Does the “iCon” title mean that the authors (Jeffrey Young and William Simon) think that Steve Jobs is an icon, or the perpetrator of a con - or both?
Find out my thinking in my review over at The Register.
Update May 23: Alan Deuschmann, who wrote the very fine The Second Coming of Steve Jobs, reviewed the book for the San Francisco Chronicle. He’s not very nice about it - which is understandable, because he thinks it’s not original:
[Jobs’s lack of coooperation leaves] two options to would-be biographers: Either they can succeed at a bit of investigative reporting, or they can plunder the work of those who have. Unfortunately, the authors of “iCon” are guilty mostly of the latter. In interviews, Young has said that “iCon,” subtitled “Steve Jobs: The Greatest Second Act in the History of Business,” was intended as an update of his 1987 biography, “Steve Jobs: The Journey Is the Reward.” But a surprising amount of the updating is lifted from my book, which covers Jobs from 1985 to 2001. Every author wants his work to influence later tellings, but hey, guys, this is kind of pushing it. I don’t know whether I should feel flattered or ask for my fair share of the book’s royalties.
To my amazement, the pointer comes from Paul Thurrott’s sorta blog, where he also reviews iCon - with the payoff “iCon stinks”. Jeepers, I agree.
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- Steve Jobs piece in The Independent magazine (29 October 2005; score: 55.46%)
- Harry Potter and the pointless reviews (fear not, no spoilers here) (21 July 2007; score: 52.07%)
- The dramatic news from the Apple Expo: Phil Schiller is *funny*! (31 August 2004; score: 51.97%)