautiful shot, and it had a caption that really grabbed me. It said: ‘Stay hungry. Stay foolish.’ It wasn't an ad for anything--just one of Stewart Brand's profound statements. It's wisdom. ‘Stay hungry. Stay foolish.’
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Philosophy
You just are yourself, and you work with other people. If you're inspiring to other people, it makes an impression on them. For example, I hear people at Disney talking about what it was like to work with Walt. They loved him. I know that people at Pixar are going to talk about their days with John Lasseter in the same way. Who knows? Maybe someday somebody will feel that way about working with me. I have no idea.
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Philosophy
But I think the things you most regret in life are things you didn't do. What you really regret was never asking that girl to dance. In business, if I knew earlier what I know now, I'd have probably done some things a lot better than I did, but I also would've probably done some other things a lot worse. But so what? It's more important to be engaged in the present.
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Philosophy
On vacation recently I was reading this book by [physicist and Nobel laureate] Richard Feynmann. He had cancer, you know. In this book he was describing one of his last operations before he died. The doctor said to him, ‘Look, Richard, I'm not sure you're going to make it.’ And Feynmann made the doctor promise that if it became clear he wasn't going to survive, to take away the anesthetic. Do you know why? Feynmann said, ‘I want to feel what it's like to turn off.’ That's a good way to put yourself in the present--to look at what's affecting you right now and be curious about it even if it's bad.
Source: Fortune, Nov. 9 1998 | Tagged in: Philosophy
Customers can't anticipate what the technology can do. They won't ask for things that they think are impossible. But the technology may be ahead of them. If you happen to mention something, they'll say, ‘Of course, I'll take that. Do you mean I can have that, too?’ It sounds logical to ask customers what they want and then give it to them. But they rarely wind up getting what they really want that way.
Source: Inc, Apr. 1989 | Tagged in: Creativity
You're asking, where does aesthetic judgment come from? With many things—high-performance automobiles, for example—the aesthetic comes right from the function, and I suppose electronics is no different. But I've also found that the best companies pay attention to aesthetics. They take the extra time to lay out grids and proportion things appropriately, and it seems to pay off for them. I mean, beyond the functional benefits, the aesthetic communicates something about how they think of themselves, their sense of discipline in engineering, how they run their company, stuff like that.
Source: Inc, Apr. 1989 | Tagged in: Creativity, Management
(about his employees) If they are working in an environment where excellence is expected, then they will do excellent work without anything but self-motivation. I'm talking about an environment in which excellence is noticed and respected and is in the culture. If you have that, you don't have to tell people to do excellent work. They understand it from their surroundings.
Source: Inc, Apr. 1989 | Tagged in: Management
The culture at NeXT definitely rewards independent thought, and we often have constructive disagreements—at all levels. It doesn't take a new person long to see that people feel fine about openly disagreeing with me. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with them, but it does mean that the best ideas win. Our attitude is that we want the best. Don't get hung up on who owns the idea. Pick the best one, and let's go.
Source: Inc, Apr. 1989 | Tagged in: Management
Somebody once told me, ‘Manage the top line, and the bottom line will follow.’ What's the top line? It's things like, why are we doing this in the first place? What's our strategy? What are customers saying? How responsive are we? Do we have the best products and the best people? Those are the kind of questions you have to focus on.
Source: Inc, Apr. 1989 | Tagged in: Management
I think the same philosophy that drives the product has to drive everything else if you want to have a great company. Manufacturing, for example, […] demands just as much thought and strategy as the product. If you don't pay attention to your manufacturing, it will limit the kind of product you can build and engineer. Some companies view manufacturing as a necessary evil, and some view it as something more neutral. But we view it instead as a tremendous opportunity to gain a competitive advantage. [I've thought that] ever since I visited Japan in the early '80s. And let me add that the same is true of sales and marketing. You need a sales and marketing organization that is oriented toward educating customers rather than just taking orders, providing a real service rather than moving boxes. This is extremely important.
Source: Inc, Apr. 1989 | Tagged in: Management
We had a fundamental belief that doing it right the first time was going to be easier than having to go back and fix it. And I cannot say strongly enough that the repercussions of that attitude are staggering. I've seen them again and again throughout my business life.
Source: Inc, Apr. 1989 | Tagged in: Technology
You just make the best product you can, and you don't put it out until you feel it's right. But no matter what you think intellectually, your heart is beating pretty fast right before people see what you've produced.
Source: Inc, Apr. 1989 | Tagged in: Creativity
I think if you do something and it turns out pretty good, then you should go do something else wonderful, not dwell on it for too long. Just figure out what’s next.
Source: NBC Nightly News, May 2006 | Tagged in: Philosophy
Well, I don’t know what this Valley is. I work at Apple. I’m there so many hours a day and I don’t visit other places; I’m not an expert on Silicon Valley. What I do see is a small group of people who are artists and care more about their art than they do about almost anything else. It’s more important than finding a girlfriend, it’s more important… than cooking a meal, it’s more important than joining the Marines, it’s more important than whatever. Look at the way artists work. They’re not typically the most ‘balanced’ people in the world. Now, yes, we have a few workaholics here who are trying to escape other things, of course. But the majority of people out here have made very conscious decisions; they really have.
Source: Newsweek, fall 1984 | Tagged in: Lifestyle
I’m just a guy who probably should have been a semi-talented poet on the Left Bank. I sort of got sidetracked here.
Source: Newsweek, fall 1984 | Tagged in: Philosophy
(on whether he thinks it's unfait calling people in Silicon Valley ‘nerds’) Of course. I think it’s an antiquated notion. There were people in the '60s who were like that and even in the early '70s, but now they’re not that way. Now they’re the people who would have been poets had they lived in the '60s. And they’re looking at computers as their medium of expression rather than language, rather than being a mathematician and using mathematics, rather than, you know, writing social theories.
Source: Newsweek, fall 1984 | Tagged in: Technology, Early years
Even though some people have come out with neat products, if their company is perceived as a sweatshop or a revolving door, it’s not considered much of a success. Remember, the role models were Hewlett and Packard. Their main achievement was that they built a company. Nobody remembers their first frequency-counter, their first audio oscillator, their first this or that. And they sell so many products now that no one person really symbolizes the company. […] And they built a company and they lived that philosophy for 35 or 40 years and that’s why they’re heroes. Hewlett and Packard started what became the Valley.
Source: Newsweek, fall 1984 | Tagged in: Philosophy
See, one of the things you have to remember is that we started off with a very idealistic perspective—that doing something with the highest quality, doing it right the first time, would really be cheaper than having to go back and do it again. Ideas like that.
Source: Newsweek, fall 1984 | Tagged in: Technology
I’ve always thought it would be really wonderful to have a little box, a sort of slate that you could carry along with you
Source: Newsweek, fall 1984 | Tagged in: Prophecies
(about the iPod) It's as Apple as anything Apple has ever done.
Source: Newsweek, Jul. 25 2004 | Tagged in: Apple
There are lots of examples where not the best product wins. Windows would be one of those, but there are examples where the best product wins. And the iPod is a great example of that.
Source: Newsweek, Jul. 25 2004 | Tagged in: Competitors
I have a very simple life. I have my family and I have Apple and Pixar. And I don't do much else.
Source: Newsweek, Jul. 25 2004 | Tagged in: Lifestyle
When you first start off trying to solve a problem, the first solutions you come up with are very complex, and most people stop there. But if you keep going, and live with the problem and peel more layers of the onion off, you can oftentimes arrive at some very elegant and simple solutions. Most people just don't put in the time or energy to get there. We believe that customers are smart, and want objects which are well thought through.
Source: Newsweek, Oct. 16 2006 | Tagged in: Creativity
I was very lucky to grow up in a time when music really mattered. It wasn't just something in the background; it really mattered to a generation of kids growing up. It really changed the world. I think that music faded in importance for a while, and the iPod has helped to bring music back into people's lives in a really meaningful way. Music is so deep within all of us, but it's easy to go for a day or a week or a month or a year without really listening to music. And the iPod has changed that for tens of millions of people, and that makes me really happy, because I think music is good for the soul.
Source: Newsweek, Oct. 16 2006 | Tagged in: Philosophy
So if Apple just becomes a place where computers are a commodity item and where the romance is gone, and where people forget that computers are the most incredible invention that man has ever invented, then I'll feel I have lost Apple. But if I'm a million miles away and all those people still feel those things and they're still working to make the next great personal computer, then I will feel that my genes are still in there.
Source: Newsweek, Sep. 29 1985 | Tagged in: Apple, Prophecies
If I look at myself and ask, ‘What am I best at and what do I enjoy most doing?’ I think what I'm best at is creating sort of new innovative products.
Source: Newsweek, Sep. 29 1985 | Tagged in: Creativity
It probably is true that the people who have been able to come up with the innovations in many industries are maybe not the people that either are best skilled at, or, frankly, enjoy running a large enterprise where they lose contact with the day-to-day workings of that innovative process. Dr. Land at Polaroid, he's a perfect example.
Source: Newsweek, Sep. 29 1985 | Tagged in: Creativity
What I'm best at doing is finding a group of talented people and making things with them. I respect the direction that Apple is going in. But for me personally, you know, I want to make things. And if there's no place for me to make things there, then I'll do what I did twice before
Source: Newsweek, Sep. 29 1985 | Tagged in: Creativity
And so I haven't got any sort of odd chip on my shoulder about proving anything to myself or anybody else. And remember, though the outside world looks at success from a numerical point of view, my yardstick might be quite different than that. My yardstick may be how every computer that's designed from here on out will have to be at least as good as a Macintosh.
Source: Newsweek, Sep. 29 1985 | Tagged in: Creativity
Apple was about as pure of a Silicon Valley company as you could imagine. We started in a garage. Woz and I both grew up in Silicon Valley. Our role model was Hewlett-Packard. And so I guess that's what we went into it thinking. Hewlett-Packard, you know, Jobs and Wozniak.
Source: Newsweek, Sep. 29 1985 | Tagged in: Early years
I don't think that my role in life is to run big organizations and do incremental improvements.
Source: Newsweek, Sep. 29 1985 | Tagged in: Management
I'm not a 62-year-old statesman that's traveled around the world all his life. So I'm sure that there was a situation when I was 25 that if I could go back, knowing what I know now, I could have handled much better. And I'm sure I'll be able to say the same thing when I'm 35 about the situation in 1985. I can be very intense in my convictions. And I don't know; all in all, I kind of like myself and I'm not that anxious to change.
Source: Newsweek, Sep. 29 1985 | Tagged in: Management
You know, my philosophy is—it's always been very simple. And it has its flaws, which I'll go into. My philosophy is that everything starts with a great product. So, you know, I obviously believed in listening to customers, but customers can't tell you about the next breakthrough that's going to happen next year that's going to change the whole industry. So you have to listen very carefully. But then you have to go and sort of stow away—you have to go hide away with people that really understand the technology, but also really care about the customers, and dream up this next breakthrough. And that's my perspective, that everything starts with a great product. And that has its flaws. I have certainly been accused of not listening to the customers enough. And I think there is probably a certain amount of that that's valid.
Source: Newsweek, Sep. 29 1985 | Tagged in: Technology, Creativity
I had hoped that my life would take on the quality of an interesting tapestry where I would have weaved in and out of Apple: I would have been there a period of time, and maybe I would have gone off and done something else to contribute, but connected with Apple, and then maybe come back and stay for a lengthy time period and then go off and do something else. But it's just not going to work out that way. So I had 10 of the best years of my life, you know. And I don't regret much of anything.
Source: Newsweek, Sep. 29 1985 | Tagged in: Prophecies
At Apple, people are putting in 18-hour days. We attract a different type of person—a person who doesn’t want to wait five or ten years to have someone take a giant risk on him or her. Someone who really wants to get in a little over his head and make a little dent in the universe. We are aware that we are doing something significant. We’re here at the beginning of it and we’re able to shape how it goes. Everyone here has the sense that right now is one of those moments when we are influencing the future.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Apple, Early years
Some people are saying that we ought to put an IBM PC on every desk in America to improve productivity. It won’t work. The special incantations you have to learn this time are ‘slash q-zs’ and things like that. The manual for WordStar, the most popular word-processing program, is 400 pages thick. To write a novel, you have to read a novel—one that reads like a mystery to most people. They’re not going to learn slash q-z any more than they’re going to learn Morse code. That is what Macintosh is all about.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Competitors
I saw a video tape that we weren’t supposed to see. It was prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. By watching the tape, we discovered that, at least as of a few years ago, every tactical nuclear weapon in Europe manned by U.S. personnel was targeted by an Apple II computer. Now, we didn’t sell computers to the military; they went out and bought them at a dealer’s, I guess. But it didn’t make us feel good to know that our computers were being used to target nuclear weapons in Europe. The only bright side of it was that at least they weren’t [Radio Shack] TRS-80s! Thank God for that.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Competitors
How come the Mac group produced Mac and the people at IBM produced the PCjr? We think the Mac will sell zillions, but we didn’t build Mac for anybody else. We built it for ourselves. We were the group of people who were going to judge whether it was great or not. We weren’t going to go out and do market research. We just wanted to build the best thing we could build. 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. PLAYBOY: Are you saying that the people who made the PCjr don’t have that kind of pride in the product? JOBS: If they did, they wouldn’t have turned out the PCjr.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Competitors, Creativity
(Does it take insane people to make insanely great things?) Actually, making an insanely great product has a lot to do with the process of making the product, how you learn things and adopt new ideas and throw out old ideas. But, yeah, the people who made Mac are sort of on the edge.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Creativity
My father was a machinist, and he was a sort of genius with his hands. He can fix anything and make it work and take any mechanical thing apart and get it back together. That was my first glimpse of it. I started to gravitate more toward electronics, and he used to get me things I could take apart and put back together.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Early years
My mother taught me to read before I went to school, so I was pretty bored in school, and I turned into a little terror. You should have seen us in third grade. We basically destroyed our teacher. We would let snakes loose in the classroom and explode bombs. Things changed in the fourth grade, though. One of the saints in my life is this woman named Imogene Hill, who was a fourth-grade teacher who taught this advanced class. She got hip to my whole situation in about a month and kindled a passion in me for learning things. I learned more that year than I think I learned in any year in school.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Early years
Woz and I are different in most ways, but there are some ways in which we’re the same, and we’re very close in those ways. We’re sort of like two planets in their own orbits that every so often intersect. It wasn’t just computers, either. Woz and I very much liked Bob Dylan’s poetry, and we spent a lot of time thinking about a lot of that stuff. This was California. You could get LSD fresh made from Stanford. You could sleep on the beach at night with your girlfriend. California has a sense of experimentation and a sense of openness—openness to new possibilities. Besides Dylan, I was interested in Eastern mysticism, which hit the shores at about the same time. When I went to college at Reed, in Oregon, there was a constant flow of people stopping by, from Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert to Gary Snyder. There was a constant flow of intellectual questioning about the truth of life. That was a time when every college student in this country read Be Here Now and Diet for a Small Planet.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Early years
I used to think about selling 1,000,000 computers a year, but it was just a thought. When it actually happens, it’s a totally different thing. So it was, ‘Holy shit, it’s actually coming true!’ But what’s hard to explain is that this does not feel like overnight. Next year will be my tenth year. I had never done anything longer than a year in my life. Six months, for me, was a long time when we started Apple. So this has been my life since I’ve been sort of a free-willed adult. Each year has been so robust with problems and successes and learning experiences and human experiences that a year is a lifetime at Apple. So this has been ten lifetimes.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Early years
(on whether he tried to find his biological parents) I think it’s quite a natural curiosity for adopted people to want to understand where certain traits come from. But I’m mostly an environmentalist. I think the way you are raised and your values and most of your world view come from the experiences you had as you grew up. But some things aren’t accounted for that way. I think it’s quite natural to have a curiosity about it.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Family
Well, my favorite things in life are books, sushi and…. My favorite things in life don’t cost any money. It’s really clear that the most precious resource we all have is time. As it is, I pay a price by not having much of a personal life. I don’t have the time to pursue love affairs or to tour small towns in Italy and sit in cafes and eat tomato-and-mozzarella salad. Occasionally, I spend a little money to save myself a hassle, which means time. And that’s the extent of it. I bought an apartment in New York, but it’s because I love that city. I’m trying to educate myself, being from a small town in California, not having grown up with the sophistication and culture of a large city. I consider it part of my education. You know, there are many people at Apple who can buy everything that they could ever possibly want and still have most of their money unspent. I hate talking about this as a problem; people are going to read this and think, Yeah, well, give me your problem. They’re going to think I’m an arrogant little asshole.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Lifestyle
Companies, as they grow to become multibillion-dollar entities, somehow lose their vision. They insert lots of layers of middle management between the people running the company and the people doing the work. They no longer have an inherent feel or a passion about the products. The creative people, who are the ones who care passionately, have to persuade five layers of management to do what they know is the right thing to do.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Management
What happens in most companies is that you don’t keep great people under working environments where individual accomplishment is discouraged rather than encouraged. The great people leave and you end up with mediocrity. I know, because that’s how Apple was built. Apple is an Ellis Island company. Apple is built on refugees from other companies. These are the extremely bright individual contributors who were troublemakers at other companies.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Management
The point is that people really don’t have to understand how computers work. Most people have no concept of how an automatic transmission works, yet they know how to drive a car. You don’t have to study physics to understand the laws of motion to drive a car. You don’t have to understand any of this stuff to use Macintosh
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Technology
Good PR educates people; that’s all it is. You can’t con people in this business. The products speak for themselves.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Management
People get stuck as they get older. Our minds are sort of electrochemical computers. Your thoughts construct patterns like scaffolding in your mind. You are really etching chemical patterns. In most cases, people get stuck in those patterns, just like grooves in a record, and they never get out of them. It’s a rare person who etches grooves that are other than a specific way of looking at things, a specific way of questioning things. It’s rare that you see an artist in his 30s or 40s able to really contribute something amazing. Of course, there are some people who are innately curious, forever little kids in their awe of life, but they’re rare.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Philosophy
Dr. Edwin Land was a troublemaker. He dropped out of Harvard and founded Polaroid. Not only was he one of the great inventors of our time but, more important, he saw the intersection of art and science and business and built an organization to reflect that. Polaroid did that for some years, but eventually Dr. Land, one of those brilliant troublemakers, was asked to leave his own company—which is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard of. […] The man is a national treasure. I don’t understand why people like that can’t be held up as models: This is the most incredible thing to be—not an astronaut, not a football player—but this.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Philosophy
I think death is the most wonderful invention of life. It purges the system of these old models that are obsolete. I think that’s one of Apple’s challenges, really. When two young people walk in with the next thing, are we going to embrace it and say this is fantastic? Are we going to be willing to drop our models, or are we going to explain it away? I think we’ll do better, because we’re completely aware of it and we make it a priority.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Philosophy
It’s a large responsibility to have more than you can spend in your lifetime—and I feel I have to spend it. If you die, you certainly don’t want to leave a large amount to your children. It will just ruin their lives. And if you die without kids, it will all go to the Government. Almost everyone would think that he could invest the money back into humanity in a much more astute way than the Government could. The challenges are to figure out how to live with it and to reinvest it back into the world, which means either giving it away or using it to express your concerns or values.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: LIfestyle
I’m convinced that to give away a dollar effectively is harder than to make a dollar.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Lifestyle
It makes me feel old, sometimes, when I speak at a campus and I find that what students are most in awe of is the fact that I’m a millionaire. When I went to school, it was right after the Sixties and before this general wave of practical purposefulness had set in. Now students aren’t even thinking in idealistic terms, or at least nowhere near as much. They certainly are not letting any of the philosophical issues of the day take up too much of their time as they study their business majors. The idealistic wind of the Sixties was still at our backs, though, and most of the people I know who are my age have that ingrained in them forever.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Philosophy, Early years
The most compelling reason for most people to buy a computer for the home will be to link it into a nationwide communications network. We’re just in the beginning stages of what will be a truly remarkable breakthrough for most people—as remarkable as the telephone.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Prophecies
Thus far, we’re pretty much using our computers as good servants. We ask them to do something, we ask them to do some operation like a spread sheet, we ask them to take our key strokes and make a letter out of them, and they do that pretty well. And you’ll see more and more perfection of that—computer as servant. But the next thing is going to be computer as guide or agent. And what that means is that it’s going to do more in terms of anticipating what we want and doing it for us, noticing connections and patterns in what we do, asking us if this is some sort of generic thing we’d like to do regularly, so that we’re going to have, as an example, the concept of triggers. We’re going to be able to ask our computers to monitor things for us, and when certain conditions happen, are triggered, the computers will take certain actions and inform us after the fact.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Prophecies
I’ll always stay connected with Apple. I hope that throughout my life I’ll sort of have the thread of my life and the thread of Apple weave in and out of each other, like a tapestry. There may be a few years when I’m not there, but I’ll always come back. And that’s what I may try to do. The key thing to remember about me is that I’m still a student. I’m still in boot camp. If anyone is reading any of my thoughts, I’d keep that in mind. Don’t take it all too seriously. If you want to live your life in a creative way, as an artist, you have to not look back too much. You have to be willing to take whatever you’ve done and whoever you were and throw them away.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Prophecies, Apple
A computer frees people from much of the menial work. Besides that, you are giving them a tool that encourages them to be creative. Remember, computers are tools. Tools help us do our work better.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Technology
Japan’s very interesting. Some people think it copies things. I don’t think that anymore. I think what they do is reinvent things. They will get something that’s already been invented and study it until they thoroughly understand it. In some cases, they understand it better than the original inventor. Out of that understanding, they will reinvent it in a more refined second-generation version. That strategy works only when what they’re working with isn’t changing very much—the stereo industry and the automobile industry are two examples. When the target is moving quickly, they find it very difficult, because that reinvention cycle takes a few years. As long as the definition of what a personal computer is keeps changing at the rate that it is, they will have a very hard time.
Source: Playboy, Feb. 1985 | Tagged in: Technology
If anybody’s going to make our products obsolete, I want it to be us.
Source: Quoted by Steven Levy | Tagged in: Prophecies, Creativity
I think you could make available the Second Coming in a subscription model, and it might not be successful.
Source: Rolling Stone, Dec. 25 2003 | Tagged in: Competitors
The most corrosive piece of technology that I’ve ever seen is called television — but then, again, television, at its best, is magnificent.
Source: Rolling Stone, Dec. 25 2003 | Tagged in: Technology
First I should tell you my theory about Microsoft. Microsoft has had two goals in the last 10 years. One was to copy the Mac, and the other was to copy Lotus' success in the spreadsheet — basically, the applications business. And over the course of the last 10 years, Microsoft accomplished both of those goals. And now they are completely lost. They were able to copy the Mac because the Mac was frozen in time. The Mac didn't change much for the last 10 years. It changed maybe 10 percent. It was a sitting duck. It's amazing that it took Microsoft 10 years to copy something that was a sitting duck.
Source: Rolling Stone, Jun. 16 1994 | Tagged in: Competitors
(on why he called Microsoft ‘the IBM of the '90s’) They're the mainstream. And a lot of people who don't want to think about it too much are just going to buy their product. They have a market dominance now that is so great that it's actually hurting the industry. I don't like to get into discussions about whether they accomplished that fairly or not. That's for others to decide. I just observe it and say it's not healthy for the country.
Source: Rolling Stone, Jun. 16 1994 | Tagged in: Competitors
People say sometimes, ‘You work in the fastest-moving industry in the world.’ I don't feel that way. I think I work in one of the slowest. It seems to take forever to get anything done. All of the graphical-user interface stuff that we did with the Macintosh was pioneered at Xerox PARC [the company's legendary Palo Alto Research Center] and with Doug Engelbart at SRI [a future-oriented think tank at Stanford] in the mid-'70s. And here we are, just about the mid-'90s, and it's kind of commonplace now. But it's about a 10-to-20-year lag. That's a long time.
Source: Rolling Stone, Jun. 16 1994 | Tagged in: Creativity
I have a great respect for incremental improvement, and I've done that sort of thing in my life, but I've always been attracted to the more revolutionary changes. I don't know why. Because they're harder. They're much more stressful emotionally. And you usually go through a period where everybody tells you that you've completely failed.
Source: Rolling Stone, Jun. 16 1994 | Tagged in: Creativity
The Macintosh was sort of like this wonderful romance in your life that you once had — and that produced about 10 million children. In a way it will never be over in your life. You'll still smell that romance every morning when you get up. And when you open the window, the cool air will hit your face, and you'll smell that romance in the air. And you'll see your children around, and you feel good about it. And nothing will ever make you feel bad about it.
Source: Rolling Stone, Jun. 16 1994 | Tagged in: Early years
Technology is nothing. What's important is that you have a faith in people, that they're basically good and smart, and if you give them tools, they'll do wonderful things with them. It's not the tools that you have faith in — tools are just tools. They work, or they don't work. It's people you have faith in or not. Yeah, sure, I'm still optimistic I mean, I get pessimistic sometimes but not for long.
Source: Rolling Stone, Jun. 16 1994 | Tagged in: Technology
(on what is his goal in life) I don't know how to answer you. In the broadest context, the goal is to seek enlightenment — however you define it. But these are private things. I don't want to talk about this kind of stuff.
Source: Rolling Stone, Jun. 16 1994 | Tagged in: Philosophy
The Internet is nothing new. It has been happening for 10 years. Finally, now, the wave is cresting on the general computer user. And I love it. I think the den is far more interesting than the living room. Putting the Internet into people's houses is going to be really what the information superhighway is all about, not digital convergence in the set-top box. All that's going to do is put the video rental stores out of business and save me a trip to rent my movie. I'm not very excited about that. I'm not excited about home shopping. I'm very excited about having the Internet in my den.
Source: Rolling Stone, Jun. 16 1994 | Tagged in: Prophecies
Mac stands for what we are as a company – taking technology that's out of reach of the people and making it really great. That's what we did with the Apple II, and that's what we're going to do again with Mac. Computers and society are out on a first date in this decade, and for some crazy reason, we're in the right place at the right time to make that romance blossom.
Source: Rolling Stone, Mar. 1984 | Tagged in: Apple
(on what he wants) To make Apple a great $10 billion company. Apple has the opportunity to set a new example of how great an American corporation can be, sort of an intersection between science and aesthetics. Something happens to companies when they get to be a few million dollars – their souls go away. And that's the biggest thing I'll be measured on: Were we able to grow a $10 billion company that didn't lose its soul?
Source: Rolling Stone, Mar. 1984 | Tagged in: Apple, Prophecies, Philosophy
It's kind of like watching the gladiator going into the arena and saying, 'Here it is.' It's really perceived as Apple's do or die. And it goes even deeper... If we don't do this, nobody can stop IBM.
Source: Rolling Stone, Mar. 1984 | Tagged in: Competitors
I know what it's like to have your private life painted in the worst possible light in front of a lot of people. I've learned what it's like for everyone you meet after that to sort of have preconceptions about you... It's been a character-building experience.
Source: Rolling Stone, Mar. 1984 | Tagged in: Early years
I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents' savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn't see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.
Source: Stanford commencement addres, Jun. 12 2005 | Tagged in: Early years
Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this […] and I found it fascinating. None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal computer would have them.
Source: Stanford commencement addres, Jun. 12 2005 | Tagged in: Early years, Competitors
Getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.
Source: Stanford commencement addres, Jun. 12 2005 | Tagged in: Early years
Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don't settle.
Source: Stanford commencement addres, Jun. 12 2005 | Tagged in: Philosophy
When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: ‘If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right.’ It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: ‘If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?’ And whenever the answer has been ‘No’ for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.
Source: Stanford commencement addres, Jun. 12 2005 | Tagged in: Philosophy
Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.
Source: Stanford commencement addres, Jun. 12 2005 | Tagged in: Philosophy
No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true. Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.
Source: Stanford commencement addres, Jun. 12 2005 | Tagged in: Philosophy
Apple is the most creative of the PC companies; Pixar is the most technologically advanced entertainment company. [Apple releases new products every few months, and top execs make 10 major decisions a day.] But the Holy Grail for Pixar is releasing one product — a movie-a-year, and as CEO I might make three really critical decisions a year, and they are very hard to change.
My best contribution to the group is not settling for anything but really good stuff. A lot of times, people don't do great things because great things really aren't expected of them, and nobody ever really demands that they try, and nobody says, 'Hey, that's the culture here'. If you set that up, people will do things that are greater than they ever thought they could be. Really some great work that will go down in history.
I think back to Detroit in the seventies, when cars were so bad. Why? The people running the companies then didn't love cars. One of the things wrong with the PC industry today is that most of the people running the companies don't love PCs. Does Steve Ballmer love PCs? Does Craig Barrett love PCs? Does Michael Dell love PCs? If Michael Dell wasn't selling PCs he'd be selling something else. These people don't love what they create. And people here do.
Source: Steve Jobs in 2004, quoted in The Perfect Thing by Steven Levy | Tagged in: Creativity, Competitors
I love what we’re doing at Apple now, I think it’s the best work that Apple’s ever done. But I think all of us on the Mac team point to that as the high point of our careers. It’s like the Beatles playing Shea Stadium. We were really working fourteen-to-eighteen-hour days, seven days a week. For, like, two years, three years. That was our life. But we loved it, we were young, and we could do it.
(of his generation) We wanted to more richly experience why were we were alive, not just make a better life, and so people went in search of things. The great thing that came from those that time was to realize that there was definitely more to life than the materialism of the late 50’s and early sixties. We were going in search of something deeper.
Source: Steven Levy's Eulogy | Tagged in: Philosophy, Early years
I’m a big believer in boredom. Boredom allows one to indulge in curiosity and out of curiosity comes everything. All the [technology] stuff is wonderful, but having nothing to do can be wonderful, too.
Source: Steven Levy's Eulogy | Tagged in: Philosophy, Technology
(on the iPad before launch) This will be the most important thing I've ever done.
Source: Techcrunch, Jan. 24 2010 | Tagged in: Apple
(on the Wall Street Journal calling him a ‘digital music impresario’) I didn’t know what it meant. Does that mean I run a carnival? What we do at Apple is very simple: we invent stuff. We make the best personal computers in the world, some of the best software, the best portable MP3/music player, and now we make the best online music store in the world. We just make stuff. So I don’t know what impresario means. We make stuff, put it out there, and people use it.
Source: Technologizer, Apr. 28 2003 | Tagged in: Apple, Creativity
Some detractors like those at Listen.com say that downloading isn’t the most popular feature on their music service Rhapsody. What’s your response? Well, that’s correct. Downloading sucks on their service. You download a track and you can’t burn it to a CD without paying them more money—you can’t put it on your MP3 player, you can’t put it on multiple computers—it sucks!  So of course nobody downloads! You pay extra to download even on top of subscription fees. No wonder they have hardly any download traffic—[they] hardly even have any subscribers.
Source: Technologizer, Apr. 28 2003 | Tagged in: Competitors
I end up not buying a lot of things. Because I find them ridiculous.
Source: The independent, Oct. 29 2005 | Tagged in: Lifestyle
I told him I believed every word of what I'd said but that I never should have said it in public. I wish him the best, I really do. I just think he and Microsoft are a bit narrow. He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger.
Source: The New York Times, Jan. 18 1997 | Tagged in: Competitors
I used to be way over on the nurture side, but I've swung way over to the nature side. And it's because of Mona and having kids. My daughter is 14 months old, and it's already pretty clear what her personality is.
Source: The New York Times, Jan. 18 1997 | Tagged in: Family
The amount of time you spend shopping and preparing and eating food is enormous. The amount of energy your body spends digesting the food in many cases exceeds the energy we get from the food.
Source: Time Magazine, Jan. 3 1983 | Tagged in: Lifestyle
But I believe life is an intelligent thing--that things aren't random.
Source: Time Magazine, Aug. 18 1997 | Tagged in: Philosophy
I would rather compete with Sony than compete in another product category with Microsoft. That's because Sony has to rely on other companies to make its software. We're the only company that owns the whole widget--the hardware, the software and the operating system. We can take full responsibility for the user experience. We can do things that the other guy can't do.
Source: Time Magazine, Jan. 14 2002 | Tagged in: Apple, Competitors
Sure enough, when we took [the original iMac prototype] to the engineers, they said, 'Oh.' And they came up with 38 reasons. And I said, 'No, no, we're doing this.' And they said, 'Well, why?' And I said, 'Because I'm the CEO, and I think it can be done.' And so they kind of begrudgingly did it. But then it was a big hit.
Source: Time Magazine, Oct. 16 2005 | Tagged in: Apple, Creativity
You know how you see a show car, and it's really cool, and then four years later you see the production car, and it sucks? And you go, What happened? They had it! They had it in the palm of their hands! They grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory! What happened was, the designers came up with this really great idea. Then they take it to the engineers, and the engineers go, 'Nah, we can't do that. That's impossible.' And so it gets a lot worse. Then they take it to the manufacturing people, and they go, 'We can't build that!' And it gets a lot worse.
Source: Time Magazine, Oct. 16 2005 | Tagged in: Creativity
(on what happened after the iMac launch) The people around here--some of them left. Actually, some of them I got rid of. But most of them said, 'Oh, my God, now I get it.' We've been doing this now for seven years, and everybody here gets it. And if they don't, they're gone.
Source: Time Magazine, Oct. 16 2005 | Tagged in: Management
Funny enough, 20 years after we started Apple, there was nobody building computers for people again. You know? They were trying to sell consumers last year's corporate computers. We said, ‘Well, these are our roots. This is why we're here. The world doesn't need another Dell or Compaq. They need an Apple.’
Source: Time Magazine, Oct. 18 1999 | Tagged in: Apple
(about the Apple Cafeteria) This is the nicest corporate cafe I've ever seen. When we got here this was dog food. There was this company called Guggeinheim that it was farmed out to and it was just shit. And finally we fired them and got this friend of mine who runs Il Fourniao restaurant to come and he did everything and now it's great.
Source: Time Magazine, Oct. 18 2000 | Tagged in: Apple
I've read something that Bill Gates said about six months ago. He said, ‘I worked really, really hard in my 20s.’ And I know what he means, because I worked really, really hard in my 20s too. Literally, you know, 7 days a week, a lot of hours every day. And it actually is a wonderful thing to do, because you can get a lot done. But you can't do it forever, and you don't want to do it forever, and you have to come up with ways of figuring out what the most important things are and working with other people even more.
Source: Time Magazine, Oct. 18 2000 | Tagged in: Early years, Lifestyle
I can tell you this: I've been married for 8 years, and that's had a really good influence on me. I've been very lucky, through random happenstance I just happened to sit next to this wonderful woman who became my wife. And it was a big deal. We have 3 kids, and it's been a big deal. You see the world differently.
Source: Time Magazine, Oct. 18 2000 | Tagged in: Family
There's different things in life you can do. You can become a painter, you can become a sculptor. You can make something by yourself. But that's not what I do. I do the other thing, which is, you work at things that one person can't do, and that you need large numbers of people to do. I know people like symbols, but it's always unsettling when people write stories about me, because they tend to overlook a lot of other people.
Source: Time Magazine, Oct. 18 2000 | Tagged in: Management
The number of people I get to interact with in this company is probably about 50 on a regular basis. Maybe 100. And one of the things that I've always felt is that most things in life, if you get something twice as good as average you're doing phenomenally well. Usually the best is about 30% better than average. Two to one's a big delta. But hat became really clear to me in my work life was that, for instance, [Steve] Woz[niak] was 25 to 50 times better than average. And I found that there were these incredibly great people at doing certain things, and you couldn't replace one of these people with 50 average people. They could just do stuff that no number of average people could do. [...]. And so I have spent my work life trying to find and recruit and retain and work with these kind of people. My #1 job here at Apple is to make sure that the top 100 people are A+ players. And everything else will take care of itself.
Source: Time Magazine, Oct. 18 2000 | Tagged in: Management
Dr. Land at Polaroid said, ‘I want Polaroid to stand at the intersection of art and science,’ and I've never forgotten that.
Source: Time Magazine, Oct. 18 2000 | Tagged in: Philosophy
Hollywood's really different than Silicon Valley. And neither understands the other at all. People up here think being creative is some guys in their late 20s and early 30s sitting around old couches drinking beer thinking up jokes. It couldn't be further from the truth. The creative process is just as disciplined as the technical process; it requires just as much talent. And yet people in Hollywood think technology is only as deep as something you buy. There's no technical culture in Hollywood, they couldn't attract and retain good engineers to save their life, because they're second class citizens down there. Just like creative people are second class citizens in Silicon Valley.
Source: Time Magazine, Oct. 18 2000 | Tagged in: Pixar
The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And I don’t mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don’t think of original ideas, and they don’t bring much culture into their products. I am saddened, not by Microsoft’s success — I have no problem with their success. They’ve earned their success, for the most part. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third-rate products.
Source: Triumph of the Nerds, 1995 | Tagged in: Competitors
I was worth about over a million dollars when I was 23 and over ten million dollars when I was 24, and over a hundred million dollars when I was 25 and... it wasn't that important — because I never did it for the money.
Source: Triumph of the Nerds, 1995 | Tagged in: Philosophy
(on what his greatest creation is: iPhone, iPad?) No. Apple — the company. Because anybody can create products, but Apple keeps creating great products.
(on why he is brutal to most colleagues) I'm brutally honest, because the price of admission to being in the room with me is I get to tell you your full of shit if you're full of shit, and you get to say to me I'm full of shit, and we have some rip-roaring fights. And that keeps the B players, the bozos, from larding the organization, only the A players survive. And the people who do survive, say, 'Yeah, he was rough.' They say things even worse than 'He cut in line in front of me,' but they say, 'This was the greatest ride I've ever had, and I would not give it up for anything.'
Source: Walter Isaacson interview, Fortune, Dec. 27 2011 | Tagged in: Management
My observation, is that the doers are the major thinkers. The people that really create the things that change this industry are both the thinker and doer in one person. And if we really go back and we examine, you know, did Leonardo have a guy off to the side that was thinking five years out in the future what he would paint or the technology he would use to paint it, of course not. Leonardo was the artist but he also mixed all his own paints. He also was a fairly good chemist. He knew about pigments, knew about human anatomy. And combining all of those skills together, the art and the science, the thinking and the doing, was what resulted in the exceptional result. And there is no difference in our industry. The people that have really made the contributions have been the thinkers and the doers. And a lot of people of course - it's very easy to take credit for the thinking. The doing is more concrete. But somebody, it's very easy to say 'oh I thought of this three years ago'. But usually when you dig a little deeper, you find that the people that really did it were also the people that really worked through the hard intellectual problems as well.
Source: WGBH, May 14 1990 | Tagged in: Creativity
I remember reading an article when I was about twelve years old. I think it might have been Scientific American, where they measured the efficiency of locomotion for all these species on planet earth. How many kilocalories did they expend to get from point A to point B? And the condor won, came in at the top of the list, surpassed everything else. And humans came in about a third of the way down the list, which was not such a great showing for the crown of creation. But somebody there had the imagination to test the efficiency of a human riding a bicycle. A human riding a bicycle blew away the condor all the way off the top of the list. And it made a really big impression on me that we humans are tool builders. And that we can fashion tools that amplify these inherent abilities that we have to spectacular magnitudes. And so for me, a computer has always been a bicycle of the mind. Something that takes us far beyond our inherent abilities. And I think we're just at the early stages of this tool.
Source: WGBH, May 14 1990 | Tagged in: Technology
There is a lot to be said for comparing [going from mainframes to the PC] to going from trains, from passenger trains to automobiles. And the advent of the automobile gave us a personal freedom of transportation. In the same way the advent of the computer gave us the ability to start to use computers without having to convince other people that we needed to use computers. And the biggest effect of the personal computer revolution has been to allow millions and millions of people to experience computers themselves decades before they ever would have in the old paradigm. And to allow them to participate in the making of choices and controlling their own destiny using these tools.
Source: WGBH, May 14 1990 | Tagged in: Technology
Right now, if you buy a computer system and you want to solve one of your problems, we immediately throw a big problem right in the middle of you and your problem which is learning how to use the computer. A substantial problem to overcome. Once you overcome that, it's a phenomenal tool. But there is a barrier of having to overcome that problem.

What we're trying to do … is to remove that barrier so that someone can buy a computer system who knows nothing about it and directly attack their problem without learning how to program their computer.

Our whole company, our whole philosophical base, is founded on one principle. That principle is that there is something very special and very historically different that takes place when you have one computer and one person. Very different than if you have ten people and one computer.
Source: Speech in 1980 | Tagged in: Technology, Early years
I don't think it's good that Apple's perceived as different. I think it's important that Apple's perceived as *much better*. If being different is essential to doing that, then we have to do that, but if we can be much better without being different, that'd be fine with me. I want to be much better.
Source: WWDC 1997 closing remarks | Tagged in: Technology, Apple