(토요모임) [Jan. 30, 2016] Saturday meeting topic

[*시에나*]

1. What made Steve Jobs unique?

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-15196874

Steve Jobs was a uniquely recognisable, charismatic and idiosyncratic leader. Here are some of the traits that made him the world's most talked about chief executive.

Knowing what you want before you want it

Steve Jobs was not a fan of market research. He famously said "You can't just ask customers what they want then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."

Instead, he relied on his own instinct for refining existing technologies, developing new products and packaging them in a way that people would want to use.

Before the iPod appeared in 2001, there was relatively little interest in MP3 music players. Those products that did exist were chunky, often fiddly to use, and were largely bought by early adopter tech enthusiasts.

So appealing were gadgets such as the iPod, iPhone and iPad that the public quickly engaged with them. That was due, in no small part, to Steve Jobs' ability as a salesman - explaining his products simply in a way that everyone could understand.

Reality distortion field

Steve Jobs knew how to work a crowd. He could build excitement around technologies which, sometimes, were neither new nor world changing.

When the iPad 2 launched, a large part of his presentation was dedicated to the device's "smart cover" - a square of vinyl with magnetic hinges. Yet it garnered significant media coverage.

Even seasoned journalists were not immune, with many finding that it took them several hours recovery time to fully make sense of the announcements.

The phenomenon was named the "reality distortion field". No other Apple executive has, as yet, demonstrated Steve Jobs' ability to generate it.

The uniform

For the past decade, Steve Jobs almost always wore the same outfit.

From top to bottom, it was a black St. Croix mock turtleneck sweater, blue Levi 501 jeans, and New Balance 991 trainers.

The items may reflect his minimalist tastes, or perhaps his flair for personal as well as corporate branding.

Mr Jobs does not appear to have spoken publicly about his choice of clothing, although he is said to have told friends that he did not care about his appearance.

This was not always the case. During the 1980s he would regularly make public appearances in flashy Italian suits, and was even known to wear a colourful bow tie.

His distinctive appearance was often parodied by comedians.

Attention to detail

Apple is so secretive that little is known about its internal design processes, however stories do leak out, and most of those tell of Steve Jobs' fanatical attention to detail.

Google executive Vic Gundotra tells of the time that his company was partnering with Apple to put Google Maps on the iPhone.

Mr Gundotra received a personal call from Steve Jobs on a weekend, expressing displeasure that the second letter "o" was the wrong shade of yellow.

While British designer Jonathan Ive is responsible for the overall look and feel of products such as the iMac, iPod and iPhone, many of the company's patents bear both his and Steve Jobs' names.

Philosophy

Steve Jobs was undoubtedly a product of 1960s and 1970s counter-culture California.

As a young man, he travelled to India to stay in an ashram. Eastern philosophy would continue to be a part of his life, and he remained a Buddhist for the rest of his life.

Mr Jobs also admitted taking LSD around the same time. He called the experience "one of the two or three most important things I have done in my life," according to John Markoff's book "What the dormouse said: How the sixties counterculture shaped the personal computer industry".

Money appeared to matter little to Steve Jobs. He told the Wall Street Journal: "Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn't matter to me… Going to bed at night saying we've done something wonderful… that's what matters to me."

Music lover

Steve Jobs' music tastes were well known from his product launches.

Singles and albums would regularly flash across the screen of new Macs or iPhones.

The Beatles and Bob Dylan were two of his favourite artists. Getting the rights to sell the fab four's music through iTunes became a long running saga which was eventually resolved in November 2010.

Mr Jobs' top 10 albums, listed on the Apple social music service Ping, also included Kind of Blue by Miles Davis, American Beauty by The Grateful Dead and Who's Next by The Who.

His had a more personal connection to one particular musical icon, having briefly dated Dylan's ex-girlfriend, singer Joan Baez.

Sometimes you have to save the best for last. Steve Jobs regularly did that when launching products.

Having unveiled a raft of new gadgets, just as guests were getting ready to leave, he would utter the now famous words "One more thing..."

When he did so, there was always a mischievous smile. It was part of his genius as a showman.

One more things have included the Powerbook G4, iPod touch and Facetime video calling.

Steve Jobs' successor, Tim Cook opted not to do a one more thing at the launch of the iPhone 4S in October 2011.

It is unclear if the tradition will continue after Steve Jobs, meaning we may have seen the last ever one more thing.

Questions

1. Have you seen the movie "Steve Jobs"? And what do you know about Steve Jobs?

2. What do you have in common with Steve Jobs?

3. Famous people are often infamous for their hot temper. Do you think such a personality trait can be acceptable if the person does greate things for people?

4. Do you have any peculiar or unique personality traits? What are they?

5. Do you have a role model? Who? and why?

2. The Value of Rankings and the Meaning of Livability

http://www.livablecities.org/blog/value-rankings-and-meaning-livability

Since first using the term “livable cities” back in the 1980s to describe quality of life and the characteristics of cities that make them livable, IMCL has seen the term used in countless ways to describe standard of living, rather than quality of life. Every city wants to be considered the “most livable,” a title that can attract new business and investments, boost local economies and real estate markets, and foster community involvement and pride. The term has become so widely, if not overly used, that its meaning is becoming lost.

Now, numerous rankings of "most livable cities" exist, the most renowned being those from the Economist, Forbes.com, and more recently, Monocle. The Economist and Forbes base their rankings primarily on data from the Mercer consulting company, which annually measures "quality of living" standards, using data such as crime rates, health statistics, sanitation standards, and expenditures on city services. Their primary clients, government and corporations, are interested in assessing "the degree to which expatriates enjoy the potential standard of living in the host location. Quality of living also reflects the interaction of political, socio-economic and environmental factors in the host location." Mercer pride themselves on using criteria that are "objective, neutral and unbiased".  Such rankings can be a powerful tool for economic development, and there is cutthroat competition and lobbying by world cities to be ranked high.

The Economist, focusing on economic and business issues, places five Australian cities, three Canadian cities and two European cities in their most recent top ten, the first three being Vancouver, BC, Melbourne and Vienna.  By contrast, Forbes includes only American cities, and appears to have a more practical agenda by giving a boost to cities on the mend including Pittsburgh, PA and Trenton, NJ. Their criteria focus on "unemployment, crime, income growth, the cost of living, and artistic and cultural opportunities."

As a lifestyle magazine, Monocle's focus is on "the top 25 cities to call home". Their criteria include social and economic circumstances for residents, public health, infrastructure, and ease and availability of local transport. They define their highest ranked cities as "places that are benchmarks for urban renaissance and rigorous reinvention in everything from environmental policy to transport." Their top cities in 2010 were Munich, Copenhagen and Zurich.

Instead of ranking cities for the livability standards they have already achieved, the Philips Livable Cities Award, the most recent contest in livability, will reward the best ideas for improving sustainability and standard of living in urbanized, and economically challenged locations around the world. Joining the ranks of other corporations flexing their Corporate Social Responsibility muscles, Philips says the contest is designed to generate creative and feasible ideas “for improving the health and well-being of people living in cities.” The contest (comprised of open voting supervised by an international panel of experts) will award monetary grants for modest initiatives such as rainwater storage in Sana’a Yemen, where water is scarce during nearly 6 months of the year; installing lighting to keep sports facilities open longer in New York; or teaching sign language to deaf children in Embu, Kenya. These are not particularly new or glamorous ideas, but they certainly address very real challenges.

What does it mean to be ranked by Mercer the “most livable” city? These rankings are measuring standard of living, not quality of life. As Mercer themselves admit, "One may live in the highest ranked city in terms of quality of living [standards] and still have a very bad quality of life because of unfortunate personal circumstances (illness, unemployment or loneliness, etc)." It is precisely these quality of life issues that IMCL seeks to address, and evidence is now mounting that the way we shape our cities profoundly affects our quality of life - our physical and mental health, our opportunities for having friends and neighbors, and even how likely we are to find, and hold a job.

Once fundamental health and safety is achieved, standard of living issues are not directly correlated with happiness, with a sense that life is meaningful, that we are of value to others, and that there is much to be discovered and celebrated in the human and physical world around us. These are important aspects of quality of life and are profoundly influenced by the built environment - by a city's livability. The issues come more clearly into focus when we consider the needs of our most vulnerable members of society, children, elders, those who are economically or socially marginalized.

The question that spurred the International Making Cities Livable quest was "how do children become fully human, caring and responsible adults, committed to the welfare of others, whether familiars or strangers; how do some children grow up capable of experiencing beauty, joy and laughter, and other children become adults capable of aggression and brutality, without joy or interest in their fellow human beings? And what are the circumstances, the kinds of social, familial and physical environments that produce one or the other human being?" (From: The Forgotten Child)

The role of the built environment in shaping children's lives, facilitating their positive health and development is not easily measured in economic terms but it can be understood. The built environment influences how people relate to each other, the opportunity for community to form, and the depth of our social networks. It regulates how much incidental exercise is possible through walking and biking. Buildings and streets contribute to reducing crime when buildings support eyes on the street, and shops and services put a functioning community in control of the public realm. Pattern, complexity, and harmony in the built environment can stimulate curiosity, dicovery, and a sense that the world is meaningful. Beauty in nature, architecture and public places can lift spirits, raise endorphin levels, and improve physical and emotional health. These are just a few of the ways in which IMCL encourages a city to increase livability for all. The Mercer data provides valuable benchmark statistics, but a city may have to aim higher than to be placed top in these rankings to be truly "livable".

Questions:

1. Where do you think is the most livable city?

2. In what way can our built environment influence people and their lives?

3. Are you satisfied with living in Cheongju? Why or why not?

4. What factor do you think is the most important in selecting the most livable city among unemployment, crime, income growth, the cost of living, and artistic and cultural opportunities, etc.?

[*시에나*]

저번주에 정말 정말 추워서 그랬는지... 차암.. 사람이 없더군요ㅜㅜ
다행이 몇 분 오셔서 즐겁게 이야기했습니다. 이번주는 날씨 좀 풀린다고 하니 많은 분들을 볼 수 있겠죠?
모임에서 뵈어요~! ^^

[john park]

생활하면서 한 번쯤 변화,혁신하고 싶을때 선망하는대상인 스티브 잡스가 이 번주 주제네여. 시간이되면 영화보고 참여했으면 좋겠는데... 잡스=worksㅋㅋㅋ 시에나 늘 감사합니다.

[*시에나*]

배경지식이 없어서 그런지 영화가 어렵더라구요.^^;

[JasonChoi]

시에나님 기사 항상 잘 보고 있습니다~ 정말 굿굿!!^.^!!! 항상 응원할께요~~~~

[*시에나*]

ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 웃기당ㅋ