[nochiel]

"I'm extremely uneasy reading things that make any individual such an icon...Please can we let this personality cult dissipate..."

Personality cults are much more important than you realise. The post-modernist approach seems to be to downplay the significance of individual visionaries in favour of diffuse accolades attributed to the group or larger corpus. It's nonsense.

Shakespeare was an individual (not a nebulous, anonymous, amorphous collective) of unique literary gifts. Jobs is a design and technological wizard who single-handedly righted the ship. Tim Cook is a process engineering and business operations mastermind of the like that has never been seen since Carnegie. Ives' industrial design methodologies will blaze the path for decades to come.

[_b8r0]

> Jobs is a design and technological wizard

You've fallen for it. Ives is the designer, not Jobs. Woz was the technological wizard, not Jobs. Jobs is a leader, a salesman and a marketer. Granted, he's a wizard (in the Oz sense of the word) but pull back the curtain and you'll find other incredibly talented people doing their jobs, if you'll pardon the unintentional pun.

[nochiel]

"You've fallen for it. Ives is the designer, not Jobs. Woz was the technological wizard, not Jobs."

I don't think I've fallen for anything (in fact, I made strong mention of Ives with respect to industrial design). Being able to conceive good design and being able to guide good design are both signs of design competence; being able to conceive good technology and being able to guide its development are signs of technical proficiency. Jobs in his role as guide (or leader) is an exemplar.

I never claimed (and I don't think anyone else did) that there are no "other talented people doing their jobs".

Your rejoinder, rather than actually arguing against personality cults, is more a reminder that "a witty remark proves nothing."

[_b8r0]

> I never claimed (and I don't think anyone else did) that there are no "other talented people doing their jobs".

From your earlier comment:

> Jobs is a design and technological wizard who single-handedly righted the ship.

Thats you falling for the personality cult right there. That's also you claiming that Jobs somehow managed to fix Apple singlehandedly, which of course is wrong. Your comment about Ives trailblazing for years to come is quite amusing, given that Ive freely admits that he's heavily influenced by Dieter Ram's work (if you look at Ive's designs you'll see that he's following Ram's principles).

> Your rejoinder, rather than actually arguing against personality cults, is more a reminder that "a witty remark proves nothing."

That sentence appears to be a prime example of your quoted phrase.

[nochiel]

Well. I am in favour of personality cults. I'm an ardent believer in personal responsibility. Personality cults encourage us to focus on our own performance and perfecting our own skills.

So If I'm "falling for the personality cult right there", I'm more than happy to and I encourage more people to.

ps. The debate on whether Apple would be what Apple is today without Jobs' Great Return is long and storied. I won't wade any further into those murky waters (As per the personality cult ethos, I'd wager that Jobs saved Apple and that without him it would have sunk).

[6ren]

In term of design and technology, my impression is that Jobs is a filter and a coach. This should be thinner! It needs rounded corners! etc.

He is able to coax the best out of design and technology folk and direct it towards a valuable end.

[Confusion]

  Shakespeare was an individual (not a nebulous, anonymous, 
  amorphous collective)

Not that it matters concerning the point you make, but that may not be the best example, as the question of whether Shakespeare was an individual genius is a matter of some serious, although somewhat fringe, debate [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question

[nochiel]

I am aware of the serious debate on the issue. But that's sort of the point I am trying to make: One approach seeks to recognise individual genius for what it is: the gift of a singular person; another approach seeks to discount those achievements by attributing them to a diffuse, sometimes ancillary but oft ill-defined group.

The latter approach has become prevalent in recent decades (in my opinion). Now, it is fashionable to question the legitimacy of an individual's greatness, to downplay it and instead award yellow stars to everyone who participated, no matter how tangential their contribution.

The new idea is that no one man could be so smart, so gifted or so diligent as to produce all that Shakespeare did; no one man could be so clairvoyant and visionary as to define the face of technology for a decade; no on man could have all that innate power.

I reject that view.