The comparison with Jobs is very far-fetched in my opinion. Niel was rude, aggressive, partisan, almost violent with his words, and was all around not a good orator.
These days, as soon as a CEO goes on stage to present his disruptive product, and does it in a customer-oriented rather than shareholder-oriented way (casual vocabulary, no tie), he's deemed Jobsian.
That's obviously a gross reduction of what Job's Way was, but it is Job's most enduring legacy to the corporate communication world.
Besides, being "rude, aggressive, partisan, almost violent" sounds hardly un-jobsy, although he tamed it down during keynotes.
He had no Jobsness, but the talk structure is Applian all the way. Taking the 'State of the Art' (sic) , breaking it down to expose flaws, then giving more.
That's obviously a gross reduction of what Job's Way was, but it is Job's most enduring legacy to the corporate communication world.
Besides, being "rude, aggressive, partisan, almost violent" sounds hardly un-jobsy, although he tamed it down during keynotes.