This comment confuses me. You call Jobs idiosyncratic, but then try to backwards-justify his political stance with stereotypes about anti-establishment politics and Californian ideals. What makes you convinced that he'd resist neoreactionary politicking any better than Cook?
Jobs was fickle, I agree with you there. I just don't think that a fickle iconoclast would last more than two weeks fighting against Trump, especially if he was threatened with an FTC antitrust probe. The only difference with Cook is that he's not as coy, and recognized that there was no way for a monopoly like Apple to fight the fed and win. Trump can disembowel Apple's profit margins, and neither Cook nor Jobs nor Jesus of Nazarath could convince the shareholders that morality is worth more than $AAPL. 2016 Jobs would be retired by the board of directors before he even threatened to make a conscientious objection, reality distortion be damned.
I have no love for the sitting administration, but it is a fantasy to pretend that a FAANG business could resist federal coercion. Just because Apple enjoys a moral halo-effect does not mean they're better positioned than Microsoft or AWS to do the "right" thing. Apple's inability to prosecute NSO Group is a recurring example of how heavily the US can muzzle them.
Which claim? That Jobs was not a monster or pedophile? I'm on absolutely solid ground there.
Assuming you mean whether Jobs would intensely dislike Trump, then -- what can I say? You clearly don't know anything about the guy and that's fine. But if you doubt it, you're wrong.
We were far from personal confidantes, but I had several candid conversations with him over the decades. His personal politics were never in doubt, or far from the surface. He held a special revulsion for warmongering, dishonest, scapegoating, and authoritarian-leaning US candidates and administrations.
He was always at least a bit frustrated with US economic policy. He would abhor Trump for all of the above reasons and more.
I'd say that personality-wise, you probably don't know Jobs well enough to serve as a character witness. I'm not aware of any recorded interview where he explains how far he'd go to defend his business from unfair government treatment. He never saw a preview of the 2016 election or cast a ballot in the vote. He didn't live the interceding years leading up to the election, or form an opinion on the politics dominating the polls.
I think Jobs would have been blindsided by Trump just as much as we all were. On a personal level I can believe that he's offended just like Cook is. But neither Cook nor Jobs' conscience has really ever stopped them from making a profitable business decision that they can take credit for. Even if it means building a meaningless gold trophy or somesuch, to appease the ego in charge.
I agree that he'd have been blindsided like the rest of us. And I agree that he would have put Apple first. That was never a part of my point though.
Jobs had a very strong personality and very strong opinions. Also a good human moral compass, at least in his adulthood.
I admit that I am extrapolating from his thoughts on previous administrations, but I will confidently assert that there is no part of Jobs being that would approve of what's going on today. The man was not ThielMuskAndreesenEllisonEtc. (Someone might point out that he was friends with Larry, which is true, but he did not agree with Larry about some very important things. Jobs was capable of that kind of relationship.)
The degree of appeasement he would be performing on behalf of Apple is a fair subject to contemplate. Whether he'd be besties with Steven Miller and Jeffrey Epstein, is not a reasonable topic to speculate on. The answer is obvious to anyone who knew him at all.
Didn't he buy a bunch of houses in different states so he could be on more organ donor lists than any of us could? I am asking sincerely. Maybe it was a myth.
He would also drive cars without license plates. Despicable man.
He was able to do this by exploiting a loophole in California vehicle law at the time (under California Vehicle Code Section 4456). The rule allowed new vehicles up to six months from the date of sale or lease before permanent license plates were required to be displayed (temporary tags or paper registration might have been involved initially, but no plates needed for that grace period).
Jobs leased identical new Mercedes models every six months through an arrangement with a leasing company. Just before the six-month deadline hit, he would trade in the current car for a brand-new one of the same type. This kept his vehicle perpetually under the six-month threshold, so he never had to attach permanent plates.
Jobs was fickle, I agree with you there. I just don't think that a fickle iconoclast would last more than two weeks fighting against Trump, especially if he was threatened with an FTC antitrust probe. The only difference with Cook is that he's not as coy, and recognized that there was no way for a monopoly like Apple to fight the fed and win. Trump can disembowel Apple's profit margins, and neither Cook nor Jobs nor Jesus of Nazarath could convince the shareholders that morality is worth more than $AAPL. 2016 Jobs would be retired by the board of directors before he even threatened to make a conscientious objection, reality distortion be damned.
I have no love for the sitting administration, but it is a fantasy to pretend that a FAANG business could resist federal coercion. Just because Apple enjoys a moral halo-effect does not mean they're better positioned than Microsoft or AWS to do the "right" thing. Apple's inability to prosecute NSO Group is a recurring example of how heavily the US can muzzle them.