Steve Jobs interview with Rolling Stone magazine from 1994 (Part 2)

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. Today I invite you to read the continuation of this interview.

First part.

When people hear the name of Steve Jobs, they remember the man whose mission was to give the masses the technology, not corporate America.

Well, life is always a bit more difficult than it seems.

The reason for the success of Apple II served as Visi-Calc - it is corporate America bought the Apple II and mad with joy used to them Visi-Calc. This has helped us to reduce the prices and increase production. Object-oriented revolution need not ordinary customers, they will not see the benefits until they see a big business. Only after this happens, we will be able to increase supplies.

Because, unfortunately, people do not protest against Microsoft. They have not seen and do not think anything better, they have a huge problem that must be addressed, but corporations are thinking. PC market is less and less the case in order to justify their growing needs. Their needs are enormous, and they know it. We do not even need to spend money to explain it to them - and all so clear. There is a huge vacuum, which draws us and a huge amount of money to help run the object revolution - will benefit from it all.

In 1979, when I visited Xerox PARC, I saw a primitive graphical user interface. I knew at once - one would work like all computers to a single. I felt it, literally, every cell body. And today, talking about object-oriented programming, I feel the same - one day it will be built all the software.

Could you explain in a few words, what is the object-oriented software?

Objects - they are as people. They are living things that have a mind, allowing them to know how to do one thing or another, they have memory. You interact with them at a very high level of abstraction, like with people.

For example, I - your facility engaged in cleaning of your belongings. Can you give me dirty clothes and the message "Bring my stuff to the laundry." I know where in San Francisco the best laundry, I speak in English and I have money in my pocket. I go out, catch a taxi to go out to the laundry and go back to your things and saying, "Here, your clean clothes."

You do not know how I did it. You do not know where the laundry or you speak French and maybe you do not have the money to get a taxi. However, I knew how to do all this, and you - to know this is not necessary. All the complexity of the process is hidden inside me, but our communication with you was simple - that's the essence of objects. Complexity - inside, but the interface - accessible to everyone.

You have repeatedly mentioned Microsoft. What do you think about the fact that Bill Gates still became the leader of the software industry and his vision of a personal computer is largely coincided with yours?

Frankly, I do not understand what it means. If you asked what I think about the fact that Bill Gates getting rich on ideas that belonged to us... well, you know, the goal is not to become the richest man in the cemetery. At least, it is certainly not my goal.

Well, you know, the goal is not to become the richest man in the cemetery

The bad news is that it seems to me, the Microsoft not become a catalyst improvements, the creator of a new revolution. The Japanese, for example, has long been accused of copying, and deserved. But they copied only at the beginning, and then they have become much more advanced, and began to create innovation. Take a look at the automotive industry, the Japanese brought a lot into it. I can not say the same for Microsoft.

I am concerned about this, because I see how Microsoft competes very ruthlessly and pushes the market many companies - some deserved, while others do not. I see a lot of innovation leaves the industry. I am one hundred percent sure, the industry needed an alternative to Microsoft, particularly in regard to the application. Hopefully, Lotus will become such an alternative. Also, an alternative is needed in the area of ​​system software. The only hope, in my opinion, is the NeXT.

Microsoft, of course, working on its object-oriented operating system ...

They are 10 years worked hard to completely copy the Mac. Of course, they are working on it.

Best creation Microsoft - it's Windows. Their main support - Windows. Windows is not so object-oriented, it is simply impossible to rewind back and do all object-oriented, without giving than Windows. Thus, they try to make superficial changes, but it does not work.

You called Microsoft "IBM 90". What exactly did you mean?

They are - the mainstream. People who do not want to think very, just go out and buy their product. They have an absolute leadership in the market, but, in fact, it only hurts the industry as a whole. I do not like to engage in a discussion about whether their superiority deserved or not - let others decide. I just watch and see that it is not useful.

How do you feel about the federal antitrust investigation?

I have enough information to say for sure. But I think it is not so important and realistic. The real problem is that the United States is currently the world leader in the market of computer technologies and everything that threatens it, it should be carefully studied. I believe that Microsoft is a monopoly in both sectors of the industry, both in the application and in the system programs, and also, their desire to monopolize the market set-top boxes, may be the biggest threat to the leadership America. Personally, I believe that in the interests of the country to split Microsoft into at least three companies.

Such statements include me in the early days of Apple, when it positioned itself as a protest against the "ruling elite". Today, instead of IBM "universal evil" acts Microsoft. And in place of a "savior" comes NeXT. You also see similar parallels?

Yeah, me too. But forget about me, it's not important. What really matters is what I see parallels between IBM dominance, blocked the oxygen of our entire industry, and the fact that Microsoft does today. In the late '70s, we were on the verge of losing a large part of the computer industry, and the gradual disintegration of IBM has become the most favorable thing for her for the past 10 years.

What is your personal relationship with Bill Gates?

I think he's a nice guy. We're not best friends, but we talk about once a month.

About your rivalry legends. Two golden boy of the computer revolution ...

I believe that I and Bill are very different value systems. I like him and I really respect his achievements, but the companies that we created, are completely different.

Many people think that when you consider how much power has Microsoft in the market for a maximum of NeXT that can count in the long run - is to become a niche product.

Apple - this is a niche product, Mac was a niche product. And yet look at what they have achieved. Apple - the company valued at $ 9 billion, and in fact there were only two when I left. They are doing well. I would have been happy if we took 10% of the market system software? I would be happy, very happy. And I would work like a man possessed to take 20.

So, what about Apple? Looking today at the company that creates, what do you think?

I do not want to talk about Apple.

Then what about the PowerPC?

It works fine. PowerPC and Pentium are equal, plus or minus 10-20%, depending of type of the day, when you compare them. They - the same thing. So, Apple has a Pentium. It's good. Whether it will be three to five times better? Not. But at least they do not lag behind.

***

(via)