跳至主要内容

The Entrepreneur of the Decade, An interview with Steve Jobs, Inc.'s Entrepreneur of the Decade

 

It took us all of about five minutes to decide that our Entrepreneur of the Decade would be Steven P. Jobs, co-founder of Apple Computer Inc. and founder of NeXT Inc. Granted, there are other entrepreneurs, a handful, who have enjoyed comparable success in the past 10 years, and who—unlike Jobs—have managed to avoid getting sacked by their companies in the process. But ultimately, their accomplishments pale alongside his. Without Jobs, after all, there would have been no Apple II. To that extent, he deserves credit for instigating—and shaping—a microcomputer revolution that has already transformed how we do business and may yet transform how we live.

Along the way, Jobs came to personify a whole generation of youthful company builders pioneering on the frontiers of technology—the men and women who, overnight, made Silicon Valley a business landmark and a household name. They were not only building companies; they were also experimenting with new ways of thinking about business itself. The national media hailed them for their innovative spirit and touted them as the people who would restore America's competitive edge.

Jobs was their most prominent representative, on the cover of Time before he turned 27. He came across as brash, abrasive, and rough edged. But he also had dreams, big dreams, and the peculiar ability to develop products that seemed to give us a glimpse of a bright and exciting future. What he did once with the Apple II, he did again with the Macintosh, only to be forced out of his company by the man he had recruited to lead it, former soft-drink executive John Sculley. Soon afterward Jobs started a new computer company, NeXT Inc., and then slipped from public view. But last fall he reemerged, staging a dramatic presentation at San Francisco's Symphony Hall to introduce his latest creation—a workstation for the higher-education market. Once again, his picture was splashed across newspapers and magazine covers. Steve Jobs was back.

Through it all, we followed his journey and shared his experiences, quietly rooting for his success. But it was not until we had settled on him as our Entrepreneur of the Decade that we realized how little we actually knew about him. That is the paradox of Jobs. As public as his life has been, he has remained a mystery over the years. We weren't at all sure what to expect when we met him at his Palo Alto, Calif., office.

Boyish is probably the word that best describes our first impression. He was wearing jeans and a turtleneck as he bounded up the stairs. He was friendly, even cordial, but there was a diffidence in his manner that became more pronounced as the afternoon wore on. A profoundly shy man, he had an almost physical aversion to any question that could be construed as even remotely personal.

On the other hand, he was thoroughly forthcoming about business. The experiences of recent years have not diminished his passion. He clearly loves what he is doing and talks about it with a fervent voice and gleaming eyes. In that respect, he seems as youthful as ever. Yet, at the same time, one senses a newfound maturity. Ask him the right questions, and he comes across as an extremely thoughtful person, engaged by deep issues, struggling to find the appropriate words, now able to articulate things that before he knew only by instinct.

By reputation, Jobs is a perfectionist and an extraordinarily demanding boss. Stories abound of the people he has burned out. We can believe them all. NeXT is surely no fun for those who don't share his fervor. Yet as we left, we realized that our strongest reaction to Steve Jobs was the one we considered least probable going in. We liked him.

Steve Jobs was interviewed by Inc. editors George Gendron and Bo Burlingham.

INC.: Where do great products come from?

JOBS: I think really great products come from melding two points of view—the technology point of view and the customer point of view. You need both. You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new. It took us three years to build the NeXT computer. If we'd given customers what they said they wanted, we'd have built a computer they'd have been happy with a year after we spoke to them—not something they'd want now.

INC.: You mean the technology is changing too fast.

JOBS: Yeah, and customers can't anticipate what the technology can do. They won't ask for things that they think are impossible. But the technology may be ahead of them. If you happen to mention something, they'll say, "Of course, I'll take that. Do you mean I can have that, too?" It sounds logical to ask customers what they want and then give it to them. But they rarely wind up getting what they really want that way.

INC.: It's got to be equally dangerous to focus too much on the technology.

JOBS: Oh, sure. You can get into just as much trouble by going into the technology lab and asking your engineers, "OK, what can you do for me today?" That rarely leads to a product that customers want or to one that you're very proud of building when you get done. You have to merge these points of view, and you have to do it in an interactive way over a period of time—which doesn't mean a week. It takes a long time to pull out of customers what they really want, and it takes a long time to pull out of technology what it can really give.

INC.: What do you mean?

JOBS: It's hard to explain. Sometimes the technology just doesn't want to show you what it can do. You have to keep pushing on it and asking the engineers over and over again to explain why we can't do this or that—until you truly understand it. A lot of times, something you ask for will add too much cost to the final product. Then an engineer might say casually, "Well, it's too bad you want A, which costs $1,000, instead of B, which is kind of related to A. Because I can do B for just 50¢." And B is just as good as A. It takes time to work through that process—to find breakthroughs but not wind up with a computer no one can afford.

INC.: And that's how you developed the NeXT machine?

JOBS: Right. I mean, we had the idea of doing a machine for higher education in the fall of 1985, but our original concept was about a third as good as the computer turned out to be. The improvement came from a lot of interaction between people in higher education and those of us at NeXT.

INC.: Give us an example.

JOBS: I have a friend at Stanford, a Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist. He was showing me what some of his students were doing to understand how proteins fold. He asked, "Couldn't you model this stuff on a computer if you had something more powerful than a PC?" It really got me thinking. What if you came up with something that was as easy to use as a Mac, or even easier, and had the power of a workstation? What if you unleashed that machine in higher education? The more I thought about it, the more excited I got.

INC.: But there are a lot of workstations around and computers far more powerful than workstations. What's so exciting about a souped-up microcomputer?

JOBS: Well, that gets back to something I've said before. You see, I think humans are basically tool builders, and the computer is the most remarkable tool we've ever built. The big insight a lot of us had in the 1970s had to do with the importance of putting that tool in the hands of individuals. Let's say that—for the same amount of money it takes to build the most powerful computer in the world—you could make 1,000 computers with one-thousandth the power and put them in the hands of 1,000 creative people. You'll get more out of doing that than out of having one person use the most powerful computer in the world. Because people are inherently creative. They will use tools in ways the toolmakers never thought possible. And once a person figures out how to do something with that tool, he or she can share it with the other 999.

INC.: That's a big idea.

JOBS: It's an extremely powerful paradigm. It's what has driven a bunch of us since this whole thing began to happen, and it hasn't changed. It hasn't changed for me since 1975. That's almost 15 years now. I believe this is one of the most important things that's going to happen in our generation. It would be easy to step back and say, "Well, it's pretty much over now." But if you look carefully, it's not over by any stretch of the imagination. The technological advances are coming at a rate that is far more ferocious than ever. To me, it's staggering to contemplate the tools we're going to be able to put in people's hands in the next few years—and I don't get impressed by this stuff so easily anymore.

So what we're doing here is driven by a fairly strong faith that people are going to continue to be as creative and as ingenious and as sharing with their results as they have been over the past 15 years. That sharing gives us a kind of leverage. For every improvement we can make in the tools we give people, we can improve the ultimate results even more, thanks to this leverage. That's what gets us so excited.

INC.: Let's go back to the process of creating these tools. How different was it back in the '70s, when you and Steve Wozniak were developing the Apple I and the Apple II?

JOBS: It was basically the same, although we were a lot less sophisticated. The customers for the Apple I were Woz and me and our friends in the Homebrew Computer Club. The Apple I was really the first computer to address the needs of the hobbyist who wanted to play with software but could not build his or her own hardware. It came with a digital circuit board, but you still had to go get your own keyboard, power supply, and television monitor. If you were a techie, the Apple I seemed to go 90 percent of the way. Of course, if you weren't a techie, it only went 10 percent of the way. We sold almost 200 of the Apple I. I think they're all collector's items now.

INC.: No doubt.

JOBS: The Apple I took us over a big hurdle, but a lot of people who wanted to use the product were unable to. We were getting some feedback from a fairly small sample—maybe 40, 50 people. We were hearing from dealers, too. They'd say, "I think I can sell 10 times more of these if you would just put a case and keyboard around it." That's where a lot of the direction for the Apple II came from. If there hadn't been an Apple I, there would not have been an Apple II. The first product solved some of the problems and exposed the remaining ones in a much clearer light. But we were going on common sense. We didn't think in terms of customer feedback. We never even used the word customer.

INC.: So what were you thinking?

JOBS: We were thinking we should build a computer you could just roll out of the box and use. There were a lot more software hobbyists than hardware hobbyists around, and we could satisfy a lot more people if they didn't have to be hardware hackers to use it.

INC.: And that observation led to the Apple II.

JOBS: Right. And the same fundamental thing happened in 1979, when I saw an Alto [that had been developed] at Xerox PARC [Palo Alto Research Center]. It was as if, all of a sudden, the veil had been lifted from my eyes. It had the mouse and the multiple-font text on the screen, and you realized in an instant that this would appeal to exponentially more people than the Apple II. I'm talking about people who didn't want to learn how to use a computer—they just wanted to use one. You could eliminate a whole layer of what someone had to know in order to take advantage of this tool.

INC.: So the contribution of the Apple II . . .

JOBS: The Apple II peeled off the hardware layer. You didn't need to know about the hardware to use a computer. The next step was the transition from the Apple II to the Macintosh, which peeled off the computer-literacy layer, if you will. In other words, you didn't have to be a hacker or a computer scientist to use one of these.

INC.: Let's talk about some other aspects of these products. We've read stories about how finicky you were with the Apple II—how you insisted that every line of solder on the circuit board be perfectly straight, for example, and that the inside of the machine look neat and attractive.

JOBS: Yeah, that's right.

INC.: The NeXT circuit board is a thing of beauty, too. So is the computer. In fact, it could probably go in some collection at the Museum of Modern Art.

JOBS: They've called.

INC.: But why is the appearance of a circuit board so important to you? Is this just a personal quirk of yours?

JOBS: No, it's not arbitrary. You're asking, where does aesthetic judgment come from? With many things—high-performance automobiles, for example—the aesthetic comes right from the function, and I suppose electronics is no different. But I've also found that the best companies pay attention to aesthetics. They take the extra time to lay out grids and proportion things appropriately, and it seems to pay off for them. I mean, beyond the functional benefits, the aesthetic communicates something about how they think of themselves, their sense of discipline in engineering, how they run their company, stuff like that.

INC.: But who cares? Most people are never going to look inside.

JOBS: Woz and I cared from the very beginning. And we felt the people who were going to own the Apple II would care, too. We were selling these things for $1,600, I think, which was a lot of money back in 1977, and these were people who generally didn't have $1,600. I know people who spent their life savings on one. Yeah, they cared what it looked like on the inside.

INC.: Was this just intuitive to you?

JOBS: Yes, it was. We thought, why don't we take the extra few days or weeks and do it right? We had a fundamental belief that doing it right the first time was going to be easier than having to go back and fix it. And I cannot say strongly enough that the repercussions of that attitude are staggering. I've seen them again and again throughout my business life. They're just staggering.

INC.: How do you mean?

JOBS: In my experience, people get far more excited about doing something as well as it can be done than about doing something adequately. If they are working in an environment where excellence is expected, then they will do excellent work without anything but self-motivation. I'm talking about an environment in which excellence is noticed and respected and is in the culture. If you have that, you don't have to tell people to do excellent work. They understand it from their surroundings. You may have to coach them at first, but then you just get out of their way, and they'll surprise you time and time again.

INC.: So?

JOBS: So how do you communicate to people that they are in an environment where excellence is expected? You don't say it. You don't put it in an employee handbook. That stuff is meaningless. All that counts is the product that results from the work of the group. That will say more than anything coming out of your mouth or your pen. So you have to pay close attention to those details, even if they seem minor, because they communicate a big attitude about what you do.

INC.: Can you be more specific?

JOBS: Sure. When we started the Macintosh factory, I made a few mistakes before I finally put Debbie Coleman in to run it, and she turned out to be a good choice. I remember that I'd go out to the factory, and I'd put on a white glove to check for dust. I'd find it everywhere—on machines, on the tops of the racks, on the floor. And I'd ask Debbie to get it cleaned. I told her I thought we should be able to eat off the floor of the factory. Well, this drove Debbie up the wall. She didn't understand why you should be able to eat off the floor of the factory. And I couldn't articulate it back then.

See, I'd been very influenced by what I'd seen in Japan. Part of what I greatly admired there—and part of what we were lacking in our factory—was a sense of teamwork and discipline. We lacked discipline about little details, but they were important. This was an automated factory. It wasn't going to be the big things that would stop us. It was going to be the little details, because one little detail could shut down the whole line. If we didn't have the discipline to keep that place spotless, then we weren't going to have the discipline to keep all these machines running.

INC.: What happened?

JOBS: We went along for a while, and the factory became clean, but Debbie and I continued to have conflicts over various things. Then one day I came into the factory, and I saw that she had rearranged some of the machines. Before, they had been randomly placed around the floor. Debbie had moved them for some functional reasons and also for some nonfunctional reasons. She'd put them in a straight line and cleaned the place up visually. And I hadn't mentioned anything to her. Well, that told me a light bulb had come on for her, and I didn't need to say a thing about it ever again—and I never did. From then on, she just took off like a rocket, because she understood the underlying principle. And the factory worked great.

INC.: It sounds as if she had to figure it out on her own.

JOBS: Yeah, but this stuff takes time. Let me give you an example from NeXT. We have probably the most automated factory in the world. Our circuit board comes out untouched by human hands. We have a series of sophisticated robots, some of which we built, some of which we bought. Now these robots come in different colors, and I wanted them all painted the same color. We went through a lot of trouble over that because the robot companies weren't used to painting things in any color but their own. People in our factory asked me, "Why is it so important to paint these machines the same color? We don't understand it." So we had to sit down with everybody and explain. Even after hearing the reasons, it took people six months or so before they began to understand.

INC.: What are the reasons?

JOBS: For one thing, we want the place to look nice because we bring customers through. They're going to make a decision on using NeXT products, and they ought to know that we have a very high-quality manufacturing operation. But the real reason is that we don't want people to think of the factory as separate islands of automation. We want people thinking of the whole. Suppose we have a bottleneck at one robot. In reality, you can probably rebalance the line and solve the problem—provided you think of it as a whole. It took people six months to understand this, but now it's in their bones. We spend a lot of time going over these concepts and why they are important—not just in the abstract, but right down to the everyday tangible point of view. That's what building a company culture is all about.

INC.: Do you have more influence over things like that now than at Apple? There's a perception that the launch of Apple was a team effort, and NeXT is very much your show.

JOBS: Is that really the perception?

INC.: To some extent, it is. Of course, there weren't any celebrities at Apple back then. Now, you're a celebrity.

JOBS: Well, we all tend to reduce reality to symbols, but Superman went out a long time ago. The way you accomplish anything significant is with a team.

INC.: Is it a problem or an asset to be a celebrity?

JOBS: Is this Inc. or People?

INC.: Hold on. We're asking a legitimate business question. Maybe celebrity is the wrong word, but you must certainly be a magnet for bright, young talent, which is probably what helps make this an exciting place to work. Don't you ever worry that the very thing that attracts people to your company might also inhibit them from challenging you when they should?

JOBS: Again, it all depends on the culture. The culture at NeXT definitely rewards independent thought, and we often have constructive disagreements—at all levels. It doesn't take a new person long to see that people feel fine about openly disagreeing with me. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with them, but it does mean that the best ideas win. Our attitude is that we want the best. Don't get hung up on who owns the idea. Pick the best one, and let's go.

INC.: What about the expectations people have of you?

JOBS: I think people outside NeXT have fairly high expectations of us, because we have a lot of people here with impressive track records. Before we introduced the machine, many people felt we had little chance of living up to those expectations. The feedback I've gotten is that we've exceeded their expectations—which is a double-edged sword. Now, we have to be pretty much world class with our products and services, but that's also an opportunity.

INC.: Did you ever doubt you'd meet or exceed the expectations?

JOBS: You don't think about it that way. You just make the best product you can, and you don't put it out until you feel it's right. But no matter what you think intellectually, your heart is beating pretty fast right before people see what you've produced.

INC.: What about your expectations of yourself? A lot of successful company builders we know agonize about going back and doing it all over a second time. They think, if it's not bigger—in importance, that is, not necessarily in scale—why bother doing it?

JOBS: Well, first, you have to realize this is my third time. The Macintosh was my second. I mean, that was a bunch of us going off and starting in the garage again. We used Apple as a financial mechanism, and we used the sales force. But we fundamentally redefined a lot of things at Apple, and we had to do it from scratch.

INC.: Are you saying that you've already proven to yourself that you can do it all over again?

JOBS: I'm saying that my motivation is a little different this time. The computer industry is young. I view its future and its history as one long vector. We're only in the first inch of that vector. For some reason, we are in the right place at the right time to influence its direction. You just have to move the vector a little bit in the first inch, and the swing will be enormous by the time it gets to be three miles long. I think both the Apple II and the Macintosh contributed to setting the vector's direction—at least for the part of the computer industry that is most exciting to me. I hope the NeXT machine will contribute as well.

INC.: That's a tall order.

JOBS: It sure is. It means we have to succeed on a very large scale. Our smallest competitor is $1.75 billion these days. The world doesn't need another $100-million computer company. We have to get up to a certain scale if we want to play in the sandbox, and if we want to have the effect we're looking for at the end of the process. We're building the next billion-dollar computer company here—from the ground up.

INC.: How can you actually plan that kind of growth?

JOBS: You can't. Somebody once told me, "Manage the top line, and the bottom line will follow." What's the top line? It's things like, why are we doing this in the first place? What's our strategy? What are customers saying? How responsive are we? Do we have the best products and the best people? Those are the kind of questions you have to focus on.

INC.: Are those explicit goals for NeXT?

JOBS: We have three high-level goals. One is to make the best computers in the world for individuals. They might be in networks or in groups, but one person, one computer. Second, we want a company where really bright people can come and be handed a lot of responsibility early on. If we have an exciting place to work, we can get the best and the brightest to come work here. The third goal is to make sure that the people who build this company share in its success.

INC.: You once said that you felt people do their best work in their twenties. You're 33 now...

JOBS: I'm about to turn 34. Any day.

INC.: So is that a concern for you, given your ambitions for NeXT?

JOBS: No, I think I'm going to be doing some of my best work in the next few years. I want to make the most of it, and that means providing an unobstructed path for the brightest minds in our industry. My job becomes more to help them pick the targets correctly and then get out of their way.

INC.: That's very different from playing an intense hands-on role. It takes a certain maturity. You have to look for different rewards.

JOBS: I don't know about that. You're still in there working with your sleeves rolled up. Then the time comes to get out and let people do their work. But in a company as amibitious as NeXT, there is always another group asking for help. So it's not as if you ever have to sit around with nothing to do.

INC.: You seem to have thought a lot about your role.

JOBS: Yeah, well, when you do things the first time, you might have good instincts, but you don't understand the process intellectually. You may get some fairly good results, but you're not exactly sure why. It takes time and reflection to understand the process.

Then you get a chance to test your understanding. Some things will test out right; others will test out wrong. Hopefully, you're paying attention. By the third time, you should start to get a pretty good feeling in your gut that you understand the process. And you can use that understanding to become a lot more productive. That's how this feels. A lot of us have been working together for a long time.

INC.: So you can avoid mistakes?

JOBS: Oh, we'll make a whole bunch of mistakes. That's what life is about. But at least they'll be new and creative ones.

INC.: You once said that, in the early days of Apple, Woz was the great engineer, but you were the one who turned the ideas into products. Do you still think of your role in terms of the product?

JOBS: I think the same philosophy that drives the product has to drive everything else if you want to have a great company. Manufacturing, for example, is an extension of the engineering process for us. We view it more and more as a software-engineering job with interesting I/O [input-output] devices on the ends. It demands just as much thought and strategy as the product. If you don't pay attention to your manufacturing, it will limit the kind of product you can build and engineer. Some companies view manufacturing as a necessary evil, and some view it as something more neutral. But we view it instead as a tremendous opportunity to gain a competitive advantage.

INC.: Have you always viewed it that way?

JOBS: Ever since I visited Japan in the early '80s. And let me add that the same is true of sales and marketing. You need a sales and marketing organization that is oriented toward educating customers rather than just taking orders, providing a real service rather than moving boxes. This is extremely important. For most of your customers, after all, the sales folks are your company. So you've really got to pay attention to that. The point is that our philosophy is not a product philosophy. It's a philosophy of how we go about things, and it affects everything—finance, information systems. Can I digress for a moment?

INC.: Go ahead.

JOBS: Let's take the decision to automate a factory. You might have a lot of reasons for doing it, quality and other things. But there's a nice by-product of automation if you're growing very fast: you probably don't have to hire people as rapidly as you would if you weren't automated. When you hire people too quickly and don't give them appropriate training, quality drops off. So you have a much better chance of hanging on to your quality if you automate. The same is true in other parts of the company—accounts payable, for example. With a really good information system, you can automate a lot of those functions. Then you don't have to hire people, which saves your company an enormous amount of energy.

So, to build a great company, you need more than a great product. You have to pay attention to all the different areas and be as aggressive with them as with your product. Otherwise, you'll spend half your time fixing things that break. And that's typical of high-growth companies. Half the management time is spent making repairs—stock-option plans, marketing strategies, information systems, whatever.

INC.: Let's stop there. Suppose somebody is starting a company and doesn't have your resources to fall back on. Is any of this relevant?

JOBS: Well, obviously, you can't build a multimillion-dollar automated factory if you don't have the money. But a lot of this stuff just requires energy.

Take an employee stock-participation plan. You need help from a lawyer or a consultant. Most people take very little time selecting lawyers and consultants. It doesn't cost money to interview 10 lawyers, but you have to invest your time. And most people don't do it because they don't think it's important. But it is important. It will save you countless hours in the future.

And the same goes for auditors, accountants, engineering consultants, and so on. Because you need people who can anticipate the problems you will encounter and who can offer solutions.

INC.: It sounds as though you experienced these problems at Apple.

JOBS: Of course. I can show you the arrows.

INC.: This is just a personal observation. You seem much more interested in business than we had expected.

JOBS: Business is what I do.

INC.: But you have an image as someone more focused on the technical side of things.

JOBS: Well, there's the technical part of the equation and the business part, meaning the distribution, manufacturing, and so on. And then there's the human part. You just have to put the whole equation together.

INC.: May we ask you a mushy question? We're in a business in which we rarely get to see people using our product, except maybe on an airplane once in a while. But you get to see the products you've created being used all the time. Do you sometimes marvel at the effect you've had on people's lives?

JOBS: Well, yes, there are some moments. I was in an elementary school just this morning, and they still had a bunch of Apple IIs, and I was kind of looking over their shoulders. Then I get letters from people about the Mac, saying, "I never thought I could use a computer before I tried this one."

INC.: To some extent, you don't know how people are going to use a computer when it first comes out, do you?

JOBS: No, you don't. Sometimes it takes years to exploit a computer's baseline capabilities. It took five years before people exploited the advanced features of the Apple II. With the Macintosh, it took three or four years. So it's important to build in as much raw capability as possible when you put out the machine.

INC.: Did you have any idea that you were creating whole new industries with the development of the Apple II and the Mac?

JOBS: With the Mac, it was fairly clear; less so with the Apple II. But I must also say that the experience of watching it happen is quite different from the experience of imagining it happen. I think everybody who had anything to do with creating the Mac has very, very good feelings about it.

 

 

 

 

 

Popular posts from 产品随想的博客

Steve Jobs on the iTunes Music Store: The Unpublished Interview

A candid talk with Apple's CEO on a landmark day in its history. By Laura Locke  |  Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 1:15 am Steve Jobs announces the iTunes Music Store. On April 28th, 2003, moments before I was about to interview Steve Jobs at San Francisco’s Moscone Center, I was jittery. Anticipation? Nerves? Excitement? You bet. All of those visceral emotions were firing. Knowing Jobs’ storied reputation as an irascible and exacting Silicon Valley CEO had me on edge. But I had prepared a tight set of questions. Secretly, I was hoping he might enjoy the line of inquiry. In turn, I would have a lively and candid report for my editors at TIME. What I didn’t know was that the interview was taking place on what would turn out to be one of the most important days in Apple’s history: The launch of the iTunes Music Store. Once again, Ste...

“真假难辨”的效果图如何打造,以一只笔为例(下)——渲染篇

原文地址 独家教程 | “真假难辨”的效果图如何打造,以一只笔为例(下)——渲染篇 上期独家教程,康石石带大家用Rhino完成了 COPIC MULTILINER 针管笔建模(复习请戳: 独家教程 | “真假难辨”的效果图如何打造,以一只笔为例(上)——建模篇 ),下面我们把它丢进Keyshot渲染器里,看看究竟Keyshot究竟能不能打造真实照片一般的既视感。 Keyshot虽为各家晚辈,但近年来突飞猛进。有的同学说Keyshot渲染效果不如V-Ray,但我们可以看下本期独家教程内容再作判断。 基础材质赋予 首先我们打开 Keyshot 基本导入参数 导入后 由于我们事先在Rhino中,对各个部件分过色,所以我们可以直接,尽情 把左边各种需要的材质球直接拖到需要的部件上 。 初步赋予材质后效果 特写效果 环境光赋予 Keyshot预设的材质显然不能够完全适合所需情况,且物体上的光线并不是很正确。因此同学们需要 将环境光换成更加接近真实摄影棚的灯光场景 。 选用 3 Panels Tilted 2k 作为的基本环境光,将环境光拖入环境里之后,效果如下: 模型各部材质赋予 由于光影的变化,整个模型已更加真实。 接下来 各部的材质还需根据实际的视觉情况 手工调整 。 以下是这次模型各部材质的参数:   笔身主要的金属材质 黑色塑料件部分以及笔头的黑色 笔夹与笔头所使用的金属材质 Tip:金属材质是将Keyshot预设的钢材质的粗糙度调整为0.01而成。 握柄处的塑料材质 Tip:因为塑料的视觉特点,此处特地选用了 半透明属性的材质 做调整,除了表面颜色的参数之外,剩余的三个颜色区域均使用了 R255,G255,B255的纯白 。 笔身标签渲染 在给各部赋予了材质之后,产品很重要的一个环节就是印刷于产品之上的各种商标与说明,在Keyshot中,这些效果可以很轻松的通过标签功能来实现。 首先对实物上的印刷效果进行观察, 可以看出实物上的印刷效果其实是比较立体的 。 Tip: 细节,往往是产品品质的一种体现。 在效果图的渲染中,也应该...

BIM江湖演义——ArchiCAD vs Revit

原文 地址 江湖中历来不缺乏传奇。在建筑软件的这片江湖中,风云变幻,豪杰辈出,有两大世家始终屹立不倒——一个来自欧罗巴,名字低调:“图形软件”(Graphisoft),却继承了一身的艺术家气质,手握长剑白衣胜雪;一个来自美利坚,人称“自动桌子”(Autodesk),性格豪放不羁,七种武器样样精通。本文所说的,就是这两大世家的代表人物:ArchiCAD与Revit之间的较量。 这个论题本是老生常谈了,谈到BIM绕不过的就是Revit与ArchiCAD。两者的对比许多帖子都讨论过,但往往大而化之,原则性的东西多,细节的东西少,因此我想再作一次比较,希望能深入一点,具体一点,力争较为全面地反映两者的真实面貌。但这种对比往往两面都不讨好,你懂的,因此本文也多用戏说的语气,我姑妄说之,列位看官也就姑妄听之吧,有不当之处还请多多包涵! 先介绍一下本人对这两个软件的熟悉程度。我用ArchiCAD有4年了,出过几套施工图,都已竣工,编过一系列向日葵图库,颇受好评,对ArchiCAD的认识偏重于施工图;用Revit一年半,出过四个工程的土建及MEP模型,也用其API编了若干插件,对Revit的认识偏重于建模(包括结构及MEP建模)。应该说对ArchiCAD与Revit的认识都算深入了。 当然两者的深度比较是一个庞大的工程,而且个人看法难免有偏见,技术上也多有误解之处,因此希望各位能指正与补充。 1 软件的思想、架构对比 从软件的历史来说,无疑是ArchiCAD悠久得多,Revit是Autodesk在2002年才收购回来的,但Revit有一个强有力的东家,马上推出“BIM”这个很炫的口号,一下把ArchiCAD沿用多年的“虚拟建筑”这个老老实实的口号给打败了,于是ArchiCAD也只好宣称自己是个BIM软件,搞得在外人看来,倒像是Revit占了先机。 从软件设计的角度来看,两者也是差别巨大的。ArchiCAD从20多年前就致力于三维建筑设计,在这方面积累了足够多的经验,多年来也是沿用其架构做一些小更新、小完善、小整合。从我接触的7.0到最新的14.0,感觉比较大的变动就是10.0版整合PlotMaker、12版支持多核计算提升速度、12版新增幕墙工具、13版团队工作大幅改进。在界面上、使用习惯上一直差别不大,这也在一个侧面反映了ArchiCAD软件设计的一个“精英思路”——我本来就...

Steve Jobs: Rolling Stone’s 2003 Interview

  When Steve Jobs cruises into the airy reception area on the Apple Computer campus in Cupertino, California, on a recent morning, nobody pays much attention to him, even though he’s the company’s CEO. He’s wearing shorts, a black T-shirt and running shoes. Tall and a little gawky, Jobs has a fast, loping walk, like a wolf in a hurry. These days Jobs seems eager to distance himself from his barefoot youth – who was that crazy kid who once called the computer “a bicycle for the mind”? – and driven to prove himself as a clear-thinking Silicon Valley capitalist. Jobs punches the elevator button to the fourth floor, where his small office is located. For a man who is as responsible as anyone for the wonder and chaos of Silicon Valley, Jobs’ view of it all is surprisingly modest: shrubby treetops extending out toward San Francisco Bay, the distant whoosh of the freeway below. There is nothing modest, however, about Apple’s recent accomplishments. In the past few months,...

产品随想 | 周刊 第75期:2023.1.8 君民共主之国

Products 各大高校课程资源汇总   https://github.com/nwuzmedoutlook/university 120+国内高校课程资源纯手工整理,欢迎补充、修订 Ideas Marc Andreessen   https://www.theobservereffect.org/marc.html 关于阅读,工作计划 Design The biggest auction sales of 2022   https://insider.hagerty.com/trends/the-biggest-auction-sales-of-2022/ 非常精美的老车集合 它可能是個人電腦史上最重要的一張椅子:Herman Miller 和科技怎麼共同演化的?   https://blog.starrocket.io/posts/herman-miller-mother-of-invention/ 「如果說 Engelbart 是透過 科技 推動心智發展(他稱之為 bootstrap),那 Herman Miller 就是透過 家具 提升人類智識。」 Every Default macOS Wallpaper – in Glorious 6K Resolution   https://512pixels.net/projects/default-mac-wallpapers-in-5k/ Mac原始壁纸 Citizenship Consciousness & Privacy 豆瓣9.0分以上的社会学好书,你看过几本?   https://www.sohu.com/a/536977365_565460 读懂中国 史料搬运工 | 一生事业付诸流水后的反思   https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/666961.html 「李鸿章是个谨小慎微之人。他没有在信函中说要如何做才能实现上下一心。但在郭、曾、薛三人的日记里,这个问题有一个共同的答案,那就是:将清廷变革为“君民共主之国”。」 Economy & Business & Market data 中国软件三十年:烟尘隐入,夹缝重生   https://mp.weixin.qq...

Steve Jobs talks about the difference between art and technology

  When asked by   Time   magazine about the difference between art and technology, Jobs said, “I’ve never believed that they’re separate. Leonardo da Vinci was a great artist and a great scientist. Michelangelo knew a tremendous amount about how to cut stone at the quarry. The finest dozen computer scientists I know are all musicians. Some are better than others, but they all consider that an important part of their life. I don’t believe that the best people in any of these fields see themselves as one branch of a forked tree. I just don’t see that. People bring these things together a lot. Dr. Land at Polaroid said, ‘I want Polaroid to stand at the intersection of art and science,’ and I’ve never forgotten that. I think that that’s possible, and I think a lot of people have tried.”

产品随想 | 周刊 第52期:HP家的Linux笔记本

Products 腾讯柠檬清理   https://github.com/Tencent/lemon-cleaner 腾讯开源,那基本意味着不再维护了...... (据专业人士看,代码写的烂) Teclis   https://teclis.com/ 一个比较窄,但质量非常高的搜索引擎 Ina La Revue Des Médias   https://larevuedesmedias.ina.fr/ 挺小众的法语网站,对于媒体,对于新闻热点的解读,还挺好 Dashy   https://github.com/Lissy93/dashy A self-hostable personal dashboard built for you. Includes status-checking, widgets, themes, icon packs, a UI editor and tons more! 全定制化的看板,非常酷 OpenSnitch   https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch OpenSnitch is a GNU/Linux port of the Little Snitch application firewall 好用的Linux网络状态监控软件,帮助盯住不老实的App 这个工具的创作者,Simone Margaritelli,evilsocket,非常高产 emoji-supply   https://github.com/alcor/emoji-supply 把 Emoji 组合成漂亮的壁纸、封面图 Vue Color Avatar   https://github.com/Codennnn/vue-color-avatar 一个纯前端实现的头像生成网站 itty.bitty   https://github.com/alcor/itty-bitty Itty.bitty is a tool to create links that contain small sites Administrative-divisions-of-China   https://github.com/modood/Administrativ...

写给大家看的中文排版指南

作者:Hindy 原文地址: http:// zhuanlan.zhihu.com/uici rcle/20506092 前言:很遗憾,我们的周围充斥着大量排版丑陋的文章。我国的字体排印与日本、美国等设计强国差距实在太大。我希望能够做些力所能及的小事,让更多人意识到“设计”的价值和其必要性,创造更美好的视觉环境。本文旨在帮助普及、提升大家对文字排版的认识,让大家在平时的学习工作中能有更专业的文字排版素养。 必看人群: 设计师、编辑、作家、撰稿人、教师、学生 目录: 1. 中文排版 1.1 引号 1.2 省略号与破折号 1.3 行首行尾禁则 2. 西文排版基础 2.1 西文撰写基础 2.2 西文标点相关 2.3 斜体的用法 2.4 大小写的区别 3. 中西文混排 3.1 基础原则 3.2 标点相关 1. 中文排版 1.1 引号 我国国家标准要求弯引号,个人建议使用直角引号。 示例:你竟然喜欢“苹果表”? 引号中再用引号使用双直角引号。 示例:我问他,“你竟然喜欢‘苹果表’?” 当引号表示讽刺、反语暗示时,使用弯引号(用法参考“西文排版”部分)。 示例:说真的,我也很 “喜欢”“苹果表”哦。 1.2 省略号(删节号)与破折号 省略号占两个汉字空间,包含六个点。 正确示例:中国设计还有太长路要走…… 错误示例:中国设计还有太长路要走… 破折号占两个汉字空间。 示例:中国设计还有太长路要走──加油罢。 1.3 行首行尾禁则 点号(顿号、逗号、句号等)、结束引号、结束括号等,不能出现在一行的开头。 错误示例: 排版时注意某些 符号不能在行首 ,别弄错了。 正确示例: 排版时注意某些 符号不能在行首, 别弄错了。 开始引号、开始括号、开始双书名号等,不能出现在一行的结尾。 错误示例: 她对我们说:“ 这书太赞了。” 正确示例: 她对我们说: “这书太赞了。” 2. 西文排版基础 2.1 西文撰写基础 句首字母大写。 单词间留空格。 示例:Have a question? 2.2 西文标点相关 点号后加一个空格(如逗号、句号等)。 示例:Hello everyone! Welcome to my blog....

Laurene’s own remarks about Steve

Steve and I met here, at Stanford, the second week I lived in California. He came here to give a talk, and afterwards we found each other in the parking lot. We talked until four in the morning. He proposed with a fistful of freshly picked wildflowers on a rainy New Year’s Day. I said yes. Of course I said yes. We built our lives together. He shaped how I came to view the world. We were both strong-minded, but he had a fully formed aesthetic and I did not. It is hard enough to see what is already there, to remove the many impediments to a clear view of reality, but Steve’s gift was even greater: he saw clearly what was not there, what could be there, what had to be there. His mind was never a captive of reality. Quite the contrary. He imagined what reality lacked, and he set out to remedy it. His ideas were not arguments but intuitions, born of a true inner freedom. For this reason, he possessed an uncannily large sense of possibility—an epic sense of possibility. Steve’s love of beaut...

产品随想 | 周刊 第117期:He saw the intersection of art and science and business and built an organization to reflect that.

He disliked biography attempts. “I regard my scientific papers as my essential biography,’’ Land said. “I pour my whole life into the scientific project I’m investigating. I leave behind the things I’ve done in the past to do the work in the present.’’ “The purpose of inventing instant photography was essentially aesthetic,’’ Land said in 1947, announcing the process’s invention. “We live in a world changing so rapidly that what we mean frequently by common sense is doing the thing that would have been right last year.” — Edwin Land, Statement to Polaroid Corporation employees (25 June 1958) The worldview he was describing perfectly echoed Land’s: “Market research is what you do when your product isn’t any good.” And his sense of innovation: “Every significant invention,” Land once said, “must be startling, unexpected, and must come into a world that is not prepared for it. If the world were prepared for it, it would not be much of an invention.” Thirty years later, when a reporter ask...