For this usage, that is the correct timeframe, but there is another, more technically accurate start and end, beginning with January 1st, xx01. This is because there is no "zeroth century” between BC/BCE and AD/CE.
The 20th century actually ended on December 31st, 2000, not 1999. Prince was a year early.
And the new millenium started 1/1/2000 or is it 2001? This is so stupid. Why do I partake?
Apple's cash reserves are largely due to not offering a dividend to its shareholders and not making any large expensive aquisitions.
I'm slightly curious as to why Apple hasn't made at least one media or platform aquisition, such as Adobe, or Viacom (it could just about swallow both).
Back in 1995 or 1996 after I had become tired of Apple and all the crappy products they were putting out, I thought to myself that the only thing that could bring back Apple would be for them to bring Jobs back into the fold.
At least while he was there they took chances and tried to create new and exciting computers. The only post-Jobs device that Apple released that was of any significance was the Newton, the only solid computers were the SE/30 and IIci. Five years after Jobs was gone all their products just went "beige". Other than the switch from Motorola 680x0 CPU to PowerPC, all the excitement was gone.
It wasn't until Jobs came back that their creativity resurfaced and their products started to set themselves apart from all others again. When that first iMac came out, I just had to have one and have been buying iMacs ever since.
Apple's cash reserves are largely due to not offering a dividend to its shareholders and not making any large expensive aquisitions.
I'm slightly curious as to why Apple hasn't made at least one media or platform aquisition, such as Adobe, or Viacom (it could just about swallow both).
I have to disagree on two things. If Apple paid a dividend, say $1/share per year, that would only be $900M a year.
Acquiistion-wise, I see no need for Apple to buy Adobe. It would be crutch for Apple and in the short term Apple?s stock valuation would likely drop. Adobe would surely jump, affecting the purchase price. Apple has been overly conservative in this area but Adobe is not a smart buy, IMO. Buying small companies to obtain IP before your competitors do is smart and Apple has done this several times. Too often we see a company buy another to save their valuable but sinking ship. Apple did this when they bought NeXT, luckily that also bought them a new captain.
One thing about Steve Jobs is that rarely in business does someone get an second act, much less a third. Here's the big ones since 1976.
1. Founded Apple, popularizing the Apple ][ in 1977 and making a good size computer company from nothing.
2. Introduced the Mac in 1984 which didn't take the market by storm, but did transform how people used any computer worldwide going forward.
3. Gets pushed out of Apple in 1985. Learns from his mistake and instead of cashing in his chips and retiring (in his early 30s), goes back to work founding a new software company (NeXT) and buying a money losing CGI company (Pixar).
4. Comes back to the cash-bleeding, dying Apple in 1996 with assets from his NeXT computer company in hand. Instead of cashing in his $400 million check, he gets back to work with the iMac. Being a turnaround artist is a special skill few CEOs have. Who knew Steve Jobs was one of them?
5. Creates the iPod. And transforms how music is sold around the world. Apple is now the largest vendor of music, period.
6. Pixar begins to make animated movies...really good ones. Pixar is eventually sold to Disney for $7 billion, making him their biggest shareholder. All while doing this in his "spare time".
7. Creates the iPhone, completely changing the game with all smartphone makers worldwide and leading Microsoft and Palm in marketshare within two years while breathing down the neck of market leader RIM. The iPhone makes more profit than all of them easily.
During virtually all of the 1990s, the word "beleagured" was always used hand in hand with Apple. The company started digging itself out of the hole and outside of the dotcomm/Sep 11 year of 2001, it's been a remarkable journey. Apple now has more money in the bank than just about anyone else in Silicon Valley (I think they are tied with Cisco). The IT industry as a whole used to ignore Apple for sport. Now they must listen to them, for mobile telephony if nothing else. Everything Apple does is parsed by everyone from tech blogs to the Wall Street Journal for trends in technology. Few other CEOs in this business have the same kind of respect (or fear of him) that Jobs has.
In tech, I'd have to give these other CEOs honorable mention:
1. Larry Ellison - Oracle. Transformed Oracle from a database company to an enterprise applications company, largely on a successful acquisition strategy.
2. John Chambers - Cisco. Survived and thrived after the dotcomm crash when many others didn't. Expanded into the consumer market with Linksys. The only other tech company with as much money in the bank as Apple.
3. Mark Hurd - HP. Turned HP around after the Fiorina era, which included reduced profits, horrible company moral, and a scandal involving obtaining private financial and phone information on reporters they didn't like.
4. Sam Palmisano - IBM. Continued the transformation of IBM into a services company and away from just a builder of servers.
Forget all the millions he has made for his shareholders. The development of the GUI made it possible for a simpleton like me to use a computer. For all the tools I have to "navigate through life" I am eternally grateful. Congratulations to you Mr. Jobs, you certainly deserve it.
Apple will soon be the biggest company in the world.
They have a long way for that. Even in the US there is Exxon, with a market capitalization of $343B, that have to beat. For the world, it?s even a little more.
Acquiistion-wise, I see no need for Apple to buy Adobe. It would be crutch for Apple and in the short term Apple?s stock valuation would likely drop. Adobe would surely jump, affecting the purchase price. Apple has been overly conservative in this area but Adobe is not a smart buy, IMO. Buying small companies to obtain IP before your competitors do is smart and Apple has done this several times. Too often we see a company buy another to save their valuable but sinking ship. Apple did this when they bought NeXT, luckily that also bought them a new captain.
When Steve came back to Apple, they were pretty much at the mercy of whatever Adobe or Microsoft wanted to do with how they developed software on the Mac. Although Adobe is big company with software that is completely ubiquitous in content creation (Photoshop, Flash), Apple no longer needs them more than Adobe needs them. And you are right, Apple acquires small companies who they see as an opportunity for large growth. We saw this with Soundjam (iTunes), Final Cut, Logic and now with PA Risc. Sure they could swallow Adobe, but why? They don't like Flash and don't want it. Remember when the iPhone was introduced and everyone moaned about it not having Flash? Who complains about it now? Adobe. Everyone else moved on and joined the App Store. And Adobe isn't a company poised for large growth. Their culture is different and the overall return on their investment would be lousy. Better try to manage them from afar rather than buy them and incur the ire of the tech industry and the Feds.
I've never liked Jobs, even when I was an Apple fan. But I do respect the fact that he has definitely changed the computer arena. But I think too many people place too much on this one man. Remember, he runs a company and surrounds himself with plenty of competent employees.
Having a visionary leadership is as important as having talented employees. Remember that those CEOs are responsible for recognizing competent employees since such employees don't magically drop for they sky. Just look at Xerox, they had the brightest employees and they could've been the biggest PC player if their leadership have recognized the potential of GUI and the mouse instead of offering it almost free to Apple.
Well, not knowing him, I don't like or dislike him, but, I think he deserves credit for surrounding himself with "competent" employees, in addition to his apparent force of character that's allowed him to achieve what he has. It actually takes quite a bit of intelligence and discernment to surround yourself with competent people.
This is a good point that is often overlooked. The whole thing about Jobs being a tyrant is waay overblown IMO.
People are always talking about him being an *sshole or what a "tyrant" he is but none of these people have actually met him and most base their opinions on what they read in the popular press in regards his personality.
Also, people forget that almost every story about Jobs being "tyrannical" come from his pre-NeXT days when he was a young man. Young men are jerks, it's part of the territory. Balmer is still a douche-bag in his fifties. That's a much rarer situation that should get more press time than the simple fact that as a young up and coming entrepreneur, Jobs might have stepped on some toes.
By all factual accounts, Steve Jobs today is not anything like the image most people have of him from the press reports. Most of those writing about him, (including "fake steve jobs") are not his friends, don't work with him, and never have. they are competitors, hacks, and people with various axes to grind.
Only this week we were treated to an interview by someone who actually did work with him very closely (Lee Clow), and his description was that Jobs was mostly a "fun guy" and good to be around.
One thing about Steve Jobs is that rarely in business does someone get an second act, much less a third.
An excellent point, and one of the reasons why the Jobs story is so compelling. Few seem to recall that when he was booted out of Apple, he was widely seen as the source of the company's many problems. He was undisciplined and out of control, and so was the company. Then especially after his non-success with NeXT, which for all the world looked like little more than an ego project, he could easily have slipped under the waves, never to be heard from again.
So his return to Apple was by itself a surprising story. His personal transformation into a highly disciplined tech visionary was another. His taking Apple not just out of the wilderness but to a position of unquestioned industry leadership was another. Building a staggering amount of shareholder value was yet another.
If any story in business over the last ten years even comes close, I've never heard it. It's obviously early yet, but he's got a shot at CEO of the century. For certain no matter what comes next, people will be talking about the Jobs era at Apple for a long time to come. We've been watching history in the making.
For this usage, that is the correct timeframe, but there is another, more technically accurate start and end, beginning with January 1st, xx01. This is because there is no "zeroth century? between BC/BCE and AD/CE.
The 20th century actually ended on December 31st, 2000, not 1999. Prince was a year early.
And the last decade ended December 31, 2000, not 1999, there being no zeroth year, either.
Forget all the millions he has made for his shareholders. The development of the GUI made it possible for a simpleton like me to use a computer. For all the tools I have to "navigate through life" I am eternally grateful. Congratulations to you Mr. Jobs, you certainly deserve it.
... Acquiistion-wise, I see no need for Apple to buy Adobe. It would be crutch for Apple and in the short term Apple’s stock valuation would likely drop. ...
Agreed.
Buying Adobe would be a dumb move. In the first place they don't have anything of value. Their developers are all Windows developers, the company is bloated with staff and other possessions and would have to be cut down by about 60%, and their code-base is all from the 90's. There's nothing there worth buying for what they'd have to pay.
Secondly, the whole problem with the market for creative software today and the biggest challenge facing it is the very fact that Adobe "owns it all." If Apple bought Adobe, then *they* would "own it all" and the stifling effects that has on the industry as a whole would just continue under a different banner. Anyone who really cares about the growth and success of that part of the computing market would advocate a bit of competition, and the break-up of stupid monopolies like Adobe.
Apple would be better off buying up Pixelmator for chump change and just smoothing off the rough corners of their product. That would be real competition for Adobe and result in better software and a healthier market for all concerned.
For this usage, that is the correct timeframe, but there is another, more technically accurate start and end, beginning with January 1st, xx01. This is because there is no "zeroth century? between BC/BCE and AD/CE.
The 20th century actually ended on December 31st, 2000, not 1999. Prince was a year early.
Correct. (The turn of the millennium was celebrated a year to early as well, worldwide.)
And the last decade ended December 31, 2000, not 1999, there being no zeroth year, either.
You and I must have went to different schools than TeckStud. What?s funny, is that initially wrote it incorrectly, but when I noticed Teckstud?s post was congruent with mine I realized I had made an error.
You and I must have went to different schools than TeckStud. What?s funny, is that initially wrote it incorrectly, but when I noticed Teckstud?s post was congruent with mine I realized I had made an error.
Comments
For this usage, that is the correct timeframe, but there is another, more technically accurate start and end, beginning with January 1st, xx01. This is because there is no "zeroth century” between BC/BCE and AD/CE.
The 20th century actually ended on December 31st, 2000, not 1999. Prince was a year early.
And the new millenium started 1/1/2000 or is it 2001? This is so stupid. Why do I partake?
I'm slightly curious as to why Apple hasn't made at least one media or platform aquisition, such as Adobe, or Viacom (it could just about swallow both).
Jobs and Pixar did -but that's a different chapter.
Well, this is a first. A post by Teckstud that I agree with...
At least while he was there they took chances and tried to create new and exciting computers. The only post-Jobs device that Apple released that was of any significance was the Newton, the only solid computers were the SE/30 and IIci. Five years after Jobs was gone all their products just went "beige". Other than the switch from Motorola 680x0 CPU to PowerPC, all the excitement was gone.
It wasn't until Jobs came back that their creativity resurfaced and their products started to set themselves apart from all others again. When that first iMac came out, I just had to have one and have been buying iMacs ever since.
Apple's cash reserves are largely due to not offering a dividend to its shareholders and not making any large expensive aquisitions.
I'm slightly curious as to why Apple hasn't made at least one media or platform aquisition, such as Adobe, or Viacom (it could just about swallow both).
I have to disagree on two things. If Apple paid a dividend, say $1/share per year, that would only be $900M a year.
Acquiistion-wise, I see no need for Apple to buy Adobe. It would be crutch for Apple and in the short term Apple?s stock valuation would likely drop. Adobe would surely jump, affecting the purchase price. Apple has been overly conservative in this area but Adobe is not a smart buy, IMO. Buying small companies to obtain IP before your competitors do is smart and Apple has done this several times. Too often we see a company buy another to save their valuable but sinking ship. Apple did this when they bought NeXT, luckily that also bought them a new captain.
1. Founded Apple, popularizing the Apple ][ in 1977 and making a good size computer company from nothing.
2. Introduced the Mac in 1984 which didn't take the market by storm, but did transform how people used any computer worldwide going forward.
3. Gets pushed out of Apple in 1985. Learns from his mistake and instead of cashing in his chips and retiring (in his early 30s), goes back to work founding a new software company (NeXT) and buying a money losing CGI company (Pixar).
4. Comes back to the cash-bleeding, dying Apple in 1996 with assets from his NeXT computer company in hand. Instead of cashing in his $400 million check, he gets back to work with the iMac. Being a turnaround artist is a special skill few CEOs have. Who knew Steve Jobs was one of them?
5. Creates the iPod. And transforms how music is sold around the world. Apple is now the largest vendor of music, period.
6. Pixar begins to make animated movies...really good ones. Pixar is eventually sold to Disney for $7 billion, making him their biggest shareholder. All while doing this in his "spare time".
7. Creates the iPhone, completely changing the game with all smartphone makers worldwide and leading Microsoft and Palm in marketshare within two years while breathing down the neck of market leader RIM. The iPhone makes more profit than all of them easily.
During virtually all of the 1990s, the word "beleagured" was always used hand in hand with Apple. The company started digging itself out of the hole and outside of the dotcomm/Sep 11 year of 2001, it's been a remarkable journey. Apple now has more money in the bank than just about anyone else in Silicon Valley (I think they are tied with Cisco). The IT industry as a whole used to ignore Apple for sport. Now they must listen to them, for mobile telephony if nothing else. Everything Apple does is parsed by everyone from tech blogs to the Wall Street Journal for trends in technology. Few other CEOs in this business have the same kind of respect (or fear of him) that Jobs has.
In tech, I'd have to give these other CEOs honorable mention:
1. Larry Ellison - Oracle. Transformed Oracle from a database company to an enterprise applications company, largely on a successful acquisition strategy.
2. John Chambers - Cisco. Survived and thrived after the dotcomm crash when many others didn't. Expanded into the consumer market with Linksys. The only other tech company with as much money in the bank as Apple.
3. Mark Hurd - HP. Turned HP around after the Fiorina era, which included reduced profits, horrible company moral, and a scandal involving obtaining private financial and phone information on reporters they didn't like.
4. Sam Palmisano - IBM. Continued the transformation of IBM into a services company and away from just a builder of servers.
I have also spent time with Bill Gates and Michael Dell.
All I can say is this:
"Steve
just
thinks
different."
'nuff said.
Apple will soon be the biggest company in the world.
They have a long way for that. Even in the US there is Exxon, with a market capitalization of $343B, that have to beat. For the world, it?s even a little more.
Acquiistion-wise, I see no need for Apple to buy Adobe. It would be crutch for Apple and in the short term Apple?s stock valuation would likely drop. Adobe would surely jump, affecting the purchase price. Apple has been overly conservative in this area but Adobe is not a smart buy, IMO. Buying small companies to obtain IP before your competitors do is smart and Apple has done this several times. Too often we see a company buy another to save their valuable but sinking ship. Apple did this when they bought NeXT, luckily that also bought them a new captain.
When Steve came back to Apple, they were pretty much at the mercy of whatever Adobe or Microsoft wanted to do with how they developed software on the Mac. Although Adobe is big company with software that is completely ubiquitous in content creation (Photoshop, Flash), Apple no longer needs them more than Adobe needs them. And you are right, Apple acquires small companies who they see as an opportunity for large growth. We saw this with Soundjam (iTunes), Final Cut, Logic and now with PA Risc. Sure they could swallow Adobe, but why? They don't like Flash and don't want it. Remember when the iPhone was introduced and everyone moaned about it not having Flash? Who complains about it now? Adobe. Everyone else moved on and joined the App Store. And Adobe isn't a company poised for large growth. Their culture is different and the overall return on their investment would be lousy. Better try to manage them from afar rather than buy them and incur the ire of the tech industry and the Feds.
I've never liked Jobs, even when I was an Apple fan. But I do respect the fact that he has definitely changed the computer arena. But I think too many people place too much on this one man. Remember, he runs a company and surrounds himself with plenty of competent employees.
Having a visionary leadership is as important as having talented employees. Remember that those CEOs are responsible for recognizing competent employees since such employees don't magically drop for they sky. Just look at Xerox, they had the brightest employees and they could've been the biggest PC player if their leadership have recognized the potential of GUI and the mouse instead of offering it almost free to Apple.
Well, not knowing him, I don't like or dislike him, but, I think he deserves credit for surrounding himself with "competent" employees, in addition to his apparent force of character that's allowed him to achieve what he has. It actually takes quite a bit of intelligence and discernment to surround yourself with competent people.
This is a good point that is often overlooked. The whole thing about Jobs being a tyrant is waay overblown IMO.
People are always talking about him being an *sshole or what a "tyrant" he is but none of these people have actually met him and most base their opinions on what they read in the popular press in regards his personality.
Also, people forget that almost every story about Jobs being "tyrannical" come from his pre-NeXT days when he was a young man. Young men are jerks, it's part of the territory. Balmer is still a douche-bag in his fifties. That's a much rarer situation that should get more press time than the simple fact that as a young up and coming entrepreneur, Jobs might have stepped on some toes.
By all factual accounts, Steve Jobs today is not anything like the image most people have of him from the press reports. Most of those writing about him, (including "fake steve jobs") are not his friends, don't work with him, and never have. they are competitors, hacks, and people with various axes to grind.
Only this week we were treated to an interview by someone who actually did work with him very closely (Lee Clow), and his description was that Jobs was mostly a "fun guy" and good to be around.
One thing about Steve Jobs is that rarely in business does someone get an second act, much less a third.
An excellent point, and one of the reasons why the Jobs story is so compelling. Few seem to recall that when he was booted out of Apple, he was widely seen as the source of the company's many problems. He was undisciplined and out of control, and so was the company. Then especially after his non-success with NeXT, which for all the world looked like little more than an ego project, he could easily have slipped under the waves, never to be heard from again.
So his return to Apple was by itself a surprising story. His personal transformation into a highly disciplined tech visionary was another. His taking Apple not just out of the wilderness but to a position of unquestioned industry leadership was another. Building a staggering amount of shareholder value was yet another.
If any story in business over the last ten years even comes close, I've never heard it. It's obviously early yet, but he's got a shot at CEO of the century. For certain no matter what comes next, people will be talking about the Jobs era at Apple for a long time to come. We've been watching history in the making.
For this usage, that is the correct timeframe, but there is another, more technically accurate start and end, beginning with January 1st, xx01. This is because there is no "zeroth century? between BC/BCE and AD/CE.
The 20th century actually ended on December 31st, 2000, not 1999. Prince was a year early.
And the last decade ended December 31, 2000, not 1999, there being no zeroth year, either.
Forget all the millions he has made for his shareholders. The development of the GUI made it possible for a simpleton like me to use a computer. For all the tools I have to "navigate through life" I am eternally grateful. Congratulations to you Mr. Jobs, you certainly deserve it.
Best comment so far.
I have rubbed elbows with Steve on more than one occasion.
I have also spent time with Bill Gates and Michael Dell.
All I can say is this:
"Steve
just
thinks
different."
'nuff said.
This article about the Jeff Bezo?s Segway ?Ginger? gives a little insight into the way Jobs thinks. A worthy read?
... Acquiistion-wise, I see no need for Apple to buy Adobe. It would be crutch for Apple and in the short term Apple’s stock valuation would likely drop. ...
Agreed.
Buying Adobe would be a dumb move. In the first place they don't have anything of value. Their developers are all Windows developers, the company is bloated with staff and other possessions and would have to be cut down by about 60%, and their code-base is all from the 90's. There's nothing there worth buying for what they'd have to pay.
Secondly, the whole problem with the market for creative software today and the biggest challenge facing it is the very fact that Adobe "owns it all." If Apple bought Adobe, then *they* would "own it all" and the stifling effects that has on the industry as a whole would just continue under a different banner. Anyone who really cares about the growth and success of that part of the computing market would advocate a bit of competition, and the break-up of stupid monopolies like Adobe.
Apple would be better off buying up Pixelmator for chump change and just smoothing off the rough corners of their product. That would be real competition for Adobe and result in better software and a healthier market for all concerned.
For this usage, that is the correct timeframe, but there is another, more technically accurate start and end, beginning with January 1st, xx01. This is because there is no "zeroth century? between BC/BCE and AD/CE.
The 20th century actually ended on December 31st, 2000, not 1999. Prince was a year early.
Correct. (The turn of the millennium was celebrated a year to early as well, worldwide.)
And the last decade ended December 31, 2000, not 1999, there being no zeroth year, either.
You and I must have went to different schools than TeckStud.
You and I must have went to different schools than TeckStud.
Yes, that always raises a red flag for me too.