Steve Jobs or Kim Jong Jobs II

[Zebo]

This is pretty messed up. http://www.overclockers.com/tips00769/

Steven Jobs filed for a name change the other day, if not officially, at least in the eyes and minds of many.

It's not Steven Jobs or Steve Jobs, any more, it's Little Stevie Jobs, just like Little Stevie Wonder.

Then again, Little Stevie Wonder was 12 when he got that title, and grew out of it by the time he was 14.

Little Stevie Jobs is 50.

Why the name change? Well, as this report explains, somebody wrote an unauthorized biography of the man. They sent an advance copy to Little Stevie's minions. Apparently, since the book treats Little Stevie as merely human, Cupertino cringed, and immediately tried to prevent the book from being published. The publisher no doubt reminded Apple that this is America, not North Korea and said after hearing whatever objections Apple presented, they were going to publish.

So what did Apple do? It has pulled all books from that publisher from Apple Store shelves, most of them technical books written by completely innocent bystanders.

It's hard to see how this isn't a Little Stevie snit-fit.

Kim Jobs Il?

Or perhaps there is really is something of North Korea in all this. See the leader worship. See the strident, silly claims of superiority made regardless of reality. There are differences, of course, but more than a few similarities.

It is hardly original to call Macdom a cult, but this little incident might prove to be a true test of what proportion of Macsters are really MacMoonies. One sure sign of a cult is blind adherence to the leader. Let's see how many MacAnts run to the front lines.

A Real Test For Macdom

It's hardly unfair to say that a major reason Macsters are Macsters is because Macs and Macdom, one way or another, make them feel better about themselves. At the extremes, it becomes a secular religion, more often, just an indicator of better, superior and/or more discerning taste or judgment.

Nor is it unfair to say that Apple does much to foster such feelings among Macsters, feelings of superior community.

However, there are different kinds of communities. There's the kind of community where leaders make decisions in the best interest of the followers. Then there is the Kim Jong Il model, where the ants do what they're told, and obligations are a one-way street.

Which kind of community is Macdom?

It's very hard to reconcile being part of an enlightened elite while also being a brainless ant in Little Stevie's MacArmy waiting for orders.

It's very hard to reconcile being part of an enlightened elite while also acquiescing in an act of book bigotry.

Understand what is going on here. Books are being banned not because of what's in them, but because of their origins.

Let me put it this way, if Jesse Jackson gave a speech condemning Apple, and Apple banned all American blacks from coming into Apple Stores until he apologized, what would you call that?

I'm not exactly sure what the best name for this is, but whatever term it is, it surely ends with an -ist.

We do not know the merits or demerits of this book yet. If it is a libelous book, that's what libel laws are for. True, it's hard when you're a public figure to win a libel case in America, but not impossible, but Little Stevie and Company is certainly quite capable of getting his side of the story out in public view, libel case or not.

If Apple doesn't wish to stock this particular book, so be it. It's hardly going to give you tips on how to use MacOS X or Mac programs better.

However, banning books that do tell you how to use MacOS X or Mac programs better does objectively hurt Macsters. You cannot possibly say such a ban is in the interest of Mac users.

Subjectively, Little Stevie's spite makes Macsters look bad, and that's not good for Apple.

A Word of Advice

If Macsters want to gain rather than lose credibility in the big world outside the Macghetto, they ought to start screaming bloody murder about this banning of innocent books. They ought not defend that one tiny little bit. They should not make excuses or apologize at all, because that's pretty close to those poor North Koreans apologizing and justifying Mr. Kim.

Childish behavior never gets better when coddled, and that's all this is. Macsters need to tell Little Stevie to grow up, for their own sakes. Find out if Apple is really a community, or "It's all about Stevie."

If you can't gainsay your guru when he does something wrong, what does that say about you?


Ed

 

[Yossarian]

unauthorized biographies are rarely flattering. if Jobs takes his retribution out on the publisher, tuff luck for them.

 

[Baked]

If he's mad, what's said in the book must be true. He's trying to hide something.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Yossarian
unauthorized biographies are rarely flattering. if Jobs takes his retribution out on the publisher, tuff luck for them.

Read the whole article. It's that combined with the "cult" of apple in general.

 

[b0mbrman]

Yawp. They have the freedom to publish whatever they want, and he has the freedom to sell what he wants.

 

[smc13]

So what? There are reprocussions to your actions. What a shock! If you tell a CEO of a company that you are going to publish an unauthorised book about him, He is going to have his company pull your books. If you are worried about the innocent bystander authors, you should write the publishing company to pull their book about Jobs.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Yawp. They have the freedom to publish whatever they want, and he has the freedom to sell what he wants.

Not really. He has a fidicuous duty to share holders. Pulling all the tech books from a large publisher wiil probably hurt book sales and violates his charter as CEO. Sharholders can sue and win if they can show he acted not in thier intrests but for petty vengance.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Yawp. They have the freedom to publish whatever they want, and he has the freedom to sell what he wants.

Just because he has the freedom to do it, doesn't mean he is right to do it.

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Yawp. They have the freedom to publish whatever they want, and he has the freedom to sell what he wants.

Not really. He has a fidicuous duty to share holders. Pulling all the tech books from a large publisher wiil probably hurt book sales and violates his charter as CEO. Sharholders can sue and win if they can show he acted not in thier intrests but for petty vengance.

Yep. Actions have reproccussions. Apple's shareholders can sue Jobs. The Publishing Company's shareholders can sue their CEO for doing something that caused their books to get pulled. Freedom is good.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Yawp. They have the freedom to publish whatever they want, and he has the freedom to sell what he wants.

Just because he has the freedom to do it, doesn't mean he is right to do it.

Are you talking about the publisher or Jobs? Cuz you can make the case for either

 

[dc]

jobs has always been an egomaniac

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: smc13

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Yawp. They have the freedom to publish whatever they want, and he has the freedom to sell what he wants.

Not really. He has a fidicuous duty to share holders. Pulling all the tech books from a large publisher wiil probably hurt book sales and violates his charter as CEO. Sharholders can sue and win if they can show he acted not in thier intrests but for petty vengance.

Yep. Actions have reproccussions. Apple's shareholders can sue Jobs. The Publishing Company's shareholders can sue their CEO for doing something that caused their books to get pulled. Freedom is good.

Did I ever say freedom was'nt good?

Sure he has the right, does'nt mean he's right. hence: Kim Jong Jobs II

So what are you defending exactly?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Yawp. They have the freedom to publish whatever they want, and he has the freedom to sell what he wants.

Just because he has the freedom to do it, doesn't mean he is right to do it.

Are you talking about the publisher or Jobs? Cuz you can make the case for either

One is common, happens all the time and is perfectly acceptable, the other isn't.

 

[LtPage1]

who cares? the "cult" is fun, and i dont intend on turning in my membership card anytime soon. i wont read it, and i wont care that apples doing what theyre doing.

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: smc13

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Yawp. They have the freedom to publish whatever they want, and he has the freedom to sell what he wants.

Not really. He has a fidicuous duty to share holders. Pulling all the tech books from a large publisher wiil probably hurt book sales and violates his charter as CEO. Sharholders can sue and win if they can show he acted not in thier intrests but for petty vengance.

Yep. Actions have reproccussions. Apple's shareholders can sue Jobs. The Publishing Company's shareholders can sue their CEO for doing something that caused their books to get pulled. Freedom is good.

Did I ever say freedom was'nt good?

Sure he has the right, does'nt mean he's right. hence: Kim Jong Jobs II

So what are you defending exactly?

Kim Jong would have the Publisher arrested, tortured, and murdered. He'd go into stores, and pull all the companies books off the shelf, out of libraries, and burn them. He might even round up the authors that wrote for the publisher and kill them. How can you compare a dictator to a CEO?

Jobs isn't preventing the publisher from publishing. He is just not helping them make money. You and I do the same every day, just on a smaller scale. We decide who to give our money to and who not to. Jobs is just excersising his free market muscle and that's a good thing. You could decide not to buy from apple and that's good as well. Freedom is a good thing. Facing the concequences of your actions is good.

 

[Zebo]

Jobs wishes he could do that.

He is just not helping them make money.

You got that right. And hurting his customers, innocent authors, and his shareholders cuz he's a whinny bitch.

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Jobs wishes he could do that.

He is just not helping them make money.

You got that right. And hurting his customers, innocent authors, and his shareholders cuz he's a whinny bitch.

Maybe Jobs does wish he could be a dictator, after all he is known to be an egomaniac. Of course the publisher knew that when they authorized the book. They knew that when they sent the book to Jobs friends. They could predict the likely consequences. Don't you think they did this to get free advertising? They could have kept it secret until they published the book and their innocent authors could have made more money. But, they chose publicity instead. I expect they calculated how many extra books they could sell from the publicity and compared it to how many book sales they would lose from apple pulling their books (not a big loss for them I bet). You blame Jobs but ignore the actions of the publisher.

As for me, the bystander, I love this stuff. I love the free market in action. It is funny that a publisher would think of playing Jobs to make money. I wonder how well it will work.

 

[DAGTA]

So what did Apple do? It has pulled all books from that publisher from Apple Store shelves, most of them technical books written by completely innocent bystanders.

Let me put it this way, if Jesse Jackson gave a speech condemning Apple, and Apple banned all American blacks from coming into Apple Stores until he apologized, what would you call that?

Nice attempt to throw in a race card with an analogy that doesn't even work.

If Apple is going to pull all books by the same publisher then the correct analogy would be that Apple would ban all books from the same publisher that published Jesse Jackson.

Another idiot making up half-assed 'analogies' in an attempt to stir up emotions through racist remarks. The writer of that article should be fired.

 

[DAGTA]

BTW, if you actually shop in an Apple store, please hand in your man card.

 

[Zebo]

Dude Jobs is about the biggest POS I've ever seen as a corp officer. I'm serious. Worse than Lay, whose just a thief. He wessels and wastes court time all the time. Hard ball bankrupting tactics to shut people up. He sued about 50+ magazines, internet mags/blogs over the years who dare say anything bad about him, right now he's suing a few like this one:http://www.thinksecret.com/news/defense.html He almost destoryed APPLE twice (assholism) . His 100% faster benchmark lies than a PC should have him shut down by FCC. ...

Hey.. i better watch it