Here's the problem with Gruber's argument. He's using something Malcolm Gladwell wrote to criticize a book that Walter Isaacson wrote. Isaacson didn't say Steve Jobs was a tweaker.
Granted that Gladwell's article reveals how little he understands the nature of invention. As punishment, he should be forced to read every patent for paper clips. Nearly all invention is a change to an existing thing because the inventor thinks some (could be very small) aspect of it should be better. That's a pretty good description of Steve Jobs.
I'm only midway through the book, but frankly I don't see so far where the criticism is coming from.
I think he's criticizing Issacson's book for being light on the details of Jobs' actual work, thus allowing Gladwell to write an article that is uninformed in calling Jobs a tweaker.
Had Issacson done the task justice, we would all have insight into Jobs' work, which in Gruber's opinion, rises far above the level of a tweaker.
I wonder if critics have actually read the book. There's quite a bit about Jobs' actual work and you get quite a bit of insight into what he did and how he went about it.
Gladwell is quite capable of spinning some idiotic theory on his own. You can't blame Isaacson for his shortcomings.
Granted that Gladwell's article reveals how little he understands the nature of invention. As punishment, he should be forced to read every patent for paper clips. Nearly all invention is a change to an existing thing because the inventor thinks some (could be very small) aspect of it should be better. That's a pretty good description of Steve Jobs.
I'm only midway through the book, but frankly I don't see so far where the criticism is coming from.