Whatever your judgment of Jobs, I think he was a rare dude: minimalist, hippie, articulate, charismatic, business-savvy, technical, and artistic. Many people have some of these traits, but I can't think of anyone else with all of them.
I think the point is that today OOP is just an architectural choice. The success of the iPhone is no more evidence of OOP being a paradigm shift than other platforms that also implement it (Windows, Android, Rails, etc)
Yes, for one thing it was supposed to enable all sorts of clever composable behaviors; a big change in how computers presented themselves to end users. Apple had OpenDoc[1], Microsoft had OLE. You'd be able to just work on some piece of content, with the UI reflecting the capabilities of whatever "objects" you had installed. OLE actually worked (for certain values of 'worked'), not sure OpenDoc ever got off the ground.
I'm only referring to Object-Oriented programming. Not sure what the iPhone has to do with that. Unless you are talking about UIKit, the application framework.
This lecture got uploaded last week, and I had not seen it before.
I think it gives a pretty nice insight into the mind of Jobs (who was doing NeXT at the time), about how he thinks about deep work/failure/learning/"scar tissue" and it goes to show that what he later set out to do with Apple was the result of a deliberate effort/process of approaching things.
