likes to talk about. but it really involved i respected tom. we had different views quite often and we had to lead our respective parties. aders, a republican andjoritye democrat who could share different perspectives about how it is we got here and maybe the different views we have on issues. but come to some consensus about what we need to do about it.

>> rose: we con keud with another part of our conversation with jony ive about the question of what makes apple apple and the pivotal role of design. >> i think that i have such a wonderfully deep reference for the-- for the creative process that wasn't motivated about what can it do for me. it was so much more pure than that. but a reverance for the creative process, and to, we both recognized the ideas were tenuous and fragile. and we both were comfortable at laughing at the appalling ideas we had. and we were both quiet enough and sensitive enough to be able to listen to the quiet ideas. because very often i think we assume that this big grand idea that eventually will turn into

something that can change the world can and very often does start as such a quiet, tent tiff idea. and that we, i think we both knew how to listen. even if it didn't appear that we were paying attention. we would both listen. and it could sometimes be days afterwords that he would say or i would say, do you remember that thing we said or do you remember that thing that so and so said. i can't get that out of my mind. and there's a danger that we only pay attention to the louder voice and the articulate voice. and some of the most profound ideas i've heard come quietly and with a humility. >> rose: tom daschle, trent lott, jony ive when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: and

by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. from our studios captioning sponsored by rose communications city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: the ongoing presidential campaign has brought this country's deepening ideal logical riff into stark relief. a recent pe-w poll found that republicans and democrats are more divided today than at any point in the last two decades. this polarizing atmosphere has inevitably impacted congress' ability to work productively. former senate majority leaders tom daschle and trent lott address that issue in this new book. the book is called crisis point. why we must and how we can overcome our broken politics in washington and across america. i am pleased to have them both

at this table. welcome. >> thank you very much charlie. >> thank you, nice to be with you. >> rose: first of all, how do you two get together to write a book? >> well, you know, we served together in the senate a long time. majority leader and minority leader, both of us. through it all we developed a really good chemistry that tom likes to talk about, but it really involved i respected tom. we had different views quite often and we had to lead our respective parties. and then we developed a real trust, i did, with tom. and then we became friends. so we were together with our wives a couple of years ago. and i think tom was the one that said, you know, maybe it's time we put some of our experiences and some of our recommendations in print. >> rose: you had the idea, that it ought to be bipartisan. >> absolutely. we couldn't write a book like that if it weren't for two fferent views we have onbe the issues. but come to some consensus about what we need to do about it. >> rose: when pem talk about this problem they always talk about two things. one, president obama, it was a

priority for him, you were close to him in his campaign. you wanted to come here and be able to bridge bipartisan rift. he didn't do it. and he has said he wishes he had had the political skills of abraham lincoln or franklin roosevelt in order to accomplish it. and it was one of his great regrets. the other person they cite is ronald reagan and tip o'neill. >> we talk about that in the book too. >> rose: that they had show the capacity at day's end. why is that not true now? is it because of redistribution, reapportionment and all of that, that has put people in races in which they have no primary opposition and so therefore they don't fear re-election and so therefore they push to their extremes. >> well, actually, they do fear primary elections. >> rose: in the primaries. >> yeah, now, you get worried about being primaried. we talk about that particularly among republicans but to a degree democrats too. but st a combination of things. these are different times, different people. the media is very different.

but-- . >> rose: being it is 24 hours a day. >> and money is a part of it. tom and i, we labored on that one because we don't quite agree on exactly how to fix it but one thing we did agree with is maybe we need campaign reform which could affect the money part of this aspect. but in the book, we don't talk just about fixing the rules in the congress. we talk about the need for civic responsibility. we talk about making sure elections are accessible. and maybe vote on saturday, instead of on tuesday. a number of ideas. >> rose: one thing you talk about. >> one of the things, i think, i know trent feels just as strongly as i do about it, we blame the airplane. and by that what we mean is people don't stay in washington like they used to. they don't know each other any more. they leave on thursday, they come back on tuesday, they try to run the country on wednesday. you can't do that in a country this complicated. so there no relationship. there is to-- we use the word chemistry a lot. there is no chemistry. >> rose: is it also because there is constant campaign. >> sure, and constant raising of money. it just becomes obsessive. because it costs so much now. and they go on so long.

and they're so neglective. then you throw in the superpacs, and they are running negative ads and are you not quite sure where the money came from. it weakened the party apparatus. so the combination of things really make it very difficult. >> rose: so a hard decision for you to come to any consensus on campaign finance reform. >> in part, it's because we're not really confident we have the answer. i mean i've always favored a constitutional amendment that says money is not speech. i mean if that's what it takes to overrule the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution, i am for it. but there are things short of that we could do. limit the the amount of time. prohint fundraising during the time when people are legislating. those kinds of things, we think, could have an impact even though at the end of the day, we've got to deal with this. >> that's the way we live the senate too. have i a different view. but we didn't focus on how we disagree. i wouldn't be for a constitutional amendment. so what we did was okay, what can we maybe do differently that we could agree on. we had a lot of suggestions that

we came up with. >> rose: how are you different as a leader from mitch mcconel-- mcconnell? >> well, the-- . >> rose. >> go ahead, tell them. >> how long do you have. no, no, no. >> rose: no, look, come on. you write a book and you want to talk about what is the solution. >> one of the differences is i had tom daschle as my counterpart on the other side of the aisle. and we communicated. we talked. >> rose: harry reid is different from tom daschle. >> i don't know how much they talk. but we talk about it in the book. one of the things people find very interesting, we had red phones on our risk-- desk. and when he or i picked it up, it rang one place, on my desk or his desk. that is the way we got around the media. >> rose: what would you talk about. >> on 9/11 i picked up the phone and realized we were probably under attack. and was saying tom, he was the majority leader, we probably need to evacuate the building and about that time my doors burst open and security came to get us out of there. but also we used it to sometimes get around the media. cuz it was like running a gawnt let if i went around the hall over to tom's office. but sometimes we actually wanted

to talk without our staff being there, supervising what we were saying. >> but we had impeachment, we had 9/11, the anthrax attack, we had two wars, so many different things. 50/50 senate that really took a lot of chemistry, a lot of communication, a lot of relationship trust. and i think without that, you can't legislate. it's impossible. going all the way back, what is the favorite, your favorite quote, henry clay. >> oh, yeah, well, john c kal human said about-- hen reclay, the great compromiser which is bad. he said i don't trust clay, he's a schemer, i wouldn't speak to him but by god i love him. >> rose: sounds like the way you felt about ted kennedy. >> well, you know, that's true. in fact i worked with him on a bill one time. tom remembers this, a child health bill. and i wrote-- he wrote me a nice letter and i wrote him a handwritten letter back saying i enjoyed working with you. i think we did the right thing. ps, if the world only knew. i didn't know it but he framed

the letter. >> rose: he showed it to me. >> he put it on his wall. >> rose: i went in and he said i want to show you this. >> when we spoke at the dedication of the edward kennedy institute building in boston, i said but you know, i didn't really want the world to know. >> rose: and certainly a fellow republican. >> i was admonished one time after a speech in mississippi that i had worked with kennedy on an issue. one of the old guys came up afterward and said you did fine, but that part about kennedy, don't say that any more. >> rose: why has president obama been less successful than he wished in terms of being able to build or bond with former speaker boehner? >> well, i think at its core, he has long felt that there was nothing you can do overture wise that would work. he had mitch mcconnell who basically on the very first day said my first and only job is to make sure he's a one-term president. so they never developed that

relationship. and i think the president might even say today, you know, i wish i had tried harder earlier. i wish hi done more. i think they had-- the president sometimes underused camp david. because i had the good fortune to go up there with president clinton at times. and it was amazing, you know, just spending a little quiet time away from washington. you get to develop a relationship that you just can't build any place else. but whether it's camp david-- . >> rose: i don't know whether it's true, but it may be. the president seemed to reach out to historians and journalists and invite them over for dinner. >> absolutely. >> rose: whereas president clinton would reach out to members of congress to talk about politics. he loved the game. >> clinton particularly, but bush, george w. bush would have us over for breakas, tom and i would go regularly after 9/11. but on other occasions we have bipartisan small dinners up in the family quarters, bipartisan, with our spouses. and it helped build a relationship. >> rose: explain that to me because i talked to somebody who had served as deputy secretary

of state who was a very tough guy. and he said to me, the most important thing i learned here is that relationships matter. relationships on the international scene. but relationships matter. >> absolutely. >> rose: because it develops trust. and it peoples prepared to give you the benefit of doubt. >> it's so basic. and so common sense kal. why can't we act on that. >> it leads to communication, communication ultimately leads to compromise, compromise rongest national securitye and concern as i said that show unless we can fix washington, we are vulnerable in so many ways in terms of the future of the country, in terms of how we commit to the future, how we commit to education, budget policy. >> budget policy, defense policies, foreign relations policies. i didn't work that much in the international area when i was in the house. but when i got in the senate, majority leader, you get to know

people like king abdullah or you actually meet with putin, which is an interesting experience. >> the irony, charlie, is that there are a lot of people out there who think that the answer is to bring in outsider, to bring in people without don't have a clue about how washington works. and you know, the more you do that, the more it just exacerbates this whole thing. we've had enormous turnover. a lot of people have come to washington. at the don't have the understanding, the respect, or the even the interest in developing those relationships. and that's where, i think, we've really suffered. >> rose: here is what interests me too. look at majority leaders all the way back to lyndon johnson and think about you and think about harry reid, and think about george mitchell, this is a very different group of men. >> yes. on both sides. >> both sides. both sides of the capitol too. you know, we talk about how when we were in leadership, there was a sitter. they were so called moderates on the democratic side and on the republican side. now i never camped in the middle. i was always right of centre.

and tom maybe a little bit left of centre. but that group is kind of disappeared. and both parties have pulled more to the left, the democrats and right for the republicans, making it awfully hard to find that sweet spot that will produce a result. you don't have to call it compromise which some people think is a four-letter word. but you get a result. i mean do we need to do something about infrastructure in america, do we need to do a better job with the budge, do we need to do something to make sure that the entitlements are there and protected, yes, to you will a of the above. it takes effort. i tell some of my conservative friends, quit just kussing the darkness. tell me what you are going to do. if you want to change the way things are in washington, it takes an affirmative action. >> rose: is simp son bowls a good, ame pel of where there was republican and democrats. >> absolutely. >> sure. >> well, it failed because. >> it presented the infrastructure for an agreement to go forward. >> rose: how do you get to be majority leader, what are the skills required?

>> i actually think it's going back to something we've now talked about quite a bit and that's relationship. it's building relationships. it's building trust. it's building a confidence level among your colleagues that somebody who can organize and lead is capable of rising to that level. and but it starts, you know, inside. and you build it up. you have got to be able to speaker, you have to be able to, you know, to think through the issues. >> i enjoyed working the members individually. i was a whip in the house and two different times in the senate. so i enjoy that personal relationship. you have to get up every morning saying, you know, i'm going to have a positive attitude today and i'm going to find a way to get something done for my constituency and my country. and if you provide leadership, even though it gets you in trouble sometimes, show a little courage, it's amazing what you can accomplish. >> rose: how much power does a majority leader have. >> ance you lovely-- awful lot. >> it's not a constitutional position. you disn even have majority leaders until the early 1900s. but he has the power, nothing is called up in the senate unless

the majority leader says it's called up. >> that is the key, first right of recognition. >> rose: and we're seeing that right now with respect to the supreme court appointment. >> exactly. >> it will not happen. >> not going to happen. >> nope. >> that's power. >> rose: that's a lot of power. >> yup. >> and you also now assume, both trent, i think. >> is that good? >> you have got to have somebody that uses it judiciously and doesn't abuse it. >> there is no restraint on it either. >> there is run restraint. >> what is that. >> you go too far, you won't be there very long. you will be in the minority or you wouldn't be leader. >> it's true. >> i was just going to say, i think in addition to the first right of recognition, leaders have a lot to do with who serves on what committees. and that gives you that authority and that ability to maintain some discipline. and that's exactly what mitch mcconnell has done. >> let me talk about republican party today. >> do we have to. >> yes, you do. >> it's a very, very-- moment.

>> it really is. the strangest year i have ever seen. and i've been watching politics in america pret lee-- pretty clsly for almost 50 years now. i would never have been able to predict what has happened. i want to say up front i have been for john kasich from the beginning. you know, i volunteered to work with him. i knew him when he was in the house. we served together. he helped us on our budget negotiations, he's been a great leader in ohio. he's got the experience. he knows how to get the job done. >> rose: does ve a chance to get the nomination? >> well, i talk to my friend tom, we are trying to figure if this is a way maybe that could happen. i think it depends. we'll know by the 15th of march. >> rose: will it destroy the republican party if done all trump is the nominee? if marco rubio said to me last night? >> it certainly will present challenges. but like i said to somebody earlier today, i used to think that how we treated one president or one president could destroy it all. and then i realized, the position in america is bigger

than any one woman or man. we can survive this. >> rose: we have for a long time, haven't we. >> yes, we have am and we talk about it in the book. we give a lot of history in there. >> my fear though, charlie, is we are dialing all this up. and sometimes things tbet out of control very quickly. and you can't dial it back once that happens. and i think the trump candidacy has dialed the emotions and the confrontational tone up to a degree we haven't seen in a long time. not to mention what message it sends to the rest of the world. i think he's already done serious damage to this country. and i don't know where it's going to end. >> rose: yeah, nor anyone else i think at this point. thank you for coming. crisis point, senator lott and senator daschle, both former senators and majority leaders talking about one of the big issues that ought to be part of the campaign debate and ought to be part of the urgent agenda for

whoever the new president is. we talked to jony ive, the chief design officer of apple asking the question what makes apple apple. and what role design plays in the company's identity, its products and its future. >> you can say that you stayed at apple and you were here, a, you had this phenomenal relationship with steve jobs, and other colleagues, tim, eddie and others. but that show you knew, you know, that this place here, that this culture here was different. >> absolutely. >> rose: and that the imperative to create something was driven by something different. and i'm saying this to a person who is part of the creation of a product that has made you, this company, the most valuable

company in the world. and lots of people very rich. because you created a product everybody wanted to have. and so more than anybody could ever imagine. >> yes. i think-- . >> rose: so there's business to this. there's commerce to this. there is the desire to-- for everybody to feel love, buy. >> there is business and there is commerce. but we're very clear about the hierarchies here. and so we have been very clear that we expect those-- those concerns to be consequences of us doing our job right. and so our job isn't to make money for apple. our job is to try and make the very best products that we can. now we trust if they are good. and we trust if we're competent tent and we do our jobs in

trying to describe them. and if we're competent tent in making them, they will be attractive and bout. they will be bout in volume and that we will eventually make money. now i'm aware, of course, that can sound incredibly sim police particular. i'm aware that that can sound like an easy thing to say given our van taj point right now. but that's actually what we said in '98 when the company was struggling. you see, we didn't say that the goal was turnaround. because if we had said the goal back in the late 890see was to turn the company around, that is all about money. you can turn a company around by spending-- spending less and trying to make a bit more money. what we said back in the 90s was the goal was to stop making products that weren't great. and the goal was to focus on trying to make a great consumer product. >> as happened when steve jobs came back. >> that's when steve came back, that is how he articulated what

the goals of the company needed to be. and this wasn't some subtle-- this wasn't an exercise in sort of clever word smithing. this was describing profoundly different attitudes and approaches to what the problem was at hand. and it is-- it takes a tremendous courage when you are losing fabulously large amounts of money to say our goal isn't turnaround, our goal is to make a great product. that is not a natural sort of reflex to that situation. the reflex is well, let's not spend this money and let's try and get a little bit more because we're about to go out of business. >> save the country, accompanied by. >> that's right. and so i think that one of the things that we've worked hard on is the way that we describe the

problem. and the,-- and this is what i think language is so interesting. because these ideas generally start as there's a thought, but it becomes quite quickly words and discussions and arguments. even if-- it is very easy to make, i think, dramatic assumptions that if you make these assumptions and they're often language based, it's easy to make those and then miss huge opportunity. and so i think this was something that steve was very thoughtful about. and very-- there was a lot of intention behind the words he used. it wasn't just, you know, sort of like this. it was exactly these words to describe exactly this goal. and there's a whole world of difference between this goal and the rather sloppy way perhaps that we would describe what we thought the goal was. >> did you know him before he came to take over the company?

>> no, it's interesting. i think as i described how i think the things that you do describe who you are, via the work that he did, i knew him. i had never met him. and that was what was so curious to me. because to see this, this product and a reaction to the, who made this, not what does it do, and who made this, where did they do this, in california, this is-- and so i thought an immediate sense of his, you know, what he thought was important. and i think that was one of the reasons why when we firs met we clicked in a way that we did. >> tell me about first meeting him. >> i first met him, he came over to the design studio. and what he saw was this was in -9d 7ee, i think.

and he saw a huge amount of design work that never made it beyond models. and so on one level we could be-- we could say well, we've made, and we've been exploring some interesting designs. but all we did were the designs was dust them. and only a handful of people saw them. and he recognized the work and was compelled and interested in it. but he also did mention how you know, incredibly ineffective, i think, he was absolutely right. because we had, you know, a stoar room full of mold. but that's when we firs met. and on that very same day, we let left the studio and went quietly to another room. and started work on what became the imac. but we is met that day and we

started that product that day. >> and it became your closest friend. >> we became extremely close. >> soon. >> very quickly, yeah. it was-- i don't know. i guess i tend to have a-- now i believe a completely odd view that things of substance and depth take a long time. i think that shattered that view i had which was we could become profound and deep close friends, extraordinarily quickly. >> well, what was it, other than, you know, i mean i know you and your relationship with mark, same thing. >> yes, yes. >> i think one of the design genius. >> i think one of the things was that we see the world, i mean we all see the same approximately

things around us. and we sat here, we do. but there is some thing that happens between what we see and what we perceive. and that is a function, i think, of you know, how we grow up. what are cultural references are growing up. how you know, that just the sort of curiosities we have. and so i think everybody has a wonderfully unique way of seeing the world. whether they're conscience of that or not. but i think there was a sense that we-- we realized that we saw things and paid attention to things that we wouldn't even bother mentioning because we don't really want-- we don't need to be reminded that we're the only person right there in that room who noticed that, who paid attention to it. and so i spent a lifetime of just noticing things and in a

very sort of internal way, thinking about them and i remember one time when we were-- we were out shopping together. and we were, i think we were in italy. and he picked up a knife and looked at it. and i was aware he was looking at this thing. and he put it down. and i thought oh, that's a nice knife. picked it up. but i could see, like there was a tiny, tiny change in the gloss level between the handle, i know this sounds bizarrely obsessive, doesn't it. >> rose: no, not to me. >> woring-- worryingly so. i could see this tiny change in reflection between the handle and the metal. and i realized it was the glue. and to me that meant there was-- so it was no longer a knife, it was like a bit of metal that had been glued to like a stone handle.

and normally, you know, i would have noticed that, never said it to anybody else at the risk of sounding slightly fanatical. but realized that we had both done exactly the same thing. and i think there is some sort of wonderful, you know, that recognition, when you realize it's not just you, and i think we realized that very early on. and i think we both loved that. >> rose: do you think the boft you had benefited from the fact that you had somebody? to say this may be a dopey idea. >> yes. >> rose: but what do you think? >> yeah. >> rose: and if you say that to somebody, it means that you think it has some possibility. >> yes. >> rose: and you're reinforced if someone says-- and you can

trust them to say yeah, i think so, because you know that if there is some possibility of seeing something, will you get it. >> i think that has such a wonderfully deep reverance for the creative process, that wasn't mot-- motivated by a what can it do for me. it was so much more pure for that but a reverance for the creative process. and to, we both recognize the ideas were tenuous and fra giel. and-- shall fragile. and we both were comfortable at laughing at the appalling ideas we had. and we were both quiet enough and sensitive enough to be able to listen to the quiet idea. because very often i think we assume that this big, grand idea

that eventually will turn into something that can change the world, can and very often does start as such a quiet, tent tiff idea. and that we, i think we both knew how to listen. even if it didn't appear that we were paying attention. we would both listen. and it could sometimes be days afterwards that he would say or i would say do you remember that thing we said. or do you remember that thing that so and so said? i can't get that out of my mind. and there is a danger that we only pay attention to the loud voice and the articulate voice. and some of the most profound ideas i've heard come quietly and with a humility. >> by the very nature they have more power. >> i think so. i think so. yeah, when somebody who doesn't

speak eventually speaks and speaks quietly, it often gives us pause, doesn't it. >> do you think of yourself as an artist? or designer? >> i think of myself-- . >> rose: or a builder. >> i feel part artist, part designer, part engineer and part builder. i think part craftsman. i think it is a real mixture. but in all of that, i am comfortable, genuinely comfortable with being surprised and being wrong. i don't have-- i'm the first person to raise my hand when something i thought was going to be bood was just appalling. >> do you know where that happened? >> i think because it actually

saves a lot of time. i have seen so much time wasted because of, you know, dog ma and-- just clinging to views, wastes a lot of time, steals a lot of air and i think bruises a lot of people. and i think we can just save a lot of time to-- it's important to be self-critical, and i think it seems he firn ent, that you know what, this is my fall, i think this is a bad idea. i'm really sorry i took everybody down this path. >> rose: but criticism is crucial, isn't it, in terms of? >> i think self-criticism is. >> rose: streef clearly believed that. >> he was a great critic and i learned a tremendous amount. >> rose: because he believed it had value. >> if you genuinely care about the product, you have to be very, very explicit and very clear in terms of talking about

it and criticizeing it as part of my role if leading a very coheesive and tight group of designers for 20 plus years, where we are personally close, an professionally, was having a tendency 10 or 15 years ago to be perhaps softer in the-- my feedback. and on on an occasion where he had been surgeically precise. >> surgeically precise. >> an there was a wake from that surgical precision from a distance, you can just fixate upon his behavior without even bothering to find that, well, why that happened and i

suggested maybe, you know, there was a slightly softer way of giving that feedback and he said, well, you're not actually bothered abouted the feeling of those guys. >> which i was but not entirely. he said that you are just being vein because you want them to like you and are you scared that if you are absolutely honest and absolutely direct they won't. and we have worked very hard to be able to care so much about the work, that we don't bring our own personal frailty and our own personal baggage to the evaluation of our work. because i completely agree very clear, very harsh criticism is fundamental to what we do. >> so you have grown to appreciate that more? >> we figured this out a long time ago. but we've-- this has become a

fundamental to our process and how we work. >> you have said our success is a victory for purity, integrity, and giving a damn. >> and the best thing in the world is to create something that says loudly and clearly i cared and it shows by the beauty, functionality, the sense of specialness. >> i think that we could want more than people when they are using our product to not be aware of the complexity of the problems that we solved, but for them to be aware of a deep sense of care that we didn't have to

express. it would have still switched on it be on. it would have still performed the majority of the products functions. but we went way beyond that. and i think that sense that we did care and we went the extra mile and extra mile and again, i think that's part of the evolution. >> it's evident in the watches, just the care of how you can change the bands. >> yes. >> it's evident on how these things are packaged. packaging. >> we spent a lot of time. >> shows you care. >> on the packages. we spend a lot of time on trying to be heavy in our thinking so that we can use the materials thoughtfully and lightly. the packaging is more than just

protecting a product. it's the first time you get to see and use your product. you seen on display. but and we enjoy that. times when it's late and sometimes when it's been you know, a long month, you can wonder why, why are we worrying so much about the design of the inside of this. that no one will see. and but you know it's right. and we feel that we're lucky to be working in a group of people that also believe it's right. >> it's a bit like the idea of saying no one will ever know when you say, i will know. >> yes. >> i will know it's not as good as i could have made it. >> i think we can say i know. and i think we can say that people will know even if they don't see it with their eyes. we, i mean my experience absolutely has been people

sense. >> what would you do if you didn't do this? >> i have no idea. it's all i can do. >> rose: it's all you can do. >> it's all i can do. yeah. >> rose: but do you have a set of skills and a-- and you have a remarkable experience. and you have things that reflect insight and commitment and you know, i sometimes think of you and i ask myself, beyond apple products. >> yes. >> rose: is there something that jony ive could do, you know, that would change our world even larger? >> i mean the end of the day, i like drawing and making stuff for people. and i like doing that very sincerely as a way-- as a way of

serving them. and if i wasn't doing this, i think i would just be drawing and making stuff for friends. and maybe in the end it would just be christmas tree ornaments, i don't know. but that's what i do. the scale on which i do it, i've been very lucky that i've been part of apple. and that has meant that there has been a tremendous influence and there's been-- there's been a reach to what we have been doing. and it's been remarkable that we can together practice-- our process. which is unusual. which is, i think, fairly unique. >> steve said about you, if i have-- if i had a spirit all partner at apple, it's johnny. jony and i think up most of the products together and then pull others in and say hey, what do you think? he gets the big picture as well

as the most indin different detail, and he understands apple is a product company. he's not just a designer. that is why it works directly for me. he has more operational power than anyone else at apple. except me. >> and now you have even more operational power. >> the one thing that i do have a reasonable flewencee in fleunsy in is moving from the big picture to the tiny details. and. >> rose: flu ency. >> that flu ency of being able to pov backwards and forwards it is a dim reflection of steve's ability there. and i think-- . >> rose: a dim reflection, his ability to move from the large, big idea to the infinite es mall carrying out. >> he could do that in ways that

is i aspire to, but only could dream of achieving. but it's a peculiar, i think it's a rare and a valuable ability if you want to make stuff that is significant. >> rose: i've always thought that the people who created apple, steve and people without carry it forward. >> yes. >> rose: tim, eddie, you and ores, that there is a sense that it is what a company stands for. its values. are more important than any product. any other product. the products may be a reflection of the values. >> yeah. >> rose: but it is the values that have created the institution and represent the institution. >> i completely agree. i think the products are the

physical manifestation-- of a set of beliefs, a set of preoccupations and they describe who we are and where our gaze goes. you know, what we think's important. saying that, though, it's easy to talk about values. and it's easy to talk about culture. it's really, really very hard to make great products. and so-- . >> rose: you think it's a lot more than culture? or it takes the rigorous. >> it comes from culture, i think. it comes but it's-- the culture is necessary but it's not sufficient. it needs to be composited with a bloody-minded resolute view of, you know, we're going to do

this. i mean a lot of, you know, we are very clear about our values. but to do something that is new, that hasn't been done f it hasn't been done, and if it's a value, there's really good reason it's not being done. and so when you're confronted with those reasons, you've got two choices. you can say oh, that's a very good reason. i'm sorry for bothering you. or you can say, i don't believe that. i don't believe that i am going to find out more. i'm going to find somebody who's got more experience. and i-- and so there's a-- there's that sort of resolution where-- i mean george bernard shaw talked about how you have to rejest-- reject reason to innovate am you have to say we understand. this is all very reasonable. this is what people believe. but you know what, i'm actually going to ignore you completely. and if you are a fairly sensitive person, ignoring very smart people is really

difficult. and so the values are terribly important. and they're easy to talk about. but there are behaviors that are necessary to actually turn those values into real products. and so i think-- . >> rose: what are those behaviors? >> it is that resolution, that determination. those behaviors that can so easily be misinterpreted by people who haven't got a clue about developing products. that sort of unreasonable drive, drive, drive. that decision to ignore expert opinion. that happens every single time we do something that's new. >> this is what i found out about artists. artists, they study. you go to a museum with an artist, and you go to a painting. and they are looking at the labor that went into creating

the painting. more than the vision, how that stroke was done, how that color was conceived. >> right. >> it's almost with the-- it's almost like a journeyman worker. >> uh-huh. >> having great pride and looking for the details that make excellence. >> uh-huh. >> and you have to have the ka passionity to see that. >> yes. >> to know how hard it is to get it. >> yes, yes. >> which is what you are saying. >> i think that's exactly what i'm saying. and that there is a-- i don't think it's that it is a disconnect. but there are behaviors that are necessary to turn vision and focus and a culture into tangible manifest products. and those behaviors can

sometimes be misinterpreted or not entirely understood. >> is there any possibility that apple can be too rich, too fat and too complacent to be as good as it has to be? >> i mean i'm sure, that possibility absolutely exists. i think one of the things that characterizes the way that we work is that our heads tend to be down on these tables, worrying about what we're doing. and our heads don't tend to be up looking around. >> how great we are, what we achieve. >> yeah. and i think, you know, we've tried to say stay hungry. and i think we're more aware of the opportunity and we're more aware of the distance between us and the perfection that we're chasing.

than ever before. so yes, that danger exists. that's not one that haunts me. >> so but steve said to those graduates, stay hungry. >> yeah. >> stay hungry. >> yeah. >> and it's the same thing to take risk when you know that as bernard shaw said, it's not reasonable. >> yes. >> it is not reasonable. >> yeah. >> but i think the way that you stay hungry, i mean you're not going to be much use if you are just not eating. so i think the way that we, you know, we stay hungry and we have appetite for more is to be working and is to be critical and is to be aware that there is a big gap between our ambition and our vision and what we're doing right now. and that, you know, each time we move forward, i think, we're aware that there is still that gap. and i don't-- i actually personally don't, of course,

believe that we'll close that gap. it's what drives us. >> let me just take it, growing up, you were around the shop. >> yes. >> you knew what a-- you talk about models. >> hmmmm. >> that came to you reasonably early, didn't it? >> it did. i grew up with an understanding that everything that surrounded me was made. >> yeah. >> and what is interesting is that people coming through this room, some will have a sense of the story and the biography behind, you know, each physical object. and some people won't and wouldn't think to ask and wouldn't know. and so there was just one of the things that intrigued me. my father was a very good krafltsman. a great silver smith.

and what i learned early on was that to, i think really essentially to design, you needed to have a flewencee with the material that you were designing in. and that over these years has developed to such a point where you know, if we are working in-- we're working in a material and we know it, we really know this inside out, but if we're not happy we won't accept that. we'll go and develop a new material, our material. and we'll try and make the core material better. >> but this capacity to know the things are made and to have an ability to work with your hands, has served you as much as your heart and your brain and your. >> yeah, i think that has exited as a-- existed as a very early childhood foundation. it seems as obvious to me as the acquisition of language. it's yus this, upon that

curiosity that turned into a mod i cum of understanding, upon that, that is how i started to see the world. and so. >> what tended to happen then was it was then just a constant series of questions. why did they do that like that? why did they choose this material? why did they put that on. even down to just a simple delight. i remember this white alarm clock that didn't work any more. but i remember taking it to pieces. and when the back actually sprang off because of the main winding spring inside. but it was, because all of these little kogs, it was like this little city. and you never knew it was in there. and i just wondered, is that in the tables? i mean i was little. and i don't know, i just thought

it's so easy to just accept and not ask why. why is it like that. i don't know if it's part of the human condition. in that we just accept, you know, our surroundings in that way. >> one last question. when you are hiring young designers. d they must all want to come here. what are you looking for? >> well, there was a time, the process normally would be somebody would make a portfolio of work. and that would be reviewed and we would look at very specifically what they did. their design. but i have always been more interested in the way people see the world. and this was actually a long time ago now. it was probably about, i don't know, nine or ten years ago.

and i arrived late. we were interviewing this guy. and i was late. and i didn't want to be rude. and so i stood outside the conference room. and i listened to him. not describe his work, but to describe the world as he saw it. and there was a sensitivity that was breathe taking. and you could hear a pin drop. and without seeing one drawing or one model, without seeing anything that he had done, decided that we must hire this guy. and so to me it is just how we see the world. and how, and to share the ambition to daysed be an understanding to develop an expertise to then sincere slee join us in trying to make the

very best products that we can for each other. >> thank you. >> thank you, charlie have a remarkable day here at apple. >> thank you. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

your dad introduced to you the sax phone. >> yeah, yeah. >> mus nik general, it been a whole life. >> was he a musician. >> yeah. >> how is that to have your father there? >> it's beautiful, beautiful. i grew up, idolizing him and his friends. i used to always wish that other people could hear him, not just him but him and his friends and that whole side of l.a. that was around when i was coming up. >> you say the beauty of music is in the search. >> yeah, absolutely. music is never ending and it's basically, when you are trying to create music you are trying

to re-create yourself. so like when you create music you kind of look at yourself and you end up advancing yourself. in a way? >> you have described writing a song as going into a dark room to look for an unexpected pressure. >> yeah. you know, cuz we would, you know, realize as a muses ig, we take the credit but it comes from somewhere else. #r funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. turning 7. stocks have tripled since the 2009 lows, but is the tide starting to turn for one of history's greatest bull market runs? wage rage? are stagnant paychecks fueling the frustration of americans this election cycle? what are the proposals to fix it? attention shoppers. amazon is going old school for the youtube generation. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for wednesday, march. good evening, everyone, i'm sue herera. tyler mathisen is on assignment this evening. well, happy anniversary. seven years ago today the stock market bottomed in the depths of the great recession. seven years later investors have witnessed the thirdon