I think he may have stooped lower (or is that Lo-wer) then Ballmer on criticizing his competitors. He even says Steve will die soon and the company will go a different course. He obviously doesn't know anything about Apple's culture and you just don't say some of these things.
This guy isn't one to talk about egos. It takes a big ego to complain about others egos to the public.
It's funny to me how CEO's from companies that wish they were as successful as Apple keep saying that they are doing it the wrong way. That Steve Jobs has an ego? Well yeah, the man is one of the great CEO's in the history of business and has transformed the tech world with his vision, an ego is a byproduct of success. If you make good products the consumer doesn't care if it's closed or open. Apple's so called closed ecosystem hasn't hampered it from growth, the contrary is true, it has fueled it. I think the 100 million plus iOS device customers have spoken pretty loudly on this issue, the rest is all conjecture.
This rant is just sad. The closed iTunes system, has provided consumers with an excellent product and developers, through the App Store, with a great development and sales model. As much as film studios may balk, the fact is that content providers have a great deal with iTunes. The revenue split is extremely favorable and the opportunity to get and keep low volume items on the virtual shelf is fantastic. I personally make decent money from iTunes sales.
And can we call a moratorium on the Betamax/VHS analogy? Can we throw it under the bus? Has it jumped the shark yet? It doesn't really apply here. There are two many differences between the situations. And it happened 30 years ago.
patrick lo's logic is revealed if you reverse the sentences:
- windows is a meaningless platform to his business at this point
- he blames this on steve's single minded nature of being able to succeed in knowing how to give customers a wonderful user-experience on an apple platform
- he needs to wait for his next chance which might come if steve isnt around anymore
- which might somehow make patrick lo's own business succeed in providing wonderful user-experiences
huh?
does anyone buy netgear anymore? certainly not their NAS crap.
for conduct unbecoming a publicly listed company's CEO: probable changes in the boardroom within a few weeks.
Lo, over yonder I here an annoying buzz. Lord, tis nothing but a festering pile of dung that hath attracted numerous large flies. They fly about as they may, but yet all die a short time hence me lord.
Hmm. So that explains why every attempt at an open games console platform, since MSX in the 80s, has collapsed. And Java.
Equally, by the same logic, Unix should have succeeded, and Windows failed (well, actually that is what's happening now) - especially as Windows was locked down to one, inferior, CPU architecture, rather than the multiple platforms supported by Unix.
There was nothing open about having to buy an operating system from one supplier, and a CPU from their main business partner.
Any sufficiently advanced monopoly is indistinguishable from a standard.
I'd also say that while content providers don't like Apple's dominance of the digital retail channel, at least Apple want to build a retail model.
That's something they understand - it's not that different from dealing with Walmart or Amazon or any other huge retailer. It's aggressive bargaining, but it is about who gets what share of the pie.
Apple have also done things for the content producers (DRM on video, even closing the treaming video hole in iOS 4.0 that's allowed PC users to download iOS H264 streams).
Google TV, on the other hand, has been a flop, because from what I can see, Google don't know how to negotiate. Same thing with the book industry, and YouTube/music industry - Google go straight in with threats and bullying, 'so sue me' attitude, then wonder why negotiations are hostile.
Put another way - negotiations work when you have two people with essentially the same goal, but who want to get the best settlement in their favour. They don't work when one partner wants something that was never on the table.
I had a Netgear router once. It looked like a children's bath toy and never worked properly with my Macs.
Everyone knows Jobs has an ego the size of a planet. Given the success of Apple in the last 10 years, as either an Apple consumer or shareholder, you'd have to be pleased. This is needless bleating by someone no one even knows.
i had 2 netgear devices. both were junk and i will never buy anything from that brand again. but lets not call them out for looking like childrens bath toys. the early i products especially looked like disneyland and playskool designed it and os x still looks like that.
Steve Jobs' ego? Psychology theory tell us ego is the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity. So, yes, Jobs has an ego, but what's wrong with that? Is he tyrannical? Does he suppress criticism of his ideas so that he 'wins' every contest? Does he never listen to others? If he were any of these things, he could never have built the powerful (and loyal) team of highly competent individuals manning the key points in Apple. Yes, he's forceful, and yes, he's brutal in dismissing poorly thought out schemes, and yes, he surely makes mistakes and errors of judgment along the way. But nobody is perfect.
My experience of working in the senior levels of IBM, where high quality people abound, is that at some point, a decision has to be made, often between finely balanced choices. What it comes down to then is that the right decision is the one that comes closest to embracing and supporting the core values of the company, and it's in this regard that Jobs shows just how single-minded he is. By his tight focus on wanting to make insanely great products that just work, he will indeed reject ideas that he doesn't believe will support this objective. But that's not ego, that's a rational mind focused on a clear objective.
The argument that Android will 'win' over iOS demonstrates a superficial (at best) understanding of the issues. If you give your software away for free and allow people to do whatever they want with it, you will surely attract in hundreds of suppliers who don't have the nous to develop their own OS. They will sell a boatload of cheap devices. If you just count the number of Android devices, you'll probably find your free software is all over the market. But will this aggregate to a mass of highly satisfied users who can take advantage of hardware and software advances as they come along, or will it develop a market of users stuck at different places in the OS development cycle, with no way to move forward?
We are already seeing Google making noises about the need to 'control' Android and 'curate' their app store because of the huge mess their 'open' strategy has already caused.
Apple's foresight that this would happen to them unless they controlled certain aspects of how iOS is used, and curated the apps running on iOS so as to banish malicious and dangerous apps, just goes to show that a focus on making insanely great products leads you to the right solution, at least in this case.
Hmm. So that explains why every attempt at an open games console platform, since MSX in the 80s, has collapsed. And Java.
Any sufficiently advanced monopoly is indistinguishable from a standard.
Which looks like Android, extrapolating. I hope it isn't, but it looks like.
Quote:
I'd also say that while content providers don't like Apple's dominance of the digital retail channel, at least Apple want to build a retail model.
What they dont like is being forced to pay a ransom to Apple for content purchasing they could provide themselves. The 30% on in-app purchases for content bought through iTunes makes sense for small distributors with no web presence. For other distributors it is an extortionate racket - a price for doing business in Apple's neighborhood with no value added by Apple.
Steve will "soon go away". I'm sure he meant that Steve will die soon, punished for creating the iPhone and turning it into a "closed" platform. What difference does it matter if Apple has a closed platform and doesn't have the largest market share? It's not helping Nokia and Symbian any. I guess it always comes down to whatever platform has the largest market share, those are the one's who are "winning". A close second place doesn't count for anything? I think any company that is profitable and has a loyal set of customers would be considered successful. This guy Lo is no different from the rest of industry that considers Steve arrogant and controlling. Maybe Steve is both of those things, but the company still makes some darn good products and that's enough for me as a user and a shareholder.
Saying that the iOS platform is "destined to fail" is really taking it to the extreme. It doesn't even seem close to a failing platform. It honestly looks to be thriving extremely well. As long as iOS continues to pull in developers and as long as product quality is kept high, there is no reason for it to fail. Most consumers don't care about "open" or "closed" platforms. They just want products that work well and are useful to them.
"When asked if he had communicated his concerns to Jobs, Lo replied: "Steve Jobs doesn't give me a minute!"
And herein lies the reason for the vitriol... He is a total unknown and the *only* way he could get his name in the press was to attack one of this century's icons (and while Steve is down no less)... Very, very sad.
"Once Steve Jobs goes away, which is probably not far away, then Apple will have to make a strategic decision on whether to open up the platform," Lo said on Monday."
I am dumbfounded that he said this - totally dumfounded. I had to read the quote 3 times; I didn't realize that there was anyone who was so Lo (pun intended). But looking back, it got him PR that he never could have gotten for himself.
i had 2 netgear devices. both were junk and i will never buy anything from that brand again. but lets not call them out for looking like childrens bath toys. the early i products especially looked like disneyland and playskool designed it and os x still looks like that.
Yeah. Same experiences here. I had a Netgear router that would constantly crash and need manual restarts. I also had a business class Netgear that would get bogged down with only a few simultaneous connections while a Airport Extreme could handle 50+ connections while maxing the connection and providing good quality of service. It is disappointing that most of these consumer networking companies have a race to the bottom mentality. They create a poor product just to make it slightly cheaper.
Another troll comment by a guy who is trying to convince us with an outdated narrative.
Here we go again.
The Android business model is very progressive with too many goddamn players. You will have to iterate up the a** to compete. Which means you'll most likely end up with tons of unsold Android phones in your warehouse.So you will accrue debt as you battle to one-up the slew of competitor's new sh** hitting the market every month. And of course you know about the BIGGER, BETTER BADDER consumer mentality. Well the Android business has capitalized on that like no other business model.
So on the surface the Android game seems like "WOW" but behind the scenes it is nasty. A wasteful, debt filled whorehouse.
"What's the reason for him to trash Flash? There's no reason other than ego" Some people just don't like "rich, immersive" web experiences. I can't understand why my SouthPark video episodes have to be wrapped in a Flash container. It's just a video. Why is Flash in the mix at all?
I don't get the point of opening up iTunes. Open it up to developers? That is nonsense. Open it up to their competitors? Amazon and others have their own content systems. Sure Wal-Mart should open up their content distribution system so that Target can sell in their stores. Opening up iTunes would be like opening up Apple's brick and mortar stores so that Compaq can sell their goods there. iTunes is not the only place you can go to to buy music, movies, software and tv shows. The fact that so many people choose to buy there says something about the iTunes store compared to the others.
Comments
When asked if he had communicated his concerns to Jobs, Lo replied: "Steve Jobs doesn't give me a minute!"
I wouldn't give you a minute either.
Lo's comments about Jobs could provoke a controversy, as they may be perceived as a 'low blow,' given that Jobs is currently on medical leave
Shouldn't that be "Lo blow"
For instance, it is unclear what Lo means when he says that Jobs will "go away" in the not too distant future.
Retirement?! Job is almost 56... Ten years can seem to pass by in a flash. (flash - no pun intended)
Sent from my non Android tablet, Apple iPad, or as I like to refer to it as, the right decision for me!
/
/
/
This guy isn't one to talk about egos. It takes a big ego to complain about others egos to the public.
And can we call a moratorium on the Betamax/VHS analogy? Can we throw it under the bus? Has it jumped the shark yet? It doesn't really apply here. There are two many differences between the situations. And it happened 30 years ago.
He's spot on. We all know how successful Linux has been, don't we?
There is a diff btw open and "free" as in stallman free. OpenMoko vs. Android is a good example of this.
Besides, Linux the kernel is quite widely used for a lot of stuff, cause it is free as in beer.
But I get it hahahaha
- windows is a meaningless platform to his business at this point
- he blames this on steve's single minded nature of being able to succeed in knowing how to give customers a wonderful user-experience on an apple platform
- he needs to wait for his next chance which might come if steve isnt around anymore
- which might somehow make patrick lo's own business succeed in providing wonderful user-experiences
huh?
does anyone buy netgear anymore? certainly not their NAS crap.
for conduct unbecoming a publicly listed company's CEO: probable changes in the boardroom within a few weeks.
Equally, by the same logic, Unix should have succeeded, and Windows failed (well, actually that is what's happening now) - especially as Windows was locked down to one, inferior, CPU architecture, rather than the multiple platforms supported by Unix.
There was nothing open about having to buy an operating system from one supplier, and a CPU from their main business partner.
Any sufficiently advanced monopoly is indistinguishable from a standard.
I'd also say that while content providers don't like Apple's dominance of the digital retail channel, at least Apple want to build a retail model.
That's something they understand - it's not that different from dealing with Walmart or Amazon or any other huge retailer. It's aggressive bargaining, but it is about who gets what share of the pie.
Apple have also done things for the content producers (DRM on video, even closing the treaming video hole in iOS 4.0 that's allowed PC users to download iOS H264 streams).
Google TV, on the other hand, has been a flop, because from what I can see, Google don't know how to negotiate. Same thing with the book industry, and YouTube/music industry - Google go straight in with threats and bullying, 'so sue me' attitude, then wonder why negotiations are hostile.
Put another way - negotiations work when you have two people with essentially the same goal, but who want to get the best settlement in their favour. They don't work when one partner wants something that was never on the table.
I had a Netgear router once. It looked like a children's bath toy and never worked properly with my Macs.
Everyone knows Jobs has an ego the size of a planet. Given the success of Apple in the last 10 years, as either an Apple consumer or shareholder, you'd have to be pleased. This is needless bleating by someone no one even knows.
i had 2 netgear devices. both were junk and i will never buy anything from that brand again. but lets not call them out for looking like childrens bath toys. the early i products especially looked like disneyland and playskool designed it and os x still looks like that.
He's spot on. We all know how successful Linux has been, don't we?
As in very much? As in, Safari is based on a Linux Web Browser?
Mac OS X being Open, as is stated on the Apple Website (though, however, not Open Source), I'd call BS on your comment.
My experience of working in the senior levels of IBM, where high quality people abound, is that at some point, a decision has to be made, often between finely balanced choices. What it comes down to then is that the right decision is the one that comes closest to embracing and supporting the core values of the company, and it's in this regard that Jobs shows just how single-minded he is. By his tight focus on wanting to make insanely great products that just work, he will indeed reject ideas that he doesn't believe will support this objective. But that's not ego, that's a rational mind focused on a clear objective.
The argument that Android will 'win' over iOS demonstrates a superficial (at best) understanding of the issues. If you give your software away for free and allow people to do whatever they want with it, you will surely attract in hundreds of suppliers who don't have the nous to develop their own OS. They will sell a boatload of cheap devices. If you just count the number of Android devices, you'll probably find your free software is all over the market. But will this aggregate to a mass of highly satisfied users who can take advantage of hardware and software advances as they come along, or will it develop a market of users stuck at different places in the OS development cycle, with no way to move forward?
We are already seeing Google making noises about the need to 'control' Android and 'curate' their app store because of the huge mess their 'open' strategy has already caused.
Apple's foresight that this would happen to them unless they controlled certain aspects of how iOS is used, and curated the apps running on iOS so as to banish malicious and dangerous apps, just goes to show that a focus on making insanely great products leads you to the right solution, at least in this case.
Hmm. So that explains why every attempt at an open games console platform, since MSX in the 80s, has collapsed. And Java.
Any sufficiently advanced monopoly is indistinguishable from a standard.
Which looks like Android, extrapolating. I hope it isn't, but it looks like.
I'd also say that while content providers don't like Apple's dominance of the digital retail channel, at least Apple want to build a retail model.
What they dont like is being forced to pay a ransom to Apple for content purchasing they could provide themselves. The 30% on in-app purchases for content bought through iTunes makes sense for small distributors with no web presence. For other distributors it is an extortionate racket - a price for doing business in Apple's neighborhood with no value added by Apple.
Saying that the iOS platform is "destined to fail" is really taking it to the extreme. It doesn't even seem close to a failing platform. It honestly looks to be thriving extremely well. As long as iOS continues to pull in developers and as long as product quality is kept high, there is no reason for it to fail. Most consumers don't care about "open" or "closed" platforms. They just want products that work well and are useful to them.
And herein lies the reason for the vitriol... He is a total unknown and the *only* way he could get his name in the press was to attack one of this century's icons (and while Steve is down no less)... Very, very sad.
"Once Steve Jobs goes away, which is probably not far away, then Apple will have to make a strategic decision on whether to open up the platform," Lo said on Monday."
I am dumbfounded that he said this - totally dumfounded. I had to read the quote 3 times; I didn't realize that there was anyone who was so Lo (pun intended). But looking back, it got him PR that he never could have gotten for himself.
i had 2 netgear devices. both were junk and i will never buy anything from that brand again. but lets not call them out for looking like childrens bath toys. the early i products especially looked like disneyland and playskool designed it and os x still looks like that.
Yeah. Same experiences here. I had a Netgear router that would constantly crash and need manual restarts. I also had a business class Netgear that would get bogged down with only a few simultaneous connections while a Airport Extreme could handle 50+ connections while maxing the connection and providing good quality of service. It is disappointing that most of these consumer networking companies have a race to the bottom mentality. They create a poor product just to make it slightly cheaper.
Another troll comment by a guy who is trying to convince us with an outdated narrative.
Here we go again.
The Android business model is very progressive with too many goddamn players. You will have to iterate up the a** to compete. Which means you'll most likely end up with tons of unsold Android phones in your warehouse.So you will accrue debt as you battle to one-up the slew of competitor's new sh** hitting the market every month. And of course you know about the BIGGER, BETTER BADDER consumer mentality. Well the Android business has capitalized on that like no other business model.
So on the surface the Android game seems like "WOW" but behind the scenes it is nasty. A wasteful, debt filled whorehouse.
I don't think Apple needs to play that game.
Just my two cents.