So the fact that the first movie about Steve Jobs was made by a guy who was completely entrepreneurial and outside the film industry, I think is very appropriate.

Doing a movie about Steve Jobs is just generally a provocative thing to do, whoever does it, and it begs a lot of questioning and skepticism only in that, what is this going to be? What am I going to be looking at? And curiosity as well. I think thats all positive in any film, because you want people to be curious about it.

Right before when the iMac came out is when most people associate Apple started. That's when people remember Apple - that first iMac or that first laptop that was a clam shell. To me everything before that was what was interesting.

Doing a movie about computers between 1978 and 1982? You cant get much less sexy, less active than that.

As a director, you just have to kind of like just get through the first project before starting on the next one.

You can mythologize Steve Jobs, but really in the end, he was a kid from the Valley, with his funny little friends, and they made something. That's all he was.

I think that we see Steve Jobs as the genius speaker in the mock black turtleneck with the round glasses, sort of beautifully delivering his new product, and I think that for people to understand that he started in a garage.