Steve Jobs' first boss: 'Very few companies would hire Steve, even today'

The only thing that worries me about bringing focus to stuff like this is that people will walk away with the reverse impression- that if they're unhireable it must mean that they're just like Steve Jobs.<p>Steve Jobs could be many things. Inspired is one of them. An asshole is another. Just because people think you're an asshole doesn't automatically mean you're inspired.

That's sort of straight obvious.<p>Basically because if somebody like Steve Jobs doesn't have a Steve Wozniak to build things for him in the start he is more or less a arrogant egoistic tantrum throwing hippie kind of a guy whom nobody would like to deal with.<p>You meet a genius co-founder like Steve Wozniak very very rarely.<p>Nearly every program manager is a lesser version of Steve Jobs, that is how authority looks cool and glorified. Giving an impression that the manager is automagically creating success out of thin air while a engineer somewhere pushing 19 hr daily schedules to make it happen doesn't count or is irrelevant.<p>Steve Jobs reminds of Peter Keating from Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead'.

I do not understand why anyone would find this quote surprising, controversial or even newsworthy.<p>Employees operate within the rules established by their employers - they have a boss and are expected to be a "good solider" to support objectives of their company / business unit... People like Steve Jobs are successful because of their audacity to disregard the rules and make their own.<p>These are entirely different mindsets and skillsets. Employees are given direction, entrepreneurs set the direction.<p>What I find a lot more interesting is that quite a few startup founders act like employees rather than leaders - constantly asking (explicitly or implicitly) for approval of others. Look around and see if you can recognize people who care about the opinions of press/investors/advisors/peers more than achieving product/market fit followed by revenue/profitability/growth.

The sad, harsh reality is, no one would hire Steve Jobs today or almost no one.Why?Because times have changed (In a bad way).We live in a world full of arrogance, stupidity and ignorance.We no longer think how to change the world but how to make a lot of money.<p>Steve Jobs was a non-technical guy.We have 1 million topics on HN bashing these guys for 1 million reasons.Even on this one we have engineers talking about the same thing over and over.<p>How about being realistic at least once. We do not give these people any chance of working with us.Because we are so arrogant these days that we think the world belong to us and only we (programmers/engineers) can change it.<p>We cannot find a Steve Jobs when we are not willing to risk at all.How many of you helped a non-technical guy building a project without asking for a huge amount of money or 100% equity?Probably not many.Most of the help consists of telling the guy to find a cofounder or to quit the project.Not one programmer/engineer would say "hey you know what, you're crazy but I'll help you" or any other similar line.<p>The truth is we do not own the world and we are not all-knowing. We can be all-star programmers and yet have crap ideas.Nothing is set in stone.Someone out there is always better than you.And history shows us that small things count. Unbelievable things come from unexpected places.<p>I am not saying that every non-technical guy is a Steve Jobs because I had my own failures with these guys and yes, it's incredibly frustrating.But those were bad selections.A risk I was willing to take.I helped a non-technical guy with a startup 4 years ago.He had a weird idea and he asked me to help him in exchange for a fixed sum of 350K. He came to me with a damn paper and pen to talk about his idea. He had no money to hire a programmer only an ambition that could move mountains.And after 6 months I received the money in my account...the startup was a success...and that's when I changed my mentality.<p>So in conclusion, if we want to see a Steve Jobs, we have to take risks.Otherwise let's continue flipping the coin and wait for it.

I'm not sure Steve Jobs would be such a great employee anyway. He was born to lead, not follow. To innovate, not bend himself to someone else's vision. Invest in him? Yes. Hire him? Hmmmmm. Maybe not.

Early stage investing provably cannot be as rational as most try and make it to be. When a group tips and looks like a good score is about to emerge.. the score-keepers have to increment the score ( i.e. give investment ) as that is about the only function they serve.<p>" Finally, I'd like to once again talk about investment management. That is a funny business because on a net basis, the whole investment management business together gives no value added to all buyers combined. That's the way it has to work. " - Charlie Munger<p>When people rejected or passed on .. at that point in time .. it would have been entirely rational to do so. I am not certain even Mr.Jobs knew how time would turn.

I will never forget. The day Jobs died, Al Alcorn was giving a talk at San Jose State University for my Computer History course. He took about 15-20 minutes before the talk and shared many inside stories from the Atari days about Jobs. Truly remarkable stuff. As he put it, "I was the only boss he ever had". I am sad that his stories got cut out from the recorded lecture, maybe because he said a lot of colorful things :)<p>Here is a short post talk interview: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcXGIQuxAg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcXGIQuxAg</a><p>And, the talk itself (5th one in the list), plus many other interesting ones from computing legends if anyone wants to check them out: <a href="http://www.sjsu.edu/at/atn/webcasting/archives/fall_2011/hist/Computing/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sjsu.edu/at/atn/webcasting/archives/fall_2011/his...</a>

"<i>Bushnell, now 70, could have reaped even more from his relationship with Jobs if he hadn't turned down an offer from his former employee to invest $50,000 in Apple during its formative stages.</i>"<p>$50 000 in 1976, the year Apple was founded, had the purchasing power of over $200 000 today. Without the benefit of hindsight he probably made a sensible, if unlucky, decision.

It's really insulting to reduce a human being to some kind of archetype incapable of adapting to a situation. Steve was a bright guy -- I'm sure that if he ever found himself in a position where he needed to apply as an employee of a company, he would know how to 'play the game' and adapt to the situation.<p>Also, I'm sick of hearing people downplay Jobs' role in Apple and giving Woz all of the credit (although I'm not surprised; I'm assuming that many introverted code monkeys here aspire to be the unsung hero co-founder of a company).<p>It's the same shit I hear about how the Beatles would be nothing without George Martin or LSD. It should go without saying that these revolutionary things (i.e. Apple and the Beatles) are products of both serendipitous events AND the surrounding cultural context. Yes, if you remove one piece of the puzzle, OF COURSE the end-result will be different. But what makes it a moot point is that the converse is also true -- George Martin would be nothing without the Beatles, and Woz would be completely unheard of if it weren't for Steve Jobs.

"Bushnell, now 70, could have reaped even more from his relationship with Jobs if he hadn't turned down an offer from his former employee to invest $50,000 in Apple during its formative stages. Had he seized that opportunity, Bushnell would have owned one-third of Apple, which is now worth about $425 billion -- more than any other company in the world."<p>Surprised Jobs would have offered so much of Apple, even in the formative stages, for $50k (which surely translates to much more money than $50k is today). It is interesting to consider how that would have changed the control/direction of Apple.

Optimal Founder/CEO != Optimal Employee

You might be the best as an individual but if you are not a team player, the probability of succeeding is minimal. Team members complement each other to make successful products/companies or any relationship

No one would hire him today. Companies are risk averse, given the current economic/political climate. If you can't produce and "fit in", don't bother submitting your resumé.

As much as I appreciate the opinion, I just don't think it is valid. Outliers shouldn't reflect everyone...

NewsFlash: The older Steve Jobs would not have hired the younger Steve Jobs today.

The problem is that no one would hire Steve Jobs <i>as a subordinate</i>, but he was an evident great hire for a decision-making role, even then. People like him usually get filtered out before they get high enough to use their talents, though. In fact, Jobs is the opposite of what corporations promote, which explains a lot about them.

IMHO it's strange that we are discussing hiring Mr reality distortion field for a technical position here. If he were reincarnated and looking for a job now, he would probably go into sales. What do they care more about in sales, team playing or closing contracts for new leads? Then there is the "motivational speaking", another fruitful and remunerative area of endeavor for this sort of people :)

In other news: Grey-haired dude from long-ago bigs himself up for hiring someone who is seen as a bad employee. "I was smarter back then than all y'all are today." Also missed the chance to buy 33% of Apple for 5k, with Apple now being valued at 425 billion USD.