Sculley took over in 1985. Apple still had direction before he took over.
Not really, Apple's primary goal was to own the PC market. It failed to do that. It needed somewhere to go from there. Sculley didn't bring it. Still, Sculley wasn't the worst Apple CEO. That dubious distinction belongs to Mike Spindler.
Sculley didn't make Apple lose the market dominance game. He failed to give Apple direction after it lost it...
In 1986 I was 25 years old and watched it all happen. Where where you in 1986?
Trust me, Scully did kill Apple's success. The only thing that saved Apple was it's momentum. Amazing that what Apple had created prior to his arrival lasted virtually unchanged for years and years to come, it was that that kept Apple alive up until Steve Jobs returned to Apple.
Not really, Apple's primary goal was to own the PC market. It failed to do that. It needed somewhere to go from there. Sculley didn't bring it. Still, Sculley wasn't the worst Apple CEO. That dubious distinction belongs to Mike Spindler.
Apple did own the PC market! There was no one that came even close to what Apple had, that is, up until Scully entered the scene.
Apple did own the PC market! There was no one that came even close to what Apple had, that is, up until Scully entered the scene.
It doesn't matter how old I am. I'm old enough to read.
Apple clearly did not own the PC market once Sculley got the reigns, and Sculley never dealt with licensing before it was too late and unfeasible. Maaaaybe you could say Apple owned the education market at the time.
And Gil Amelio kept Apple primed for an upswing before Steve jobs returned. He returned just in time to take all the credit in fact, though Gil is probably used to that. He received relatively little fanfare after saving National Semiconductor prior to Apple.
Even though I doubt that Apple ever had a majority market share in the PC market, they were well on their way. They did not lose direction because they did not fail. Then Sculley took over. Sculley made a couple of costly decisions, one of which was the lawsuit settlement with Microsoft that essentially gave away everything Apple has been basing its business on since 1983. Then Sculley started his side projects to compensate for the stagnating Macintosh business.
Spindler was crazy. Literally.
Personally, I think Amelio did a good job, at keeping Apple from hemorrhaging TOO much money...
Sculley was a nit wit CEO. Totally ignorant when it came to issues of technology. He was a marketing man plain and simple. His opinion doesn't count for anything. He was a bad CEO who managed to squander Apple's marketshare.
Spindler was weird.
Amelio was actually pretty good but he never gets any credit. He is really the guy who turned Apple around.
Here's the best answer I've seen about what might have happened if Apple switched. It's titled "Sculley explains how he missed the chance to trash Apple."
Here's the best answer I've seen about what might have happened if Apple switched. It's titled "Sculley explains how he missed the chance to trash Apple."
Best line about Sculley "Sculley's Intel gaffe (for gaffe, indeed multidecked gaffe, it is) simply reminds us that the fizzy water guy never really grasped the technology."
Which mirrors my own critique of Sculley. Sculley was at best a marketing droid.
It doesn't matter how old I am. I'm old enough to read.
Apple clearly did not own the PC market once Sculley got the reigns, and Sculley never dealt with licensing before it was too late and unfeasible. Maaaaybe you could say Apple owned the education market at the time.
And Gil Amelio kept Apple primed for an upswing before Steve jobs returned. He returned just in time to take all the credit in fact, though Gil is probably used to that. He received relatively little fanfare after saving National Semiconductor prior to Apple.
Back in 1984 there where no PCs to speak of really, PCs where more of a novelty. But the Mac did chance all that. The Mac was in a league of it's own. I remember it like it was yesterday. Apple had everything in it's hands.
Now when Sculley came into play, everything changed. Scully literally paved the way for M$ to take over. Remember that it was Steve and Woz's vision that propelled Apple. Scully thought he knew better and went as far as kicking Steve Jobs from the very company that Steve himself created.
The game that Scully lost was with M$. Scully was and is a moron. He could not see what M$ was up to. Apple had agreements with M$ for software. M$ kept playing games with Apple and staling, M$'s master plan was to take over what Apple had. And M$ did! Had Steve been at the helm I doubt things would have gone in such direction.
By the time Gil came into play, the game had been lost. I credit Gil for cleaning up Apple, but that is about all that Gil could do, Gil does not have the vision and understanding to have saved Apple. Steve Jobs does.
You have to keep in mind that the M$ propaganda has perverted history. Even the media is paid to so. You may have read about it, but trust me, Apple got raped. That is the one and only reason for it's low market share numbers today. Apple had no competition up until it was invaded by M$ via Scully. The game was well played, so much so that the majority is clueless as to what went on.
Sculley was bad. The fact he say that Apple should have switched to intel, just confirm his incompetence.
If Apple has switched to intel, he will have lost his hardware market. The only thing that will have prevented PC to run mac OS will have been the Rom. Or cracking rom is not that difficult, at the contrary of emulating a different chip.
Gil was a good CEO, he manage to reduce the cost of developpements of Apple products, by producing fewer type of mobos and killing the peforma line.
Not really, Apple's primary goal was to own the PC market. It failed to do that. It needed somewhere to go from there. Sculley didn't bring it. Still, Sculley wasn't the worst Apple CEO. That dubious distinction belongs to Mike Spindler.
Mike Spindler - Better (thanks to Performa 5200, among other things) known as Mike Swindler.
Comments
Sculley bogged Apple down with too many side projects, and lost focus on what was most important, the Macintosh.
Originally posted by shatteringglass
Sculley took over in 1985. Apple still had direction before he took over.
Not really, Apple's primary goal was to own the PC market. It failed to do that. It needed somewhere to go from there. Sculley didn't bring it. Still, Sculley wasn't the worst Apple CEO. That dubious distinction belongs to Mike Spindler.
Originally posted by Eugene
Sculley didn't make Apple lose the market dominance game. He failed to give Apple direction after it lost it...
In 1986 I was 25 years old and watched it all happen. Where where you in 1986?
Trust me, Scully did kill Apple's success. The only thing that saved Apple was it's momentum. Amazing that what Apple had created prior to his arrival lasted virtually unchanged for years and years to come, it was that that kept Apple alive up until Steve Jobs returned to Apple.
Originally posted by Eugene
Not really, Apple's primary goal was to own the PC market. It failed to do that. It needed somewhere to go from there. Sculley didn't bring it. Still, Sculley wasn't the worst Apple CEO. That dubious distinction belongs to Mike Spindler.
Apple did own the PC market! There was no one that came even close to what Apple had, that is, up until Scully entered the scene.
Originally posted by iPeon
Apple did own the PC market! There was no one that came even close to what Apple had, that is, up until Scully entered the scene.
It doesn't matter how old I am. I'm old enough to read.
Apple clearly did not own the PC market once Sculley got the reigns, and Sculley never dealt with licensing before it was too late and unfeasible. Maaaaybe you could say Apple owned the education market at the time.
And Gil Amelio kept Apple primed for an upswing before Steve jobs returned. He returned just in time to take all the credit in fact, though Gil is probably used to that. He received relatively little fanfare after saving National Semiconductor prior to Apple.
Spindler was crazy. Literally.
Personally, I think Amelio did a good job, at keeping Apple from hemorrhaging TOO much money...
Spindler was weird.
Amelio was actually pretty good but he never gets any credit. He is really the guy who turned Apple around.
Jobs is obviously the best Apple CEO.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/33336.html
Originally posted by snoopy
Here's the best answer I've seen about what might have happened if Apple switched. It's titled "Sculley explains how he missed the chance to trash Apple."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/33336.html
Best line about Sculley "Sculley's Intel gaffe (for gaffe, indeed multidecked gaffe, it is) simply reminds us that the fizzy water guy never really grasped the technology."
Which mirrors my own critique of Sculley. Sculley was at best a marketing droid.
Originally posted by Eugene
It doesn't matter how old I am. I'm old enough to read.
Apple clearly did not own the PC market once Sculley got the reigns, and Sculley never dealt with licensing before it was too late and unfeasible. Maaaaybe you could say Apple owned the education market at the time.
And Gil Amelio kept Apple primed for an upswing before Steve jobs returned. He returned just in time to take all the credit in fact, though Gil is probably used to that. He received relatively little fanfare after saving National Semiconductor prior to Apple.
Back in 1984 there where no PCs to speak of really, PCs where more of a novelty. But the Mac did chance all that. The Mac was in a league of it's own. I remember it like it was yesterday. Apple had everything in it's hands.
Now when Sculley came into play, everything changed. Scully literally paved the way for M$ to take over. Remember that it was Steve and Woz's vision that propelled Apple. Scully thought he knew better and went as far as kicking Steve Jobs from the very company that Steve himself created.
The game that Scully lost was with M$. Scully was and is a moron. He could not see what M$ was up to. Apple had agreements with M$ for software. M$ kept playing games with Apple and staling, M$'s master plan was to take over what Apple had. And M$ did! Had Steve been at the helm I doubt things would have gone in such direction.
By the time Gil came into play, the game had been lost. I credit Gil for cleaning up Apple, but that is about all that Gil could do, Gil does not have the vision and understanding to have saved Apple. Steve Jobs does.
You have to keep in mind that the M$ propaganda has perverted history. Even the media is paid to so. You may have read about it, but trust me, Apple got raped. That is the one and only reason for it's low market share numbers today. Apple had no competition up until it was invaded by M$ via Scully. The game was well played, so much so that the majority is clueless as to what went on.
If Apple has switched to intel, he will have lost his hardware market. The only thing that will have prevented PC to run mac OS will have been the Rom. Or cracking rom is not that difficult, at the contrary of emulating a different chip.
Gil was a good CEO, he manage to reduce the cost of developpements of Apple products, by producing fewer type of mobos and killing the peforma line.
Originally posted by Eugene
Not really, Apple's primary goal was to own the PC market. It failed to do that. It needed somewhere to go from there. Sculley didn't bring it. Still, Sculley wasn't the worst Apple CEO. That dubious distinction belongs to Mike Spindler.
Mike Spindler - Better (thanks to Performa 5200, among other things) known as Mike Swindler.