tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg April 14, 2015 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." al: good evening, i am al hunt. charlie is on assignment. we begin with a story that everyone saw coming, hillary clinton has formally announced her candidacy for president. the former first lady and secretary of state announced her bid on a youtube video over the weekend. she joins gop candidates ted cruz and rand paul, with marco rubio announcing his candidacy this evening.
joining me now for a look at the 2016 election, karen tumulty is with the washington post, jerry seib is with the wall street journal. thank you for being here. it was no great surprise that she was in. she had an unusual rollout. the video and between, and then the video. was it successful? karen: who knows. we can tell you in november 2016. it seemed like everything, interestingly enough, last time she also started with a video over a weekend. the message of this video seemed to be, remember how i did it last time? i am not doing it that way again. al: the non-2008 hillary. jerry? jerry: i thought it was an interesting illustration of how she can't do the things other candidates have to do. she does not have to prove that she can fill a ballroom with supporters. she doesn't need to prove that she can raise a million dollars.
we know she can do that. she doesn't have to establish foreign policy credentials. we know she can do that. she has to go to grass-roots with regular people and prove that she can do that, prove that she can relate to regular people and talk to them on the ground. so on those terms, this start was the right one. al: the video, that is served coalition, it isn't it? her coalition is obama's coalition. i thought that was a little too forced, to be honest. but you are right, that is the coalition. if you look at the numbers, if you get elected as hillary clinton, you will have to do it with women and minority support. some blue-collar workers, which she did better with than barack in 2008. obama. our women to hillary clinton what barack obama was to minorities? karen: the last time, that was not the case. and in fact, you look at her announcement last time, it was a video where she said, we will
start a conversation. she looked inevitable then, too. not as inevitable as now, but eight years ago, it was, we are going to have a conversation and i will not break a sweat. two or three weeks later, barack obama stands on the capitol steps in springfield where abraham lincoln delivered his house divided speech. he evoked history in a way, last time, that hillary did not. she really still isn't. so i am waiting for that , springfield steps moment on her part. you know, i am sure it will come. but you know, she hasn't really pushed that storyline as hard as you would think. al: speaking of that, she did after her announcement what we are all dying to do, a 17 hour car ride from chappaquiddick new york to car ride to iowa. karen: when we see the first
instagram of hillary standing there at the self-service pump we know it is an authentic car trip. al: she is lucky she did not have young kids with her. because after five minutes, it would be -- mom have we arrived? jerry: i am from the midwest. i have driven across iowa. it is not what it is cracked up to be. al: looking ahead, what do you expect? she will have meetings in living rooms and diners and with small groups. but she can't just do that. they will have to be more. jerry: i think she will have to start answering, and finish answering in fairly short order, the key question, what is the rationale for her candace -- candidacy and presidency? they know that "it's my turn" is not it. there is kind of a populous base in the democratic party, they want to know, what's the point? she will have to have clarity. i think there was a time in which the hillary world thought
that say and, i am a more competent version of obama would be a good message. but that's not enough. there has to be a reason to vote for her and she has to lay it out. karen: what she has to do with now is her own foreign-policy record. because the world looks like a very scary place right now. and so she has to explain to people, especially people who do not think that obama has been strong enough overseas, how she would be different when she actually served as secretary of state. al: hard to break on some of those issues. isn't it? for instance, the iranian nuclear deal, she was there in the beginning. it is hard to break with him on that. karen: i was just deny it will last week. you get the sense that people are thinking about foreign policy in a way they have not in a very long time. i think people understand what basis -- isis is in a way they
never really understood what al qaeda was, or what sunnis versus shia, there is something sort of got level about what they see happening overseas. and it scares them. jerry: i suspect she wouldn't mind breaking slightly with obama on israel, either. karen: certainly, she's got the democratic base. she would be taking quite a bit of the democratic base with her if she did. al: she has a pretty strong pro-israeli record. jerry: i don't think anyone in the jewish community, the democratic jewish community, would doubt that she would be closer to israel than the current president barack obama has been. i think in the long run, i think the ability to stand on a stage with any of the republicans we are thinking about right now and talk with great knowledge and certainty about foreign policy, is not going to be a minus. her record is controversial, but in a world in which people are more scared than they were a year ago, that is in the long run, a plus. al: it is curious.
because last time, lb it with a -- lb it a different environment, she tried to run on strength. i voted for the iraq war. that was a mistake in 2008. this time, if she conveys strength, it will be more of an asset. jerry: i am not sure people are ready to go into the next version of the middle east war. that is where iran gets tricky. she wants to be tougher than obama in dealing with iran, but not so tough that we stumble into 10 more years of war. al: one of her signature accomplishments, she thought was her advocacy in 2011. it didn't turn out so well. karen: there is, again, as americans are of two minds on
this, they don't have a clear sense of how intervention is. that is not just something that affects hillary clinton. we have watched on the republican side, rand paul trying to walk on both sides of that line. i think this is something that will confound candidates on both sides. al: there may not be a right-wing conspiracy, but there will be a strong republican attack machine. we know that. they advertise it, the benghazi hearings. will that cause problems for her? karen: right now, you get the sense that the republican fundraising, everybody is revving their fundraising engines. for those of us who were alive in the 1990's, there is a very familiar feel to all of this. al: and this ahead of time could this wound her? jerry: i think it could. it does not have the perverse effect of rallying the democratic race. they have seen the movie before. they are not going to like it now. some of the doubt is -- the doubters will be pushed to attack -- defend her against the
attack machine. whether they love her so much or not. in the long run, you have to worry about the attack machine reminding people that the clintons come back into our lives carrying baggage. and that makes people cringe a little bit, at least in some cases. al: there is that. your other point, it could backfire. i would argue that libya, what we did there should be a bigger liability than benghazi. there was a terrible lapse, but that is happened before. yet, there could be a backlash if they overdo it on the benghazi hearing. jerry: americans are of two minds on intervention. if you ask people in a paul, -- paul -- poll, should we stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon? a majority will say, yes. but do they really mean that?
in the abstract, yes. but when you talk about bringing marines back into the middle east, you have a different situation. that will be part of the debate in the general election. if hillary gets there, that will be fascinating to watch. al: and the role of bill, a potential first spouse? karen: he was nowhere to be seen on the video. i think he will be nowhere to be seen for quite a while. what we discovered is, he is much better as a candidate when he is as a surrogate. al: how about the clinton foundation? i mean, there is a lot of controversy over the donations they have taken. will they have to stop taking donations for a while? karen: this has been fertile territory for journalists. because they had said that they were no longer taking foreign contributions when she was secretary of state. and it turned out they were. so i think these are very valid questions to be raised. yes, it does a lot of great charitable work, but it is also, by giving to the foundation, a way of influencing the clintons. so this will continue to be a
story. al: i agree. what can they do about it, are there still disclosures they have to make? you have done a lot of original reporting on this. jerry: i think they will have to pull her away from the foundation and set clear ground rules, and they have to be in this. it is an overused one, but they have to be transparent about what they are doing, and a way they haven't before. but you can't take bill clinton out of the campaign. it's not going to happen. i mean he was prominent in the , "saturday night live" skit. that was a joke, but on the other hand, it tells you that in the back of people's minds, that is a big deal. i was talking with a republican last week, a prominent republican who said, he is still her best campaign asset. al: he is popular. karen: you also saw the smart way of using him. for instance, during that texas
primary, they sent bill clinton into minor media markets in east texas. where a next-president coming to -- ex-president coming to town was a big deal. yet, you could stay below the radar. the obama people said they were kind of shocked at the degree to which, if you use bill clinton he can really pull out a lot of voters. al: there is nobody better. there is another member of the clinton family. i am not talking about the granddaughter. chelsea clinton. i hear she plays a bigger role than is appreciated here. karen: she is on the cover of "elle" magazine. the latest issue. she refuses to answer any questions from the traditional mainstream media. she does a lot a fashion magazine shoots. she campaigns with her mother. i think, at some point, if she is in this, she has to be in this. al: jerry? jerry: the last point is right.
if there is a chelsea clinton campaign role, make it out front. i think the behind-the-scenes aspect of that will not work. but she is obviously very intelligent, a woman with a lot of experience in her own right in national politics. there is nothing wrong with her role. but i think it should be up front. al: when we look at potential democratic rivals, we say she is a formidable front-runner. it is hard to see a barack obama lurking anywhere. if you are in hillary-land, you are trying to be careful. which one of those when you say could cause some trouble? like pat buchanan, for instance. karen: i heard both jim webb and martin o'malley were appearing in iowa friday. i think, before either of them have the potential to cause problems for her, she has to
make a few more mistakes, as she did on the level of the e-mail controversy. al: so her most formidable rival may be hillary clinton? karen: right. al: you don't see a o'malley or webb gaining traction in new hampshire? jerry: i think politics is a vacuum. it is never as easy as it looks. there will be a moment in which somebody will look like a plausible alternative to hillary. and, you know, we will explore that possibility, but it is hard to see right now. i think, if there is a stumble there is still the joe biden question on the horizon. is he preparing to save the party from its self if something terrible happens? probably. al: probably. and don't forget, john kerry. he is a septuagenarian. if she should stumble for whatever reason, or have health problems, that bench is pretty weak.
jerry: that is the most striking thing about this campaign on the democratic side. in many ways. there is no bench. i can't remember getting to a point in the national political cycle where there were so few alternatives for either party. i think that is striking. but i do think martin o'malley who is out there actually teeing off on hillary, that is a problem. he is articulating concerns that people in the party have that no one is willing to bring to the surface. that's not nothing. elf: let me ask you both about the other candidate. marco rubio just announced his candidacy. the conventional wisdom today is right, the top-tier in a wide-open race would be jeb bush, scott walker, maybe ted cruz and rand paul. can marco rubio join that crowd right away from the top?
karen: he has a lot going for him. jeb bush is taking up so much. the republican field works like the ncaa bracket. we are not totally sure what bracket rubio fits into, but in till -- until jeb bush looks like he can't go the distance, it will be hard for marco rubio to get his own footing. al: poll after poll shows the elites are crazy about jeb bush. a poll showed 32% of republicans and independents said they would never consider voting for jeb bush. that is an awfully high number. karen: i think the polls right now don't mean a lot. because jeb bush has not established himself as anything but another bush. i think, again, if he is successful at establishing his own identity and rationale for running, that will be the big question that makes the rest of the field settle out. al: jerry, your take on any of
this? but also, how you rate marco rubio? jerry: i think jeb bush is the favorite until proven otherwise. but i personally think marco rubio can't break into it. he can play into many of the brackets, which is his advantage. he is a tea party conservative in many ways. he has a family-friendly tax plan that evangelicals will like. he speaks spanish. he and jeb bush can both check that off. he has established hawkish foreign policy credentials. put that into the package and put it on the stage and he will look good. that doesn't mean he will get the nomination, but can he play in the upper tier? i think so. al: i hate to bring up karen's ncaa brackets, but if you play the brackets, you may not be very formidable in any bracket. rand paul has the libertarian bracket. scott walker is the midwestern
governor bracket. and jeb bush is the establishment bracket. he really has to crack that first bracket, doesn't he? jerry: he has to make the establishment comfortable enough with him as the alternative to jeb bush. if the front runner stumbles there is a rare amount of comfort among marco rubio among the establishment. al: karen, marco rubio is a first-term senator. his only previous experience was in the state legislature. he is in his 40's. haven't we seen this movie before? the republicans don't like that film. karen: on top of that, the real issue is his role in the senate passing a comprehensive immigration bill. that, for a lot of republicans is a dealbreaker.
al: it seems to me, jerry, not only did he create problems, but he has done not a 180, but a 160, if you will. that may put him in the worst of both worlds. jerry: that is a big problem. you can't get around that problem and they primary conversation. just like you can't get around common core if you are jeb bush. i think you'll have to explain it in a way that is credible to the base. whether he can do that or not is an open question.
he is bright and articulate. i think the biggest problem may well be the one he referred to the 43-year-old one term senator. it will be hard for them to buy into that. karen: and there are two others in the race. the same problem that rand paul, and even more so, ted cruz, who is not even finished with his first term. al: i think rubio is a charismatic guy. jerry: he can say one thing that does matter. if there is a matchup against hillary, i'm the one republican who can say, we are about the future. she is about the past. and make that a credible argument. al: i was talking to a hillary person the other day, who said we are convinced that marco rubio will not get the nomination. if he does, he is our worst nightmare. i think that is the point you make about matchups. jerry: that is not an ideal matchup for them. al: jeb bush and hillary clinton, that is not ideal for either. but one thing we do know, if something occurs in the next few months, none of us have anticipated, and that as wide it is fun to cover this stuff. karen: that is why we're here. al: we will be right back. ♪
jobs". i am pleased to have the authors, brent salit and rick tetzeli, at the table. welcome. how did this book start? what made you write this? rick: i had always wanted to write something about steve. because i had spent so much time with them. it is a big work. and, it is in important work too. afterthought i thought maybe there is no room or what i know which is a different perspective. this is over a long. of time. charlie: he was a different man? brent: i don't know if i would say that. charlie: steve cooperated with walter in his book. brent: steve cooperated with him, but the story that emerges in walter's book did not always reflect some of the other sides
of steve that not everybody gets to see. charlie: define the relationship you had so we understand the access you had. or lack of access. brent: it was a standard reporter-source relationship to begin with. we happened to be the same age and products of similar backgrounds both socioeconomically and intellectually. we both had similar hobbies and interests when we were kids. we actually had very parallel lives. we discovered that fairly early on. that made it easy to just be kind of, simpatico with him. not every time i interviewed him what i write a story, because i worked for the wall street journal at that time.
just because he got a new, fancy logo did not mean we would run a story in the wall street journal. we didn't even run photos back then. i would see him, he would explain to me about this beautiful logo, and i wouldn't write anything about it. but, we developed a pretty good relationship, a rp with each other, and it evolved from there. charlie: help me unpack the steve jobs you saw. rick: we came to understand that his relationships were defined by the same incredible ability to prioritize that he brought to his business. one of the things that steve could do in his business was, he had incredible per referral vision. he something going on in other industries, things going on in one part of apple and another part of apple, and he could sort out what mattered and bring the pieces together.
in his personal life, he had close colleagues, he had family, and he had a close, small circle of friends. these developed mostly in the latter half of his life and career. within those circles, he had the same kinds of warm, friendly relationships that you and i might like to have with our friends. outside of that circle, he was far less concerned with manners than you or i might be. and so it was a question of, outside of the circle, it was a question of, what could you do for him? what could you do for apple? and often that resulted in abrupt, brash behavior. because he would discover that what you were doing wasn't good
enough or was not helpful to him. charlie: he would call reporters in the middle of the night? brent: well, yes. he would. rick: he would call brent's house, and brent's wife got so used to steve calling that she would always ask, steve who? he would say, this is steve. just to annoy him. brent: he would call on the weekends. there was a time, for our five years, when i heard from him once or twice a month.
charlie: about what? was it always promoting apple? or was it about something -- brent: once he called asking if i had any ideas who would be a good female board of directors for -- female member of the board of directors for apple. he called and asked. sometimes, later on, especially when he got back to apple, he would call me, and i don't think i was the only one got this -- who got this, but when he was first thinking about how it -- how to present the ipod, he showed it to me, did his usual magic trick with black velvet. we were sitting in the room and he was doing this, and he says this is our new product line. i was trying to figure out how to tell people why this is so different. different than, say, a walkman.
he said, i just wanted to show it to you and talk about it. so he showed it to me and we played with it for a little bit. it wasn't that revolutionary of an electronic device in a technological sense, but the way it was designed and integrated so it could work with the macintosh to manage the music was ingenious. charlie: that raises the question. steve had an instinct for design. at the same time, he was not a computer scientist, but he understood technology. rick: i think the way to think of him is as an impresario. he is somebody who gathered people and ideas from all over the place. perhaps his genius is in bringing all of that stuff together, and out of that mosh getting to something that none
of us have ever imagined. it was not that he was a genius at design. johnny was the design genius. he wasn't a genius at operations, or many of the other things. but he could always bring people together, and he could always bring ideas together. and make something new of it. charlie: what does it say that steve is gone and the genius of apple continues? does that say that he built a company, created a culture, he chose people who were the best. culture, people. brent: i think that was his top priority, to go back to his sense of priority. that was his top priority the last four or five years.
charlie: once he knew he was sick? brent: he thought he would recover at first. he really did. i am talking about from 2007 on. he decided he needed to systematically start sharing with everybody in his inner circle, and try to institutionalize the why's of the decisions he had made over the years so that they could understand how these sometimes really -- charlie: did he achieve that? we have seen already, lots of people have said there have been the creation of the -- brent: you have to remember that there are dry spells, even as fast-moving as the technology industry is, where you are observing and integrating what you have already been given. and so you can't constantly be breaking the mold, or it won't have a chance to evolve in its
own right, into something that is useful in a real broad way. people have to use these things before you begin to really see their full power. this is what steve learned. he learned it from bill gates, that there is an incremental approach to improving these technologies, to hone them and make them better and help them grow, and occasionally, you have to punctuate that incremental equilibrium with something new because you can't reach that extra mile without it. charlie: talk about when he came back to apple, before he came back, which some refer to as the wilderness years. after he was fired from apple and he created and bought pixar
from george lucas, and started next, which never became a big thing. what did he learn? why was that time important in shaping the man that came back to apple? brent: both of those ventures were really important to him. in the case of both of them initially, it was the school of hard knocks. because they couldn't quite get traction. so he learned a lot from skinning his knee. so to speak. but each one was very different. the next computer, he rushed into it and overshot, thinking he could take the formula that worked for him building the macintosh, and create a whole new class of computing called the scholar-workstation and build a huge business out of that. what he didn't take into account was that there were multiple companies already making things like that. they would not have been as
beautiful as it is, but they were cheaper and they were just as high performance. he was not operating in a vacuum. steve always did really well in in open field. but he did not do well when he had to block and tackle and paying got up against people. -- and bang up against people. so he chose the wrong thing to do with that. you have to give him credit, he stuck with it. the reason he stuck with it is because he got money from ross perot, he got $200 million from canon. he couldn't walk away from it even if it failed. because it would blow his credibility as an entrepreneur. so he stuck with it, and figured out a way to whittle the company down. eventually, it became a profitable company and apple bought it. now, pixar was different. pixar was a lark. he called it his side project. he literally only spent one day a week there. but this was an outfit that he
thought could create yet another kind of computer, sort of a graphic 3-d computer that he could sell to medical researchers, or auto designers that's what he thought. what these guys really wanted to do was make cartoons. and, they were total eggheads. but they wanted to make cartoons and they had a high artistic sense. and they brought in a guy from disney, john lasseter, and in the background, they were constantly trying to make cartoons. and, eventually, steve woke up and realized, they know what they want to do better than i do. and he shut down the computer operation, the pixar image computer, shut it down, laid off half the employees, and focused on, first of all, commercials, and then cartoons.
and these guys were such a code -- cohesive team. they were such a motley group of creative people who were very different. and he started watching how they worked together, and how their leader managed the process. and he learned so much from that, about how you have crazy wild, intelligent people who do creative things, you have to get out of their way sometimes. you know they need to be nudged, but they do not need to be bashed. charlie: he stayed out of the way? brent: clear out of the way. ♪
♪ charlie: this is an interview we did at this very table. sitting where you are. here it is. [video clip] >> the things i did in my life and the things we did at pixar these are team sports. you have to have an extraordinary team, because you are trying to climb a mountain with the whole party of people. a lot of stuff to bring up the mountain. one person can't do it. charlie: talk about the perfectionism, the drive. rick: he had this great ability, and you get the sense of this
best when you talk to johnny. of being able to point out the problem, to find problems that you haven't thought of in your creation, and in your design. and yet, to also inspire you to try for something that you haven't even imagined trying. so, that's what he and johnny i've were talking about at the lunch tables when they had lunch together so often in the last years. johnny told us, i said, when you create a product, there are two things you create. you create the product itself, which is very valuable. you also create everything that you have learned during the creation of that product. that is as valuable as the product itself. and so, what apple did was, it took that learning, and then immediately applied it to the next product. so they were -- the advances that happened in the various versions of the ipod and iphone or whatever, that was the work
of a perfectionist who, as soon as the new product was out, he felt, we missed out on all kinds of things. it's not good enough. he was on the stage presenting his product and talking about how wonderful it was, well back at apple, they had already dismissed the thing and started in on what was next. charlie: take what they learned and move it forward. rick: that's what they did. that's what's amazing about the comeback of apple, the last 15 years. one step after another, one careful step after another.
following their noses where the technology leave. when he was a young man, all he could do was inspire people for a single product. the follow-up was never there is a young man. he learned that partly -- he certainly learned that at next where he would talk about lasseter. a saying, at some point, all of our movies suck. that is true of apple's products, too. steve took that to heart over that time and brought it back to apple. charlie: how did he think he had failed? rick: he didn't think he had failed -- charlie: i'm talking about after apple was a success. rick: in the later years? charlie: what he thought he needed to do that he couldn't do. when he figured out that it would not work. brent: it is easy to compress in our minds --
rick: it is easy to combine in our minds that illness time. which actually started in 2003. in that time, apple produced multiple versions of the ipod. they build a menu fracturing infrastructure in china that could pound out millions of products on month, when previously, all they had to do is make thousands. they took the ipod and the miniaturization techniques they learned, the birth -- they built the iphone. that is when steve took leave, when shortly after that. the company was chugging along. there was a lot going on when steve was ill. it did not break stride. which is remarkable.
rick: to your question about what did he think he failed at. i don't think he thought that way. it was always about what was next. charlie: so failure was what happened on the way to success? rick: exactly. you know about the expression by the detroit lions quarterback, i never lost a game, i just ran out of time. charlie: that was bobby lane, i always thought it was vince lombardi. but it was bobby lane, the great quarterback for the lions. did he talk to you about the illness? rick: brent: yes. the reason he talked to me about it is because -- brent: yes.
i had had my own health issues that were serious. charlie: you had a virus that impaired your hearing? brent: and heart trouble. the first time i had a heart attack, he called me in the hospital bed, as soon as i had gotten out of my angioplasty. he called me up and said, i told you you should really stop smoking. he called me just to say that after i had just gotten my heart cleaned out. that was typical steve. charlie: really. rick: key liked to tell people how they should behave. he used to tell people they should get married. he called tim cook's mother up, and said, tim really needs to have a family. why can't you encourage him to at least have a family? and that is the kind of thing , we had several people say that, even before he had kids, he had this paternal sensibility towards his employees. it was interesting. charlie: did he know tim was gay?
as tim has so gallantly come forward and -- rick: yes. he did. i don't think, we haven't actually talked to tim about this, but i don't think he would've ever come out while steve was alive. under steve, your personal life was not something that should be out in the public sphere. it was a distraction from the mission. charlie: and everything was about the mission. and the mission was? what was the mission? brent: to build great tools for people, basically. they became entertainment devices, too, but they are mainly tools. the way he thought about it, the way he thought about it was really neat tools that amplify
either your intellectual powers or your creativity, or your enjoyment. charlie: apple didn't officially cooperate with this book. rick: no. for the first two years. charlie: then, tim cook, eddie and johnny all talked to you? rick: yes. charlie: what did they feel had to be understood about steve? what was it about books and impressions of steve that they thought were overblown, unfair -- rick: it was a combination of things. there was a personal side. they had a friendship with this person. when apple came around, they gave us 4 people to talk to.
they were the four apple employees who attended steve's private burial service. it was a very small burial service. there were four current apple employees there. katie cotton, the pr chief eddie, johnny, and tim cook. bill campbell was there. he was the chairman of the board. there is a personal side. they had a real relationship with this very famous man, and they saw him as far more than just the irascible jerk he is stereotyped as. i think it also connect to their pride in what they accomplished under steve from 1997 going forward. all of those people have been there. those three men you mentioned, they had been there through that whole time.
they feel it enormous pride in what happened. and they don't understand how somebody who was just a jerk could have possibly engineered that, all of that. tim cook and eddie said to us, why would i work for this person for all those years if he was the way he is described? the fact is, his personal growth, his personal style, is a large reason that apple was so successful. charlie: define the personal style. rick: he was somebody who made a group of talented people feel so proud of their work. we spoke to so many ex-employees whose relationships with steve had ended badly, and they said to a person, they said, i did the best work of my life working
for steve jobs. that is something that is very meaningful. they felt, they feel, that understanding, the complexity of steve that helped them create that great work, is something that has not been understood. charlie: his illness. did he fail to deal with it in the optimal way for his health? brent: i'm still puzzled about that. i know steve was an intelligent guy and he researched things. i know that when his doctors told him that the pancreatic cancer he had, which was isolated on one end of his pancreas, only affecting one function of the pancreas, he
thought, maybe i don't really want them to cut me open and do this, just because that is all they know how to do. i want to check this out further. that's just the way steve was. charlie: finally, there is this. the overarching question you pose in the book, the most basic question about steve's career is this. how could the man who had been such an inconsistent inconsiderate, rash, and wrongheaded businessman, become the venerated ceo who revived apple and created a whole new set of culture-defining products? please answer that question. rick: steve grew. he grew more effective and more patient.
brent: ironically, it was probably patience that was the most important thing he learned. that he began to apply. if you look at the history of these great products, none of them were the first attempt at these kinds of things. there have been tablet computers, there has been the walkman. he doesn't jump in first. he waits until he can find this magical combination of maybe one more technology that will really make this thing shine. when you think about technology, what it really is, is kind of a recombinant thing. you add one new thing to an existing technology, and it amplifies it. this is what he was good at. if you could just get a big hard drive and make it small, get a
music player that would hold 10,000 songs. and somebody would say, why would you want that? and he would say, why wouldn't you? i guess that is what i am trying to say. he had this great peripheral vision. he made things that were additive products, that were one step further, sometimes two or three. rick: i would say the thing he learned along the way is the ability to move incrementally, over time. he did create a great company, and he created a great company by getting an incredibly talented group of people together. it was a stable group of people. he taught them, and he worked with them, to create one thing after another. that took patience, and that took incrementalism. two things we do not normally
associate with steve jobs. and he learned that during his time in exile and that's what so interesting to me. how apple's success is different from how it has been described. we never think of him as patient. in fact, we think of him as impatient. we never think of him as an incremental creator. but they were all from incrementalism. they were all from patients. -- patience.and that is what he has passed on to apple today. charlie: and he said that, the great thing i did was not create the iphone, the ipad, any of those products. it was a company that reflected that. that apple was his ultimate creation.
rick: he loved the spouting off in his youth about all sorts of things. trade policy, china. all kinds of stuff. he loved spouting off about companies that he didn't know anything about when he was a young man. he took that time away from old, working with a man who knows more about companies and management than anybody in the world. it took that time away, for him to understand what company-making was really all about. and by the end of his life, when he and brentwood talk about companies, he would know what he was talking about. and he succeeded. charlie: thank you. rick: thank you. brent: it's good to be here. charlie: the book is called "becoming steve jobs."
emily: live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we focus on innovation, technology, and the future of business. i am emily chang. here's a check of your bloomberg top headlines. spacex launches its falcon 9 rocket, however the attempt to land the rocket on a barge floating in the atlantic ocean was not successful. ceo elon musk tweeting that it landed, but impact was too hard for survival. the dragon capsule is carrying 4300 pounds of supplies and payload to the iss. intel, the world's largest chipmaker, reports first-quarter earnings.