I think the main part of the "Jobs-Wozniak" relationship that people forget to mention is that Jobs approached Wozniak and thought that's what they should market.<p>In other words, you're not a Wozniak just because you're heavily into technology. Wozniak created a bunch of stuff because he wanted something very useful for himself and he was going to create it on a tight budget. That is actually what great leaders do (at least according to some leadership books and my own experience)--they don't create something and then force it onto other people. Nor do they tell people what to do. They simply start doing it themselves and then other people notice and want to take part. (In other words, if you want people to do what you're saying, start doing it yourself and people will copy it or want to be around you when you prove it works. Don't just start telling people what to do.)<p>So, Wozniak is more than a technical guy. He was exhibiting silent leadership about hardware. And Jobs was exhibiting leadership in how software should be later on.<p>If you think you want a Jobs, are you a Wozniak to even have such a comparison? In other words, are you creating a software or hardware product for yourself that makes things so much easier and better that other people notice it and approach you and tell you, we can sell this? Remember, Wozniak didn't ask anybody. That's the relationship that happened. Not, "Oh, you created a bunch of code, let's try to somehow convert it into a business." The idea made sense in the first place.<p>So, if you're 100% technical, the best thing to do is to show what you do to everybody. Don't force it on to them, and don't worry about anybody copying you since if you're clearly enjoying what you're doing and they think it's a worthwhile thing to do, everybody will want to join you. Remember, if you're a Wozniak, it means you can basically display your ideas everywhere, even to roomfuls of technical people like Woz did, and know that everything will be OK.