Running the risk of continuing to hijack this thread...
Engineers hate it when the company visionary walks in, says he doesn't like something or asks for a minor change. I know, I'm an engineer and it has happened to me a couple of times. What is really odd, however, is that in many (not all) cases he was absolutely right and the products were better for it. SJ is that kind of guy and Apple's products are better off with his influence than they are without. Is he infallible? No, but nobody is. He does have a pretty good hit:miss ratio.
I'm a shareholder in Apple too and frankly I would much rather have somebody like SJ at the helm than some business flunky who bends over for the "all powerful shareholders". The fact is that the shareholders don't know $hit about the business they've invested in, they don't know all the details, and they don't know all the plans and issues involved. Look back at the years when there were business types running Apple and you'll see that they pretty much ran it into the ground.
As for the Newton, which is always held up as an example -- personally I think Steve was right and he made the hard call to kill the product. A product isn't just about what is making money right now, its about the future as well and since the Newton was Steve'd the handheld market has been a bloody mess leaving wounded companies strewn across the battlefield. Apple, on the other hand, focussed on its core strengths and now has a good position if they can just deliver that new processor everybody says is coming soon (and which this thread is about <-- see, relevance!).
Lastly, about the "wacko" security measures and micromanagement. The employees always hate that stuff, so take their gripe sessions with a big grain of salt. I gripe about those issues too, but I also know from a fair bit of experience that they are sometimes very necessary. Apple is a company often copied, and their differentiation is their edge. If they leaked information like they used to then the copies would make it to market before the Apple products and the perception of Apple as "different", "revolutionary", or "leading edge" would rapidly dry up. And as for micromanagement -- this is almost always a direct result of an engineering team's tendency to lose focus, wander around, and not deliver the right product at the right time. Yes the engineers hate it, but most soldiers don't like marching and they wouldn't be a very good army if they never went anywhere.
Engineers hate it when the company visionary walks in, says he doesn't like something or asks for a minor change. I know, I'm an engineer and it has happened to me a couple of times. What is really odd, however, is that in many (not all) cases he was absolutely right and the products were better for it. SJ is that kind of guy and Apple's products are better off with his influence than they are without. Is he infallible? No, but nobody is. He does have a pretty good hit:miss ratio.
I'm a shareholder in Apple too and frankly I would much rather have somebody like SJ at the helm than some business flunky who bends over for the "all powerful shareholders". The fact is that the shareholders don't know $hit about the business they've invested in, they don't know all the details, and they don't know all the plans and issues involved. Look back at the years when there were business types running Apple and you'll see that they pretty much ran it into the ground.
As for the Newton, which is always held up as an example -- personally I think Steve was right and he made the hard call to kill the product. A product isn't just about what is making money right now, its about the future as well and since the Newton was Steve'd the handheld market has been a bloody mess leaving wounded companies strewn across the battlefield. Apple, on the other hand, focussed on its core strengths and now has a good position if they can just deliver that new processor everybody says is coming soon (and which this thread is about <-- see, relevance!).
Lastly, about the "wacko" security measures and micromanagement. The employees always hate that stuff, so take their gripe sessions with a big grain of salt. I gripe about those issues too, but I also know from a fair bit of experience that they are sometimes very necessary. Apple is a company often copied, and their differentiation is their edge. If they leaked information like they used to then the copies would make it to market before the Apple products and the perception of Apple as "different", "revolutionary", or "leading edge" would rapidly dry up. And as for micromanagement -- this is almost always a direct result of an engineering team's tendency to lose focus, wander around, and not deliver the right product at the right time. Yes the engineers hate it, but most soldiers don't like marching and they wouldn't be a very good army if they never went anywhere.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Damn. Oh Steves gonna be so pissed if this is true 
oh well just gonna have to
