What should it be?

"I'm honored that you would write" Also wrote sounds wrong in your example and the actual sentence.

You could say “I’m honored that you wrote” that is just as grammatically correct. Really that is the more intuitive way to write that sentence. “You’d” is very common though to refer to someone doing something in any tense than you can just use the present tense of whatever verb you tack on after it. Examples include “You’d love the carnival” “You’d do that for me?” or “”You’d have to ask him”

Options available: "I'm honored you'd write" is perfectly acceptable. It is a contraction of "I'm honored you would write," which indicates that the sender is honored that the recipient has sent them a previous letter. "I'm honored that you wrote" would be acceptable as well. And "I'm honored you have written" would also work. Which of these is the best depends on the tenses of the rest of the letter. As long as you keep all the tenses agreeable, any of these would be just fine.

english verbs are very confusing to learn because there are multiple identical conjugations. in this case, it is the subjunctive and the conditional. you are correct that using the conditional mood here would be incorrect, conditional tense is for hypotheticals or potential future events and this obviously is neither of those. however, in this clause "would write" is the subjunctive mood, not the conditional mood. (but since they have the same conjugations, it is very confusing.) as someone else noted it is implicitly referring to a wish/desire, "that you wanted to write", and wishes often use the subjunctive mood. eg "i wish you would...". whereas using the indicative mood here "im honored that you wrote", is 100% fine but it conveys something a little different, it is saying im honored that you took the specific action of writing me at a specific time, as opposed to i am honored by your wish/desire to write. while the conditional mood cannot be used for something that actually happened, the subjunctive mood can. eg "i suggested that he do xyz". unlike the conditional, it is perfectly fine to use subjunctive in this context even when he has already done the xyz that i suggested he do. (im using he as the pronoun to better illustrate this example, because "he do" is exclusively used for the subjunctive, present indicative is he does and past indicative is he did. with the pronoun they, "they do" is both the present indicative and the subjunctive so thats not a good pronoun to use for illustrating the difference between subjunctive and indicative.) further complicating this is the fact that the subjunctive in english has been dying out, in 2025 its almost always optional to use the subjunctive and sometimes it even sounds weird to native speakers (or to me anyway lol). ive never learned english as a non-native speaker but i would guess that u maybe dont even learn the subjunctive, because its so rare today + that very often it has the same conjugation as a different mood. what other language(s) do you speak? it might be easier to compare it to examples in other languages, because the subjunctive is so inconsistent in english but if u speak a different language in which the subjunctive is more commonly used, that may make it easier to understand. (i speak spanish and english.)   

As stated, "you'd" in this case is "you *would*" *Would* in this case essentially means "thought to" or "had the courtesy to," regardless of whether or not the action actually happened. In this case, it did. The reply is a joke, because Jobs adds his signature, but if we were to take it literally, he would basically be saying, "I'm not going to honor your request, but I appreciate that you thought to ask."

It used to be considered appropriate to leave off the “a letter” part when referring to writing letters. So it should be “…you’d write [me a letter]” but since everyone knows it’s a letter, it would often be omitted. As the world has shifted from letters to emails, this isn’t really a thing anymore.

"I'm honored that you would write," and "would" here because it's conditional and dependent on the next word, "but..." but yes "I'm honored that you wrote" also works, though it makes the "but" in the next bit a little more awkward sounding

"You'd" is not a contraction for "you did"; it's only for "you would" or "you had" and the context makes sure which.

It’s short for “I’m honored that you would write.” It means roughly “I am honored that you wanted to write.” Remember that the word “would” has many meanings other than the conditional mood; in this case the meaning is an expression of desire. “Would” is the past tense of “will,” which can also be used to express desire. In short, Mr. Jobs is saying that he is honored that this person desired to write to him. There is also some humor in that he says he will not sign autographs, but nevertheless signed his correspondence, which is effectively identical to an autograph.

The question's already been answered, I just wanna say I love the joke lol

This is fine. It's a perfectly good sentence as is. Here, you'd is a contraction of you would.

This is easy, just ask the man. It’s not like he died

Does no-one see the joke here ? He provided an autograph by signing the letter declining to give an autograph.

That’s correct. You’d here is a contraction of “you would.”

This is correct, it is not formal by any means but it is correct as: you'd doesn't just mean "you did" as so many commenters are quick to point out, just as a reminder: you'd is the accepted contraction of these: 1) you had 2) you did 3) you would As for the question "I am honoured that you would write this" though it is quite stuffy to say. I also feel this letter is perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek because he says he doesn't give autographs... just before signing the letter.

This is what it should be.

That’s fine.

"You'd write" in this case is a contraction of "You would write" with "would" being used to show willingness to perform an action in the past. You could paraphrase the sentence as: "I'm honored you were willing (i.e. took the time and effort) to write me". "I'm honored you wrote" is correct as well, just with less emphasis on the writer's willingness to do so.

*'d* can stand for "did" in rare cases (but I can't think of an example where "you'd" means "you did"), but it's rare (at least in written form): *What'd you do?* (What did you do?) (Very informal) So *you'd* means "you would" or "you had", and we can tell which one from context: *you would*. Also, "I'm honored that you did write" would sound odd - unless there was a suggestion that the person had previously intended not to. ("I know that you were reluctant to be put pen to paper, but I'm honored that you did write." Something like that. The "did" is emphatic and cannot be abbreviated.) In this context, "I'm honored that you wrote" would work, as would "I'm honored that you've written", but I think "I'm honored that you'd write" / "...that you would write" perhaps works best.

“I’m honored that you would write” If you wanted to use wrote instead of write you would say: “I’m honored that you have wrote” Both sound normal when you use the contraction

would

It could be "I'm honored that you wrote to me," or, as they did do it, "I am honored that you would (you'd)." The second is present tense because the "wouldness" continues to be true.

I’m pretty sure it's you would.

It's absolutely fine.

It is "I'm honored that you *would* write,. . ."

Side note, I like how he says he doesn’t sign autographs, but signed the letter.

This is the contracted form of “honored that you would write.” The subjunctive mood of the verb *to write* is indirect, tentative, and avoids any assumptions about who actually writes, or why they write, or whether they write at all. It gives people a little more implied freedom. Very polite. The contracted form is simultaneously informal. This is a person-to-person communication, so Jobs is being a bit intimate. Normal Silicon Valley communication style. As others have mentioned, it’s also a logic joke. Who doesn’t appreciate a good embedded contradictory self-reference? It’s not quite a truth paradox, so not a real home run but it does bring a smile. Jobs is being pretty gracious about both refusing and fulfilling an obnoxious fan request. Maybe he was amused by his own sense of humor.

A poet Jobs was not.

It's probably not "you did"; it's much more likely "you would". "I'm honored that you would write" "You did" is typically not contracted to "you'd". Either way, the main verb "write" can't be past tense "wrote" when there's an auxiliary verb like "did" or "would". If we dropped the auxiliary, "wrote" would be fine but that would be more direct. More direct often means less polite.

Chat GPT can be really good at explaining grammar. Here is its explanation of this sentence: https://chatgpt.com/share/6862b21c-7218-8009-87ae-cc15ee5e2eb2

"I don't sign autographs. Sincerely," the signature kkkkkkkkkk

He was a smart and funny man.

If the writing has already occurred, I would say, “I am honored that you wrote…”. The “I am” is present tense because the honor is being experienced in the present moment. Since the writing occurred prior to that moment, it makes sense to reference it in the past tense. Using “would” doesn’t affirm that you wrote anything; it affirms instead that you are motivated to write given the right circumstances.

In this case, "you'd" means "you would."

Like “you would take the time to write”. It’s good !

In this case you'd means you would

Ewed right

And yet he gave you his autograph 😁

There is a lot of top level explanation about how and why it is would. They explain the formality and usage of unreal and subjunctive and lots of other contexts that native speakers get out of it. I want to address your text in the body. From context native and expert speakers will know that did isn’t used here as the tone (mood and tense from earlier explanations by others) sets it as a formal writing as well as the formatting. Steve Jobs also had certain speaking patterns that make this appear as a dry humor of a short very formally phrased refusal followed by granting the request by signing the letter. If our understanding of why he phrased it this way is correct that formal tone would make would contraction fit better. This is using context of who Steve Jobs is and how he speaks. English isn’t a staccato language for me it’s more ebbs and flows and if you say both variations out loud (your example and using would) without the contraction it sounds *better* (smoother) using would. I can’t explain that part except some phrases just flow better than other phrases in American english. Building off the deliberate formality again is why wrote isn’t used. “I’m honored you wrote, but I don’t sign autographs.” Just doesn’t give a very honored feel does it? Compare that one with one that would fit better than using wrote. “I’m honored you’ve written, but I don’t sign autographs.” Then one more comparison with the original. “I’m honored you’d write, but I don’t sign autographs.” This could possible be improved for someone that isn’t native by adding *to me* after write but isn’t necessary. It’s funny how english speakers have trouble with so many languages because context and tone carry so much weight not realizing how much sentence structure in english does the same thing so often. The me is understood and not necessary and would fits so much better that it’s absolutely understood with enough experience.

LOL, you got his autograph, didn’t you!

Demonstrates how few English speakers understand the subjunctive

It should be "I'm honoured you wrote". Wrote is the past tense of write.

Shouldn’t it be “I’m honored that you’ve written”?

I don't think would makes sense here lowk. I would say something like "I'm honored that you wrote, but..."

As explained, it's a contraction of 'would'. Also fun to know that Steve Jobs was so far up his ass, even back then.