No one really "creates" anything if one isn't allowed to build off of what already exists. We would literally be re-inventing the wheel right now if we weren't allowed to look at past inventions. Gladwell is one of those authors who appeal to the masses with his oversimplified pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. I'd like to know what Gladwell has actually innovated in his life or how he changed the world.
The quote is taken from the biography. In that paragraph Jobs is not talking about whether or not he thinks people are shirking by selling. He is saying that real entrepreneurs make companies that last and have a "legacy".
I do find it surprising though that you tell people to do what they love but then in these comments you admit you didn't like doing viaweb. In your essay you wrote, "The test of whether people love what they do is whether they'd do it even if they weren't paid for it." And it seems that you only did that startup because you were going to get money, which I suspect is true for the vast majority of y-combinator start-ups.
Well you obviously weren't doing what you love with viaweb if your entire goal was to sell it to turn a profit so that you'd never have to deal with it again. And Steve's assertion is not about work ethic, it's about building a "real company".
I don't think Steve would consider you to be a real entrepreneur. In his biography, it's stated several times how he doesn't want to make things just because people want them, which is directly against your beliefs in pandering to the masses.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I believe in "pandering to the masses," but maybe this will cure that misconception: http://paulgraham.com/usa.html.
"But the just-do-it model does have advantages. It seems the clear winner for generating wealth and technical innovations (which are practically the same thing)."
Today, wealth and technical innovations have separated quite a lot. A great programming language will make less money than the programs built upon it. I don't think this is entirely valid in the world of today, where open-source software is often some of the most innovative.
I don't think Steve Jobs would ever say anything of sorts. Jobs did the exact same thing with NeXT. Does that mean that he didn't consider himself an entrepreneur? Human emotion plays a big role in our decision making and you can't have the same feelings for every project you start.
He didn't start NeXT with the intention of selling it. He was trying re-create Apple from scratch. Instead he ended up parlaying it into a take-over of Apple and re-created it from within.
I'm not weighing in on the definition of "entrepreneur" here, just pointing out why NeXT isn't a counter example.
Isn't the plunge in stocks due to the fact that the Kindle Fire has a very low profit margin? I don't think this article is correct with what the cause-and-effect is.
The main reason to learn new things is that it offers growth opportunities to having a fulfilled life. Sure, I can spend all my time specialized on one thing, but it wouldn't be as satisfying because a good life is about balance.
When you specialize, you will learn more indepth about your field. You don't stop learning.
Of course, a good life means humans must learn certain life maintenance skill and social interactions so that we can function and hopefully be happier overall.
