Personally, I wonder if being pushed out of Apple was the best thing for Steve, Apple, and the consumer in the long run.
A number of business books say "yes." In the long run. But luck was involved too: if Gil Amelio hadn't agreed to buy NeXT, or they had bought Be instead, or if Steve had completely washed his hands of NeXT, then he wouldn't have found his way back to Apple as iCEO, and brought the resurgence that followed. It would be naive to imply that forcing Steve out was part of some long term plan Sculley had to fix Apple a decade later--I know you're not saying that--but Haggar might try and argue it LOL.
Eh. Microsoft's problem in the devices arena is pretty much that they were so late into the game. It almost doesn't matter whether it's a good platform or not at this point. They entered an arena that was already established. The only way to be successful doing that is to come out with something revolutionary (a la Apple entering the phone arena with the iPhone). Microsoft's never going to do that, and thus the devices are never going to be a big part of their business.
MS is always -- ALWAYS -- going to be a company that primarily (if not nearly exclusively) makes profits off of licensing Windows and Office. And let's not kid ourselves: They make a LOT of money doing that. Why they try to be something that they aren't, something that isn't in their DNA in the first place, I have no idea really.
The irony is that MS was in the market first and squandered that lead. I have a hard time believing that there's no one with vision working for MS. Look at the Xbox guys who were initially stifled by their immediate managers. The talent is there, but recognizing it, and funneling it into something special just isn't in their DNA.
A number of business books say "yes." In the long run. But luck was involved too: if Gil Amelio hadn't agreed to buy NeXT, or they had bought Be instead, or if Steve had completely washed his hands of NeXT, then he wouldn't have found his way back to Apple as iCEO, and brought the resurgence that followed. It would be naive to imply that forcing Steve out was part of some long term plan Sculley had to fix Apple a decade later--I know you're not saying that--but Haggar might try and argue it LOL.
I wonder if Jobs had stayed on in a less than advantagous role and saw the way Apple was heading he might have jumped shipped and not looked back. I think psychologically this would be more likely if he wasn't ousted early on and if it had been his decision to leave.
I'm sure we all have our what-if scenarios so I'm just glad Steve came back because as much as I like JLG I don't think Be OS would have been better than NeXTSTEP. I think Apple is still relying on WebObjects for iTS which I find very impressive.
Another example of Apple making (leading edge) technology affordable to consumers is when the first white 24" iMac was released. Decent 24" monitors were very pricey back then. I also couldn't believe how cheap the original iPad was priced at the time.
I can always remember there being two personality traits to Apple's pricing. On one side there would be an updated product line and the price point would always be about the same as before, but something relatively leading edge in the update would add enough value to justify it. Then there would be the Apple that would grab something totally not mainstream and introduce it with a price low enough to kick start a new trend in computing. Not just first to market, but first to (mainstream) market and cheaper than you thought. It would usually be seen in the PC or mobile world a year or more later. One example of this is wifi standard in laptops (Airport card in the iBook) back in the day. The iPhone and iPad obviously follow this breakthrough price point as well, but they were also breakthrough products… I always got the feeling Apple was pricing this 2nd category as cheap as they possibly could - I mean the original iPhone and later the iPad were bargain priced for what you got -so much tech packed in, but I guess if you were upgrading from a cheap Nokia phone or jumping in to get an iPod touch back in 2007, it might seem expensive.
MS is always -- ALWAYS -- going to be a company that primarily (if not nearly exclusively) makes profits off of licensing Windows and Office. And let's not kid ourselves: They make a LOT of money doing that. Why they try to be something that they aren't, something that isn't in their DNA in the first place, I have no idea really.
The problem with Microsoft under Ballmer was that they steadily lost their ability to compete as Microsoft, so they tried to be like their competitors. Microsoft is software, and they have millions and millions of lines of code in use. But that wasn't enough. They entered the console hardware business to pursue Sony. They gave up on PlaysForSure licensing and made built the Zune to go up against the iPod. They bought Danger, Inc and tried to make a mobile phone called KIN. Then that performance on stage at the unveiling of the Surface: they spent a lot of time convincing reporters (and the public) how they were always a devices company because remember the Microsoft Mouse? The SoftCard II? That was supposed to establish their "hardware street cred." Apple was a hardware manufacturer from Day One. Their first factory was Steve Jobs' parents garage. And NeXT was originally a hardware manufacturer too, with a factory in California, no less.
It's a joke when Microsoft loses sight of who and what they are and decide to follow their competitors, simply because the grass looks greener over there. It is just as stupid as the suggestion by many pundits (and even Bill Gates himself) in the 1990s that Apple spin off its hardware division and become a licensor of Mac OS, all because Microsoft rode that formula to riches when Windows 95 ruled the world. As Steve Jobs said, "Apple doesn't need to be Microsoft, Apple needs to remember how to be Apple." The same could be said of Microsoft today, but noooo Ballmer had to create $900 million in unsold hardware and piss off their OEM partners because he wanted to prove Microsoft could be like Apple.
But we all know what Apple fans say in response to these comparisons. It just means that Apple fans are being arbitrary in trashing Sculley over Mac prices while defending Steve when he basically does the same thing - despite having originally opposed it. Somehow Apple fans have the idea that "premium pricing for premium product" is Steve idea, even though it was really Sculley's, as Andy Hertzfeld wrote.
The original 1985 Macintosh was repriced from $2000 to $2500 to pay for extensive marketing. That's a very substantial 25% premium, and in 1984 dollars, that would look like $5,685.59 today, according to http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
The Mac team had been working hard to keep the price under $2000, which was still expensive but considerably less than it was priced to sell at.
New Macs of the early 90s started out around $5000 (more affordable models were basically really old models resold with 5 year old tech, like the LC, which was a scaled down Mac II for like $1500. Nearly obsolete when it came out. On top, a $5000 Mac required video card and RAM that made the system cost closer to +$10,000 for a higher end system you could compare to a Mac Pro today.
You are trying to compare that to today's prices of iPhones, which have an ASP of around $650 compared to similarly specced premium phones that cost the same amount. There are also super cheapo-phones for ~ $300. The MacBook Pro/Air, iPhone, iPad and Apple's other gear today is very affordable, even if its priced twice as high as competitors' offerings. And incredibly, Apple is selling its stuff about as fast as it can make it.
Also, Apple has tremendous capacity to offer lower priced devices in the future if demand changes. Android licensees can't dramatically lower their prices to keep their prices proportionately lower because they are already losing money. Motorola just lost another ~ quarter billion dollars in the last quarter alone.
I wonder if Jobs had stayed on in a less than advantagous role and saw the way Apple was heading he might have jumped shipped and not looked back. I think psychologically this would be more likely if he wasn't ousted early on and if it had been his decision to leave.
I'm sure we all have our what-if scenarios so I'm just glad Steve came back because as much as I like JLG I don't think Be OS would have been better than NeXTSTEP. I think Apple is still relying on WebObjects for iTS which I find very impressive.
Steve wasn't the type of personality to sit back and watch. He absolutely wanted to save Apple.
I recall two key reasons Amelio chose NeXT over Be:
NeXT had mature TCP stack and was fully multiuser, mostly because it already inherited those things from BSD Unix. BeOS was more of a from-scratch OS, so it's TCP and multiuser features were immature.
NextStep promised a richer (and mature) app construction toolchain. BeOS relied on GCC and makefiles, and if you wanted an IDE, you had to buy Metrowerks CodeWarrior.
Samsung must be "really feeling it" now--time to spend another couple billion dollars on advertising!
Like most people, I don't do video editing, so I can build a linux compute server that's twice as fast for my purposes as the 2013 Mac Pro (and configurable with 4X the memory) for less $$.
So in your world most people don't do video editing but it sounds like most people can build a Linux server that is faster and cheaper than a Mac Pro. Narnia or just generic Fantasy Land?
Truth is you can't build a computer twice as fast as the current Mac Pro for less money. In order to be faster at all, let alone twice as fast, you would need to add another Xeon and that by itself, would put you over the price of a Mac Pro, and you would only be slightly faster at some tasks. There is no logical reason to even compare a Mac Pro to a Linux box because the Mac Pro is made for FCP X. A Linux box is made to be a web server. Two completely different animals.
Eh. Microsoft's problem in the devices arena is pretty much that they were so late into the game. It almost doesn't matter whether it's a good platform or not at this point. They entered an arena that was already established. The only way to be successful doing that is to come out with something revolutionary (a la Apple entering the phone arena with the iPhone). Microsoft's never going to do that, and thus the devices are never going to be a big part of their business.
MS is always -- ALWAYS -- going to be a company that primarily (if not nearly exclusively) makes profits off of licensing Windows and Office. And let's not kid ourselves: They make a LOT of money doing that. Why they try to be something that they aren't, something that isn't in their DNA in the first place, I have no idea really.
No, I don't think they entered the market late, they have 90% of the market in the install base of laptops and desktops the problem Microsoft has is they don't know how to make a device that people WANT to use UNLESS it's forced onto them by their employer. Microsoft had Windows CE phones on the market, but people don't want to use them. People don't like the tiles GUI. I'm just wondering if Microsoft is going to keep them around lingering losing money.
Another great Sunday read by Daniel. Good job. ...... The two best lines in the whole article are: "The way Apple plays its cards has allowed it to win hand after hand in virtually every game it chooses to play, despite the outrage and contempt voiced over its style by analysts and pundits who would prefer Apple played like all the market losers have." ........ and this: "Clearly, Apple is paying more attention to its own internal data on what buyers want than the recommendations of analysts who who so strongly believe in cheap commodity that they are blind to the very profitability that drives the capitalism they analyze."
A perfect analysis of the relationship between Apple and the many bloggers, stock analyst types, etc. etc. who are all considered to be "alegend in their own mind".
What would you call a poster who visits a website called "AppleInsider" and complains about positive opinions about Apple ? 1. Stupid ? .. 2. Confused ? ..3. a Troll ? .. 4. All the above ? I'm picking door # 4, for the win, Alec.
What would you call a poster who visits a website called "AppleInsider" and complains about positive opinions about Apple ? 1. Stupid ? .. 2. Confused ? ..3. a Troll ? .. 4. All the above ? I'm picking door # 4, for the win, Alec.
It's an old forum meme from the usual visitors: only people who love all tech companies equally can be said to be "objective"; anyone who loves Apple more than other brands is biased and should be dismissed out of hand.
The irony is that MS was in the market first and squandered that lead. I have a hard time believing that there's no one with vision working for MS. Look at the Xbox .....
You are so right!
It was pure genius to add a bungie to the xbox.
The question is did the bungie sell the xbox
Or
xbox sell the bungie.
Any marathoner can whisper that answer in your shell like ear.
Personally, I wonder if being pushed out of Apple was the best thing for Steve, Apple, and the consumer in the long run.
It's a case where people who look from outside are probably better placed than the people directly related to the story. Sculley never had perspective. Of course, Applesould be very different today if Jobs hadn't been fired. Maybe it wouldn't exist, maybe computing would be much more advanced.
If Apple wants to continue be the biggest and the best, they should think about getting into the cell phone infrastructure world of Verizon, AT&T, and provide fast, reliable, and cost effective services that none of the US cell providers do. What a concept, provide an excellent bun for the burger patty you build so that the cell phone experience is a great feast from start to finish!
I have been on this tired old planet for a good number of years and well remember the advent of the Japanese industrial revolution after the second world war. That has forever imprinted on my mind that the word "cheap" does not, in fact, mean that it is merely less expensive (for the same quality product), but more in terms of the pejorative adjective meaning crappy quality and poorly made.
I cringe every time someone says "Can't I get this cheaper?" When I hear that I think of the early Japanese transistor radios that would last about two weeks and would fall apart if you squeezed it slightly too hard.
As far as the [B]ANAL[/B]ysts are concerned, well just consider where they are making the noises from.
I hate this article. It manipulates you into thinking Apple is selling small luxury goods vs their competition that sells swag that isn't considered luxury swag.
I read recently that Sculley said he shouldn't have fired Jobs.
Personally, I wonder if being pushed out of Apple was the best thing for Steve, Apple, and the consumer in the long run.
It was. Jobs learned a lot from the failure/embarrassment. NeXT and Pixar were the result. Then the mighty return.
If people consider electronic devices that work well, are well built, and are actually easy to use for non-geeks to be "luxury"... Well that's just totally effed up.
I have no interest in luxury product. I am only interested in what I described above. iPhone was a brilliant and sensible device (Apple has broken that with iOS 7's wretched redesign and bugs).
Comments
Personally, I wonder if being pushed out of Apple was the best thing for Steve, Apple, and the consumer in the long run.
A number of business books say "yes." In the long run. But luck was involved too: if Gil Amelio hadn't agreed to buy NeXT, or they had bought Be instead, or if Steve had completely washed his hands of NeXT, then he wouldn't have found his way back to Apple as iCEO, and brought the resurgence that followed. It would be naive to imply that forcing Steve out was part of some long term plan Sculley had to fix Apple a decade later--I know you're not saying that--but Haggar might try and argue it LOL.
The irony is that MS was in the market first and squandered that lead. I have a hard time believing that there's no one with vision working for MS. Look at the Xbox guys who were initially stifled by their immediate managers. The talent is there, but recognizing it, and funneling it into something special just isn't in their DNA.
I wonder if Jobs had stayed on in a less than advantagous role and saw the way Apple was heading he might have jumped shipped and not looked back. I think psychologically this would be more likely if he wasn't ousted early on and if it had been his decision to leave.
I'm sure we all have our what-if scenarios so I'm just glad Steve came back because as much as I like JLG I don't think Be OS would have been better than NeXTSTEP. I think Apple is still relying on WebObjects for iTS which I find very impressive.
Another example of Apple making (leading edge) technology affordable to consumers is when the first white 24" iMac was released. Decent 24" monitors were very pricey back then. I also couldn't believe how cheap the original iPad was priced at the time.
I can always remember there being two personality traits to Apple's pricing. On one side there would be an updated product line and the price point would always be about the same as before, but something relatively leading edge in the update would add enough value to justify it. Then there would be the Apple that would grab something totally not mainstream and introduce it with a price low enough to kick start a new trend in computing. Not just first to market, but first to (mainstream) market and cheaper than you thought. It would usually be seen in the PC or mobile world a year or more later. One example of this is wifi standard in laptops (Airport card in the iBook) back in the day. The iPhone and iPad obviously follow this breakthrough price point as well, but they were also breakthrough products… I always got the feeling Apple was pricing this 2nd category as cheap as they possibly could - I mean the original iPhone and later the iPad were bargain priced for what you got -so much tech packed in, but I guess if you were upgrading from a cheap Nokia phone or jumping in to get an iPod touch back in 2007, it might seem expensive.
MS is always -- ALWAYS -- going to be a company that primarily (if not nearly exclusively) makes profits off of licensing Windows and Office. And let's not kid ourselves: They make a LOT of money doing that. Why they try to be something that they aren't, something that isn't in their DNA in the first place, I have no idea really.
The problem with Microsoft under Ballmer was that they steadily lost their ability to compete as Microsoft, so they tried to be like their competitors. Microsoft is software, and they have millions and millions of lines of code in use. But that wasn't enough. They entered the console hardware business to pursue Sony. They gave up on PlaysForSure licensing and made built the Zune to go up against the iPod. They bought Danger, Inc and tried to make a mobile phone called KIN. Then that performance on stage at the unveiling of the Surface: they spent a lot of time convincing reporters (and the public) how they were always a devices company because remember the Microsoft Mouse? The SoftCard II? That was supposed to establish their "hardware street cred." Apple was a hardware manufacturer from Day One. Their first factory was Steve Jobs' parents garage. And NeXT was originally a hardware manufacturer too, with a factory in California, no less.
It's a joke when Microsoft loses sight of who and what they are and decide to follow their competitors, simply because the grass looks greener over there. It is just as stupid as the suggestion by many pundits (and even Bill Gates himself) in the 1990s that Apple spin off its hardware division and become a licensor of Mac OS, all because Microsoft rode that formula to riches when Windows 95 ruled the world. As Steve Jobs said, "Apple doesn't need to be Microsoft, Apple needs to remember how to be Apple." The same could be said of Microsoft today, but noooo Ballmer had to create $900 million in unsold hardware and piss off their OEM partners because he wanted to prove Microsoft could be like Apple.
But we all know what Apple fans say in response to these comparisons. It just means that Apple fans are being arbitrary in trashing Sculley over Mac prices while defending Steve when he basically does the same thing - despite having originally opposed it. Somehow Apple fans have the idea that "premium pricing for premium product" is Steve idea, even though it was really Sculley's, as Andy Hertzfeld wrote.
The original 1985 Macintosh was repriced from $2000 to $2500 to pay for extensive marketing. That's a very substantial 25% premium, and in 1984 dollars, that would look like $5,685.59 today, according to http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
The Mac team had been working hard to keep the price under $2000, which was still expensive but considerably less than it was priced to sell at.
New Macs of the early 90s started out around $5000 (more affordable models were basically really old models resold with 5 year old tech, like the LC, which was a scaled down Mac II for like $1500. Nearly obsolete when it came out. On top, a $5000 Mac required video card and RAM that made the system cost closer to +$10,000 for a higher end system you could compare to a Mac Pro today.
You are trying to compare that to today's prices of iPhones, which have an ASP of around $650 compared to similarly specced premium phones that cost the same amount. There are also super cheapo-phones for ~ $300. The MacBook Pro/Air, iPhone, iPad and Apple's other gear today is very affordable, even if its priced twice as high as competitors' offerings. And incredibly, Apple is selling its stuff about as fast as it can make it.
Also, Apple has tremendous capacity to offer lower priced devices in the future if demand changes. Android licensees can't dramatically lower their prices to keep their prices proportionately lower because they are already losing money. Motorola just lost another ~ quarter billion dollars in the last quarter alone.
I wonder if Jobs had stayed on in a less than advantagous role and saw the way Apple was heading he might have jumped shipped and not looked back. I think psychologically this would be more likely if he wasn't ousted early on and if it had been his decision to leave.
I'm sure we all have our what-if scenarios so I'm just glad Steve came back because as much as I like JLG I don't think Be OS would have been better than NeXTSTEP. I think Apple is still relying on WebObjects for iTS which I find very impressive.
Steve wasn't the type of personality to sit back and watch. He absolutely wanted to save Apple.
I recall two key reasons Amelio chose NeXT over Be:
Samsung must be "really feeling it" now--time to spend another couple billion dollars on advertising!
Like most people, I don't do video editing, so I can build a linux compute server that's twice as fast for my purposes as the 2013 Mac Pro (and configurable with 4X the memory) for less $$.
So in your world most people don't do video editing but it sounds like most people can build a Linux server that is faster and cheaper than a Mac Pro. Narnia or just generic Fantasy Land?
Truth is you can't build a computer twice as fast as the current Mac Pro for less money. In order to be faster at all, let alone twice as fast, you would need to add another Xeon and that by itself, would put you over the price of a Mac Pro, and you would only be slightly faster at some tasks. There is no logical reason to even compare a Mac Pro to a Linux box because the Mac Pro is made for FCP X. A Linux box is made to be a web server. Two completely different animals.
No, I don't think they entered the market late, they have 90% of the market in the install base of laptops and desktops the problem Microsoft has is they don't know how to make a device that people WANT to use UNLESS it's forced onto them by their employer. Microsoft had Windows CE phones on the market, but people don't want to use them. People don't like the tiles GUI. I'm just wondering if Microsoft is going to keep them around lingering losing money.
Another great Sunday read by Daniel. Good job. ...... The two best lines in the whole article are: "The way Apple plays its cards has allowed it to win hand after hand in virtually every game it chooses to play, despite the outrage and contempt voiced over its style by analysts and pundits who would prefer Apple played like all the market losers have." ........ and this: "Clearly, Apple is paying more attention to its own internal data on what buyers want than the recommendations of analysts who who so strongly believe in cheap commodity that they are blind to the very profitability that drives the capitalism they analyze."
A perfect analysis of the relationship between Apple and the many bloggers, stock analyst types, etc. etc. who are all considered to be "a legend in their own mind".
this screams propaganda
What would you call a poster who visits a website called "AppleInsider" and complains about positive opinions about Apple ? 1. Stupid ? .. 2. Confused ? ..3. a Troll ? .. 4. All the above ? I'm picking door # 4, for the win, Alec.
What would you call a poster who visits a website called "AppleInsider" and complains about positive opinions about Apple ? 1. Stupid ? .. 2. Confused ? ..3. a Troll ? .. 4. All the above ? I'm picking door # 4, for the win, Alec.
It's an old forum meme from the usual visitors: only people who love all tech companies equally can be said to be "objective"; anyone who loves Apple more than other brands is biased and should be dismissed out of hand.
You are so right!
It was pure genius to add a bungie to the xbox.
The question is did the bungie sell the xbox
Or
xbox sell the bungie.
Any marathoner can whisper that answer in your shell like ear.
Gotta get back to church!
It's a case where people who look from outside are probably better placed than the people directly related to the story. Sculley never had perspective. Of course, Applesould be very different today if Jobs hadn't been fired. Maybe it wouldn't exist, maybe computing would be much more advanced.
If Apple wants to continue be the biggest and the best, they should think about getting into the cell phone infrastructure world of Verizon, AT&T, and provide fast, reliable, and cost effective services that none of the US cell providers do. What a concept, provide an excellent bun for the burger patty you build so that the cell phone experience is a great feast from start to finish!
I have been on this tired old planet for a good number of years and well remember the advent of the Japanese industrial revolution after the second world war. That has forever imprinted on my mind that the word "cheap" does not, in fact, mean that it is merely less expensive (for the same quality product), but more in terms of the pejorative adjective meaning crappy quality and poorly made.
I cringe every time someone says "Can't I get this cheaper?" When I hear that I think of the early Japanese transistor radios that would last about two weeks and would fall apart if you squeezed it slightly too hard.
As far as the [B]ANAL[/B]ysts are concerned, well just consider where they are making the noises from.
It manipulates you into thinking Apple is selling small luxury goods vs their competition that sells swag that isn't considered luxury swag.
It was. Jobs learned a lot from the failure/embarrassment. NeXT and Pixar were the result. Then the mighty return.
I have no interest in luxury product. I am only interested in what I described above. iPhone was a brilliant and sensible device (Apple has broken that with iOS 7's wretched redesign and bugs).