I'm not sure why anybody is comparing Zuckerberg to Jobs, really. Jobs co-founded arguably the most successful tech company of all time. He revolutionized the PC industry, then saved his company from near-death in his second act, followed by the small feats of revolutionizing the music, smartphone, and tablet markets. Oh, he also co-founded Pixar.
Zuckerberg? As far as anyone can tell, he's still a one-trick pony, who by most accounts, at least stole some of his single idea from his classmates. Though his valuation is through the roof, his business model is still not well established and could burst at any time.
I thought the whole HN mantra (and one echoed in this article) was that ideas are worth less than the paper they're written on, and that execution is everything? It's still a dick move to blatantly rip-off a peer like that, but still. He took a good idea and did well with it.
BTW articles like these demonstrate why tech-PR is still a profitable business to be in.
I know many young founders who read articles like these, "30 under 30", "most innovative founders", etc and get depressed because they're never picked.
It's because they're rarely based on merit and more on who's pushing who in the tech-press circles.
I stopped reading major media for this very reason: I was 22 and felt dejected because, unlike the latest crop of amazings in Newsweek, I had not cured cancer by the age of 19.
Would be great to see metadata on articles: x is being presented because x works for y whose investor is z, who also invests in q who has a deal with y ... etc
Does this article really compare a guy who created incremental searching of YouTube videos to Steve Jobs who brought personal computers (and computer style) to the masses? Bubble Boys is an accurate title.
Let's agree Woz brought computers to the masses while Jobs insisted on making them pretty enough the masses would buy them. ;-)
Actually, there is a whole lot of people who exerted a huge influence in the early personal computer explosion. Jobs and Woz often suck up all the credit the folks at Atari and Commodore also deserve.
I'll agree that Woz was able to simplify the Apple I so that it was affordable but it was Jobs who was able to market it to the masses. Like any substantial venture it was more than the work of two people. I argument is that the article about the "next Jobs" didn't demonstrate founders with the same level of breakthrough technology or market that Apple created.
I completely agree with you about the article. I was just pointing out Jobs and Woz, as brilliant as they are in their respective fields, were not the only ones responsible for the explosion of personal computing that happened in the late 70's and early 80's.
I can't believe I read even read the first page... It seems like the press is the press, even in the tech world. I doubt this author knows anything about Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerburg. Maybe the author saw the social network and thought he knew everything about the industry.
I could of also summed this up in a sentence or two. "Kid invents youtube instant and everybody wants to hire him." I don't doubt that he's smart but this article seems a bit ridiculous. It seems like tech stars are the next celebrities. So long to the days of nerds with the neck beard. Oh yeah, and actually making money.
Zuckerberg? As far as anyone can tell, he's still a one-trick pony, who by most accounts, at least stole some of his single idea from his classmates. Though his valuation is through the roof, his business model is still not well established and could burst at any time.