[phaus]

No one doubts that he did some things right, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he mistreated nearly everyone who helped him make Apple the company it is today.

He should have been fired when he couldn't get along with anyone at Atari and he should have been fired the first time he ever called anyone a "shithead" at Apple.

I've worked for an abusive boss before, and no amount of success can excuse the fact that as a supervisor and as a human being he was a complete failure.

If someone thinks that I am being unreasonable, consider the fact that I have a disorder that basically acts as a get out of jail free card for me to be a total dick to everyone, yet I still find the time and energy to be respectful to everyone whom I work with, peers, subordinates, and even my abusive former boss.

[sneak]

> consider the fact that I have a disorder that basically acts as a get out of jail free card for me to be a total dick to everyone

So did Steve - it's called "the ability to see a short distance into the future".

[Someone]

Complete failure? Are you arguing that the products that came out during his reign are below par? Above par despite his supervision? Not worth the psychological damage he did?

I doubt Apple would be where it is today if he had played mr. Nice.

Also, is there data that supports a claim that, e.g. churn was higher under his leadership than under other managers in similar situations? I am not aware of any, and it would not surprise me if there is data supporting the claim that churn was lower (in some sense just as Napoleon was able to breed loyalty, even though he led his soldiers to war again and again). For example, from what I have read about Steve, when working for him, he could be very harsh, but you would not have to worry about being shot in the back. That is worth something.