Steve Jobs interview with Rolling Stone magazine from 1994 (Part 1)

The history of the founder of Apple, Steve Jobs - one of the most famous figures in American business. Young long-haired lover of Bob Dylan opens the garage company that will change the world. But, like any success story, it has both good points and bad. Before the advent of the iPhone and iPad, at a time when Jobs was the head of the short-lived company named NeXT, he He gave an interview magazine Rolling Stone. The yard was in 1994 - Steve Jobs has long been kicked out of Apple's, the Internet was still the home of only geeks and academics, and it seemed that the personal computer revolution came to an end. But even in the most difficult moments of his career, Jobs has maintained an incredible confidence in the limitless potential of your PC. After reading this interview, you will know that Jobs has thought about the CCP, and object-oriented programming, as well as about his relationship with Bill Gates.

Ten years have passed since the Macintosh release. When you look at the industry today, what do you think the most surprising?

People sometimes say to me: "Do you work in the fastest growing industry in the world!". I do not think so. Rather, I am working in one of the slowest - takes an eternity out to do something. Graphical user interface, which we did on the Macintosh, was actually at Xerox PARC and Stanford "smart" SRI tank back in the mid 70s. And here we are - the middle 90's, and a graphical interface very recently become the standard. Delay in 10-20 years - that's a lot.

The reason, in my view, that requires a unique combination of technology, talent, business and marketing savvy, and good luck to make some noticeable change in this business. It does not happen often.

Another great thing is that the whole business is a catalyst for these changes. Businessmen have a lot of money and they are willing to pay for something that will save them money, or bring new ones. Sometimes it becomes difficult because most talented computer scientists do not want to help corporate America.

A good example - a PDA, such as the Apple Newton, for example. I treat them without much optimism, and I'll tell you why. Most people who develop the CCP see their purpose is that few people will buy and distribute to my family. A friend of mine created Genegeral Magic company, they are going to compete with Newton. So they believe that such a thing will be your children, your grandmother, and you together to exchange messages. Well, one and a half thousand dollars apiece to a wireless modem inside? I do not think there are many who want to buy three or four such "family". People who buy PDAs in the first 5 years - advanced users.

The problem is that the psychology of the creators of these pieces does not allow them to wear suits, jump on a plane and go to the offices of large companies to offer there his invention.

To make a qualitative change, a revolutionary change, requires a combination of technical knowledge, business, marketing and culture, which will coincide with the reason that you have created a product, the reason why people want it buy. I respect the gradual changes and often made them in my life, but I was always more inclined to revolutions. I do not know why. Probably because they are more complex. They are harder emotionally. And as a rule, every time you are forced to go through a period when everyone says that your work - complete failure.

This is the period from which you leave now?

Hopefully. I've already been through this and the recently passed again.

As you know, most of my career has been associated with the programs. Apple II was a little connected with it, but the Mac software was rather cool in the box. We could not, of course, to release the software without this same "box", but it was just soft in the first place. I participated in the development of PostScript and based on Adobe - all about programming. And what we did in the NEXTSTEP was devoted to programming. We tried to sell the software in a very cool box, but learned a valuable lesson. When you offer people out of mainstream - for them it is a risk. So you have to offer them a good reward, otherwise they would be pointless risk and they do not move.

We realized that the award may not sound like "best" or "twice as good" - this is not enough. The reward should be improved in three, four or five times, the buyer refused to old and has agreed to pay for a new one.

The problem is that in the case of iron, you should not make your computer two times better than any other - too many people know how to do it. You are a big lucky if you know how to do three times better, but after six months, someone you will always catch up. There is an opportunity to break into the programming. I admit that I think that jump that we made five years ahead of any of our competitors.

Let's talk about the development of the PC. About 30% of homes in America have a computer. Offices entangled wires. Video game consoles very quickly become as powerful as a PC. Soon they will be able to do the same thing, and computers. PC revolution behind?

Not. I do not really understand why you are asking, but the PC revolution is far from over. What happened with the Mac was... wait, first I'll tell you my theory about Microsoft. Microsoft has had two goals for 10 years. The first - copy the Mac, as the second - to copy the success of the Lotus spreadsheet processor. They have managed to achieve and that, and the other, but now they are at a complete loss.

They were easy to copy the Mac, because he actually has not changed over these 10 years. Maybe 10 percent changed. An easy target. I am surprised that Microsoft took 10 years to get over it. Apple's, unfortunately, are not worthy of praise. They have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development, but the effect is almost zero. They almost did not create any innovation since the release of the first Mac.

And now Macintosh genes spread throughout the land. 90% in the form of Windows, but, nevertheless, there are already tens of millions of computers that work like Mac. This is amazing. The only question is, what's next. That will support the PC revolution?

If you recall the purpose of the 80's, it was the individual productivity. The means of achieving it could perform programs that are widely available commercially. The purpose of the 90s? The computer becomes more likely mediator in the dialogue than a computer. From indvidualnoy productivity we come to the productivity of entire organizations, the productivity of their operations. I mean that the market of mainframes and minicomputers are still just as big as the PC market. People do not buy these machines to be installed on their public programs like spreadsheet or text editor. They buy them, so that they act as the company's automated their hearts - such programs can not be bought "in a nearby store." You will not buy a program to manage the hospital, big business, or a telephone network. They do not exist. And if there is something in the likeness, then you have to spend a lot of effort to adjust them to fit your needs.

These specialized programs are always used "in the back" - in the calculation and production. But the business has become more and more advanced, customers expect more and more, and these programs are gradually being introduced in the unit, directly serving customers. Today, if a company has a new product, it consists of three elements - the idea, sales channel and an application that can introduce this product. Without the latter in any way. I have a good example: the telephone company MCI's Friends and Family has made one of the most successful steps in the business world over the past decade - has offered discounted rates for calls between their subscribers. AT & T had a monopoly at that time but they did not respond for 18 months, and lost millions of dollars. Why? They simply could not create a program that would run the new billing system!

But how it is connected with a new generation of PC?

I am sure that the next generation of PCs will be equipped with much more advanced programs and specialized programs for business. Businessmen bought a computer based programs, but they, of course, did not make an impression on them. They want to work with a PC, which means they need and the public, and special programs.

Besides, I was not happy with the now existing base program. 200 people need to seriously improve the text or spreadsheet editor, but creative people like to work in groups of three to five people, and they literally squeezed out of business. You probably know that Windows - this is the worst environment for the developer, but Microsoft is not going to anything to do with it. They think that the more people working on the product, the higher its value. No small groups, it can badly affect the image, but they can afford a couple of hundred employees working on the same project. Not bad.

Given modern technologies and capabilities, even three enthusiast in the garage can surpass that 200 people did at Microsoft. Just take and beat them. Corporate America is ready to start a fire object-oriented revolution, just give her a computer, which will make a lot of money and keep it well, or deprive all those who do not have time to buy it.

***

The second part of.

(via)