Jobs - What's Missing?

The movie Jobs is a very disappointing movie. It is the modern day interpretation of an American Icon that lacks any historical context of his legacy.

Some watching the movie will debate the focus was on Steve Job as an innovator, which I agree he had an impact on our country's technological innovations. His flaws as a person were transparent in the movie. He was at times arrogant and disconnected with some of his personal relationships. The performance by Ashton Kutcher was a great impression of how Steve Jobs may have been at the early days of Apple.

The movie did however hint that Steve Jobs cared about the innovators more than the process of capitalizing on innovations. He cared less about profits, more about a vision. The movie does a great job of creating an image of a driven personality that will go to great lengths to think outside of the box. He loathes the profitable nature that places restraints on his creativity.

I loved this part of the movie. It would explain his actions later on in life that I struggle with. For Steve Jobs was a complicated person. A funny thing happened regarding the latter part of Steve Job's story. Typical in Hollywood movies, the savior would come to Apple and save the day. He would bring the company back to their roots of innovation. They ended the story with "Welcome back Steve." This is how they ended the movie. Kind of like the closing episode of the Sopranos, the screen goes black at a time when I was just getting interested. I wanted to know why this guy made some pretty controversial decisions when he came back to Apple. Unfortunately, the story stops when his life could have been critically viewed as complicated on a much larger level.

Here is what the movie gives a pass on regarding the history of Apple. Steve Jobs would take Apple down a path that is Anti-Apple after the screen went black. The film ends with hints of the Ipod shuffle and  and cell phones being the next stage of development. This is why Apple made a comeback.  Instead the film never delves into the most creative part of Steve Job's career. Why is that?

This part of the Steve Job timeline is complicated. He would seek out Globalization and take his innovations overseas. A fascinating part of Steve Job's career was left out. The innovations that would follow happened due to his obsession of getting an innovative product out quickly, which the film does touch upon. The problem is that this could only happen with slave labor. Apple went deep in the bowels of China, and opened some of the most brutal work camps. Unimaginable to our standards of living.

We as consumers that give the legacy of Jobs a pass, especially when a movie like this glosses over the negative part of Apples ability to be innovative. They use and exploitation of labor in remote regions of the world to meet the appetite of our consumer driven economy were conveniently left out. While Microsoft and Google has similar business practices, they also are not the focus of this film.

The problem with a film like Jobs is that it is void of historical analysis. The purpose of this film was to create a modern day Henry Ford. The film is void of criticism that would hurt his legacy. The film's primary purpose was to create an illusion in our minds of the legacy of Steve Jobs be positive when we left the movie theater. I truly believe the complete history of Apple would have not hurt Steve Job's legacy. It would have just struck a balance in our minds that how we achieve success is as important as innovation. For this reason, the movie was a huge disappointment.