Steve Jobs left Apple on his own, wasn't forced out, Wozniak says

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 142
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by John.B View Post

     

    Yeah, I love what Woz did for Apple, but add my voice to the chorus that doesn't believe a word he says these days.  Anything to raise his own flag.


    You don't have to believe him since everything he says isn't 'new'. If you've read Walter Isaacson's biography, you should've on known this years ago, buddy.

  • Reply 122 of 142
    john.b wrote: »
    Yeah, I love what Woz did for Apple, but add my voice to the chorus that doesn't believe a word he says these days.  Anything to raise his own flag.

    Woz has never struck me as that sort of person. If he says something I truly believe that he feels that way. I'm not saying his memory is accurate, and I'd even argue that his comprehension of past events was correct then and decades later are just a warped recollection of an already incorrect foundation, but I don't see him as purposely lying in order to gain some short term attention.
  • Reply 123 of 142

    Wow there is a lot of Woz hate in this thread.

     

    I don't get it.

     

    He played a huge role in getting Apple off the ground. Who cares what happened decades ago and the subtle nuances involved? Non of us were there at the time and neither was he, but I bet he was a lot closer than anyone here. Jobs was marginalized and forced out - aka fired. I'm not sure what the big deal is here.

     

    Woz is a great human being and we should appreciate that he is still around. He tries everyday to inspire the next generation of potential geniuses which is more than can be said about most people.

  • Reply 124 of 142
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,342member
    I have to point out that Steve's (deliberately shortened and summarized) capsule version of the event in the Stanford speech doesn't really conflict at all with Sculley and Wozniak's version of events (neither one of whom has any reason to lie, and are supported by other accounts).

    He was fired from the Mac project. He was "out" of power at Apple. He left the company to do something else, but probably didn't formally resign. It's, at most, a minor matter of semantics and what specific portion of the entire unfolding series of events you're focusing on. The Stanford version, in particular, should always be understood to be a thumbnail, not a full explanation, of Job's view and recollection of the events.
  • Reply 125 of 142
    jungmark wrote: »
    I slightly disagree. Jobs did have an ego but he wasn't full of himself to know he didn't know everything and when a better idea was presented, he was willing to change.

    I think luck is a very very minor part of Apple's success. How many times can a company be lucky? I guess you can say Apple is lucky because its competitors were complacent and not "inventive".

    That's not necessarily true, because Apple does often "feed" off of other technological advances done elsewhere throughout their history. No I am not saying stealing here(!).

    What I've always wondered about though, as you point out, look at how many times they've become "lucky". Meaning in my book, "look at how many times they've had the people in place, the technology at hand and saw outwards how they could turn it into a product that this time, everybody would love and use". That sure is uncanny to say the least, because so many other companies try... but don't get half as far.

    I would love to have the opportunity to take part in one of the advanced management courses at Apple University to see how they teach this.... and more so how they keep it running so well.... aside from being in the right place at the right time, and identifying it as such and doing something with it... AKA... luck(?)
  • Reply 126 of 142
    vision33r wrote: »
    Jobs left when Apple's management had ideas to make Apple more open and allow Mac clones like PCs.  All those ideas executed poorly turned Apple into a small player.  I see similar trends within Apple right now but the company is in much different shape those years.

    what trends?
  • Reply 127 of 142
    As much as I admire SJ and have stated that many times, I personally believe that SJ wasn't so much a good "business man" as he was an ego-maniacal control freak. If anyone was going to screw up his "baby" it was going to be him... and even then, he just might point his finger at someone else within his immediate circle. Pointing the finger is hard to do if you let every Dick, Joe and Harry fumble around with your ideas and work and still expect them to deliver as your partners. Just ask Bill Gates.

    No. I believe a lot of the success of Apple was a lot of hard work, but a bit of luck as well. Otherwise, more companies and executives would've tried to emulate Apple's i.e. SJ's success. Everyone STILL thinks Apple is heading only one way, and that's down the pooper of historical luck.

    if you don't believe Jobs was a good business man and instead that Apple's repeated phenomenonal successes during his time was...luck...well, the. you haven't been paying attention.
  • Reply 128 of 142
    As much as I admire SJ and have stated that many times, I personally believe that SJ wasn't so much a good "business man" as he was an ego-maniacal control freak. If anyone was going to screw up his "baby" it was going to be him... and even then, he just might point his finger at someone else within his immediate circle. Pointing the finger is hard to do if you let every Dick, Joe and Harry fumble around with your ideas and work and still expect them to deliver as your partners. Just ask Bill Gates.

    No. I believe a lot of the success of Apple was a lot of hard work, but a bit of luck as well. Otherwise, more companies and executives would've tried to emulate Apple's i.e. SJ's success. Everyone STILL thinks Apple is heading only one way, and that's down the pooper of historical luck.

    I always content that all success for an individual involves an exceptional amount of luck (i.e.: something completely out of one's control), but for a company that's not the case. For example, If Steve was born with a low IQ due to an issue with his umbilical cord choking him in the womb, or if Steve was in a car accident that made him unable to speak, if Steve was born in an impoverished remote village where all his time and energy was trying to survive one meal to the next, or died from a childhood disease, etc. Obviously those are extreme examples, but these are things that really happen to people every day, so even before our conscious self gets to determine the path we want to take in life we have to content with infinite hurdles that are out of our control.

    In the case of Steve and his active accomplishments, I'd say he's highly unique because he's repeatedly shown that he sees the future before anyone else. He saw the potential of the personal computer. He saw the potential of having Woz in his camp. He saw the potential of his authorized tour of Xerox. He saw the potential of his $10(?) million purchase of Pixar from Lucas. He saw the potential in all the efforts with NeXT. He saw the potential of what NeXT could do for the beleaguered Apple with him at the helm. He saw the potential for the iPad. He saw the potential for the iPhone. He saw the potential for the iPad.

    One cold argue that if you have money it's easy to solve a problem. Well, to an extent, but Lucas had more money than Jobs at the time and yet he sold Pixar so I have to assume that Lucas couldn't have turned it into the same multi-billion dollar company the that Steve did.

    If all those things are luck, that's an exceptional amount of luck for one person.
  • Reply 129 of 142
    That's not necessarily true, because Apple does often "feed" off of other technological advances done elsewhere throughout their history. No I am not saying stealing here(!).

    What I've always wondered about though, as you point out, look at how many times they've become "lucky". Meaning in my book, "look at how many times they've had the people in place, the technology at hand and saw outwards how they could turn it into a product that this time, everybody would love and use". That sure is uncanny to say the least, because so many other companies try... but don't get half as far.

    I would love to have the opportunity to take part in one of the advanced management courses at Apple University to see how they teach this.... and more so how they keep it running so well.... aside from being in the right place at the right time, and identifying it as such and doing something with it... AKA... luck(?)

    That's not luck. That's preparation and culture. They think of things and cultivate the tech to meet their needs. The iPad was first thought of back in 2003/4 me thinks but the tech wasn't ready yet so they switch gears while continuing to get the tech to be ready for a tablet.
  • Reply 130 of 142
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    vision33r wrote: »
    Jobs left when Apple's management had ideas to make Apple more open and allow Mac clones like PCs.
    Where did you get this idea from? Apple didn't license official clones for over a decade after Jobs left. John Sculley, who engineered Jobs' removal was reportedly dead set against the clone idea.
  • Reply 131 of 142
    jungmark wrote: »
    That's not luck. That's preparation and culture. They think of things and cultivate the tech to meet their needs. The iPad was first thought of back in 2003/4 me thinks but the tech wasn't ready yet so they switch gears while continuing to get the tech to be ready for a tablet.

    I'm not really disputing all that goes into making Apple what it was and is today.

    I respect your many insightful contributions and posts here, and would like to hear why you (and others of course) think that other companies haven't ever been able to truly copy Apple's success... and especially over the last 7-10 years.
  • Reply 132 of 142
    solipsismy wrote: »
    I always content that all success for an individual involves an exceptional amount of luck (i.e.: something completely out of one's control), but for a company that's not the case. For example, If Steve was born with a low IQ due to an issue with his umbilical cord choking him in the womb, or if Steve was in a car accident that made him unable to speak, if Steve was born in an impoverished remote village where all his time and energy was trying to survive one meal to the next, or died from a childhood disease, etc. Obviously those are extreme examples, but these are things that really happen to people every day, so even before our conscious self gets to determine the path we want to take in life we have to content with infinite hurdles that are out of our control.

    In the case of Steve and his active accomplishments, I'd say he's highly unique because he's repeatedly shown that he sees the future before anyone else. He saw the potential of the personal computer. He saw the potential of having Woz in his camp. He saw the potential of his authorized tour of Xerox. He saw the potential of his $10(?) million purchase of Pixar from Lucas. He saw the potential in all the efforts with NeXT. He saw the potential of what NeXT could do for the beleaguered Apple with him at the helm. He saw the potential for the iPad. He saw the potential for the iPhone. He saw the potential for the iPad.

    One cold argue that if you have money it's easy to solve a problem. Well, to an extent, but Lucas had more money than Jobs at the time and yet he sold Pixar so I have to assume that Lucas couldn't have turned it into the same multi-billion dollar company the that Steve did.

    If all those things are luck, that's an exceptional amount of luck for one person.

    I agree with all of that... except... while yes SJ was indisputably a genius visionary, he still needed people like Woz, Mike Markkula, Jeff Raskin... later Tim Cook, Jony Ive, Phil Schiller, Scott Forstall(!) etc. to help make it all happen.

    Steve Jobs' incredible focus, persistence and fortitude not withstanding to literally break down any barrier in front of him and be successful is a given... however he also needed a team of über-intellegence that followed him and worked their bloody asses off to make "his" visions come to life. Again... because it's a recurring and everlasting legacy to date, I would like to know how Apple continues to do that against an over-abundance of naysayers.... and specifically WHY no other company has figured it out yet.

    In fact, even the upper echelon of managers that leave Apple, have extremely difficult times trying to duplicate their successes elsewhere. That's an odd and singular phenomenon that it seems, only Apple enjoys.

    To a certain extent, we almost have to believe in a certain amount of luck going forward, because the catalyst for visionary, planned and calculated tech products is no longer with us. Also Apple does not recruit in a vacuum.

    All I'm looking for here is maybe someone that can explain what THEY think, is a unique management style that every other single tech company seems to be missing... or rather dismissing... as the ingredient(s) to successful consumer products.

    NOTE: and please... I've stated many times in the past on these forums that I consider myself the #1 Fanboy around here and am proud of it. So I don't necessarily enjoy hearing that "I don't get it". I"m just trying to understand ALL of it.
  • Reply 133 of 142
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    I'm not really disputing all that goes into making Apple what it was and is today.

    I respect your many insightful contributions and posts here, and would like to hear why you (and others of course) think that other companies haven't ever been able to truly copy Apple's success... and especially over the last 7-10 years.

    It's as simple as Jobs and his execs. They see a problem with current devices and they work on the problem until they satisfy their criteria: simplify, ease of use, experience. That's why Apple rarely is the first out of the gates.

    Other companies just want to make a "me too" product or complete a spec list.

    I apologize if my tone on my previous responses felt like an attack.
  • Reply 134 of 142
    [quote name="ThePixelDoc" url="/t/188217/steve-jobs-left-apple-on-his-own-wasnt-forced-out-wozniak-says/120#post_2776787"]I agree with all of that... except... while yes SJ was indisputably a genius visionary, he still needed people like Woz, Mike Markkula, Jeff Raskin... later Tim Cook, Jony Ive, Phil Schiller, Scott Forstall(!) etc. to help make it all happen. [/QUOTE]

    Sure, Jobs couldn't have done it on his own, but the key differences I see behind Jobs and Wozniak I'll express in a [I]what-if [/I]scenario (which of course is completely my [U]opinion[/U]):

    [INDENT][I]What if [/I]Jobs and Wozniak never met. I believe Wozniak would have continued to work at HP as a brilliant engineer for many more years. He may have moved his way up the ranks or he may have had an idea to start his own company or a company with others. Remember the universal remote controls he developed? He would have been successful, perhaps even wealthy by Silicon Valley standards if he invested in the right companies. I don't think he would be anywhere close to a household name, just like all those other great engineers that did great things for great companies. At most, a footnote in history.

    Jobs on the other hand, I believe he would have found another engineer that he convince to [B][I]take on the world[/I][/B]. They may not have been as brilliant as Woz, but I don't think they needed to be so long as Jobs had the vision, motivation, and persuasive passion to move toward a target no one else could see. I think this is a part of Jobs' inane character and therefore believe he would have been a household name. That isn't to say he would have found the same success or had the same name recognition he has today, only that he would likely be known.[/INDENT]

    [QUOTE]Steve Jobs' incredible focus, persistence and fortitude not withstanding to literally break down any barrier in front of him and be successful is a given... however he also needed a team of über-intellegence that followed him and worked their bloody asses off to make "his" visions come to life. Again... because it's a recurring and everlasting legacy to date, I would like to know how Apple continues to do that against an over-abundance of naysayers.... and specifically WHY no other company has figured it out yet.[/QUOTE]

    I think the mindset at Apple is unique for such a large company. I think there are a multitude of small companies that work that way, as well as a couple large, well known, and profitable companies (or divisions within companies that work that way but don't have the unit sales to make it wholly compare. For example, Rolls Royce seems to operate in ways that Apple does but when each automobile is a bespoke one off built by hand, it becomes laughable to compare it to Apple that will likely be selling about 15 million iPhone 6S-series in 3 days time.

    [QUOTE]In fact, even the upper echelon of managers that leave Apple, have extremely difficult times trying to duplicate their successes elsewhere. That's an odd and singular phenomenon that it seems, only Apple enjoys.[/QUOTE]

    I think several have. Who created Nest? That was sold for over $3 billion, right? Others that were just execs might be making more money in other similar or higher positions, but without Apple's mindshare in play it's hard to tell exactly if another executive position is better or worse simply because it's comparatively low-key compared to Apple.

    [QUOTE]To a certain extent, we almost have to believe in a certain amount of luck going forward, because the catalyst for visionary, planned and calculated tech products is no longer with us. Also Apple does not recruit in a vacuum.[/QUOTE]

    Luck, chance, theory of large numbers, or whatever unknown force we wish to ascribe, there are always going to be issues at some point, no matter how much planning you do. I think Apple's philosophy is strong that they will have less issues than others because their quantity means they can reduce costs by buying more, their expertise means they know of the potential pitfalls (which includes knowing supplies and manufacturers better than others), and their mindshare that has built up trust with customers knows that they are the most likely to release a well balanced product (in terms of overall usability) that is of quality materials and build.

    [QUOTE]All I'm looking for here is maybe someone that can explain what THEY think, is a unique management style that every other single tech company seems to be missing... or rather dismissing... as the ingredient(s) to successful consumer products.[/QUOTE]

    Management is a part of it, but so is how they grow their business. Samsung grew Tizen from scratch. That's fine, but it can take decades to have a competent OS. Putting Tizen on their new smartwatch is a decent move because the swatch watch platform is still very new overall and it's much similar than a standard OS, but internally Samsung is using Windows, Chrome OS (and maybe Linux distros) on the notebooks and desktops they sell, Android on their smartphones (and perhaps Tizen, too, or perhaps just on their feature phones, and perhaps some other mobile OSes for handsets), and Android Wear and Tizen on their wearables. That's a mess. Apple uses the core of OS X on al those aforementioned items, with Mac OS X on their Macs, iOS for iPads, iPhones, and Apple TV, and wOS on their Watch. As we've seen, they stripped down Mac OS X of everything it didn't need for the iPhone (original a tablet project) and then built it back up for the HW. Then they took frameworks and APIs that were written to be efficient for the slow ARM chips and moved it to Mac OS X. That not only makes everything better, but also ends up saving lot of time and money in the process. The same for their HW designs. Without the iPhone getting more and more refined their efforts to make a beautiful Watch wouldn't be as successful.

    I'm sure sure some will disagree with me, but I think all that speaks to their philosophy which makes it all possible. Other large companies like to have their departments compete internally. IMO, that's a shortsided view of trying to evoke results, especially these days when all these devices work best when they work together, which includes developers building apps, not just customers.
  • Reply 135 of 142
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Sure, Jobs couldn't have done it on his own, but the key differences I see behind Jobs and Wozniak I'll express in a what-if scenario (which of course is completely my opinion):
    What if Jobs and Wozniak never met. I believe Wozniak would have continued to work at HP as a brilliant engineer for many more years. He may have moved his way up the ranks or he may have had an idea to start his own company or a company with others. Remember the universal remote controls he developed? He would have been successful, perhaps even wealthy by Silicon Valley standards if he invested in the right companies. I don't think he would be anywhere close to a household name, just like all those other great engineers that did great things for great companies. At most, a footnote in history.

    Jobs on the other hand, I believe he would have found another engineer that he convince to take on the world. They may not have been as brilliant as Woz, but I don't think they needed to be so long as Jobs had the vision, motivation, and persuasive passion to move toward a target no one else could see. I think this is a part of Jobs' inane character and therefore believe he would have been a household name. That isn't to say he would have found the same success or had the same name recognition he has today, only that he would likely be known.
    I don't really agree. I'd think that a guy who's invented a computer would have at least as easy a time finding someone else to tell him, "Hey, this thing you made is great, and you should sell it," as it would be for some random 22-year-old hippie with no experience, no name recognition, and little money to find a genius engineer who could invent a computer from the ground up, hardware and software, and go on to almost single-handedly create a follow-up product that was arguably better, and inarguably more successful, than competing products with large teams of engineers behind them. Even if you lower the bar to make it just any old engineer, why would anyone agree to go into a partnership with him? What did Jobs have in 1976 to bring to the table? Sure, in 20 years or so, he would grow into a brilliant (if not so personally pleasant) leader, but no one would know that back then—in 1976, Jobs was just a kid. A kid with an abrasive personality, at that. Why would some engineer who didn't happen to be friends already decide to start a business with him? But, fortunately, Jobs was lucky to be best friends with a genius. Woz was lucky, too—without Jobs, he probably would have been content to give his invention away as a hobby, and happily keep on working at HP. So those two being friends was serendipitous, and like someone else said, they needed each other. But if you really have to make it a binary decision about whether Marty or Doc Brown is more irreplaceable, I'm just gonna have to go with Doc Brown.
  • Reply 136 of 142
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    But if you really have to make it a binary decision about whether Marty or Doc Brown is more irreplaceable, I'm just gonna have to go with Doc Brown.

    Bad analogy. Doc did everything. All Marty did was hold a camera.
  • Reply 137 of 142
    jungmark wrote: »
    Bad analogy. Doc did everything. All Marty did was hold a camera.
    Marty did a lot! He went on the adventure! He drove the machine to the past, gave 1955 Doc Brown the confidence to figure out what to do, came up with the idea to use the lightning strike to get the machine going again, and did a helluva lot of thinking on his feet to make it all happen. Without Marty, there'd be no movie. But without Doc Brown, there'd be no reason to make the movie.
  • Reply 138 of 142
    At the tail-end of a dead thread, I have to ask: if there ever was a time warp and the 2 Steves were kids today, would they even be allowed to tinker with electronics without being jailed or possibly even worse?

    Only as a reminder, Steve Jobs' father Abdul Fattah Jandali was a Syrian Muslim immigrant.

    From Ars:
    [B][URL=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/i-want-it-back-says-boy-arrested-for-bringing-homemade-clock-to-school/?comments=1]“I want it back,” says boy arrested for bringing homemade clock to school[/URL][/B]

    [I]"The boy (Ahmed Mohamed), who tinkers with electronics at home, was handcuffed at MacArthur High in Irving on Monday and led away to the station where he said he was interrogated for an hour and not allowed to speak to his parents. "I repeatedly told them it was a clock," he said. The clock he made—contained inside a metal case—arose suspicions, ultimately leading to his arrest.

    "I brought the clock to impress my teachers," he said."[/I]

    [IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/62992/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
  • Reply 139 of 142
    Woz isnt telling the truth here. What happened Woz? Tell the truth. At least for the old man's sake ..... the one that showed us a better future... who inspired.
  • Reply 140 of 142
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Woz isnt telling the truth here.
    Woz's version entirely fits with what has been reported in numerous other places, includes Walter Isaacson's biography.

    The only version it doesn't entirely fit with is Steve's description of himself as being fired from Apple, but one can reasonably assume that he was just using that as a shorthand for what happened.  Basically it was constructive dismissal anyway, tantamount to being fired.
Sign In or Register to comment.