The photos on a single page:
<a href="http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2012/09/unpublished-photos-of-steve-jobs-and-silicon-valleys-early-days/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Ftechbiz+%28Wired%3A+%28Section%29+Tech+Biz%29&pid=3633&viewall=true" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2012/09/unpublished-photos-of-s...</a>
<i>> “Today there is no patient money in Silicon Valley,” he says. “And that means that there isn’t enough time to make a similar kind of breakthrough.”</i><p>Is this true? If this is indeed true, what are the underlying factors? What does it mean "to change everything?"<p>One example: I suspect that lots of people fall into the trap of monetizing businesses in ways that trap them into old ways of thinking. Advertising is a prime example of this. I think advertising is obsolete. We should be using social graphs to make people more efficient at correctly judging products and extracting value from the transaction. (Amazon is doing some of this already, but the groups engaging in this are at arbitrary social distances. Make it easy for people of close social distance to collaborate, and you will have a game changer.)<p>Much of the social fabric of North American society has fallen apart. The kind of social capital that old communities had was powerful. Networks can be used to build this kind of social capital to great effect. (Witness the Arab Spring.) The emphasis should be on emergent trends, with some way of enabling users to efficiently filter information without deluging them.
"For Menuez, so much of the current tech scene is preoccupied with profit, whereas the digital word he documented, at least at the beginning, was less interested in making tons of money and more interested in fundamentally changing the world."<p>I haven't spent a lot of time in SV or around the people in that tech scene, but this seems like accurate portrayal of the current situation.<p>Can anybody elaborate on his comment?
There's a picture entitled "Sunlight, NeXT. Sonoma, California, 1986." with the text "At tech startups it was rare to get outside or even see the sun for days at a time. A young NeXT employee working on an original Macintosh at a company retreat focuses on the task at hand."<p>But to me, the device clearly looks like a Macintosh SE, which wasn't manufactured until 1987.
Anybody can explain the background behind this one: <a href="http://www.wired.com/rawfile/wp-content/gallery/silicon-valley/4_010_024563_19_sm_DSI.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/rawfile/wp-content/gallery/silicon-vall...</a> ?
<i>Menuez: "A couple of co-workers who were falling in love celebrating with abandon at the Adobe annual holiday party of 1988. They were married shortly after the party but divorced a few years later."</i><p>The phrasing here bothers me. I'd rather it read: They were married shortly after the party and divorced a few years later.<p>Using "but" is editorializing to me -- like saying they <i>shouldn't</i> have gotten married in the first place, since they later divorced.
"Silicon Valley's Early Days"?<p>"Finally Surface".<p>What an unimpressive group of photos.<p>In reverse order here are the dates. Only two of Steve I think there were more of Adobe:<p>1998<p>1990<p>1997<p>1994<p>1988<p>1989<p>1987<p>1988<p>1993<p>1988<p>1991<p>1992<p>1986<p>1987<p>1986 s<p>1992<p>1986<p>1988 s<p>That title would make you think this is some significant find and centered around Steve and the Valley.
also relevant: <a href="http://www.retronaut.co/2012/08/steve-jobs-unseen-images-by-norman-seeff-1984/" rel="nofollow">http://www.retronaut.co/2012/08/steve-jobs-unseen-images-by-...</a>
Wow, WIRED has really declined. It is nice to see these photos, but the text is so often completely wrong, nonsenseical or misrepresentative that I'm just astounded.