Jobs' behavior is definitely risky, but you don't get out there like Apple without taking risks. It's exciting when leaders in an organization have such a clear vision of who fits, who doesn't, and why they have to stay true to that. Leaders so often settle for a warm body, and don't see the impact on performance & culture. So they end up hiring a bunch of people who's mediocrity ('cause they don't fit) takes time away from what you're in business to do, in Apple's case, bringing us cool stuff that changes how we think and live. You can't do that like Apple has by coloring inside the lines, HR-wise. Unfortunately, to move fast, you've got to make decisions that put you on the risk side of HR policies & regulations.
This guy should have been screened out earlier in the process, though, since the visual cues say he's not a fit, and his reaction to the interview questions say he's pretty uptight, unlike the Apple culture. The candidate could have not answered them in a different way, and shown something on the inside other than what his appearance suggested. By asking a crazy question, and putting his bare feet on the table, Jobs learned the guy wasn't comfortable and didn't function well in an informal, no holds barred situation.
The HR person here has a tough job, but one worth doing, for a change. Let Jobs be Jobs, so Apple can keep being Apple, protect the company and Jobs as best you can by good screening, and get on with it.

Wish I could use this method when conducting an interview.

The candidate's reaction to the interview showed he was a normal, sane person. The action and reaction of "Steve Jobs" portrayed him as a megalomaniac that derives pleasure from making other people feel small. It made me ill. If that is "taking risks" then count me out. What a despicable display.

Isn't everyone drawing a false conclusion here? The choice isn't:

1. Act like a jerk in the interview to get high performers
2. Don't act like a jerk and get low performers

Otherwise every organization that jerks their employees around would be doing great while everyone who doesn't would be sucking.

Why couldn't Apple get great performance out of employees without the hostile interview?

Let's call this what it is: Steve Jobs needs his ego stroked and there are plenty of people who are willing to be his lap dog to make the interview a "success." So maybe I don't care if I am the HR manager. It isn't something I would generally recommend though. It seems like you don't end up retaining high performers in that environment, that if they are that good, they will figure out a way to start their own joint or go to a place that treats them better.