New Book Reveals Apple's Steve Jobs Was First Choice for Google CEO

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Book Reveals Apple's Steve Jobs Was First Choice for Google CEO

Posted by Roblimo on Saturday April 9, 2011 @09:19AM from the do-no-evil-while-wearing-a-black-turtleneck dept.

A Reader notes, Steven Levy's latest book, In The Plex: How Google Thinks, Works and Shapes Our Lives, lifts the lid on the secretive world of Google, revealing how the founders fell out with Apple's Steve Jobs and what happened in the search engine's exit from China. Levy claims that when Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page were on the hunt for a chief executive they wanted Steve Jobs to take the job. Obviously, he didn't, and later the two companies became fierce rivals rather than allies.

116 of 167 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

How different things could have been by McGuirk · 2011-04-09 09:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

It makes you wonder how things would have turned out if Jobs had accepted the offer. Then again, the competition between the two is likely to still lead to some new innovations that might not surface otherwise.
1. Re:How different things could have been by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-09 09:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Don't be evil" could not have been the motto with that douChEO in charge
2. Re:How different things could have been by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-09 09:49 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "Don't be evil" could not have been the motto with that douChEO in charge
  Youtube wouldn't be using Flash right now, though.
3. Re:How different things could have been by joh · 2011-04-09 10:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Don't be evil" could not have been the motto with that douChEO in charge
  Youtube wouldn't be using Flash right now, though.
  And Google Apps would be a joy to use instead of the total mess it is.
4. Re:How different things could have been by leenks · 2011-04-09 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have Flash. I can use YouTube.
5. Re:How different things could have been by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-04-09 10:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm not sure that Jobs could possibly have been induced to take the offer: He already has more money than he could conceivably spend on any hobby that isn't "tell financial minion to write check for value of liquid holdings to somebody"(and, unlike many wealthy CEOs, he doesn't seem to have any wildly expensive hobbies), so he is unlikely to be buyable.
  
  His work with Apple(which obviously gooses the value of his stock holdings; but for which he doesn't get paid nearly what he easy could demand) seems to be entirely about pursuing his perfectionism wherever it leads him, even if that means killing profitable products(hello iPod Mini...), stomping on backwards compatibility in ways that upset important partners(Yo Adobe, 64 bit carbon is dead, we didn't bother to tell you until the last second; because Cocoa is just better.) and trading marketshare for margin whenever necessary(nearly all the Macs, the continued lack of a 1 socket mini-tower type config).
  
  Google, on the other hand, really only does relentless perfectionism on the back end(datacenter efficiency and search algorithms). Most of their user-facing stuff is not bad; but is proudly beta, low margin, and basically about being good enough to serve its strategically vital cash cows.
  
  Unless Jobs suddenly developed an intense hatred of publicity, in which case he might well be a good recruit for some position in Google's back-end operations, a gig with Google would run strongly against his tastes, and he already has enough money, and not enough interest in money, that Google couldn't easily buy him.
6. Re:How different things could have been by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-04-09 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Well you can thank Apple and the other members of the WHATWG for that.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
7. Re:How different things could have been by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-09 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like one it currently uses. H.246
8. Re:How different things could have been by rolfwind · 2011-04-09 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  As big a fan I am of Steve, his golden touch is with physical objects. I don't know if he understands search. Would gmail, my favorite google product, have been free to the general public or behind a paywall destined for obscurity forever?
  I'm hesistant to say more, because he showed with NeXT an understanding of software, so I can't fault him with that, although I can't grasp OS X gui or some mac software beyond the basic, how to do things I take for granted in Windows as trivial methods easily discovered.
  IMO, it wouldn't have turned out well for either party. Like putting a soda executive in charge of a computer company.
9. Re:How different things could have been by nomadic · 2011-04-09 11:23 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Plus Jobs is a complete narcissist, he would have trouble functioning in an environment where there were identifiable people who could replace him as opposed to his easily cowed, faceless board of directors at apple.
10. Re:How different things could have been by hedwards · 2011-04-09 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Steve doesn't necessarily understand physical objects, he has a knack for promoting and supporting people that know what they're doing. He wasn't responsible for the iPod, iPad, iPhone or any number of other gizmos that they've had great luck with, he was however responsible for ensuring that the people who were had the resources and support to make a quality product.
11. Re:How different things could have been by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-09 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Google wouldn't have bought YouTube if Jobs was in charge. YouTube was and continues to be a huge den of Copyright infringement.
12. Re:How different things could have been by Colonel+Korn · 2011-04-09 12:04 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "Don't be evil" could not have been the motto with that douChEO in charge
  Youtube wouldn't be using Flash right now, though.
  And Google Apps would be a joy to use instead of the total mess it is.
  Only for those who would drink the koolaid, and then only on Mac.
  
  --
  "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
13. Re:How different things could have been by rolfwind · 2011-04-09 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  However, he also knows how to push people who come to him with a substandard product. Brilliant people can still put forward crappy work if allowed.
14. Re:How different things could have been by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-09 14:39 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Not if it was anything like itunes
15. Re:How different things could have been by a_hanso · 2011-04-09 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  His 'knack', i think, is for having a very clear picture in his mind about how a device should look, feel and behave. He keeps pushing the implementation team until they bring him that device.
16. Re:How different things could have been by vakuona · 2011-04-09 20:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah. The Pixar guys were really cowed and faceless. People have this idea of Jobs, the CEO being one person, the Apple CEO. But he was also Pixar CEO, and they seemed to do OK. Maybe, he is just a really clever guy who knows how to organise a business to make money. Compare his computer company (I use the term loosely, Apple ceased being that a long time ago) to other computer companies (Dell, HP, Compaq (now HP obviously), Gateway etc). His is the most successful, running on a completely different strategy, making it work. He also ran Pixar, right up until he sold it and they didn't make a single flop movie. Who says he wouldn't have been able to run Google. He proved himself in 2 completely different industries already.
17. Re:How different things could have been by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-09 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  You might dislike Jobs, but Eric Schmidt is a much bigger asshole than Jobs. I'm glad he got the boot.
18. Re:How different things could have been by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2011-04-10 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think he is a narcissist? Aside from all the stories you've read on the internet?
19. Re:How different things could have been by maccodemonkey · 2011-04-10 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  "...stomping on backwards compatibility in ways that upset important partners(Yo Adobe, 64 bit carbon is dead, we didn't bother to tell you until the last second; because Cocoa is just better.)"
  First, this isn't an example of backwards compatibility. 32 bit Carbon has continued to live on just fine. 10.6 still is fully backwards with 32 bit Carbon. 64 bit Carbon was a new API that Apple canceled (and 64 bit Carbon itself wasn't even fully api compliant against 32 bit Carbon.)
  Second, Cocoa had been pushed as the best solution for a long time. I was at the conference where 32 bit Carbon was canned, and the only people in the room that seemed surprised were Adobe.
  Mac OS X wasn't even originally supposed to have Carbon. The only reason it ever did was because Adobe pitched a fit and refused to port to Cocoa, and they were important enough to the future of the Mac that they could get Carbon into OS X. It was always supposed to be a band aid that kept Adobe happy while they ported to Cocoa, except that Adobe never actually started the "porting to Cocoa" part, and Apple got tired of maintaining an operating system component who's primary purpose was keeping Adobe's old code working.
20. Re:How different things could have been by omfgnosis · 2011-04-10 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm fairly sure YouTube doesn't use VP6 (flv) at all anymore (feel free to prove me wrong). There is almost certainly 100% H.264 OR WebM content, but there are still circumstances where the HTML5 player will not be used (ads embedded in the video).
21. Re:How different things could have been by omfgnosis · 2011-04-10 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think this is entirely right. At the time of the introduction of OS X (10.0), Cocoa and Carbon were given equal weight. Apple even rewrote NeXT's file manager in Carbon to prove the API's viability; this Carbon Finder wasn't replaced until the current version of OS X (10.6). Apple gradually changed its tune on API preference, and it's fair to say the writing has been on the wall for at least 3 major versions of the OS. But the only glimmer of evidence that Carbon wasn't meant to be included in OS X was that it didn't appear in OS X Server (1.0), which was never meant to be a replacement for classic MacOS, and was never marketed as such. Carbon was always part of Apple's strategy to not bleed developers (besides just Adobe; Microsoft being another major one, but hundreds of others as well) in its second major technology transition, the same way that Fat Binaries were part of Apple's strategy in the first.
  I wouldn't say Adobe had any reason to believe they would need to port to Cocoa so abruptly until just before 10.5 was released. Apple did a poor job communicating with developers on the future of OS X's APIs, and that kind of an abrupt API change would cause severe gnashing of teeth from any other vendor. Apple got (mostly) a free pass, just on the basis that no one really expects Apple to be respectful of backwards compatibility in transitional periods.
22. Re:How different things could have been by maccodemonkey · 2011-04-10 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  "But the only glimmer of evidence that Carbon wasn't meant to be included in OS X was that it didn't appear in OS X Server (1.0), which was never meant to be a replacement for classic MacOS, and was never marketed as such. Carbon was always part of Apple's strategy to not bleed developers (besides just Adobe; Microsoft being another major one, but hundreds of others as well) in its second major technology transition, the same way that Fat Binaries were part of Apple's strategy in the first."
  It never appeared in Rhapsody, which was supposed to be the shipping version of OS X. One big reason why Rhapsody never shipped was because Adobe reportedly refused to support it. Apple had to go back to the drawing board, and Mac OS X was born from Rhapsody. So to say that Carbon was always in OS X is a bit disingenuous. In fact, the reason it wasn't in OS X Server 1.0 was because OS X Server 1.0 was basically just a build of Rhapsody...
  "I wouldn't say Adobe had any reason to believe they would need to port to Cocoa so abruptly until just before 10.5 was released. Apple did a poor job communicating with developers on the future of OS X's APIs, and that kind of an abrupt API change would cause severe gnashing of teeth from any other vendor."
  Apple could have been better at communicating, but there was frequent noise and worry about Carbon being dropped in the developer community before that point. Carbon, at 10.0 was definitely not at parity with Cocoa and was missing a lot of features.
23. Re:How different things could have been by abigor · 2011-04-10 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  Oh please, Jobs was fired by the board once. They can do it again. They won't because he is really good at what he does.
  Anyway, why people have such personal feelings and feel free to make character judgements about a guy they will never meet who runs a computer hardware and software company is beyond me.
24. Re:How different things could have been by Xest · 2011-04-10 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it could be as awesome as iTunes.
  Oh wait.
25. Re:How different things could have been by juasko · 2011-04-11 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the motto would maybe been something real rather than just a bad joke then.... :p
26. Re:How different things could have been by juasko · 2011-04-11 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, Apple always preferd cocoa, and from day 1 stated that cocoa is the future, and that carbon would be ditched.
  That didn't stop Apple from using carbon, as carbon was the old macos style of programing and inside Apple there where programmers that where new to cocoa.
  With time Apple and the world would leave carbon behind. And Apple stated that very early. I'm not an developer, but I knew this. I simply just followed the keynotes, that's all to it.
27. Re:How different things could have been by frank_adrian314159 · 2011-04-11 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  They won't because he is really good at what he does.
  That's not the only reason. They won't fire him because it's not necessary. Given his health, it's only a matter of time before they need to hunt for a new CEO, anyway.
  
  --
  That is all.
Wired has it this month by scotch51 · 2011-04-09 09:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually Jobs was choice number 3, after Sergey and Larry as co-CEO.
Wired has it this month, from the same author. Oddly I don't recall a book reference.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/mf_larrypage/

--
In Nearly All Paradigms, Shift Happens.
Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-09 09:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

from them.
Jobs and Gates seem to display sociopathic, if not psychopathic characteristics. Is that necessary to succeed in business today?
Or perhaps it has always been true. Have any studies been done that rate the sociopathic/psychopathic levels of captains of industry?
1. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-04-09 09:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yes, and it's true that sociopathy is more prevalent in corporate management than it is in other parts of society.
  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, for the most part, just a case of different people with different personalities finding roles in society where their traits are assets rather than liabilities. If you could wave a magic wand and remove the influence of so-called "sociopaths" from human history, we'd all find ourselves back in the caves, if not the trees.
  Likewise if everyone behaved like a stereotypical CEO, we'd have destroyed ourselves long ago. It takes all kinds.
2. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by improfane · 2011-04-09 09:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Jobs did steal, he pocketed cash that was meant for Steve Wozniak.
  http://www.woz.org/letters/general/91.html
  
  --
  Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
3. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by microbox · 2011-04-09 10:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, for the most part, just a case of different people with different personalities finding roles in society where their traits are assets rather than liabilities.
  
  You have to be kidding. Bullying and walking over people is never an asset in a civilized society. Only about 2% of people are like that, and they cause almost all of the problems.
  
  If we didn't have the problem of sociopaths and psychopaths (pigs might fly), then our political and business system would actually be ethical, since 98% of the population doesn't have much of a problem with being ethical.
  
  --
  
  Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
4. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-04-09 10:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Bullying and walking over people is never an asset in a civilized society
  And your degree in behavioral psychology is from the University of ________?
  The fact is, progress depends on people who are willing to place their own interests -- or those of their "tribe" -- above those of others. Your statement suggests that you're either 12 years old, or have spent all your life in a Zen monastery.
5. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by joh · 2011-04-09 10:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I always felt that those people who insist in demonizing Jobs and Gates look much more psychopathic than Jobs and Gates. They are surely less grounded and in touch with reality, even if just because they did *not* manage to get large companies up and running from nothing. They're purely negative and destructive, just reacting to something they don't understand or don't like, with no means to do something successful on their own.
  I'm not saying there are no psychopaths in the industry but mostly you find them in meager positions of power that cater to their special "talent". The "captains" mostly are bright and realistic guys, even if often with an iron will and/or personal quirks. Like it or not but success is the most clear indicator for psychological health we have. There are exceptions in certain dysfunctional communities, but usually true madness sinks to the bottom. Describing Jobs as a sociopath just because he has very clear (and obviously very correct) ideas how devices for the masses should work is, well, mad.
6. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by pushing-robot · 2011-04-09 11:18 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Or, as it really happened:
  Jobs was working for Atari.
  Atari offered Jobs $750 to create a Breakout prototype in 4 days, with a $100 bonus for every chip he eliminated from the original estimate of ~100 chips.
  Jobs told his friend Woz about the project, and offered to split the $750 if Wozniak made the prototype. Jobs never told Wozniak about the bonus.
  Wozniak produced a prototype with an incredible 50 fewer chips than the estimate. However, Atari decided not to use the prototype, since for all its efficiency it was the hardware equivalent of a mass of spaghetti code only Wozniak could understand. The final Breakout game had close to the original design estimate of 100 chips.
  Atari kept their end of the bargain though, paying Jobs $750 for the prototype and a huge $5000 bonus.
  The same year, Jobs left Atari and used the money to found his own startup, Apple Computer, along with Wozniak.
  Wozniak left Apple five years later after crashing his light plane, with an estimated net worth at the time of $45,000,000.
  So I'm sure Woz cried his way to the bank on that one.
  
  --
  How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
7. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by nomadic · 2011-04-09 11:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If the story is true, at the time Jobs intentionally screwed over his supposed friend for money. What's the relevance of what happened after?
8. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by hedwards · 2011-04-09 11:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You do realize that psychology isn't actually science, right? And that argumentum ad hominems just make you look like a dumbass.
  Most humans, despite the beliefs to the contrary are more or less decent people, there's just this nasty tendency towards confirmation bias that makes it seem otherwise. People tend to be social and without those 1-2% individuals that behave like that, I'm really not convinced that people would behave like that.
  That being said, there's no way of knowing because we'll never get rid of those sorts of people in the population at large long enough to actually answer the question.
9. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by hedwards · 2011-04-09 11:33 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Whatever it is that you're smoking, I want some.
10. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by pushing-robot · 2011-04-09 11:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So If I didn't pay you a small sum of money—money I never said I'd pay you—and then invested said money in a company which gave you a job doing exactly what you always wanted to do, which you worked at for five years and retired at 30 a multi-millionaire, I'd be screwing you over?
  Oh, and if you'd rather hear from Woz himself:
  Comment from E-mail:
  According to the site, you resigned from Apple. Is this true? And was you actually cheated by Jobs for $5000?
  Woz:
  No, I never resigned from Apple, and I still receive a small paycheck because I want to be an employee forever. The press constantly tries to make it out that Steve and I are enemies but we are not and have not been. You'll find virtually no negative words and definitely not a single person who ever saw us argue or fight. It's just something that the press likes to say. The Wall Street Journal once printed that I was leaving Apple because I was disgusted, even though I'd told the reporter that was not the case. If it were true, it's hard to imagine me staying on the payroll with employee agreements in effect. Every book from then on printed that story and it became history.
  I'm sorry that the story about Steve cheating me ever got out. First, it concerns something from long ago and even our memories are suspect. Second, it's good to forgive small things. Third, I would have gladly split money the way it was if he just said that he needed it. We were both like that. For example, around that time Steve went to India and ran into someone who had lost their plane ticket home. Steve actually gave that person his own ticket. Steve had no money but trusted the person to replace it, and sure enough the replacement was mailed to him and he got home.
  I got a great excuse to design a video game for Atari and that was worth more than any money to me. If I'd gotten more money, I might have wound up buying a computer kit or constructing a different kind. Many good things about the Apple I and Apple ][ came from not being able to afford expensive parts.
  
  --
  How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
11. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-04-09 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  So if psychology isn't a science, what basis could any of the generalizations in your post possibly have? Almost every sentence you wrote contains at least one such statement, unbacked by any cited research. Not only that, but you seem to be saying that such research would be unscientific by its nature.
  If psychology is a science, then it is entitled to ask and answer questions regarding the interaction of sociopathic personalities with society as a whole. Practitioners can determine whether people like Gates and Jobs meet objective criteria for sociopathy, or whether they're just a couple of guys you don't like very much.
  Conversely, if psychology is strictly a domain for amateur pundits, then my opinion is as valid as the goofy Ayn Rand-villain positions put forth by the other posters in this thread, isn't it?
12. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by DerekLyons · 2011-04-09 12:12 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  To soften the blow and make Jobs look like less of an asshole than he is?
13. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-04-09 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  So what's your opinion on the topic of the thread, as a soon-to-be-qualified psychologist? Are you able to diagnose various CEOs and corporate founders with clinical sociopathy over the Internet, or are you just muttering under your breath about some guys who did some stuff that you don't personally approve of?
14. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by am+2k · 2011-04-09 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  If you read the story about Woz and Jobs, you get a pretty clear picture: Woz is not a sociopath and retired after he got enough money for the rest of his life. Jobs didn't stop there, he kept on working as the CEO of various companies, driven by something else than earning enough money to live comfortably, like Woz did. This drive is the thing all CEOs of the large companies need to have, otherwise they wouldn't be in that seat.
15. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by a_hanso · 2011-04-09 16:59 · Score: 2
  
  It's not really sociopathy that you see in business leaders. It's alpha male characteristics. Almost everybody in slashdot is a 'beta' -- they pull the weight of the herd, but they don't lead. They *can't* lead because they have stronger 'do unto others' brain wiring than alphas do. So we resent those who are not encumbered by it. There's no justice in it, but its reality. At least I think it is.
16. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-04-09 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  Jobs and Gates seem to display sociopathic, if not psychopathic characteristics. Is that necessary to succeed in business today?
  No, it's just necessary to drive ad-hits on sites like Slashdot.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
17. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-04-09 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  If the story is true, at the time Jobs intentionally screwed over his supposed friend for money.
  
  If Woz was happy with the split of the $750, how did Steve actually screw him?
  
  What's the relevance of what happened after?
  Because it's obvious that your condensed understanding of a one-sided telling of the story didn't provide the same shocking reaction to Woz that it did to you.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
18. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by pankajmay · 2011-04-09 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  Bullying and walking over people is never an asset in a civilized society. Only about 2% of people are like that, and they cause almost all of the problems....
  .
  You are being a bit delusional here, confusing an ideal (should be...) with reality (what is..). What you state may be true, but bullying and walking over people are almost as necessary to this society as the lack of it. What do you think the police/military do? In fact, bullying/lack of order/law of the jungle was one of the reasons for development of religion - a legacy that has now become more a burden than benefit.
  And by the way, where do you get that 2% figure from? Sources?
  
  Most humans, despite the beliefs to the contrary are more or less decent people, there's just this nasty tendency towards confirmation bias that makes it seem otherwise. People tend to be social and without those 1-2% individuals that behave like that, I'm really not convinced that people would behave like that.
  This has only happened in recent history and with the advent of strict societal structure, and consistent standards. Until we decided that it was best to cooperate for the combined existence/propagation of our species. We are like any other animal on this earth, and evolution gives ample proof that survival of the fittest is the name of the game.
  Yes, most humans -- hell, in fact most organisms are more or less decent in disposition, but the definition of "decency" varies widely even amongst humans -- my definition of decency may not jive with yours or may even be downright offensive. It may be true, that modern humans more or less share a common standard of decency but even amongst us that standard varies quite a bit -- this is why we have cultural differences, and governing differences.
  
  You do realize that psychology isn't actually science, right? And that argumentum ad hominems just make you look like a dumbass.
  And your proof for psychology not being a science being? You do realize that your statement is almost as unsubstantiated as you accuse your parent's to be. And that last sentence you added in the above -- what is that if not bullying? Care to practice what you preach? Or do you belong to the other "2%"?
  
  Perhaps the biggest counter-proofs to your statements is the tone in which discussions are held on /. Your own reply is a perfect example.
  
  I would rather say that most people are more emotional rather than decent -- you appeal to those emotions in just the right way (read as manipulate) and even the most supposedly "decent" people will go on to commit heinous crimes -- even more so as a group.
19. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by bye · 2011-04-09 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  You need a citation for the application of elementary logic? Wow!
  People in power playing out their subordinates against each other, to maximize only their own survival and not the survival of the group is the quintessential definition of a 'parasite'. In nature parasites are useful sometimes and tolerated, but not in leadership positions.
  Sociopaths are a bug in the human genome which didn't matter much in the jungle (which had a large number of small groups/tribes of humans, and small groups are very good at isolating sociopaths) but it matters a lot in today's highly interconnected societies and is a lot more harmful. It's also a lot harder to get rid of them: the "We all know each other so who are you kidding Steve?" social defense which worked in the jungle does not work in today's society where millions of people do not know their 'leaders' in person.
  It will take some time for this bug to be fixed, and the period leading to it will be marred by inefficiencies.
20. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by bye · 2011-04-09 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed.
  What I don't understand, though, is why these execs make so much money. They clearly don't need it and aren't motivated by it.
  Because they can, because nobody stops them and because they have no problem with collecting it. They sit at highly central nodes of a very complex graph of humans (called modern society) and just the pure act of being there and collecting a 0.001% tax gives them immense wealth and if they have even a shimmer of talent they can collect unimaginable wealth.
  Obviously such nodes/positions are very vulnerable to sociopaths.
21. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by am+2k · 2011-04-10 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm maybe it's like a gaming score for them. They want to earn more than the CEO next door, just for the sake of feeling better than everybody else. As "bye" said, since nobody stops them (for the fear of never getting another CEO because of that stunt most likely), this is an endless spiral into infinity.
22. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2011-04-10 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, screwed him over by founding a company with him.
  Funny how when it comes to Steve Jobs, everyone suddenly has much higher moral standards and assume they know everything about some story they've read.
23. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by sirlark · 2011-04-10 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, to an extent. In a lot of respects I would describe the community of high-level leaders in big business one of your dysfunctional communities. I don't think Jobs is a sociopath. Most people don't really understand the term properly anyway. I do think that personality traits such as ruthlessness and lack of empathy in indirect cases are actually rewarded and reinforced within the world of business ethics. Yes, true sociopaths (or those with anti-social personality disorder) are rarely successful in life, but there are plenty of people with obnoxious personality traits who are successful. Those traits don't impair them functionally, and in the case of empathy and business, I think they are actually enabling traits.
24. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-04-10 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Woz: If I'd gotten more money, I might have wound up buying a computer kit or constructing a different kind. Many good things about the Apple I and Apple ][ came from not being able to afford expensive parts.
  And that is the actual reason why they can't forgive Jobs for his "theft": without it there would be no Apple.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
25. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-04-10 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  If you read the story about Woz and Jobs, you get a pretty clear picture: Woz is not a sociopath and retired after he got enough money for the rest of his life. Jobs didn't stop there, he kept on working as the CEO of various companies, driven by something else than earning enough money to live comfortably, like Woz did. This drive is the thing all CEOs of the large companies need to have, otherwise they wouldn't be in that seat.
  And you actually believe that for Jobs it's the "more money than he can spend" thing?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
26. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by am+2k · 2011-04-10 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I said the exact opposite of that.
27. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by nomadic · 2011-04-10 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  You are all missing the point of what "morality" is. The issue is not that Wozniak made out better in the long term. The issue is at the time, Jobs had a personal, internal decision to make. He made the immoral one. Because events ultimately took away the consequences to Wozniak, it doesn't fix the idea that he failed morally at the time.
28. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-04-10 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  You're not getting my point. I'm not saying Woz getting rich made up for it. I'm saying that obviously he didn't see it as the big immoral back-stab that everybody here does..
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
29. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by lennier · 2011-04-10 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming we need evil to recognize good is just that: an assumption.
  We need evil to recognise good in exactly the same way that we need cyanide to recognise pancakes.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
30. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by nomadic · 2011-04-10 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  So? Why should I adopt Woz's moral judgments?
31. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-04-10 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  So? Why should I adopt Woz's moral judgments?
  You're wouldn't be. What you should be doing is realizing you dont have a clear picture of what actually happened.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
32. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by juasko · 2011-04-11 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  Who said anything about bullying, your narrow in your view.
  All peoples have their weaknesses, but also their strength. When their strength is used in what they do, it results in good things and development on all aspects. Do it the other way around and the opposite will be the result
33. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by juasko · 2011-04-11 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, progress does not depend on those who set their own interests over the others. In fact it's the other way around. It's those who work for a goal or purpose and sacrifice their own interests for that goal purpose who keep progress going on.
34. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by juasko · 2011-04-11 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  We don't need counterfeit money to recognize the legal one.
  Your assumption is flawed.
35. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by juasko · 2011-04-11 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  That, part could have been the start of their friendship. What makes you assume they knew each-other since infancy
36. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by juasko · 2011-04-11 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Or, because the lisa team would scratch his car if parked on his lot....
  Did you read up on why or just on those who want to paint an other in black and hold them selves up.
37. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by juasko · 2011-04-11 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  Jobs spent all his money to run pixar and next. Jobs has gone from low income to millionaire to bankrupt to be a millionaire again.
  I'm not trying to defend him, just pointing out how pathetic you are.
38. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by am+2k · 2011-04-11 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying that he hasn't done great things, just that he doesn't think and act like most people do. Those two things are probably related actually.
39. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by microbox · 2011-04-11 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  I hate to use appeals to authority, but how about the word of a clinical psychologist with 25 years of practice..
  
  The naive should know something about antisocial personality disorder before someone screws them over just for the thrill of it.
  
  --
  
  Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
40. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by joh · 2011-04-11 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  here are exceptions in certain dysfunctional communities, but usually true madness sinks to the bottom. Describing Jobs as a sociopath just because he has very clear (and obviously very correct) ideas how devices for the masses should work is, well, mad.
  By your logic, the more haters, the more right they are, correct?
  The world is not just the /. crowd. And it's not just about some Apple products. The idea of simple and streamlined software and hardware being preferred by most "normal" people seems to be something that infuriates insecure power-users and still the rest of the population doesn't hate this, they very much like it and willingly even pay more for something that does less (but better, easier and more elegant).
  Breaking free of the geek mindset is something that Apple did very thoroughly and successfully. Think about Jobs and Apple and iOS what you want but don't pretend people generally hate them. People generally hate computers and the less computer-like something looks and works, the less they hate it.
  I'm not talking about you, of course.
41. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by juasko · 2011-04-11 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Well that i obvious but not all "normal" can live with some one would be different and it actually would be a good thing.
42. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-04-11 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  It's those who work for a goal or purpose and sacrifice their own interests for that goal purpose who keep progress going on.
  Perhaps, but when they do so, it's invariably in service to their own families, communities, tribes, or nations. Nobody behaves altrustically on behalf of civilization as a whole... and in the eyes of a collectivist, nationalism is just individualism writ large.
43. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by juasko · 2011-04-11 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, there are numerous people who have sacrificed their own lives even families just for the cause.
  Just because many are greedy, it doesn't make everyone to act the same.
44. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-04-13 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, there are numerous people who have sacrificed their own lives even families just for the cause. Just because many are greedy, it doesn't make everyone to act the same.
  Well, sure. One out every hundred of these types of people, we call "heroes." The other 99, we call "psychos."
45. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by juasko · 2011-04-14 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  and...?
46. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by nomadic · 2011-04-14 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why I specifically included the qualifier "if the story is true."
47. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-04-14 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why I specifically included the qualifier "if the story is true."
  You didn't do that when you judged Steve's decision as the 'immoral' one.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
48. Re:Surprised Jobs Didn't Steal Something... by nomadic · 2011-04-14 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Because for the sake of the conversation we had already established that my position was based on whether the story was true. There was no need to repeat it on every post.
Totally different corporate cultures. by TerranFury · 2011-04-09 09:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

Here's the impression I get:
Apple is a dictatorship run by an obsessive-compulsive designer. It works its employees hard to produce well-integrated, very refined products, following one man's vision.
Google is a confederacy of teams joined by a common culture. People within the organization have considerable freedom to pursue their own agendas, and Google tries to harness this energy to make its search business more profitable, even if it means taking a scattershot approach.
Apple has OCD. Google has ADD.
1. Re:Totally different corporate cultures. by rolfwind · 2011-04-09 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  And we're better off with both of them.
2. Re:Totally different corporate cultures. by aralin · 2011-04-09 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  I've got OCD and ADD, so I should be as good as Google and Apple combined :)
  
  --
  If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
3. Re:Totally different corporate cultures. by DerekLyons · 2011-04-09 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Apple once had ADD too - back when they were flush with cash in the early days. It damn near killed them when the glory ebbed and they were left with the habits of being wealthy but nearly stone broke.
4. Re:Totally different corporate cultures. by Lemmy+Caution · 2011-04-09 14:48 · Score: 2
  
  I think that makes you Sony. Sorry. Hopefully, though, you didn't pick up the paranoid schizophrenia.
5. Re:Totally different corporate cultures. by Mr.+Underbridge · 2011-04-09 15:11 · Score: 2
  
  Apple has OCD. Google has ADD.
  Hey, fun! So I suppose Microsoft has Borderline Personality Disorder. Oracle has a thing with spousal abuse (Poor Sun!). Canonical has Asperger's. And Yahoo! was the retarded kid they finally institutionalized in Redmond.
  Where in DSM-IV do other tech companies fall?
6. Re:Totally different corporate cultures. by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-04-09 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  Here's the impression I get:
  Apple is a dictatorship run by an obsessive-compulsive designer. It works its employees hard to produce well-integrated, very refined products, following one man's vision.
  Google is a confederacy of teams joined by a common culture. People within the organization have considerable freedom to pursue their own agendas, and Google tries to harness this energy to make its search business more profitable, even if it means taking a scattershot approach.
  Apple has OCD. Google has ADD.
  It's great for us when they compete.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
7. Re:Totally different corporate cultures. by StripedCow · 2011-04-09 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  They have one thing in common. They are both keeping PhD's from doing more valuable research (medicine, fundamental physics, etc.), just to sell some ads and marginally improve joe sixpack's user experience. How are they doing it? Well, I think these companies are playing psychological tricks (through the media) to make their employees work for them, for example by making them feel like rockstar programmers, while they could be true heroes in different fields.
  Having "the perfect user experience" is absolutely something which is useful, but please don't take our best people to work on that.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
8. Re:Totally different corporate cultures. by bye · 2011-04-09 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  They have one thing in common. They are both keeping PhD's from doing more valuable research (medicine, fundamental physics, etc.), just to sell some ads and marginally improve joe sixpack's user experience. How are they doing it? Well, I think these companies are playing psychological tricks (through the media) to make their employees work for them, for example by making them feel like rockstar programmers, while they could be true heroes in different fields.
  No, it's done by a few hundred million Joe sixpack's preferring a slightly improved user experience and shinier ads over 'valuable research'.
  They give their dollars to the Apple's and Google's of this world and with that economy of scale it ends up being tens of billions of dollars per quarter. Compare that with all of NASA not even getting $20 billion per year and with government funded scientists having bible-thumping republican AGs breathing down their neck and wanting to search their personal emails to look for the even slightest infraction.
  That will easily sway the brilliant programmers away from 'valuable research'.
9. Re:Totally different corporate cultures. by lennier · 2011-04-10 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  They have one thing in common. They are both keeping PhD's from doing more valuable research (medicine, fundamental physics, etc.)
  And for that we are all very grateful.
  Do you really want Apple designers playing with nuclear isotopes, or Google techs doing a bit of DNA hacking just to see what might happen?
  The world is safer because Apple and Google keep these guys off the street.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Thankfully jobs turned down Google by nxtw · 2011-04-09 09:46 · Score: 2

Google didn't create Android in reality, either.
Re:good thing by skribble · 2011-04-09 09:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

. o O { don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll...}

--
--- Nothing To See Here ---
Re:Thankfully jobs turned down Google by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-04-09 10:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's not a lot of things they actually did create : Android, Youtube, Picasa, Google Groups (Deja News), Blogger where all acquired and that's not even counting the ones directly built on foundations they bought from others like Google Maps, Lattitude or Google Docs. Google is hugely overrated, they can hardly keep themselves from lousing up their few original creations like Gmail by bolting on Google Buzz or the search engine by only recently allowing people to block sites from their search results.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:good thing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-09 10:31 · Score: 1

WebKit.
The Undiscovered Punchline by epine · 2011-04-09 10:45 · Score: 1

s/Eudoxus/Eudoxus, who won't yield an iota,
The subconscious mind sometimes plays hard to get. It had to be a plant to be that good. Doh!
Re:good thing by the+linux+geek · 2011-04-09 10:58 · Score: 3, Informative

WebKit was a derivative of KHTML, a GPL'd system.
Re: But that's the problem with sociopaths by microbox · 2011-04-09 11:49 · Score: 1

whose behavior is a consequence of social or familial dysfunction
This is a common misconception. There is something genetic going on as well.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Re: But that's the problem with sociopaths by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-04-09 12:08 · Score: 1

OK, now, that's an interesting point. You're saying that sociopathy is an objective condition that can't be diagnosed by random people on Slashdot?
Then we really are wasting our time in this thread, aren't we? It's as if the whole premise -- the suggestion that Gates and Jobs and other 'captains of industry' are clinically-diagnosable sociopaths with dysfunctional backgrounds or genes -- was just so much verbal diarrhea from the get-go.
Imagine that.
Also different ideas of how to make money by Sycraft-fu · 2011-04-09 12:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

Google's idea is basically to make money on their search technology, which means on ads. To that end they develop new things that help get people using their search, and make those things free. They aren't concerned about monetizing a given product so long as that product helps drive their primary business.
Apple's idea is to make a ton of profit on all their hardware. Anything they introduce, they want high margins on. It is designed to be profitable as it is, not to try and drive other business. They tie their products together, but as a way to get you to buy more products.
It's probably a very good thing Jobs didn't get hired on at Google because I think Bing and/or Yahoo would have crushed them now. Apple's strategy is not a bad one, as is clear by the money they make, but it is not one that would work in the market Google is in.
1. Re:Also different ideas of how to make money by Kjella · 2011-04-09 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  Apple's idea is to make a ton of profit on all their hardware. Anything they introduce, they want high margins on. It is designed to be profitable as it is, not to try and drive other business. They tie their products together, but as a way to get you to buy more products.
  Seems to me that with the iPhone/iPad and the "30% of everything" you're describing the old Apple. The new Apple seems quite busy making money on software too. Not that I have noticed the hardware getting any cheaper because of it...
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
2. Re:Also different ideas of how to make money by initialE · 2011-04-10 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  When you put it that way, it is hard to see why Apple and Google simply can't get along. Their goals are different, their markets are different, they adopt different strategies and hire different types of people. Since they don't get along, or rather, don't get along anymore, I guess there must be something missing from the picture here.
  
  --
  Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Not visual enough by anyaristow · 2011-04-09 12:25 · Score: 1

Google doesn't make things that are visual enough. How would the job interest Jobs?
1. Re:Not visual enough by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2011-04-10 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure I get what you mean.
Google phones would probably be cooler ... by perpenso · 2011-04-09 12:59 · Score: 2, Funny

It makes you wonder how things would have turned out if Jobs had accepted the offer.
Well, google phones probably would have been cooler and much more popular. ;-)
Re:good thing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-09 13:02 · Score: 1

It was derived for the major components. But the GPL is slowly being excised from WebKit. Anything that can be licensed BSD in WebKit has already done so. I think all ObjC platform code is BSD currently.
I just scanned the latest WebKit nightly.

Files matching ".cpp .h .mm" in trunk/Source: 8726
GPL files in JavaScriptCore: 245 out of 688 GPL files in WebCore: 1705 out of 5437 GPL files in WebKit: 228 out of 1417 GPL files in WebKit2: 34 out of 937 ------------------ GPL files = 2212 (2212 in directory)
BSD files in JavaScriptCore: 403 out of 688 BSD files in WebCore: 3510 out of 5437 BSD files in WebKit: 1115 out of 1417 BSD files in WebKit2: 897 out of 937 ------------------ BSD files = 5925 (5940 in directory)

In two years the GPL will likely be no longer in WebKit.
Re:THANK FUCKING GOD! by MBC1977 · 2011-04-09 14:12 · Score: 1

Not that I really care either way, but why is elitism bad again?

--
Regards,

MBC1977,
Re:good thing by DynamiteNeon · 2011-04-09 14:43 · Score: 1

Webkit. Just one example. I'm not a fan of Steve Jobs at times, and while it could be argued that Apple may not be as giving as some other companies, it doesn't mean they don't participate.
Re:If we thought Google is evil now by mbkennel · 2011-04-09 14:56 · Score: 1

Not quite. If Steve Jobs ran Google:
The button called "I'm feeling lucky" would look like a "Go" in some exotic font which cost $500,000 to make.
It would be the only button.
The button presently called "Google Search" wouldn't exist, and he'd fire anybody who suggested it.
Quoth Steve Jobs With Goatee: "Customers don't want to search! They don't want pages of all that crap on the Internet! They want to Go. Google is pronounced Go-gle. Not Goo-gle."
Re:good thing by walshy007 · 2011-04-09 15:08 · Score: 1

they open sourced webkit because they had to, because it was based off the gpl khtml from kde.
Re:THANK FUCKING GOD! by Chas · 2011-04-09 15:35 · Score: 2

Not that I really care either way, but why is elitism bad again?
A MERITOCRACY isn't bad.
Elitism, people who are blindly convinced that they (and their choice) are superior, and are offensive about it to others?
Yes. Bad.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re:Founders at Work by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-04-09 17:47 · Score: 1

Published in 2007 already stated this...
Yeah, but since 'Antennagate' failed to stick, Slashdot has had to find other ways to make their ad-meter spin.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:good thing by DynamiteNeon · 2011-04-09 19:03 · Score: 1

The original commenter said they didn't contribute to open source. It doesn't matter what the license is, but Webkit is one example of where they took someone's open source code, arguably improved it, and put the changes back out into the community for others to use. Thanks for proving my point.
Re:good thing by harlows_monkeys · 2011-04-09 20:36 · Score: 1

WebKit was a derivative of KHTML, a GPL'd system.
Major parts of it were rewritten (such as the javascript engine). Furthermore, KHTML was LGPL, not GPL. What that means is that Apple could have fairly easily structured the project to keep their code in separate libraries from the KHTML-based code, and kept their parts closed. They did not. They made all of their work open.
Old news? by IrquiM · 2011-04-09 20:59 · Score: 1

It might be in the book, but it's not a "Breaking News" kind of thing. It's been known for quite some time already!

--
This is blinging
Re:THANK FUCKING GOD! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2011-04-10 02:10 · Score: 1

I doubt Jobs is blindly convinced Apple has better products. Their sale figures and customer satisfaction surveys prove they do.
Not even sure where the "offensive" part fits in.
Re:good thing by thetoadwarrior · 2011-04-10 05:05 · Score: 2

I know you're just trolling and poorly at that but Apple does contribute to open http://www.opensource.apple.com/. Their contribution to open source is why you can find a alternative distributions even if the following is like open solaris sized at best.
wtf? by kuzb · 2011-04-10 09:06 · Score: 1

Thank christ this didn't happen. Steve Jobs would have stifled innovation so much and we'd be paying huge for every single google service we currently enjoy at no charge.
Fuck Steve Jobs, seriously.

--
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Tax Avoidance by meehawl · 2011-04-10 10:11 · Score: 1

His work with Apple(which obviously gooses the value of his stock holdings; but for which he doesn't get paid nearly what he easy could demand)
Yeah, about that famous "$1" salary that Jobs gets from Apple (a headliner news item he shares with other tech moguls). The purpose of drawing a low salary is to avoid paying the highest rate of 35% income tax and instead pay 15% capital gains on stock grants and qualified dividends. Steve Jobs is the 34th richest person in the U.S. and tied for 110th in the world with an estimated net worth at $5.5 billion (a respectable chunk of which comes from a 10 million stock grant from Apple in 2003 worth $3,350,600,000 today).

--

Da Blog