No. It's quite obvious I'm calling NeXT the company a failure. NeXT failed to maintain a business selling hardware, then it failed to maintain a business selling an operating system and its development tools, then it failed to maintain a business selling Internet business tools with WebObjects. I can't see how one can call it a success. This is coming from someone who absolutely loved the NEXTSTEP UI. The whole design aesthetic of the hardware and software wasn't matched until 15 years later with Mac OS X 10.5 and aluminum + glass hardware.
Yes, Mac OS X is essentially NEXTSTEP 5, 6 and 7, but that is Apple. The MenuBar is still there. I still don't have a Shelf. The fact that Jobs engineered a reverse takeover of Apple with NeXT people in critical positions (CEO, VP of software, VP hardware, counsel et al) at Apple is interesting, but it is still Apple.
NeXT was in the business of selling NeXT hardware. Jobs failed to deliver and had 4 years of stepping back and stripping the company down trying to make it a successful business. It never was successful. I think it is inarguable that Jobs wouldn't be the manager he is now without this failure. (Pixar also played a critical role too).
No. It's quite obvious I'm calling NeXT the company a failure. NeXT failed to maintain a business selling hardware, then it failed to maintain a business selling an operating system and its development tools, then it failed to maintain a business selling Internet business tools with WebObjects. I can't see how one can call it a success. This is coming from someone who absolutely loved the NEXTSTEP UI. The whole design aesthetic of the hardware and software wasn't matched until 15 years later with Mac OS X 10.5 and aluminum + glass hardware.
Yes, Mac OS X is essentially NEXTSTEP 5, 6 and 7, but that is Apple. The MenuBar is still there. I still don't have a Shelf. The fact that Jobs engineered a reverse takeover of Apple with NeXT people in critical positions (CEO, VP of software, VP hardware, counsel et al) at Apple is interesting, but it is still Apple.
NeXT was in the business of selling NeXT hardware. Jobs failed to deliver and had 4 years of stepping back and stripping the company down trying to make it a successful business. It never was successful. I think it is inarguable that Jobs wouldn't be the manager he is now without this failure. (Pixar also played a critical role too).
1) If selling a company makes it a failure then I guess Pixar is also a failure and hope to have such failures in my life.
2) If NeXT hadn't lived on as it does then I think you could call it a failure but the foundations of Jobs' efforts at NeXT are all throughout Apple and so well engrained that I find it impossible to call NeXT a failure.
1) If selling a company makes it a failure then I guess Pixar is also a failure and hope to have such failures in my life.
2) If NeXT hadn't lived on as it does then I think you could call it a failure but the foundations of Jobs' efforts at NeXT are all throughout Apple and so well engrained that I find it impossible to call NeXT a failure.
You're using failure in a different way then I am. We agree on the merits but not the words. Just leave it that.
You can't decide what words mean just because they don't fit your argument.
Unlike computers, humanity does not have a uniform understanding of what "words" mean. One person can take a word to mean one thing and another could take it to mean something else. We have volumes of legal documents written in pedantic and virtually unintelligible prose for a reason. And it still takes an entire justice system to decide on some things.
Solipsism is using a more longer range, metaphysical take on what it means to be "NeXT Computer" and what failure means. I'm using a rather shorter range take on it: NeXT as the business entity and the original goals for being in business.
Whether NeXT was a failure or not, we both agree that what Jobs learned at NeXT was instrumental in his later success at Apple. Don't need to have any discussion after that.
Whether NeXT was a failure or not, we both agree that what Jobs learned at NeXT was instrumental in his later success at Apple. Don't need to have any discussion after that.
For what it's worth I'd agree with you, NeXT succeeded in making a great product, but they failed as a business in that they clearly didn't reach their ambitions. We were all very lucky that Gil Amelio decided Apple should buy NeXT and not BeOS.
Comments
And we also have to remember that Jobs failed at NeXT.
You call Mac OS X a failure?
You call Mac OS X a failure?
No. It's quite obvious I'm calling NeXT the company a failure. NeXT failed to maintain a business selling hardware, then it failed to maintain a business selling an operating system and its development tools, then it failed to maintain a business selling Internet business tools with WebObjects. I can't see how one can call it a success. This is coming from someone who absolutely loved the NEXTSTEP UI. The whole design aesthetic of the hardware and software wasn't matched until 15 years later with Mac OS X 10.5 and aluminum + glass hardware.
Yes, Mac OS X is essentially NEXTSTEP 5, 6 and 7, but that is Apple. The MenuBar is still there. I still don't have a Shelf. The fact that Jobs engineered a reverse takeover of Apple with NeXT people in critical positions (CEO, VP of software, VP hardware, counsel et al) at Apple is interesting, but it is still Apple.
NeXT was in the business of selling NeXT hardware. Jobs failed to deliver and had 4 years of stepping back and stripping the company down trying to make it a successful business. It never was successful. I think it is inarguable that Jobs wouldn't be the manager he is now without this failure. (Pixar also played a critical role too).
No. It's quite obvious I'm calling NeXT the company a failure. NeXT failed to maintain a business selling hardware, then it failed to maintain a business selling an operating system and its development tools, then it failed to maintain a business selling Internet business tools with WebObjects. I can't see how one can call it a success. This is coming from someone who absolutely loved the NEXTSTEP UI. The whole design aesthetic of the hardware and software wasn't matched until 15 years later with Mac OS X 10.5 and aluminum + glass hardware.
Yes, Mac OS X is essentially NEXTSTEP 5, 6 and 7, but that is Apple. The MenuBar is still there. I still don't have a Shelf. The fact that Jobs engineered a reverse takeover of Apple with NeXT people in critical positions (CEO, VP of software, VP hardware, counsel et al) at Apple is interesting, but it is still Apple.
NeXT was in the business of selling NeXT hardware. Jobs failed to deliver and had 4 years of stepping back and stripping the company down trying to make it a successful business. It never was successful. I think it is inarguable that Jobs wouldn't be the manager he is now without this failure. (Pixar also played a critical role too).
1) If selling a company makes it a failure then I guess Pixar is also a failure and hope to have such failures in my life.
2) If NeXT hadn't lived on as it does then I think you could call it a failure but the foundations of Jobs' efforts at NeXT are all throughout Apple and so well engrained that I find it impossible to call NeXT a failure.
1) If selling a company makes it a failure then I guess Pixar is also a failure and hope to have such failures in my life.
2) If NeXT hadn't lived on as it does then I think you could call it a failure but the foundations of Jobs' efforts at NeXT are all throughout Apple and so well engrained that I find it impossible to call NeXT a failure.
You're using failure in a different way then I am. We agree on the merits but not the words. Just leave it that.
You're using failure in a different way then I am.
You can't decide what words mean just because they don't fit your argument.
You can't decide what words mean just because they don't fit your argument.
Actually he can; it's semantics v. syntax. I don't concede to his point but I certainly see it.
You can't decide what words mean just because they don't fit your argument.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less.'
Lewis Carol, Alice's adventures in wonderland
You can't decide what words mean just because they don't fit your argument.
Unlike computers, humanity does not have a uniform understanding of what "words" mean. One person can take a word to mean one thing and another could take it to mean something else. We have volumes of legal documents written in pedantic and virtually unintelligible prose for a reason. And it still takes an entire justice system to decide on some things.
Solipsism is using a more longer range, metaphysical take on what it means to be "NeXT Computer" and what failure means. I'm using a rather shorter range take on it: NeXT as the business entity and the original goals for being in business.
Whether NeXT was a failure or not, we both agree that what Jobs learned at NeXT was instrumental in his later success at Apple. Don't need to have any discussion after that.
Whether NeXT was a failure or not, we both agree that what Jobs learned at NeXT was instrumental in his later success at Apple. Don't need to have any discussion after that.
For what it's worth I'd agree with you, NeXT succeeded in making a great product, but they failed as a business in that they clearly didn't reach their ambitions. We were all very lucky that Gil Amelio decided Apple should buy NeXT and not BeOS.