[Octokiddie]

One thing that's interesting here is how Jobs doesn't answer the specific technical question: How does Java address the ideas embodied in OpenDoc?

Instead, Jobs answers the question behind the question: What role should new technologies play at Apple going forward?

This is a very useful technique to practice. When asked a question whose premise you don't agree with, you can become confrontational on that point. Or you can reach in to grab the question behind the question and answer that instead.

[andrewflnr]

For everyone talking about politicians and their BS: I want to point out that there's a difference between answering the question that should have been asked, and the question you wish had been asked. The former is honest, and genuinely educational if the answerer is correct in their judgement. The latter is a tactic for sophistry/bullshit and potentially deceptive, especially when it pretends to be the former.

The difference is primarily in intent: it's hard to tell externally, but advice basically takes an internal perspective to its recipient, so it's perfectly reasonable to suggest someone do something with good intentions.

[judge2020]

I think you're wrong, because Jobs actually does answer the question: "people like this gentleman are right, in some areas. there are some things opendoc does, even more that I'm not familiar with, that nothing else does". He does start talking about Apple in general, but simply in service of explaining why they're not supporting OpenDoc anymore. Politicians rarely support their views by saying 'no' then explaining why, instead diverting away to something only tangentially related and not addressing the initial concern.

[Tsiklon]

I'm not disputing your point - This is a very useful technique to practice - this awareness of what people are really asking. Unfortunately this is a twin edged sword - politicians for example will frequently reach in to the question they've been asked and answer the question they want to answer, not the real question that's beneath the surface. So much so, to the point that they look disingenuous or false. Jobs' speech here was very prescient or rather it was in essence him setting out what he wanted Apple to be, from where it was in 1997.

[eyelidlessness]

I want to second this being both a valuable talent used for good, and a method of deception.

In the use for good case, it can also be valuable to reference the asked question and explain how it’s related. In many cases this is a good heuristic for whether the answer was intended as help or misdirection.

[Beltalowda]

This is the Robert McNamara strategy for answering questions: don't answer the question that was asked, instead answer the question you wanted to be asked, and by the end of it the asker will usually have forgotten that they actually asked a different question. It's pretty common, but I think few people were as explicit/honest about it as McNamara (later in life, that is).

[_s]

No - the person asking will not have forgotten, but those around will have.

Generally - in my experience - folks that genuinely want to answer or explain something will first rephrase the question, and/or ask more questions to understand what you are trying to ask, and then after their answer they open the dialogue with something akin to "does that answer your question?".

[drcongo]

This is known as ABCD: https://action-group.co.uk/the-art-of-bridging-how-to-use-th...

[JumpCrisscross]

> Jobs answers the question behind the question: What role should new technologies play at Apple going forward?

I saw the questions behind the question being more how do you, a non-technical person, lay claim to a technology company, and, why are you deprecating this technical thing I loved and may have worked on. There is an undeniable, underlying bitterness animating the ask, and one can’t ignore that if attempting to genuinely respond.

[imiric]

Right. His answer effectively dismisses the question on the basis of it being invalid, or even dumb. And points out the larger philosophy that customer experience trumps technology.

It's a classy way to come out on top of an argument, but a) it doesn't work in all situations, and b) not everyone can think on their feet in that way in front of an audience.

It's an admirable trait of charismatic people, but it's also abused to manipulate the conversation to gain an upper hand. Typically used by politicians and lawyers.

[Tsiklon]

Is Jobs' answer technically a non-sequitur rebuttal to a technical question? Only that charisma has "carried the motion" through

[BHSPitMonkey]

But it wasn't a sincere question; It was a statement disguised as a question in order to fit the format of the live Q&A, and the statement was "I think discontinuing OpenDoc makes you dumb and I want to humiliate you publicly for it".

[pxc]

> "I think discontinuing OpenDoc makes you dumb and I want to humiliate you publicly for it"

Wasn't it more like 'by discontinuing OpenDoc, you're throwing good work that I and others poured ourselves into for years, and reveal that your agreements to support it were made in bad faith. I'm calling you out for abandoning our team, you bastard'?

imo the sentiment is clearly one of indignation and hurt at perceived betrayal and dishonesty, not really intellectual superiority

[naveen99]

Why even have a pretend open q and a ? Just do your soliloquy and be done with it instead of lying that your are open to questions.

[htag]

The question is just a prompt for the speaker. How the person reacts (dodge the question, address underlying concerns, answer directly, get emotional) can tell you a lot about them. This was 1997, right at Job's return to Apple phase. Job would go on the lead Apple to make the iPod and iPhone. Job's focus on customer experience, defending the quality and dedication of his team, and encouraging 3rd party support says a lot about what he cares about.

[naveen99]

So like chatgpt, I am not convinced. It’s intellectually dishonest. Call it a prompt not a question then.