OP clearly would have been willing to negotiate a better price and even Craig was trying to hold the deal together. This fell through because Steve was offended at being bluffed, not for any objective evaluation of business merit.
What I consider soft is lashing out over the smallest emotional slight, which Steve was famous for. I wish we would all stop pretending that the platonic ideal of a leader is having the emotional maturity of a toddler.
> What I consider soft is lashing out over the smallest emotional slight, which Steve was famous for. I wish we would all stop pretending that the platonic ideal of a leader is having the emotional maturity of a toddler.
Exactly. The lesson of this encounter wasn't anything more than: Steve Jobs had power and was willing to use it at the drop of a hat to puff up his ego over a tiny thing. Maybe there was something strategic behind that or maybe he just had anger issues and enough power that he didn't have to do anything about them.
You seem to be suggesting the problem is that Jobs allowed himself to get offended. Isn't it rather that there was a lack of trust between parties? In failing to recognize that "mark to model" does not work in the real world, and that you are worth whatever someone will pay for you, OP "lied" to Steve, who was "marking to market," by contrast. Whether or not OP intended to deceive, this was a misstep in the relationship.
What? It was a 3-4 sentence exchange and Steve simply piledrived through the guy in his typical bully way. ("We'll make sure the investort accept it.") The startup wanted a higher price and the guy said it so with emphasis, this triggered Steve, and that's the end of the story, the blahblah about offers and trust doesn't really matter, as at that point it was about emotion. (They just met there was no established trust anyway.) The guy folded like a house of cards - as would probably anyone who happens to be doing their first negotiation to sell their company, especially doing it with the oh so powerful Mr Jobs.
And this huge analysis about deceptive intent makes no sense. Of course the startup wanted a price as high as they can get.
Totally agree that we should "stop pretending that the platonic ideal of a leader is having the emotional maturity of a toddler. ", and my respect for Jobs is very mixed in this regard
Yet this story increased my esteem for Jobs.
Jobs knew going in that Apple could build the feature set themselves, and invited the company on the chance that they could do it faster with an aqui-hire. He'd prepared and knew his numbers also, although he didn't need or intend to discuss them.
Now, everything goes swimmingly, and then this guy asks about numbers and expresses concern that his investors won't accept that. Fair enough, legit, and Steve instantly responds "Don't worry, we'll make sure they accept it." That should be WAY MORE than enough of a statement from someone like Jobs - he and his team obviously have huge experience at this, and the guy should have dropped it, and taken back that information, now more prepared. He should also have read the room and noticed that the tenor had changed and that's as far as it should be pushed.
Now, he goes ahead and doubles down basically demanding more money. It is now just about the money. Had he stopped at "I think we're worth more", it probably would have just ended at Steve saying "I don't think so", and leaving it to Eddy, maybe they'd make a deal, maybe not.
But then he instantly doubled down again, saying "I Know it is" - basically saying he had a competing term sheet at that value — when he had nothing. If he'd actually had a $150MM term sheet, Steve might have said, "ok, we'll consider it", or "you should take that deal".
But when Steve saw that there was nothing to back up the statement, what earthly reason could he have to want to even talk with the guy anymore? His time is too valuable to talk to liars, and he instantly lost any interest in acqui-hiring them.
It's impressive how Jobs instantly saw the BS and adjusted his attitude to the new reality.
Perhaps it'd be a tad better had Jobs not flashed anger at his wasted time and interacting with liars, but instead expressed sadness at the opportunity lost - could be a bit softer, but why? The situation is the same - SJ will not want you in the company even at a $1 aqui-hire.
It's critical to understand the level of game being played, and play it well. This guy played like he was in some college seminar instead of the top pro level, and he got burned. Good he's taking it so realistically.
What I consider soft is lashing out over the smallest emotional slight, which Steve was famous for. I wish we would all stop pretending that the platonic ideal of a leader is having the emotional maturity of a toddler.