Oskar's Weblog

多年在港，看到很多報章的「成功人士」的「人版」，標題都是什麼金融才俊，炒樓，股票打工皇帝等，永遠也看不到一個「人版」是創新，發明等。很多人會說「那就是香港」，而我覺得那就是香港文化。

回想起小時候，父母親永遠叫孩子們讀飽詩書，大學畢找一份好工，政府工或大公司就是最好，而親身也聽到看到多數人的想法也是這樣，而80年代後出生的人一定聽過他們的家長說那種話。這幾個星期讀到有幾段新聞，就是Facebook上市，Facebook賣下Instagram，Kickstarter幫Pebble由零變成有一千萬美元資金公司。那些都是根本想像不到的，創業是不分地域，時間和人種。

Facebook當年是由幾個大學生發明，主要目的是想為同學間的聯繫，今天準備要上市，他的市值是八百六十億美元；Instagram，十個人都不到的小公司，當初開發Instagram只是因為自己想留下一些難忘的時刻，facebook買下他的價錢是十億美元。而Pebble更加是不可思議，它是一件實際上還未面世的東西，付出一千萬美元的那班人更加未見過實物（我也是其中之一）。大家去“投資”也只是看完他的網上影片就付錢吧了。而有更多的例子在北美如恆河星數，當然失敗的也有很多，或許是他們的文化不同，失敗和成功也是一線之差，成功也不是絕對，基率也不高，為何他們也願意付出？

香港的年青一代，有沒有聽過人們或長輩跟你說過，有了財富，才去想創業與否；出生社會，到大公司上班，吸收多點經驗，才去想創業？那就是我最不明白的，想一想我聽回來深刻的創業故事，由Apple Computer Inc到Pebble，沒有一個是在職場打滾多年才創業的，全都是一班乳臭未乾，年少輕狂的人創做新的東西，改變這個世界。又想起一本書說過，年輕二三十，沒有包袱也不怕失敗；一到中年，有家有室，開始害怕失敗，因為包袱很大。想到底，若以那定律連起的話，人一生都沒有一個機會去發揮，去改變。

今天北美，和英倫很著重entrepreneurship，中文字面不懂解，那是包含創業，創新，改變，和帶領；而entreperneur不只是一班年到中年的人，而是年輕的，活躍的人，他們做的是不只是為金錢，更加是有機會能改變，和帶領一個地方，以致世界。

到底香港有沒有entreperneur?香港要出一個entreperneur有多難？那我不知道，至少到今天，有那種心態的年輕人少之又少，所以我說香港的文化就是缺乏entrepreneurship的文化。

後記：Kickstarter這個網站也有一些香港本地的 Project有空便支持一下吧。

小時候愛讀世界歷史傳記，我常常偷偷地走到圖書館內世界歷史傳記的一行讀那些圖文並茂的傳記，有拿破崙，三劍客，亞瑟王，十字軍東征，兩次的世界大戰等等，當時只不過是小學的一二年班，雖然很愛那些傳記，不過在中學的歷史科永遠不會是好成績。

回想起九十年代，它是一個改革的年代，當我在小學的三年級時候，五月六月，我和哥常可以看著電視，而爸媽也目不轉睛地一起看，看著電視，新聞播著“翻版”自由神象（不久後才知道她是民主女神象），一大班人在天安門露營，絕食，開初還看到人們拿水給士兵，好像很和睦般；不過到六月三日，氣氛像改變了，緊張了，報道員也緊張，不斷有小道消息，外國記者也被關下。到四號的早上，剛起床的自看到爸媽全神灌注的看著電視，我也跟著望，看到一個一個受傷的人們，血流被面的，我在想那企在坦克前的人怎麼樣呢？媽不想我看，我也躲起來，剩下門中一道隙看著電視所發生的事。那就是六四大屠殺。

到今天，我還記得一些當天發生的事，所以每當有人出來說用今天中國的成果來說六四屠殺是應該的我就氣上心頭。也因為六四屠殺，我看清楚中共的黑暗面，當晚，早上殺了多少平民不得而知，還記得當天中共士兵用的子彈比今天的十元紙幣還要長，無疑是要至中槍者死地，就算叫平亂那是需要嗎？屠城完畢後，記者就成下一個目標，記者門要用各種方法去偷運那些紀錄片出中國，外國人的臉更加是中國警察目標，很多記者都被帶到警局，黑房。及後外國傳媒到中國境內採訪更加要申請，被跟蹤，直到今天也是如此。改革不是一次就能成功，而改革更會有“激進”，流血，什至傷亡。那是中國近代唯一一次的大規模的人民試行改革，要求民主自由。

轉眼已二十多年有很多香港人反而常說，想中國好要慢慢的來，慢慢的改，因為太大太多人，到底那種思路從那裡來的？不是，在一個絕對權力的地方只要會越有權力，人就越會絕對的腐化。現實點來說，今天的中國因為被文革的洗禮，不能有太投入的宗教思想，儒家思想也被放下，更被一句不管黑貓白貓足到老鼠就好貓的文化影響；變成今天大多中國人的內心只得金錢利益，一點心靈洗滌也沒有，沒有心靈的洗滌怎去改變呢？有人又會說今天的中國像六七十年代的歐洲，美國般，那是國家必經的路。也錯了，歐美大多數國家是以教立國，也有很多的思想家去改變民眾的思考回到正軌，而看看中國，今天在國內的思想家，宗教家不是都被關進囚室，就是遠走他方，那試問能改革的機會率是多少？

再說改革，看中東，非洲的茉莉花革命；死傷不計其數，還在進行中，他們的不放棄精神，將生命“括”出去就像六四中的人民一樣；今天我們在香港已經很幸運，若你想改變這個地方，你不會像中東，非洲人要付出的那麼多，只要行出一步，說為真理而說，不再放下自己的低線，提高自己的要求已經可以改變一些自己看似不能改變的事實。

有人說改革好嗎？改革無非都想要民主吧？很多人想自己得溫飽就可，民主，政治是根本不能飽肚的。老爸常跟我討論這個討點，“要依靠政府開飯嗎？”沒錯，沒有直接的關係，但民主和政治在人民社會生活有必然關係；政治令政府作一個什麼的決定也會影響人民，而民主的政府是一個比較上健全的方法令政府作一些以民為本的決定，因為民主也可以防止一個絕對權力的產生，人民得平等的對待。當然民主也有失效的時候，如二戰的德國希特拉，和今天的俄羅斯的普京，利用了民主的空子。但不民主的國家大多也有更大的問題，敘利亞，伊朗，中國，和北韓等，如人權宗教自由都沒有。

那民主是什麼的一環？民主的對立就是獨裁，兩個關係像資本主義和共產主義般，沒有絕對性，當然也沒有絕對民主的存在。早幾個星期我看到有一位知名的牧師說民主是無有用的，只有中國才栽培出真正有能之士，真的“傻眼”了，“傻眼”是因為出自一個有基督教知識的牧師。在歷史中基督教回霸權是對立，在民主的戰爭中，基督教徒是要走前向霸權爭戰，不是讓步。

絕對的民主和理想的共產主義一樣，不可能在人類社會出現，那稱為烏托邦。但民主是必須的，因為完善民主的制度可以平衡人們的利益，減少或防止了獨裁和霸權主義的出現。而民主的一個元素就是選舉，近來香港的新聞都是就選舉，那真的是選舉嗎，是的行動上它是選舉，而那是一個民主的選舉嗎？不是，理論上它只是一場小丑戲吧。那也可能是一個叫做“富中國特色的民主”，如中國本身，共產主義國家，那有共產呢？所以他們就“富中國特色的共產主義”。

香港人，看清一些事實，想一想政治，選舉和民主是不是真的不關自己的事；我跟老爸常作一個例子，對很多人政治，選舉和民主不會直接影響到人民，但間接的有千絲萬縷的關係，就如內地開廠的港商政治不關事嗎？不會政治會影響政策，政策會影響經營環境。港人若今天，有機會的時候不站出來做一些自己能改變現狀的行動，最後受苦我只會自己。就如德國牧師Martin Niemöller所做的詩：
當納粹來抓共產主義者的時候，
我保持沉默；
我不是共產主義者。

當他們囚禁社會民主主義者的時候，
我保持沉默；
我不是社會民主主義者。

當他們來抓工會會員的時候，
我沒有抗議；
我不是工會會員。

當他們來抓猶太人的時候，
我保持沉默；
我不是猶太人。

當他們來抓我的時候，
已經沒有人能替我說話了。

還有很多想寫下，等有時間的時候再寫。

我記得有位發明家說，離開你的社交圈子，讓你的思維會更進一步；我看似越來越明白那道理，一個人的沈思得到一些新的思維，總好過一些社交圈子會令思維沈淪。但我又想思維難有新，只是在思維中重新發掘吧，思考是好事，總好比只懂吃喝玩樂的社交圈子好吧。

昨天跑步後經過銅鑼灣，一個名店，商場林立的區域，看著人們有的可能是內地的遊客，有的是本土人，大都拿著大包小包；跟著又看到老人家，推著比他身高三倍的木頭車，載著一包包的垃圾。腦海上想起，這個社會是什麼？現代人生存的目的又是什麼呢？

望著那些拿著大包小包的人在想，現代社會風氣好像已經變成唯物主義，金錢利益觀念比任何的東西更重；想一想，人們生存的意義是什麼？自己的又是什麼？這個社會中，從兒時有理想，到長大後理想不知所終，換來的是所謂「現實的借口」，和唯物主義對心靈的安非他名；像有些電影中說，活著像老鼠一般，只為糊口。

有套電影的對白對我特別深刻，”I know I’m supposed to hate humans, but there’s something about them. They don’t just survive, they discover, they create… ” 今天我們活著又真的是這樣嗎？看來像survive多於discover and create；很多時我在想，這個城市除了金錢和唯物外，有其他的嗎，這一刻我真的想不到。

這城市的文化大概是生活的意義在於如何消費，就如前兩天看到網誌上有一寫到旅行要的電子器材如智能手機，平板電腦，手提電腦，高質數的相機等等；當我想去旅行時，我會想，在旅途中只想把手機關掉，去一些遠離城市的地方，找回一些自然，基本的東西，簡單才是美。

直到今天，幸好我還有想改變更新的念頭，不至完全沈沒在現實的現今世代。

共花了不到七千日元．．．

早在小學時習慣了每天都閱讀報章，不是娛樂，體育，而是頭版。看到太多時事的新聞，不想寫還要寫，寫了令自己的心理平衡一下吧。

一段影片，一位小孩和十九名路人，那活生生上演了現實的中國，這事沒有單一的主角，那正是今天中國社會的寫照。有社論寫到 ：

一個兩歲的女孩路上被車撞倒，假如有一個人從她身邊路過不管不問，可以有很多解釋。那個人或許是沒看見，那個人或許是特別膽小，那個人或許是個壞人，那個人或許是個精神病，等等等等。假如有兩個人從她身邊走過不管不問，可能的合理解釋就會大幅度減少。假如三個人從這樣可憐的女孩身邊走過不管不問，除了用“極端不幸運”之外，已經難以找到別的解釋。

然而，那是十八個路人經過，最後第一個上前關心的，居然是中國社會上最不起眼的撿破爛的女子，中國人今天的富有只是在表面，可悲的內裏比改革開放前更加貧窮。今天午飯，我跟別人和老爸討論那些問題，到底中國出了什麼毛病？為何中國的今天是那樣的？更加的香港不能獨善其身，若中國內地不去改變，那香港早晚也會這樣吧。跟別人討論後得出一些觀點，那些觀點不謀而合地問題只出在一個出發點，中國的共產黨。還記得在中學英文堂時讀的動物農莊的一書，書中用一個農莊的豬隱喻講述馬克思主義，蘇聯的斯大林和烏托邦主義等等。烏托邦主義是過分的理想化主義，在人性的弱點下跟本行不了，然而馬克思主義就有著烏托邦的那元素，所以理論是好，但長遠是行不了，而馬克思的主義就做就了前蘇聯的列寧，斯大林和各地的共產黨。在中國的近代史中，國民黨敗走台灣，共產黨得中華等，做就了今天中國國內的人性崩潰，唯物主義的局面。可能那就是前中共元老所說的“富有中國特色的社會主義”。

可能很多人不知道，中國的掌權者一向奉行無神論，無宗教的社會，一本的毛語錄就可以連中國的儒家思想，長久的倫理學都拋諸腦後；一句不管黑貓白貓，捉到老鼠就是好貓，就做就了今天的中國人不管對與錯，能找到金錢就是對的法則。有人會問為何說中國無宗教社會？誰說中國不可以信教？那我會反問有沒有人可以指出中國國教是那一門？就連早年跟隨孔子學說的也會被批鬥，王明道的勞改，對藏傳佛教的干擾等等都說明中國社會一件事，人民可以信，，不過要分層次，不可太過投入，而我聽過早年讀聖經前要讀毛語錄，現在就不得而知，只知道外國傳道人在中國傳教常受到監控。那跟今天的人性崩潰有什麼關聯？

想大家一定看過北美五六十年代，和香港六七十年代做主題的電影或電視劇，那年代都是混亂的，貪婪的，但他們和香港怎樣改變過來？以香港為例，當時是被英國管治，而反貪的風氣改變是有一個能強政厲治的姬達爵士去執行，而他因為自幼就受英式教育也明白何為對與不對，深入點說當時的英式教育也會將宗教上的倫理道德觀放入教材，不要看小它的作用，如果把正確倫理道德觀放入小孩的觀念上，那就是明日他成人結果的種子，減少了小孩變成人性崩潰的局面。因為有那些元素，當年香港反貪污的工作可以成功，此外歐美社會的以教立國，也令它們在六七十年代的混亂，貪婪改正過來，因為拿起一本聖經就分出那是對那是錯；所以有宗教的社會是有幫助；若真的沒有宗教的話，有代表性的人物也很重要，就美國為例，除了宗教令震盪人心的人物也很重要，從林肯到馬丁路德金，由思想家到執行者，做就了今天的美國。可能有人說他們都是那麼的冷血，如路易斯安那在風暴後商家發災難財等，但別忘記有人發災難財，有更加多的人在守望相助。

所以外在的富有不是長久，然而內在的富有才是永恆。我常跟別人說金錢買到很多東西，但人的腦袋，創意，和道德觀是買不到的，而那是人最貴重的財產吧。

It was in my reading folder long long time ago, this article is from Charles Arthur a technology editor of the Guardian in Britain. This article is describe about some detail of how Steve Jobs had be thinking, and work.

He’s chief executive of two of the most powerful technology brands in the world: Apple and Pixar. But what motivates Steve Jobs? And how does he choose a new washing machine? Charles Arthur investigates

Published: 29 October 2005

Imagine the scenario: a billionaire walks into a mobile phone shop. The sales assistant says, “Can I help you?” but gets the reply “Just looking, thank you.” The man tries a few phones, lifting his glasses to look at the detail of the display. He presses a couple of buttons. He shakes his head. He could buy any phone in the shop; in fact he could buy the shop, or even buy the chain. But he doesn’t. He walks out, empty-handed.

It sounds like an urban myth but it could be a day in the life of Steve Jobs, who is chief executive of two technology companies that are admired both inside and outside their respective industries: Apple (which makes the iPod and a range of computers) and Pixar (which made the films Toy Story and The Incredibles). Apple made him a multi-millionaire, Pixar made him a billionaire, and the two mean that at the age of 50 he has cemented a unique position as a force in computing, consumer electronics (through the iPod), the music business (the iPod again) and Hollywood.

And despite all that, he still can’t choose a mobile phone. (How nice to find you have something in common with such people.) His problem, he says, is that he can’t find things that satisfy him. “I end up not buying a lot of things,” he says, carefully, when I ask how he chooses what to buy from the myriad of gadgets and technologies in the shops. “Because I find them ridiculous.”

I’m in an anonymous underground room in Paris with Jobs and a large group of journalists, in a floor below a conference centre where people are flocking to a showcase of Apple products and services, a cacophony of promotional videos and software demonstrations with amplified voice accompaniment by eager geeks. But here, it’s quiet. Jobs is dressed in his trademark black turtleneck sweater and blue jeans, and trainers. The only gadgetry here is an iPod nano, the credit card-sized player he has just launched.

Despite his rock-star approach to unveiling new gizmos, Jobs has no great love of the media, which has from time to time exposed details about his private life that he would rather keep to himself. Thus he is a prickly interviewee, disliking personal questions, always aiming to turn the conversation back to his companies and their output. Though outwardly friendly, with an easy smile, in time he betrays his impatience through his hands and shoulders.

Suggest something he disagrees with – such as that there might be demand for an FM tuner in the iPod – and he’ll respond with the unprovable “People don’t want that.” Questions he deems foolish are themselves rebuffed with a brusque question, such as “Oh yeah? Who?”

A friend who once worked at Apple suggested to me that “Steve basically thinks of the press as insects.” Certainly, he is hard to engage at a personal level. And journalists are always at a disadvantage to Jobs, which may be just how he likes it. He has the insider knowledge of which way the technological river is flowing. When I questioned him, Apple had not launched its video-enabled iPod, nor begun selling videos from its online music store. But to me it seemed obvious that would happen, and soon. Isn’t it a logical next step, I asked?

“Whether people will buy a device just to watch video – it’s not clear,” Jobs replied easily. “So far the answer’s been no, because there are several devices out which play video and none of them has been successful yet. So, um – so far, nobody’s figured out the right formula.”

What’s missing from the other devices already on sale, then?

“Well, uh, if we knew then I probably shouldn’t talk about it,” Jobs beamed. Three weeks later, he did talk about it, holding aloft the video iPod he had known then was ready: “Never before has it been done where you can buy hit, network, prime-time shows online the day after they air on TV and watch them on your computer and iPod.” Whether it’s the right formula remains to be seen, of course.

So, looking forward, what does he see? For example, will TVs and computers merge? “Our personal belief is that while there’s an opportunity to apply software to the living room, the merging of the computer and the TV isn’t going to happen. They’re really different things. So yes, you want to share some information [between the two], but people who are planning to put computers into the living room, like they are today, I’m not sure they’re going to have a big success.” That’s a no, then.

He is disparaging about approaching development backwards. Home networking wirelessly whizzing music and video around the house? “I think in the future you’ll see some of that, but you’ve got to be sure it’s not a technology in search of a problem.” Wireless headphones for your iPod? “It means you not only have to recharge the iPod, you have to recharge the headphones, and people don’t want to do that – so again, I think it’s like so much f you see: a technology in search of a problem.”

But when he’s got a problem that needs some technology to solve it, he can be as painstaking as he is about his computer company’s output. He once described how he and his family chose a new washing machine. Not for them a cursory study of the spin speed and price tag; instead they discussed European versus American design, relative water use, detergent demands, everything. When I remind him of this, he smiles slowly, and says, “Yeah, but you have to have a washing machine, right?” It’s all the other things that frustrate him. So how does he choose things? “Same as you,” he says slowly. “We’re both busy and we both don’t have a lot of time to learn how to use a washing machine or to use a phone – you get one of the phones now and you’re never going to learn more than 5 per cent of the features.” He’s talking much faster now, accelerating in frustration. “You’re never going to use more than 5 per cent, and, uh, it’s very complicated. So you end up using just 5 per cent. It’s insane: we all have busy lives, we have jobs and we have interests and some of us have children, everyone’s lives are just getting busier, not less busy, in this busy society. You just don’t have time to learn this stuff, and everything’s getting more complicated.”

That frustration is characteristic of the man. Jobs, 50 last February, is notoriously finicky about the tiniest details of the products that Apple produces. (He gets less involved in Pixar’s output.) The iPod’s success largely derives from its ease of use, which derives from his insistence, when shown prototypes, that one should be able to pick any piece of music within three button presses from turning it on.

It’s remarkable that Jobs is still about. By rights, he should have disappeared decades ago, after being kicked out of Apple in 1985 and starting up another computer company that couldn’t make a profit, and buying an animation company that almost bled him dry (and which he tried to sell several times).

Yet NeXT Computer was bought by Apple, throwing him a lifeline which let him take charge again of his creation. And Pixar Animation, which Jobs co-founded in 1986, came up trumps with the first totally computer-generated feature film, Toy Story, giving him leverage over the all-powerful Disney and making him a billionaire in its stock-market floatation.

Still, Apple was just chugging along before the iPod relaunched it in October 2001. The ubiquitous small white machines now generate just under half of its $14bn revenues, and are still growing.

It sounds easy enough. But Jobs has rarely been offered, and rarely taken, the simple path. The son of a college student and a political science professor, he was adopted by a family led by a machinist at a laser manufacturer. Although his birth mother had made it a condition of his adoption that his new parents get him to attend university, he dropped out of Reed College in Portland, Oregon, after just six months. But then he became a “drop-in” back at Reed, attending only the courses, such as calligraphy, that interested him, while scratching an existence earning a few cents recycling cans and eating for free each week at the local Hare Krishna temple.

He got a job with the games company Atari, then left to travel in India. On his return, he worked for Hewlett-Packard before setting up Apple Computer in 1976 in the Jobs family garage with former school friend and computer hacker Steve Wozniak.

Apple grew and prospered, and so did Jobs; the Macintosh introduced the idea of “windows” and “mice” to the wider world. Microsoft adopted the idea and made it famous, continuing a long rivalry between Jobs and Bill Gates that stretches forwards and back in computing history. While Jobs obsessed over details, Microsoft steamrollered its way into companies and took over the world.

What’s peculiar is that Gates has frequently been wrong about the overall direction of technology. His 1995 book The Road Ahead is full of clunkers about how life would develop; Microsoft barely realised that the internet was coming along.

By contrast, you’d be unwise to bet against Jobs. In 1996, when NeXT Computer had already failed in its attempts to sell hardware (and so was having to concentrate on software), he gave a long interview to Wired magazine. In it he forecast that Microsoft wouldn’t find out a way to own the Web, that nobody would make money from web browsers, that the Web would be a huge hit for commerce (at a time when Amazon was barely six months old), and that the internet would revolutionise the supply of manufactured goods, by letting consumers specify fine detail of their desired product which could be relayed back to factories. Dell Computer, for example, works on precisely that basis. And Dell is by far the most profitable of the computer manufacturers. Jobs tends to be right about the direction of technology.

He has been wrong a few times, though. At NeXT, he thought people would pay a huge premium for an overdesigned cube-shaped computer (it had a laser-cut magnesium case; most manufacturers just used injection-moulded plastic). Only 50,000 were sold over eight years. At Apple, he thought people would pay a premium for a cube-shaped computer, the Cube; they didn’t. In the same year, 2000, he thought people would prefer to watch DVDs on their computers, rather than making their own music compilations by “burning” CDs. They didn’t. But he learnt from the latter mistake: Apple immediately bought in a music-playing program called SoundJam and its developer, Jeff Robbin. SoundJam became iTunes, the program that feeds the iPod, and Robbin leads its software side.

What has helped Jobs back from his errors is his ability with people. From a point of minimal leverage he has bettered both the Disney corporation and the record labels, two of the toughest (legal) negotiators on earth. Disney gave Pixar a favourable deal; the record companies licensed the iTunes Music Store, which has more than 75 per cent of the entire legal music download market.

Alan Deutschmann, a journalist who researched Jobs’s middle years for a biography called The Second Coming of Steve Jobs, believes he displays two personalities in his dealings with people: Good Steve and Bad Steve. The Good side is charming, and can make people believe almost anything; that’s the side on public view at the rock-star product launches. He’s been said to have a “reality distortion field” – by a mixture of charm and exaggeration, he can make you believe pretty much anything. But once he’s walked away, you’re sometimes left thinking “Huh?” Or as Bud Tribble, another of the early Macintosh employees, described it: “In his presence, reality is malleable. He can convince anyone of practically anything.” But, he added, “It wears off when he’s not around.” (Tribble, too, still works at Apple.)

When the Good Steve system hasn’t worked, or isn’t needed, there’s Bad Steve. He can get furiously angry, an emotion reserved for private moments with staff or those he thinks have been disloyal or useless. And his relationship with the media has its ups and downs, too. While he loves hobnobbing with celebrities, he hates being treated like one, and Apple’s relationship with the press reflects that.

“Apple manipulates several narratives to continue to make its products interesting fodder for journalists,” comments Jack Shafer, editor-at-large of the webzine Slate. “One is the never-ending story of mad genius Steve Jobs, who would be great copy even if he were only the night manager of a Domino’s pizza joint.”

He probably wouldn’t stay night manager for long, if he were. Jobs is a fiendishly good negotiator, a skill honed in the 1970s, when he charmed every supplier in Silicon Valley into providing parts for the first Apple computers. It’s this ability that makes him valuable to Pixar, where Jobs isn’t so involved in the production side (that is handled by John Lasseter). Jobs’s role was to write the cheques (which nearly bankrupted him, until the company was floated) and barter with film studios. Which he did with accomplishment: Disney gave in to Pixar, and is presently trying to woo it back to a new distribution deal – a deal that Jobs is making Disney give up all sorts of favours for, like providing content in the form of TV shows for his Apple iTunes store. The giant Disney, kowtowing to the tiny Apple? A bizarre reversal.

Viewing his life, one feels that Jobs, a Buddhist, came into some serious karma in his previous existences. Not only is he a billionaire but last year he fought off pancreatic cancer, usually a quick and efficient killer. He had a scan and was told it was a tumour that would almost certainly be fatal. He was told to go home and “get his affairs in order” – “which is doctors’ code for ‘prepare to die’. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you’d have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means … to say your goodbyes.”

That evening he had a biopsy: it turned out to be a rare form of pancreatic cancer that makes up just 1 per cent of cases and, crucially, is curable with surgery. Talk about your karma payoff. And yet with all that karma accumulated and dissipated, Jobs doesn’t believe that technology is going to change the world. “This stuff doesn’t change the world. It really doesn’t … Technologies can make it easier, can let us touch people we might not otherwise. But it’s a disservice to constantly put things in a radical new light – that it’s going to change everything. Things don’t have to change the world to be important.”

So then finally, what is the last piece of technology that he acquired – not made by Apple – that really delighted him? He pauses for long seconds, looks down, puts his hands on his knees, looks away. “I actually bought a bicycle recently. It’s just … wonderful.”

And how did he choose it? What sort of bike? What’s so great about it?

He holds a hand up. “That’s as far into my private life as I want to go,” he says. And with that, Steve Jobs moves on again.

The Apple story

1976 Apple Computer founded with Steve Wozniak in Jobs’s parents’ garage. Apple I computer introduced.

1977 Apple II computer launched, the first mass-market personal computer with colour graphics. (IBM’s monochrome PC was still four years away.)

1983 The Lisa computer, the forerunner to the Macintosh, launched. It uses “windows” and a “mouse”.

1984 The Apple Macintosh, the first general-purpose computer to use windows and mouse, launched.

1985 Jobs fired from Apple. He founds NeXT Computer.

1986 Jobs co-founds Pixar Animation around the remnants of George Lucas’s computer graphics division, which he buys for $10m.

1989 The NeXT Computer – an expensive black cube – introduced.

1993 NeXT ceases making computers, having sold just 50,000 in four years, and concentrates on selling its software.

1995 Pixar releases Toy Story, the first feature-length film that is completely computer-generated.

1996 Deep in financial trouble, Apple Computer, led by Gil Amelio, buys NeXT for $402m, bringing Jobs back into the fold. He insists he is not trying to take over the company.

1997 Jobs replaces Amelio as “interim chief executive”.

1997 Apple introduces its first iMac.

2001 Apple introduces the first iPod. It is a slow-burning hit. In the first year it sells about 400,000. To date more than 21 million have been sold.

2005 Jobs unveils the tiny iPod nano and a new iPod capable of playing video.

看facebook別人的update也是一種學習。不同人有不同的論點是正確的，而大多數不同的論點是值得思考，就如昨天在立法會事件一樣。不幸地有一大班港人已下定論說梁議員和黃議員“出位，幼稚“之類，但早幾日前范女士說“六四是不幸”那句倒沒有人說出一句話指她“幼稚，出位”；在我的觀點，那兩位議員一點也不過份，而在那場合他有說錯話嗎？有出言侮辱嗎？ 反而那位性曾的傢伙骨子裏的問題更大。更加的傳統傳媒報道的跟事實又差多遠呢？

首先，我會明白他和他的行為，我會反問覺得他們有問題的人，若他們不這樣問性曾的傢伙，有什麼方法去表達自己和被代表選民的意見呢？更加不要只說三道四來說那人不對， 不要只說什麼暴力之類，若你有更好的意見就不妨說出吧，說出別人錯處是容易的，但要幫別人改正是困難的。

接著是深層的思考是須要的，反覆地思考為何香港我政治和民生會變成今天的面貌，那不是單一兩個人用所謂的”議會暴力“可以做成，事實上人們不想再看到他們那樣的行為只有兩個選擇：1．香港實行中國共產黨式的高壓政治，人們像活在沒有自由空間的地方，活著的意義就是賺錢。2．真真正正進行改革，改變。改變現今香港的價值觀，找回香港自己本身的權利，不過那可要付出很大。

再說到改革，改變，它們一向不是香港，和大多香港人的思維，在很多廣告中也知一二，如有個大保險公司的廣告找個”半紅不黑“的歌手大唱”安穩“之類；君不見香港創新的公司少之又少，因為創新的公司是需要不斷的改變。因為改革，和改變開始的付出往往很大，近視的港人永遠不會進行它們。

那總會有人問為何這樣？那可能是文化問題吧，但在一大班年青人中，那就是另外一種問題。現今的年青人們有太多”活動“，太多的“網絡”，連靜止的一刻也沒有；就如我在上文寫到深層的思考是須要的，反覆地思考是有需要的，但時間都沒有，又如何去思考？ 給自己一點時間，給自己一點空間去思考，研究有興趣的事情，離開社交圈子，把電腦關上，獨自感受一下身邊週邊的事物。需要有一種求知的精神，因為求知，尋找知識才令人進步，看清事情，和作出改變。舉例如剛離世的喬幫主，就是他那種求知的精神，離開社交圈，獨立的思考和一流的觀察力才能三次改變（個人電腦，音樂播放器iPod，智能手機iPhone)大多數人的本身習慣（在Alan Deutschman的The second coming of Steve Jobs中提及）。而很久前他買下那間Pixar，那公司的員工和理念也就是這樣，他們在每一次創作新動畫時把自己當作新人一般，找出創新，改變魔法，令自己的作品一次比人一好(在Leslie Iwerks的The Pixar Story中提及），那就是元素，若香港的政府，一些香港的年青人會那樣想的話，我想今天的香港會更美好。

最後，很多時不想寫那些負面的事，我也清楚這地方有很多優越之處，但無奈地管治者不去利用，只用今朝有酒今朝醉的態度去管治，那情況只會每況越下，若不去改變，改革，大家去迎接像中國共黨的新香港吧。

又是天朗氣晴的一天:)

天朗氣清，藍天白雲～

在Steve Jobs離職那一天，我跟別人說過他是一個工作狂的人，不是身體出現到不能工作的情況，他不會停止工作的，所以他的離職只說明他命不久已。

10月6日的早上，我從旅遊回到現實，早上打開twitter看，看見Steve Jobs離世的tweet，心中沉寂了，我知道今天總會來臨，但超出我想像中的快。在他還未發病時，我總會想他不會生病的，一個素食者，愛爬山的人不會有大病的，那我錯了，病是不分人種，時間的，要來的始終都要來。

以前說過Steve Jobs 和 Steve Woz改變了很多我對世界，事物的看法，特別是Steve Jobs。若沒有認識和深究，今天的我大概像十年前的我吧。今天他離世，他的態度是不會跟著離去，像跟我6年前說過，人是生命去影響生命的。他昨天作的，活著的要比他活得更精彩。就像他以前說過，”Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma – which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of other’s opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.” 。

後記，今天坐巴士的時候看到報紙刊登iPhone 4GS炒價過萬，而想起昨天回港打開facebook又有人post 賣iPhone 4GS過萬。相比今天的新聞，香港人真的是沒救。人們的行為是他們的自由，但人們拿起那產品有沒有想到那產品能為他們做些什麼？為何不正正常常地用那產品去改變你身邊的事物？60年代，美國人只用一部比今天的電話還要慢的電腦把人送到月球去；今天一部電話或產品只能為一些人帶來投機,淘金的機會。我心中只有一句shame on you。不過我還是那一句，你想make live for living 還是make life for living。