He was one of the best at this. PowerPC is not keeping up with Intel? Spin it! (Then switch.) Everyone hates DRM? Spin it! (Then drop DRM.) People are nervous about your antenna design? Spin it! And give ‘em a bumper. (But don’t change the antenna.)
What he said publicly was not necessarily a reflection of reality, it was whatever he thought would best position himself and his organization at that moment. In tech they called it a reality distortion field. In politics it’s called a day ending in -y. :-)
Obviously Apple did not have a problem with CD Baby because they did do the contract. And obviously they did not actually have a quality concern about the cheap $40 fee because they kept them even as it went to free.
It’s a classic small business supplier story: the big guys will do what works best for them and the little guy will have to deal with it in order to get the benefit. The most common example is how long most big businesses take to pay their small suppliers. It’s not intentionally malicious, just relative indifference. Like a big truck running over a raccoon because it’s so hard to swerve or stop.
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” - The Melian Dialogue
Apple from Jobs to Cook screwed over many. At least Jobs didn't train the Chinese to undercut US manufacturing.
The pattern has been there since the 90s, but younger people fall for it. What they say is primarly PR, and any truth is a happy co-incidence.
>Four minutes in, he said something that made my pounding heart sink to my burning stomach:
>“This number could have easily been much higher, if we wanted to let in every song. But we realize that record companies do a great service. They edit! Did you know that if you and I record a song, for $40 we can pay a few of the services to get it on their site, through some intermediaries? We can be on Rhapsody and all these other guys for $40? Well we don’t want to let that stuff on our site! So we’ve had to edit it. And these are 400,000 quality songs.”
In 2003, there were 2 special events with Steve Jobs keynotes about iTunes and he's referring to the 2nd one on October 16, 2003 (deep link to that quote) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvCJ613HORA&t=9m00s
(For trivia reference, the first one was April 28, 2003 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF9o46zK5Jo)
>Whoa! Wow. Steve Jobs just dissed me hard! I’m the only one charging $40. That was me he’s referring to!
The author Derek Sivers left a lot of details out but here's how I interpret the situation ...
As prerequisite background, you can categorize "record labels" into 2 groups:
(1) the record label pays the artist for music via "advances", paying upfront recording costs, marketing etc. These are the traditional record labels like Warner, Universal, Sony, Motown, etc that "develop" the artist by making financial bets and losing money on most of the signed roster but making a profit a tiny number.
(2) the artists pay the "record label" -- where these entities are mostly used as a "distribution" intermediary. CD Baby and Tunecore would be typical examples.
Now look at the convoluted process with physical CDs that Apple forced CDBaby and other independents to use:
>The Apple guys said, “Sorry, you need to use this software; there is no other way.”
>Ugh. That means we have to pull each one of those CDs off of the shelf again, stick it in a Mac, then cut-and-paste every song title into that Mac software. But so be it. If that’s what Apple needs, OK.
That is basically a form of "proof-of-work". Apple didn't necessarily want everything from CD Baby. Instead, they just wanted the stuff CD Baby thought was worthwhile enough to expend time & effort to mess around with physical CDs.
The big labels didn't have to do that because they already did a form of "proof-of-work" via paying in advance for artists.
The issue is that Derek didn't "read between the lines" to understand what Steve Jobs and the convoluted upload process was trying to accomplish. I suppose business people could just speak plainly so they don't get mixed messages but sometimes they don't.
[deleted]
Me, looking at all the slop on the App Store...
Because if CD Baby was acting as a middleman and a gateway for indie music distribution, Apple's move to shut it out was about preventing power from becoming decentralized and keeping control concentrated in Apple's hands to position iTunes as a premium platform. On top of that, if CD Baby had monopolized the indie music market, any future platform would only need to deal with CD Baby, which would have been a burden down the line.
It was likely a strategy to capture the entire music market. Sometimes I wonder why people don't get as angry at Apple as they do at Microsoft. I don't know what the image is like in the US. Personally, I've always thought Apple's premium strategy is terrible
[dead]
From the 2017, uh, molecular neuroimmunosociobiology survey paper Aggression, Social Stress, and the Immune System in Humans and Animal Models by Takahashi, Flanigan, McEwen & Russo – https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00056
(These are serious, credentialed people. The tl;dr is that "losing" is proinflammatory and subjugating others is antiinflammatory. In the brain. Which is behavior-modifying.)
[dead]
You missed a word there.
`The main NEGATIVE things I hear about Musk is that he supported a candidate people didn't like and has a lot of different mothers for his children.`
> Compared to making EVs mainstream,
He didn't do that, although he contributed. I can credit him with raising the consumer demand for in-vehicle assistance.
> helping paralyzed people interact with the world,
I also helped someone carry their groceries yesterday. That's a personality trait. The results of one of his many business efforts is not a personal act...although he likes to take credit.
> reducing traffic in LV,
That was a selling point for funding a different boring technology (that wasn't realized) and hopefully a better transportation system (which also wasn't realized) for a convenience tunnel. SR-99 is a commuter highway tunnel, with double the traffic, and the Seattle Tunnel Partners is not considered a magnate for the same reason Elon's tunnel isn't. It's just boring (literally and figuratively).
> cutting government fraud
That's not what happened.
You should expand your bubble.
i was there. his mercedes sl often just had the mercedes barcode that sits under where plates would be mounted, with no plates. rationale unknown, but perhaps to make a stubborn point?
I remember back then cars just purchased had NO tags until they came in the mail.
I think you had to have registration information taped to the front windshield with the VIN facing outward and usually the person's name folded inside so it couldn't be read.
Paper tags were only introduced in 2019.
"Steve Jobs and the Next Big Thing"
"Creative Selection: Inside Apple's Design Process During the Golden Age of Steve Jobs"
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=ken+kocienda&i=stripbooks&crid=37...
There is actually a Youtube video from The Computer History Museum on the book with the author and key figures from NeXT’s history [Recorded May 26, 2026] (haven't seen it yet, but looking forward to): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnNdb2wa_NE
Jobs allegedly spent years lying about whether his daughter was his daughter. That's not necessary for Apple to succeed. That's just being a dick.
[deleted]
The bar is pretty low among that population, though.
importance is now how organ donations are managed.
The only thing he was good at as lying to create a brand image.
It seems pretty unambiguous to me.
It's ambiguous and a contradiction because I think it's just an example of Steve Jobs saying one thing but his actual actions say something else.
In his "full persuasion mode" (as Derek puts it), he says he "wants all their music" to make the indies feel good ... but forcing them do the physical CD ripping and entering metadata is really the final authority on what he really wanted at the time.
He didn't make the big labels jump through hoops like that. He signed Sony just a few weeks before the iTunes Store went live in April 2003 with 200,000 songs. Sony and all the previous big labels just did digital uploads of their catalog instead of ripping CDs like cavemen. For the 2nd-phase rollout of iTunes Store in October 2003 with 400,000 songs, Apple could have had CD Baby and other small indies use the same effortless transfer process as the Big Labels but for whatever reason, Steve Jobs treated them differently.
So... "If Steve supposedly wants _all_ our music, why is he making us manually load CDs?!?" ... well... maybe you can't take everything Steve says at face value? Likewise, charging $40-entrance-to-iTunes breaks another "unwritten rule" that Steve disapproved of. Same as the "unwritten NDA" Steve never had anyone sign or agree to.
I can't think of anything dumber than all the tedious work forced upon people by "the telephone game" and a lack of oversight. That's intrinsic to any office.
They had a capability and then immediately demanded it be used as soon as possible. No deeper thinking is required.
There was very little incentive to force the moves you're claiming Apple intended to. You've got it backwards. This is exactly how Jobs' "reality distortion field" actually worked. People would overthink every time he was wrong or flat out didn't give a shit. His overrated status compelled people to make things so, and you're falling for it like they did.
> Sony and all the previous big labels just did digital uploads of their catalog instead of ripping CDs like cavemen. For the 2nd-phase rollout of iTunes Store in October 2003 with 400,000 songs, Apple could have had CD Baby and other small indies use the same effortless transfer process as the Big Labels but for whatever reason, Steve Jobs treated them differently.
Did you ever consider that it was "effortless" for the big labels because they invented the formats iTunes used along with all the guidelines for how uploads should work? Why wouldn't iTunes take their lead instead of the other way around? The goal is to get this shit out the door now and make money. The big label archives already had things in the right formats and properly audited to be consistent, or they had the means for a quicker turnaround if they didn't. Of course it would be massively easier for everyone except the indie labels.
What you're describing is a nice side effect of that for Apple, but the reality is they're not going to do the bitch work of importing all those songs from a hodge podge of whatever formats they're given. They didn't have a better tool available at that time to make their catalog consistent.
It's very believable that Apple felt enough urgency to rush this phase.
When you’re putting out a message to a large amount of people, no matter how much time and effort you spend trying to get the words just right so everyone understands, there’s always going to someone that misunderstands it and gets offended.
[deleted]
I have to assume you and the author (at that time) aren't familiar enough with the corporate world to realize all discussions containing privileged information (contract details that would never get a press release) are confidential by default.
Of course Apple would never think they'd have to explain this. It's a reasonable expectation for them to have.
Every company I've worked for (mostly F500s) has had an onboarding document you sign in which you're notified that everything inside the company is confidential by default. It doesn't expire.
Most of these companies also had annual training (the usual corporate policy refresher stuff) and this was mentioned during that as well.
I've worked on some very hush-hush projects. In my experience, NDAs were for people outside the corporation...partners, vendors, etc. Everyone who was employed by the corporation was under an NDA by default. I don't think I've ever signed a subsequent NDA for something my employer was working on, because I was already under one.
And even if they didn't do all this formally...it's a reasonable expectation. I would never think I'm allowed to discuss anything that wasn't publicly announced with outsiders.
Anything that is supposed to be confidential has a signature. This is because without it, the person "leaking" information can always claim ignorance.
Apple was the underdog at a point where Microsoft got its bad image by virtue of it's monopolistic practice. I can't help but think that a lot of it is a combination of inertia and MS pissing off a sufficient subset of geeks at a point where we made up a much larger proportion of the online discourse and so could set the tone. And for at least a time, in part by virtue of MS bad reputation, a subset of geeks saw Apple as a possible saviour.
It also helps that for all of its calculated business behaviour, Apple also has a reputation for better quality that makes people want to give them passes for things MS wouldn't get a pass for.
At least Apple's destructiveness was mostly related to market realities and their own product (still waiting for a replacement for my Newton MessagePad --- my Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ sort of works (but not daylight viewable), my Kindle Scribe ColourSoft is quite nice, but way too limited and no 3rd party apps other than what can be done via PDFs or HTML)).
I could list endlessly the issue with iPhones and Macbooks, but they're _just_ more convenient enough to have to use them over alternatives. Lots of little examples like the way that Airpods work when jumping from the same video call on my phone to my Mac for example, add up to be useful enough to put up with just how shitty iPhones are.
So, the purest form of evil there is?
> Sometimes I wonder why people don't get as angry at Apple as they do at Microsoft.
They are indeed just as bad as each other. I think Microsoft just got unlucky and had a lot of bad-PR emails leak. If that had happened at Apple he'd probably have someone killed.
> The main NEGATIVE things I hear about Musk
I missed no words, the things being negative are implied by the parent comment "All the stuff that is said about Musk, and all the others."
If this degree of pettiness is how you start your comment I'm not looking forwaerd to the rest, but here goes.
> > Compared to making EVs mainstream,
> he contributed
So you agree, but wanted to make another petty point.
> > helping paralyzed people interact with the world
> I also helped someone carry their groceries yesterday.
What a bizarre and silly comparison. Why would you write that?
> The results of one of his many business efforts is not a personal act...although he likes to take credit.
Nobody was saying they were a solo act, merely that he deserves credit. Which he does.
> That's not what happened.
Yes, it was. You provided zero supporting arguments. Here's 30 seconds of research, let me know if you want links.
- $550 million decade-long bribery scheme: USAID contracting officer steered 14+ contracts for bribes (cash, homes, luxury perks); pleas in 2025
- Tens of billions estimated to “scam” NGOs via no-control funding loophole (Musk/DOGE claim: one of the biggest sources of fraud)
- ~$10.3 million for male circumcision programs in Mozambique
- ~$17.5 million for male circumcision and condom programs (broader Africa)
- ~$9 million humanitarian aid diverted to al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria
- Hundreds of thousands to non-profits linked to designated terrorist organizations (even after IG probes)
- $11–20 million for Middle Eastern “Sesame Street” (Iraq/Ahlan Simsim)
- $1.5 million to advance DEI in Serbia workplaces
- $70,000 for DEI musical in Ireland
- $47,000 for transgender opera in Colombia
- $32,000 for transgender comic book in Peru
- Millions to EcoHealth Alliance (Wuhan lab collaborator)
- Funding for drag shows, LGBTQ programs, and related cultural projects abroad
- $6 million for tourism in Egypt
- Electric vehicles for Vietnam and other low-priority development spends
- Broader pattern of unaccountable grants and contracts flagged as systemic waste/fraud enabling the above
I have no idea about your points about the Las Vegas tunnel. You might be right but you're rude and disrespectful so I don't want to spent more time interacting with you unless you apologize.
> You should expand your bubble.
Someone certainly should.
[deleted]
What? The person you're replying to didn't use any harsh language or insult you in any way. How thin is your skin?
But even if you don't care about Musk's personal attitude, and just like his results... his results absolutely, positively suck. I'll go point by point, as all of them are overstated and fall apart when you look at the details:
- Making EVs mainstream: He bought the founder seat of an EV company (and sued the actual founders over who's allowed to use the word "founder"). The one car that was a clean-sheet Musk design, the Cybertruck, was a huge flop you can't even take into a car wash without remembering to put into "Car Wash mode". Also, Tesla as a company engages in comically owner-hostile parts pairing, their cars have some of the worst fit-and-finish issues I've ever seen, they feel a constant need to reinvent how cars work to make them seem "futuristic", and the only thing stopping BYD from handing them their ass on a silver platter is the fact that the US government engages in shittons of domestic car company protectionism.
- Helping paralyzed people interact with the world: In clinical trials on a handful of human subjects, many of which already have had complications due to the BCI device failing. I admit I don't know enough about medical devices to know where Musk hid the bullshit here, but I do know other companies are doing similar things already.
- Reducing traffic in LV: I genuinely do not understand how you could come to this conclusion about the Vegas Loop unless you have never stepped foot in Vegas. The Loop is a god damned joke of a service. The tunnels only exist between one convention center and about two integrated resort hotels; everywhere else the Loop is just a glorified taxi service with an app that barely works.
What he should have built was an actual underground train line, but all these techbros that want to solve traffic don't want to touch trains with a 100 foot pole, because that costs real money and Musk just wanted to aurafarm.
- Cutting government fraud: He eviscerated USAID for being in SpaceX's way, punched a bunch of security holes in critical government IT infrastructure, and made a bunch of really tiny penny-pinching cuts that were almost immediately undone by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act dramatically increasing government spending. Oh, and because of the DOGE cuts, America has new world screwworm again.
The entire premise of DOGE - that there's an exorbitant amount of unidentified waste and fraud that is primarily contained in small-scale discretionary spending programs - is nearly bullshit. I say nearly, because there IS waste and fraud - it's just that the waste and fraud is in the form of well-paid McKinsey consultants and military contractors. Both of which have lobbyists that can get Congress to pass all sorts of bills to enshrine their waste and fraud as politically untouchable, including and especially by DOGE[0]. Ergo, DOGE was doomed from the start to only be able to deal with insignificant amounts of fraud.
- Making reusable rockets: SpaceX's rockets are only partially reusable (the second stage is still disposed of) and they have to spend a lot extra for the equipment to make the first stage and cone able to land. Also, every launch and landing must be paired with an expensive refurbishment process as landing is extremely stressful. In other words, reusable rockets are really dumb.
The reason why SpaceX is doing this really dumb thing is because they run a satellite ISP, Starlink. The problem with satellite Internet is that going up into space increases your latency (thanks, Einstein) and having a lot of people hitting the same satellite lowers the bandwidth it can push. Musk's solution is to put the satellites into a lower orbit - but the problem is, at Low Earth Orbit you can't stay locked to one position on Earth. And satellites are a shared medium: the more people using the service, the worse it gets. So you need a lot more satellites to provide service equivalent to wired ISPs. All these extra satellites in low-Earth orbit create light pollution that makes terrestrial astronomy impossible, and also pollute the orbits they're in with junk if they get damaged.
I'm noticing a bit of a pattern here: Musk suggests something really stupid and thinks we can just engineer our way around the stupidity, because the stupid thing is there specifically to get around an essential expense of the problem. Why is the Vegas Loop a bunch of Teslas and a tunnel that only covers like a quarter of the system? Because the obvious solution - a train - is too expensive to build, and people like Musk want car-like social isolation[1] on every mode of transportation. Why is SpaceX so obsessed with reusable rockets? Because it'll let them spam LEO with satellites, which they need in order for Starlink to work, because just building a wired ISP or a traditional cellular ISP is expensive and fundamentally unsexy work.
At least when Steve Jobs reinvented the wheel, his wheel was usually rounder and smoother.
[0] If there is a theme of the second Trump administration, it is the concept of impoundment. The thing is, this is explicitly unconstitutional; the President cannot refuse to spend money Congress tells them to spend. And corporate interests generally tend to win bigly in court against Trump. So if DOGE had done the smart thing and went after McKinsey, they probably still would have lost.
[1] As an autistic person, I'd accuse this of being an anti-social autistic tendency, but we also really like trains.
The people who convince themselves that Musk was doing this as a favor or out of some sense of justice is delusional. From court filings, to reporting at the time, it's clear it was a smash and grab as a favor from Trump, conveniently relieving Musk of pesky regulation while trumpeting DEI.
https://americanoversight.org/investigation/everything-we-kn...
I don't know that I can blame him though. Having been involved in friends and family members with medical problems, there are SO many people that muddle through understanding, and then deciding what to do. Conflicting advice will come from all directions.
It seems only doctors, usually with a lifetime of experience, have medical directives ready and they are usually DNR type decisions.
If you're still an alcoholic, you're not getting a new liver. There is required sobriety and testing first. You may have had issues that caused you to get there, but you will be sober before you get the liver.
Not the same thing. Jobs example (and I don't inherently agree with the GP, just saying) would be more like being able to drink up to the point of your transplant and then keep on going like you've just had a pit stop.
They're lucky Apple found a quick remediation. They delayed signing the contract because they had to wait and see if any damage was caused. Next steps would have been renegotiating or lawsuit.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[dead]
- pointing out that I didn't explicitly say 'negative things' rather than 'things' is a bizarre and immature nitpick
- pointing out that other people also share credit for Elon's innovations - my comment never made stated that Elon deserves exclusive credit for this, this is a straw man
- including zero supporting arguments for their assertion that fraud and abuse wasn't discovered
- equating helping disabled people interact with the world to helping a single disabled person with a task.
...as the comment you're responding to points out.
Avoiding strawmen and nitpicks, and the need to provide supporting arguments in a discussion are fairly widely recognised.
It seems odd you would think that they are unique to the person that is disagreeing with you.
Hacker news indeed needs a block button.
[deleted]