"Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson (2011)

A movie is complete without a manual explaining the director's choices. A movie's biography is redundant. A person's biography is not. Few shoot a picture, and hence few must know how to produce one. Each lives a life.

One reads a biography of a prominent individual, not of a representative individual, for the same reason that one seeks the correct guess for an equation's solution, not a representative guess. Most read novels; some collect experiences and write novels; the lucky ones live novels, later collected into biographies.

In order to contribute to the civilization, one must target a minority. Pleasing a majority will lead to superficial results---unless one is a genius. Woody Allen heeds the public opinion just enough to allow him to produce the movies that he wants to see. The genius of Hitchcock was in pleasing a majority while staying true to his ideals.

It is a peculiar presumption that a company can be run by someone other than a CEO passionate about its products. The concept of the portability of a CEO (or a government minister) seems implausible.

To give to charity is to dictate how the resources whose consumption one forgoes be allocated. One's entitlement to consumption emerges from the wealth amassed through labour and, occasionally, through expropriation by means of the exercise of monopoly power. The one who chooses to exercise monopoly power and to donate to charity thereby claims that he can divert resources more wisely than those whom he expropriates. Often, this is the case. That is how and why governments collect taxes. The refusal to donate to charity is an admission that one is no wiser than others at allocating resources to charitable causes.

Having once knowingly supplied an addictive substance---human attention---one is responsible for administering---or withdrawing, if that is in the recipient's long-term interest---this substance in future. To the extent that having money is a matter of choice, not giving money is no more immoral than not having money. Mostly, however, relative affluence is due to the accidents of birth and upbringing, and dispensing money is hard to disentangle from dispensing attention.

An individual is successful if he is talented and fits well into one of the existing social structures. A society is successful if it contains diverse social structures. Thriving arts is a symptom of such diversity.

An artist has an irrational compulsion. Compulsion may or may not lead to brilliance, depending on whether one has talent. Compulsive creativity is the inability to accept the civilization as it is. Artistic creativity is the expression of tastes that are shared by others, but initially unrecognised by them. By experiencing stronger and thinking harder than others do, artists teach beauty by helping others discover their preferences.

An entrepreneur can help a consumer discover what the consumer desires, or can create a want where there has been none. Both modes can be profitable. Philosophers are entrepreneurs of the former kind; they help an individual discover his desires for the objects that cannot be traded, such as various notions of equity and freedoms.

In the era of early personal computers, making them not intimidating was the primary challenge. Now, a major challenge is to make them non-addictive. With mobile gadgets, the addicts at least can move around, instead of being glued to their desktops. Moreover, conditionally on remaining addicted, it is better to be addicted to something that is good-looking and not destructive. Generation 2.0 do not drink, smoke, or take drugs---they get their fix from technology.

Latest gadgets are expensive. So is much of contemporary art, whose endurance is dubitable. In the same way as one gives the benefit of the doubt to young artists by buying their work, one supports innovation (in technology, design, and advertising) by adopting the latest gadgets. The fact that a gadget is cheap tomorrow does not mean that it is overpriced today; without the today's gadget, the tomorrow's gadget would be impossible. Intentionally or not, today's buyers (of gadgets, but not of biscuits) sponsor future generations' consumption.

The desire for a tool's simplicity is not the desire for domination. If a tool's submission pleased, well-designed tools would have a layer of illusive ergonomics, in addition to substantive ergonomics. Instead, a well-designed tool encourages respect by asking the user to make some sacrifices in order to acknowledge the tool's character. Ultimately, individuals find partnerships more gratifying than domination. In order to be successful, a tool need not pander to its user. 

Simplicity suggests that beauty and utility be combined. Some save money on a tool, used for most of the day, but splash on a little-appreciated painting, eventually deliberately neglected. Whereas the conscious mind gets accustomed to ugliness, the subconscious mind does not. In so far as some minimal level of material beauty must be enjoyed, one might as well derive this enjoyment in a parsimonious way---when using a tool.

Screws and seams distract from a tool's function. Any visible feature ought to help the user operate the tool, instead of supplying irrelevant information about the tool's construction. A visible screw cannot be simply neglected, as attention cannot be fully controlled. This limited self-control makes immersion into an activity appealing. A computer multi-tasks; a user is lucky if he tasks. The limited ability to customise a tool helps replace addictive tinkering by a productive activity, and teaches that some aspect of one's environment not only can be accepted painlessly, but also can teach something.

Marketing a lifestyle is wasteful if this marketing supplies prefabricated identities, instead of letting individuals cultivate identities based on productive activities. Marketing a lifestyle can be valuable, however, if the company's products nurture its employees' and customers' creativity. Furthermore, lifestyle advertising can be beneficial even when designed to sell bottled water, provided thus marketed identities displace the identities based on race, class, religion, or nationality.

Best open platforms resemble Manhattan. Best closed ones resemble Paris. In (early) Manhattan, a skyscraper aspires to outshine all others, disregarding the skyline. In Paris, architectural citizenship beats individual expression. The beauty of Paris gratifies, an thus indirectly promotes creativity. Manhattan directly rewards creativity, which occasionally begets beauty. The society does not have to choose among platforms, as long as individuals can. Few can choose among cities, but most can choose among operating systems. The growing relative importance of the latter choices, and the freedom with which these choices shall be made will eventually lead to the equality of material consumption---much of which will fit into the palm of ones hand.