<story><title>Doc Searls on Steve Jobs (1997)</title><url>http://www.scripting.com/davenet/stories/DocSearlsonSteveJobs.html</url><text></text></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>mnemonicsloth</author><text>I think this looks a lot more prescient than it really is.&lt;p&gt;Searls says that whatever Jobs created at Apple would be: original, innovative, exclusive, expensive, [beautiful], maybe influenced by other software tycoons, and minimally influenced by developers. He&apos;s right on all counts. It&apos;s a good picture of Steve Jobs.&lt;p&gt;What&apos;s missing? Searls didn&apos;t say one word about the likelihood that Steve Jobs would be &lt;i&gt;successful&lt;/i&gt;, and that success is what makes him something other than Just Another Malignant Narcissist CEO.</text></comment>
<story><title>Doc Searls on Steve Jobs (1997)</title><url>http://www.scripting.com/davenet/stories/DocSearlsonSteveJobs.html</url><text></text></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>pohl</author><text>&quot;To Steve, clones are the drag of the ordinary on the innovative. All that crap about cloners not sharing the cost of R&amp;#38;D is just rationalization. Steve puts enormous value on the engines of innovation. Killing off the cloners just eliminates a drag on his own R&amp;#38;D,...&quot;&lt;p&gt;Repace clones with middleware when you read this.</text></comment>