Yes, because the consumer certainly wouldn't want to be able to have more choice as to what they can put on their expensive mp3 players.
I own an iPod. I have never bought anything from the iTunes Music Store. I have loads of legal music on my player. Your statement seems to imply that you can only put music from the iTunes store on an iPod.
Or is that not what you meant? Fine. What's stopping Wal-Mart or MS or Dell from making their own player/store combo to compete with Apple's?
Do any other long-time Mac users out there dig the irony? For years people scoffed at Apple for not being compatible with the rest of the computing world and experts said that would destroy them. Now, their incompatibility with the rest of the world is their biggest strength.
Ah, just a point; Steve has a right to his large ego - he grabbed Apple by the balls, put the political bullshit aside, and single handily picked it up and swivelled it above his head - so yes, he does have a right to be a little smug being the one that rescued it.
Anybody who can salvage Apple after Gil Amelio has a right to an ego.
Anybody who can salvage Apple after Gil Amelio has a right to an ego.
Ego has problems though, especially when it gets in the way of good business sense. Frankly, I think Steve has a credibility problem because of the RDF, he relies on it too much.
Anybody who can salvage Apple after Gil Amelio has a right to an ego.
I can't blame Amelio for that. He was credited for beginning the process of bringing Apple around. He did make the decision to buy Next as well. Don't forget that. Unless you think that it was the WRONG decision?
The person to blame was Michael Spindler. He was the finance guy who was moved up to run the company. The board didn't learn the lesson that a finance guy is NEVER allowed to run any company that isn't a finance company.
Basically, you don't put a bean counter in charge of the beans!
I remember an interview with him shortly after he was given control. He was asked if, given that both Jobs first, and then Scully, were visionaries, he thought that it was necessary to be a visionary to run Apple (guess why that was asked!).
His answer was no.
He was right; because he ran Apple right into the ground.
People have come up with a lot of reasons why Apple went down. Most are wrong. It was simpler than most people think. I was around at the time, and remember quite well.
In the middle of 1995, when Apple was riding high, with their highest sales and gross ever, they came to my user group here in NYC. At the time we were the largest Mac usergroup around, with about 5,400 members.
They came to tell us of their plans to increase their marketshare to 16%. It was all very exciting. But in usual Apple style, they didn't tell exactly how they planned to do it, just that they had less expensive machines in the works.
So, while everyone was thinking about less expensive Power PC machines, instead, during Christmas, their biggest sales period of the year (just like now), they came out with 603's, which were 68040 machines - the very same machines that everyone was moving AWAY from!!!
You can guess what happened. They flopped. Badly!
So, on top of that, Apple was asked to donate these machines to schools and libraries, which were always behind anyway, instead, they trashed them. Literally dumping them out to sea!
A friend of mine was typical of people in large companies at the time in his position. He was in charge of desktop purchases at Boeing. Now Boeing was typical of many hi tech companies back then. They had about 34,000 Mac's, and about 500 PC's.
After this debacle, the word came down from the CIO that buying new Macs was forbidden. After all, it was thought, Apple would be going out of business in a couple of years, so why buy more of their equipment? Besides, IT was never comfortable with the idea of Macs anyway, so here was just another excuse to rid themselves of them.
When Amelio was brought in, Apple was in impossible shape. He cut back severely, dropped the 68040 machines, and consolidated the company. Everything might have been alright at that point, but the Copeland project was failing fast. Without any way of starting a new project from scratch, his main job was to find a replacement.
If anyone thinks that that was an easy job, think again. There were many candidates, including NT, which the business community was urging Apple to use.
After the purchase of Next, and after Jobs maneuvered Amelio out, Apple continued to slide. Apple had an 8% marketshare when Amelio left, down from 10%. Under Jobs, it slid to 2.8%.
I think that the story is not over, but remember that it's only been less than 18 months that Apple's market share has started to move up again, with the success of the iPod and iTunes. Even Jobs said that they didn't expect it to be so successful.
It took Jobs years to learn what to do once he got back. I hope he doesn't forget.
I have no dispute with most of what you're saying. I'm a long-time Mac user too and have followed the day-to-day drama, but the one thing you're overlooking is the fact that there was a general consensus that Amelio did okay but had no real vision and didn't think of Apple as unique. He viewed Apple just like any other businessman might. Thus, the directionless and uninspiring product line they had at the time.
I also think it's terribly unfair to lay the blame for the marketshare slide at Jobs' feet when the damage had already been done prior to his arrival. That would be the Mac clones fiasco (Amelio's doing) and the wretched Performa line (not Amelio's doing).
I have no dispute with most of what you're saying. I'm a long-time Mac user too and have followed the day-to-day drama, but the one thing you're overlooking is the fact that there was a general consensus that Amelio did okay but had no real vision and didn't think of Apple as unique. He viewed Apple just like any other businessman might. Thus, the directionless and uninspiring product line they had at the time.
I also think it's terribly unfair to lay the blame for the marketshare slide at Jobs' feet when the damage had already been done prior to his arrival. That would be the Mac clones fiasco (Amelio's doing) and the wretched Performa line (not Amelio's doing).
Amelio really didn't have that much time before he was gone. Jobs has been here much longer. I didn't think that the product line was uninspiring. We did have 6 slot machines. Three external 5 1/4" bays, room for 4 or more (in the 9600), etc. That all died when Jobs took over. What has been the biggest complaint about the pro line since he got back? Yup, 6 slots and no extra drive bays. I remember when asked about that, he said that it was only 5% of his market, and so wasn't important. At the time that 5% was $1 billion a year in business. When Apple was smaller. He discontinued the most popular line of monitors Apple ever had. The Studio monitors. Same with the printer line, again, very popular. And just as the sales of the Newton took off - gone.
The damage had been done previous to Amelio's arrival as well, but some don't mind laying it at his feet. At least he tried to get Macs back into big business. When Jobs arrived and came out with the iMac, he was asked about that, and replied that the enterprise "isn't our customer". You NEVER say that some group isn't your customer. Even if you think it's true. That cost Apple big for several years. He disbanded the Enterprise Group at Apple. Not a good idea.
When parents come up to me and tell me that they don't want to see Mac's in schools, it's always because they don't see them at work.
The clones were not such a bad idea. It was the details that caused a problem. The truth is that business was on the uptake with Macs because of the clones. When the clones were discontinued, we were told that Apple's sales would go up, but they didn't. they continued downwards. The clones weren't at fault. That was propaganda from Apple. I was buying Mac's for my business before them, and after them. What I did do was to buy a couple of clones as well as Macs. Why? Because if there weren't cheaper clones to buy, I would have just stuck with the number of Macs I bought. It gave me more options.
But this way, I bought more software as well, which helped the Mac platform. I know other guys in the business who did the same. Our first choice were Macs, but for the extra machine we couldn't budget for a Mac, a clone might fit in.
Business also doesn't like single sourcing.
These issues were complex, and no single problem stands out, except for the Spindler fiasco, and the problem with Copeland.
But, at this time, they seem to hit upon a formula. Let's hope they can run with it. I'm betting on it with a lot of stock.
Amelio really didn't have that much time before he was gone. Jobs has been here much longer. I didn't think that the product line was uninspiring. We did have 6 slot machines. Three external 5 1/4" bays, room for 4 or more (in the 9600), etc. That all died when Jobs took over. What has been the biggest complaint about the pro line since he got back? Yup, 6 slots and no extra drive bays. I remember when asked about that, he said that it was only 5% of his market, and so wasn't important. At the time that 5% was $1 billion a year in business. When Apple was smaller. He discontinued the most popular line of monitors Apple ever had. The Studio monitors. Same with the printer line, again, very popular. And just as the sales of the Newton took off - gone.
The damage had been done previous to Amelio's arrival as well, but some don't mind laying it at his feet. At least he tried to get Macs back into big business. When Jobs arrived and came out with the iMac, he was asked about that, and replied that the enterprise "isn't our customer". You NEVER say that some group isn't your customer. Even if you think it's true. That cost Apple big for several years. He disbanded the Enterprise Group at Apple. Not a good idea.
When parents come up to me and tell me that they don't want to see Mac's in schools, it's always because they don't see them at work.
The clones were not such a bad idea. It was the details that caused a problem. The truth is that business was on the uptake with Macs because of the clones. When the clones were discontinued, we were told that Apple's sales would go up, but they didn't. they continued downwards. The clones weren't at fault. That was propaganda from Apple. I was buying Mac's for my business before them, and after them. What I did do was to buy a couple of clones as well as Macs. Why? Because if there weren't cheaper clones to buy, I would have just stuck with the number of Macs I bought. It gave me more options.
But this way, I bought more software as well, which helped the Mac platform. I know other guys in the business who did the same. Our first choice were Macs, but for the extra machine we couldn't budget for a Mac, a clone might fit in.
Business also doesn't like single sourcing.
These issues were complex, and no single problem stands out, except for the Spindler fiasco, and the problem with Copeland.
But, at this time, they seem to hit upon a formula. Let's hope they can run with it. I'm betting on it with a lot of stock.
I think you have many good points here. The Apple slide, though, it was going on in the time when windos was ascending, with w95, in the business field, besides NT for business, too. With w95 getting sorted out, it became pretty popular both with business, and, with the computing world at large. It seemed to many about as reliable and usable as the Mac OS. Not that I was cheering about it. Or like one woman I met said, 'Windows 95 is Mac OS '88'. I thought that was a good assessment. She felt there was a steal that happened, which Sculley in his brightness had signed on to, with that 'Peace in our time' document he waved around.
Sculley had his good points, and did have a vision, for a time. He had a telling assessment of IT back then. But then seemed to run his course. But the engineers preferred someone who had technological background, like Gassee, or like Amelio, who had background. Spindler seemed to destruct, it was good that he moved on. Amelio got the plan going to revive Apple, Jobs benefited from that, and Amelio and the board, notably, bought the Next OS.
You have a good criticism in that S. Jobs turned from the business market, which it did not have much 'traction' in.
In the graphics and AV market, a lot of people liked the 8600 and the 9600, one more upgradable, the other still having 3 slots and several HD bays, as well as the AV stuff. I wish that Apple made Macs with more HD bays. Good point, again.
Do you think the slide in the business world really would have been stanched? But you are right, Apple should not have turned from it, it should turn back to it now, and reform a business group.
Jobs has made a lot of good moves, in that the iMac, and the style and look of Macs has been a hit with a lot of people, and helped Apple to come back some. And then the iPod, and now an apparent turn to the living room. They certainly have done better with making a more reliable working OS.
Those statistics, what are they based upon, the current market selling share that Apple has, or someone's counting of current desktops in the world?
Anyway, Apple seems to have a decent plan now. To the SEC, they have made some statements that are not what you would call the most heartening (Mac)market assessments(Who will build software for the Mac?).
I am just glad that Jobs will not have walmart dictating what to do with the music software.
I don't know if I would ever discredit Wal-Mart's market compared to that of Apple stores. We have one Apple store in Iowa and I wouldn't expect more in the near future, but there are dozens of Wal-Marts. You're probably never more than a 30 minute drive away from one. It's a lot easier to bite the bullet make that big iPod purchase when you don't have to plan a trip to get it.
We don't even have a store in New Zealand :-)
However, iPods are sold through all the major chains, online, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them being sold via the Warehouse in the next couple of months.
Just as a side issue, Target in the United States; does it sell electronic goods? because in Australia, Apple sell iPods through the chain of Target stores.
Just as a side issue, Target in the United States; does it sell electronic goods? because in Australia, Apple sell iPods through the chain of Target stores.
I think you have many good points here. The Apple slide, though, it was going on in the time when windos was ascending, with w95, in the business field, besides NT for business, too. With w95 getting sorted out, it became pretty popular both with business, and, with the computing world at large. It seemed to many about as reliable and usable as the Mac OS. Not that I was cheering about it. Or like one woman I met said, 'Windows 95 is Mac OS '88'. I thought that was a good assessment. She felt there was a steal that happened, which Sculley in his brightness had signed on to, with that 'Peace in our time' document he waved around.
Sculley had his good points, and did have a vision, for a time. He had a telling assessment of IT back then. But then seemed to run his course. But the engineers preferred someone who had technological background, like Gassee, or like Amelio, who had background. Spindler seemed to destruct, it was good that he moved on. Amelio got the plan going to revive Apple, Jobs benefited from that, and Amelio and the board, notably, bought the Next OS.
You have a good criticism in that S. Jobs turned from the business market, which it did not have much 'traction' in.
In the graphics and AV market, a lot of people liked the 8600 and the 9600, one more upgradable, the other still having 3 slots and several HD bays, as well as the AV stuff. I wish that Apple made Macs with more HD bays. Good point, again.
Do you think the slide in the business world really would have been stanched? But you are right, Apple should not have turned from it, it should turn back to it now, and reform a business group.
Jobs has made a lot of good moves, in that the iMac, and the style and look of Macs has been a hit with a lot of people, and helped Apple to come back some. And then the iPod, and now an apparent turn to the living room. They certainly have done better with making a more reliable working OS.
Those statistics, what are they based upon, the current market selling share that Apple has, or someone's counting of current desktops in the world?
Anyway, Apple seems to have a decent plan now. To the SEC, they have made some statements that are not what you would call the most heartening (Mac)market assessments(Who will build software for the Mac?).
I am just glad that Jobs will not have walmart dictating what to do with the music software.
Scully was pretty good for Apple, better than Jobs was back then. But he made mistakes as well. Remember that both Jobs and Scully were approached by Gates to license the OS. Jobs did nothing, but Scully decided to raise prices after rejecting the offer. That hurt marketshare, even as profit went up. If he had lowered prices, as was being urged to, very publicly, profits would have gone down (they were pretty high even before the price hike), but marketshare, instead of dropping from 12% to 10%, might have gone to 15% instead.
I think that there have been misinterpretations of what happened in the Apple slide. If the numbers are looked at, it will be seen that the slide started in 1993-94, BEFORE Win 95 came out. Win 95 was a stalking horse, or a red herring.
Also, as always, with new OS's, especially MS's, it took years before 95, and then 98 took over from 3.1. Even now, after all the years of XP, less than half the business's use it. So I really don't believe that 95, with all of its well publicized problems, has much to do with it, even though it's been a popular assumption. In those days, business bought most of the computers, not like now. Unfortunately, most analysts haven't really looked at all of these happenings. They just see 95 come out, and Apple's crash. They then put them together. It's wrong!
What happened, as I remember, was that there was some hesitation about the move to the PPC. Sales were down in the year it came out. There was almost NO software for the PPC when introduced! Wordperfect was the only program of significance that was ready. Apple had little of it's own software at the time to tide people over, and even that was late.
So there was slow adoption. Apple came out with a PPC board to go into its older machines to speed that adoption up. I bought it for my 950.
But by '94, things had gotten better. There was PS, and a fair number of other programs as well. Sales that year were again down a bit more than the year before, but by very little. It could be seen that the trend was such that sales would either be even the next year, or pull ahead slightly, and everything looked fine. In fact, the sales for the first 3 quarters of '95 were running ahead of '94, showing that it was straightening out.
The disaster in the holiday quarter changed all of that. The attitude towards Apple reversed. Business started to divest themselves of Macs; they didn't want to get stuck with product from a failing company with a unique OS. The failure of the Copeland project, after other failures on the OS front with IBM, led many to think that Apple had lost the ability to compete with MS.
Amelio walked into that mess. He fixed the immediate problems, started the clones - which business stated quite emphatically, would be required for them to stop dropping Macs from their purchasing lists. They wanted multiple sourcing.
He also took on the search for a new basis for a "modern" OS. He stabilized Apple at a VERY traumatic time. His pragmatic and calm approach was hailed as just what Apple needed.
The truth is that we don't know what would have happened if Jobs didn't maneuver him out when he did.
We all look at Apple's designs. But we forget that even with those designs, Apple's marketshare, and even numbers of computers sold, continued to decline.
It isn't all Jobs fault, and I'm not saying that. A fair amount of it had to do with the failure of the group of three; Apple, IBM, and Motorola, to come up with newer design PPC chips, and to enable them to continue leading the x86 line in performance, as they did throughout the '90's.
But that's just the problem from 2000 onwards. That wasn't a problem IN the '90's when Jobs took over.
It was said that when OS X came out, Apple should have switched over to x86. It would have been the perfect time. The PPC was failing at that time. To switch to a new OS, and a new chip, would have been perfect timing. It was also said, later, when Apple went to the G5, that they should have gone to x86 than as well.
Now that we know, for certain, that the OS was running on x86 from the beginning, it's hard to understand why the switch wasn't made.
But, it is what it is. Times are different. Apple has plenty of good software. They are making sure that developers are moving over. Hopefully, this will go smoother.
As far as the current numbers go, it's sales numbers, quarter by quarter, that are used for marketshare. They don't necessarily reflect how many machines are in the hands of users. It's always been assumed that the numbers of Mac's out there is higher than the marketshare indicates.
Now, I know this is off topic, but have you always noticed that Target is alot nicer to shop at that KMart and Walmar? When I was in Australia, I couldn't help getting that feeling that KMart is cheap and nasty where as Target seemed that although it was competitively priced, it didn't have the 'eww yuck' overtones to it.
Oh, and as a further side issue; its a great shop to pick up work related clothes if one works in the hospitality industry - namely handly food, the black pants they sell are simply awesome, I've got a pair, 2 years old, and virtually like brand new.
Ego has problems though, especially when it gets in the way of good business sense. Frankly, I think Steve has a credibility problem because of the RDF, he relies on it too much.
Please, marketing is all about having the biggest, most powerful RDF possible - fact, thats what marketing is, a bloody great RDF thats running 24/7; its all about showing the product in the good light, and playing down any negative issues.
Microsoft does it, along with SUN, Apple, Oracle, IBM etc. About the only company who didn't do it was DEC - but now look where they are.
Marketing is the key driving factor behind product sales, without good marketing, you may as well pack up your scooter and look for another vocation.
What happened, as I remember, was that there was some hesitation about the move to the PPC. Sales were down in the year it came out. [..] So there was slow adoption. [..]
But by '94, things had gotten better.
Except, of course, 1994 was the year PPC came out.
If I have to burn it to a CD to re-rip it afterwards, what is the whole point of buying via download vs. ordering a CD in the first place?
Because, by downloading you can pick & choose the good songs you actually want to listen to again & again as opposed to all the filler that takes up too much space on cds these days.
Choice was the whole point all along. The record labels were against downloading, because they knew people would rather get the songs they want single by single, rather than pay for an entire cd full of other songs they might not want.
Jobs stood his ground, not flinching on the 99 cents. Labels, Wal-Mart (as well as other sources) kept pressing him to charge more, but he refused.
Since when did Wal-Mart or the record labels care even that much for the consumer?
Getting back to the discussion about itms and DRM ... it should be noted that the issue with WMA goes beyond simple DRM issues. WMA is a format that Windows is trying to jam down the entertainment industry's throat. Meanwhile, AAC is a form of MP4, a format arrived at by consensus by a coalition of industry experts. While Apple may be making money off of Fairplay, the underlying format is in public domain. If Apple goes out of business, I could see an argument that Fairplay should be cracked since the underlying media is owned by the purchaser and the coding scheme is public domain.
On the other hand, WMA is a proprietary coding scheme owned wholly by Microsoft. While they are currently allowing content providers to utilize it for little or no cost, there is no long term commitment to do so. If Microsoft wants to make a claim on their coding scheme and start charging, there is no legal avenue to stop them.
Wal-Mart's music store supports WMA. It has no Macintosh or UNIX support. It is more restrictive than itms. It would have been bad for Apple to acquiesce and make concessions to them.
One final note ... while people want to bag on Fairplay, it should be noted that burning restrictions are not based on the songs, but the play order. In other words, you can burn the songs as many times as you want, you are just limited from burning them in a particular order. If you don't care about matching the sequence from the CD, feel free to burn as many times as you like.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
Yes, because the consumer certainly wouldn't want to be able to have more choice as to what they can put on their expensive mp3 players.
I own an iPod. I have never bought anything from the iTunes Music Store. I have loads of legal music on my player. Your statement seems to imply that you can only put music from the iTunes store on an iPod.
Or is that not what you meant? Fine. What's stopping Wal-Mart or MS or Dell from making their own player/store combo to compete with Apple's?
Do any other long-time Mac users out there dig the irony? For years people scoffed at Apple for not being compatible with the rest of the computing world and experts said that would destroy them. Now, their incompatibility with the rest of the world is their biggest strength.
Originally posted by kaiwai
Ah, just a point; Steve has a right to his large ego - he grabbed Apple by the balls, put the political bullshit aside, and single handily picked it up and swivelled it above his head - so yes, he does have a right to be a little smug being the one that rescued it.
Anybody who can salvage Apple after Gil Amelio has a right to an ego.
Originally posted by inkswamp
Anybody who can salvage Apple after Gil Amelio has a right to an ego.
Amen. I seem to remember much discussion on THESE BOARDS about how close Apple was to its demise.
Don't hear that much anymore.
Originally posted by inkswamp
Anybody who can salvage Apple after Gil Amelio has a right to an ego.
Ego has problems though, especially when it gets in the way of good business sense. Frankly, I think Steve has a credibility problem because of the RDF, he relies on it too much.
Originally posted by inkswamp
Anybody who can salvage Apple after Gil Amelio has a right to an ego.
I can't blame Amelio for that. He was credited for beginning the process of bringing Apple around. He did make the decision to buy Next as well. Don't forget that. Unless you think that it was the WRONG decision?
The person to blame was Michael Spindler. He was the finance guy who was moved up to run the company. The board didn't learn the lesson that a finance guy is NEVER allowed to run any company that isn't a finance company.
Basically, you don't put a bean counter in charge of the beans!
I remember an interview with him shortly after he was given control. He was asked if, given that both Jobs first, and then Scully, were visionaries, he thought that it was necessary to be a visionary to run Apple (guess why that was asked!).
His answer was no.
He was right; because he ran Apple right into the ground.
People have come up with a lot of reasons why Apple went down. Most are wrong. It was simpler than most people think. I was around at the time, and remember quite well.
In the middle of 1995, when Apple was riding high, with their highest sales and gross ever, they came to my user group here in NYC. At the time we were the largest Mac usergroup around, with about 5,400 members.
They came to tell us of their plans to increase their marketshare to 16%. It was all very exciting. But in usual Apple style, they didn't tell exactly how they planned to do it, just that they had less expensive machines in the works.
So, while everyone was thinking about less expensive Power PC machines, instead, during Christmas, their biggest sales period of the year (just like now), they came out with 603's, which were 68040 machines - the very same machines that everyone was moving AWAY from!!!
You can guess what happened. They flopped. Badly!
So, on top of that, Apple was asked to donate these machines to schools and libraries, which were always behind anyway, instead, they trashed them. Literally dumping them out to sea!
A friend of mine was typical of people in large companies at the time in his position. He was in charge of desktop purchases at Boeing. Now Boeing was typical of many hi tech companies back then. They had about 34,000 Mac's, and about 500 PC's.
After this debacle, the word came down from the CIO that buying new Macs was forbidden. After all, it was thought, Apple would be going out of business in a couple of years, so why buy more of their equipment? Besides, IT was never comfortable with the idea of Macs anyway, so here was just another excuse to rid themselves of them.
When Amelio was brought in, Apple was in impossible shape. He cut back severely, dropped the 68040 machines, and consolidated the company. Everything might have been alright at that point, but the Copeland project was failing fast. Without any way of starting a new project from scratch, his main job was to find a replacement.
If anyone thinks that that was an easy job, think again. There were many candidates, including NT, which the business community was urging Apple to use.
After the purchase of Next, and after Jobs maneuvered Amelio out, Apple continued to slide. Apple had an 8% marketshare when Amelio left, down from 10%. Under Jobs, it slid to 2.8%.
I think that the story is not over, but remember that it's only been less than 18 months that Apple's market share has started to move up again, with the success of the iPod and iTunes. Even Jobs said that they didn't expect it to be so successful.
It took Jobs years to learn what to do once he got back. I hope he doesn't forget.
I also think it's terribly unfair to lay the blame for the marketshare slide at Jobs' feet when the damage had already been done prior to his arrival. That would be the Mac clones fiasco (Amelio's doing) and the wretched Performa line (not Amelio's doing).
Originally posted by inkswamp
I have no dispute with most of what you're saying. I'm a long-time Mac user too and have followed the day-to-day drama, but the one thing you're overlooking is the fact that there was a general consensus that Amelio did okay but had no real vision and didn't think of Apple as unique. He viewed Apple just like any other businessman might. Thus, the directionless and uninspiring product line they had at the time.
I also think it's terribly unfair to lay the blame for the marketshare slide at Jobs' feet when the damage had already been done prior to his arrival. That would be the Mac clones fiasco (Amelio's doing) and the wretched Performa line (not Amelio's doing).
Amelio really didn't have that much time before he was gone. Jobs has been here much longer. I didn't think that the product line was uninspiring. We did have 6 slot machines. Three external 5 1/4" bays, room for 4 or more (in the 9600), etc. That all died when Jobs took over. What has been the biggest complaint about the pro line since he got back? Yup, 6 slots and no extra drive bays. I remember when asked about that, he said that it was only 5% of his market, and so wasn't important. At the time that 5% was $1 billion a year in business. When Apple was smaller. He discontinued the most popular line of monitors Apple ever had. The Studio monitors. Same with the printer line, again, very popular. And just as the sales of the Newton took off - gone.
The damage had been done previous to Amelio's arrival as well, but some don't mind laying it at his feet. At least he tried to get Macs back into big business. When Jobs arrived and came out with the iMac, he was asked about that, and replied that the enterprise "isn't our customer". You NEVER say that some group isn't your customer. Even if you think it's true. That cost Apple big for several years. He disbanded the Enterprise Group at Apple. Not a good idea.
When parents come up to me and tell me that they don't want to see Mac's in schools, it's always because they don't see them at work.
The clones were not such a bad idea. It was the details that caused a problem. The truth is that business was on the uptake with Macs because of the clones. When the clones were discontinued, we were told that Apple's sales would go up, but they didn't. they continued downwards. The clones weren't at fault. That was propaganda from Apple. I was buying Mac's for my business before them, and after them. What I did do was to buy a couple of clones as well as Macs. Why? Because if there weren't cheaper clones to buy, I would have just stuck with the number of Macs I bought. It gave me more options.
But this way, I bought more software as well, which helped the Mac platform. I know other guys in the business who did the same. Our first choice were Macs, but for the extra machine we couldn't budget for a Mac, a clone might fit in.
Business also doesn't like single sourcing.
These issues were complex, and no single problem stands out, except for the Spindler fiasco, and the problem with Copeland.
But, at this time, they seem to hit upon a formula. Let's hope they can run with it. I'm betting on it with a lot of stock.
Originally posted by melgross
Amelio really didn't have that much time before he was gone. Jobs has been here much longer. I didn't think that the product line was uninspiring. We did have 6 slot machines. Three external 5 1/4" bays, room for 4 or more (in the 9600), etc. That all died when Jobs took over. What has been the biggest complaint about the pro line since he got back? Yup, 6 slots and no extra drive bays. I remember when asked about that, he said that it was only 5% of his market, and so wasn't important. At the time that 5% was $1 billion a year in business. When Apple was smaller. He discontinued the most popular line of monitors Apple ever had. The Studio monitors. Same with the printer line, again, very popular. And just as the sales of the Newton took off - gone.
The damage had been done previous to Amelio's arrival as well, but some don't mind laying it at his feet. At least he tried to get Macs back into big business. When Jobs arrived and came out with the iMac, he was asked about that, and replied that the enterprise "isn't our customer". You NEVER say that some group isn't your customer. Even if you think it's true. That cost Apple big for several years. He disbanded the Enterprise Group at Apple. Not a good idea.
When parents come up to me and tell me that they don't want to see Mac's in schools, it's always because they don't see them at work.
The clones were not such a bad idea. It was the details that caused a problem. The truth is that business was on the uptake with Macs because of the clones. When the clones were discontinued, we were told that Apple's sales would go up, but they didn't. they continued downwards. The clones weren't at fault. That was propaganda from Apple. I was buying Mac's for my business before them, and after them. What I did do was to buy a couple of clones as well as Macs. Why? Because if there weren't cheaper clones to buy, I would have just stuck with the number of Macs I bought. It gave me more options.
But this way, I bought more software as well, which helped the Mac platform. I know other guys in the business who did the same. Our first choice were Macs, but for the extra machine we couldn't budget for a Mac, a clone might fit in.
Business also doesn't like single sourcing.
These issues were complex, and no single problem stands out, except for the Spindler fiasco, and the problem with Copeland.
But, at this time, they seem to hit upon a formula. Let's hope they can run with it. I'm betting on it with a lot of stock.
I think you have many good points here. The Apple slide, though, it was going on in the time when windos was ascending, with w95, in the business field, besides NT for business, too. With w95 getting sorted out, it became pretty popular both with business, and, with the computing world at large. It seemed to many about as reliable and usable as the Mac OS. Not that I was cheering about it. Or like one woman I met said, 'Windows 95 is Mac OS '88'. I thought that was a good assessment. She felt there was a steal that happened, which Sculley in his brightness had signed on to, with that 'Peace in our time' document he waved around.
Sculley had his good points, and did have a vision, for a time. He had a telling assessment of IT back then. But then seemed to run his course. But the engineers preferred someone who had technological background, like Gassee, or like Amelio, who had background. Spindler seemed to destruct, it was good that he moved on. Amelio got the plan going to revive Apple, Jobs benefited from that, and Amelio and the board, notably, bought the Next OS.
You have a good criticism in that S. Jobs turned from the business market, which it did not have much 'traction' in.
In the graphics and AV market, a lot of people liked the 8600 and the 9600, one more upgradable, the other still having 3 slots and several HD bays, as well as the AV stuff. I wish that Apple made Macs with more HD bays. Good point, again.
Do you think the slide in the business world really would have been stanched? But you are right, Apple should not have turned from it, it should turn back to it now, and reform a business group.
Jobs has made a lot of good moves, in that the iMac, and the style and look of Macs has been a hit with a lot of people, and helped Apple to come back some. And then the iPod, and now an apparent turn to the living room. They certainly have done better with making a more reliable working OS.
Those statistics, what are they based upon, the current market selling share that Apple has, or someone's counting of current desktops in the world?
Anyway, Apple seems to have a decent plan now. To the SEC, they have made some statements that are not what you would call the most heartening (Mac)market assessments(Who will build software for the Mac?).
I am just glad that Jobs will not have walmart dictating what to do with the music software.
Originally posted by rasnet
I don't know if I would ever discredit Wal-Mart's market compared to that of Apple stores. We have one Apple store in Iowa and I wouldn't expect more in the near future, but there are dozens of Wal-Marts. You're probably never more than a 30 minute drive away from one. It's a lot easier to bite the bullet make that big iPod purchase when you don't have to plan a trip to get it.
We don't even have a store in New Zealand :-)
However, iPods are sold through all the major chains, online, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them being sold via the Warehouse in the next couple of months.
Just as a side issue, Target in the United States; does it sell electronic goods? because in Australia, Apple sell iPods through the chain of Target stores.
Originally posted by kaiwai
Just as a side issue, Target in the United States; does it sell electronic goods? because in Australia, Apple sell iPods through the chain of Target stores.
You bet your sweet bippy they do
Originally posted by NordicMan
I think you have many good points here. The Apple slide, though, it was going on in the time when windos was ascending, with w95, in the business field, besides NT for business, too. With w95 getting sorted out, it became pretty popular both with business, and, with the computing world at large. It seemed to many about as reliable and usable as the Mac OS. Not that I was cheering about it. Or like one woman I met said, 'Windows 95 is Mac OS '88'. I thought that was a good assessment. She felt there was a steal that happened, which Sculley in his brightness had signed on to, with that 'Peace in our time' document he waved around.
Sculley had his good points, and did have a vision, for a time. He had a telling assessment of IT back then. But then seemed to run his course. But the engineers preferred someone who had technological background, like Gassee, or like Amelio, who had background. Spindler seemed to destruct, it was good that he moved on. Amelio got the plan going to revive Apple, Jobs benefited from that, and Amelio and the board, notably, bought the Next OS.
You have a good criticism in that S. Jobs turned from the business market, which it did not have much 'traction' in.
In the graphics and AV market, a lot of people liked the 8600 and the 9600, one more upgradable, the other still having 3 slots and several HD bays, as well as the AV stuff. I wish that Apple made Macs with more HD bays. Good point, again.
Do you think the slide in the business world really would have been stanched? But you are right, Apple should not have turned from it, it should turn back to it now, and reform a business group.
Jobs has made a lot of good moves, in that the iMac, and the style and look of Macs has been a hit with a lot of people, and helped Apple to come back some. And then the iPod, and now an apparent turn to the living room. They certainly have done better with making a more reliable working OS.
Those statistics, what are they based upon, the current market selling share that Apple has, or someone's counting of current desktops in the world?
Anyway, Apple seems to have a decent plan now. To the SEC, they have made some statements that are not what you would call the most heartening (Mac)market assessments(Who will build software for the Mac?).
I am just glad that Jobs will not have walmart dictating what to do with the music software.
Scully was pretty good for Apple, better than Jobs was back then. But he made mistakes as well. Remember that both Jobs and Scully were approached by Gates to license the OS. Jobs did nothing, but Scully decided to raise prices after rejecting the offer. That hurt marketshare, even as profit went up. If he had lowered prices, as was being urged to, very publicly, profits would have gone down (they were pretty high even before the price hike), but marketshare, instead of dropping from 12% to 10%, might have gone to 15% instead.
I think that there have been misinterpretations of what happened in the Apple slide. If the numbers are looked at, it will be seen that the slide started in 1993-94, BEFORE Win 95 came out. Win 95 was a stalking horse, or a red herring.
Also, as always, with new OS's, especially MS's, it took years before 95, and then 98 took over from 3.1. Even now, after all the years of XP, less than half the business's use it. So I really don't believe that 95, with all of its well publicized problems, has much to do with it, even though it's been a popular assumption. In those days, business bought most of the computers, not like now. Unfortunately, most analysts haven't really looked at all of these happenings. They just see 95 come out, and Apple's crash. They then put them together. It's wrong!
What happened, as I remember, was that there was some hesitation about the move to the PPC. Sales were down in the year it came out. There was almost NO software for the PPC when introduced! Wordperfect was the only program of significance that was ready. Apple had little of it's own software at the time to tide people over, and even that was late.
So there was slow adoption. Apple came out with a PPC board to go into its older machines to speed that adoption up. I bought it for my 950.
But by '94, things had gotten better. There was PS, and a fair number of other programs as well. Sales that year were again down a bit more than the year before, but by very little. It could be seen that the trend was such that sales would either be even the next year, or pull ahead slightly, and everything looked fine. In fact, the sales for the first 3 quarters of '95 were running ahead of '94, showing that it was straightening out.
The disaster in the holiday quarter changed all of that. The attitude towards Apple reversed. Business started to divest themselves of Macs; they didn't want to get stuck with product from a failing company with a unique OS. The failure of the Copeland project, after other failures on the OS front with IBM, led many to think that Apple had lost the ability to compete with MS.
Amelio walked into that mess. He fixed the immediate problems, started the clones - which business stated quite emphatically, would be required for them to stop dropping Macs from their purchasing lists. They wanted multiple sourcing.
He also took on the search for a new basis for a "modern" OS. He stabilized Apple at a VERY traumatic time. His pragmatic and calm approach was hailed as just what Apple needed.
The truth is that we don't know what would have happened if Jobs didn't maneuver him out when he did.
We all look at Apple's designs. But we forget that even with those designs, Apple's marketshare, and even numbers of computers sold, continued to decline.
It isn't all Jobs fault, and I'm not saying that. A fair amount of it had to do with the failure of the group of three; Apple, IBM, and Motorola, to come up with newer design PPC chips, and to enable them to continue leading the x86 line in performance, as they did throughout the '90's.
But that's just the problem from 2000 onwards. That wasn't a problem IN the '90's when Jobs took over.
It was said that when OS X came out, Apple should have switched over to x86. It would have been the perfect time. The PPC was failing at that time. To switch to a new OS, and a new chip, would have been perfect timing. It was also said, later, when Apple went to the G5, that they should have gone to x86 than as well.
Now that we know, for certain, that the OS was running on x86 from the beginning, it's hard to understand why the switch wasn't made.
But, it is what it is. Times are different. Apple has plenty of good software. They are making sure that developers are moving over. Hopefully, this will go smoother.
As far as the current numbers go, it's sales numbers, quarter by quarter, that are used for marketshare. They don't necessarily reflect how many machines are in the hands of users. It's always been assumed that the numbers of Mac's out there is higher than the marketshare indicates.
Originally posted by Flounder
You bet your sweet bippy they do
Now, I know this is off topic, but have you always noticed that Target is alot nicer to shop at that KMart and Walmar? When I was in Australia, I couldn't help getting that feeling that KMart is cheap and nasty where as Target seemed that although it was competitively priced, it didn't have the 'eww yuck' overtones to it.
Oh, and as a further side issue; its a great shop to pick up work related clothes if one works in the hospitality industry - namely handly food, the black pants they sell are simply awesome, I've got a pair, 2 years old, and virtually like brand new.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Ego has problems though, especially when it gets in the way of good business sense. Frankly, I think Steve has a credibility problem because of the RDF, he relies on it too much.
Please, marketing is all about having the biggest, most powerful RDF possible - fact, thats what marketing is, a bloody great RDF thats running 24/7; its all about showing the product in the good light, and playing down any negative issues.
Microsoft does it, along with SUN, Apple, Oracle, IBM etc. About the only company who didn't do it was DEC - but now look where they are.
Marketing is the key driving factor behind product sales, without good marketing, you may as well pack up your scooter and look for another vocation.
Originally posted by melgross
What happened, as I remember, was that there was some hesitation about the move to the PPC. Sales were down in the year it came out. [..] So there was slow adoption. [..]
But by '94, things had gotten better.
Except, of course, 1994 was the year PPC came out.
Originally posted by Chucker
Except, of course, 1994 was the year PPC came out.
No, '93. Large shipments weren't available until '94. They were originally schedualed for early '94, but some were available in late '93.
EDIT:
I just checked my notes. Apple shipped several thousands machines out in November '93, but the official release wasn't until March '94.
Good catch!
The timeline still stands though, because the problems they were having with release dates are the same problems they are trying to avoid now.
Originally posted by Smircle
If I have to burn it to a CD to re-rip it afterwards, what is the whole point of buying via download vs. ordering a CD in the first place?
Because, by downloading you can pick & choose the good songs you actually want to listen to again & again as opposed to all the filler that takes up too much space on cds these days.
Choice was the whole point all along. The record labels were against downloading, because they knew people would rather get the songs they want single by single, rather than pay for an entire cd full of other songs they might not want.
Jobs stood his ground, not flinching on the 99 cents. Labels, Wal-Mart (as well as other sources) kept pressing him to charge more, but he refused.
Since when did Wal-Mart or the record labels care even that much for the consumer?
Answer: NEVER!
Originally posted by Mac~N~Cheese
Wal-Mart (as well as other sources) kept pressing him to charge more, but he refused.
Actually, Wal-Mart has been pushing for lower prices.
On the other hand, WMA is a proprietary coding scheme owned wholly by Microsoft. While they are currently allowing content providers to utilize it for little or no cost, there is no long term commitment to do so. If Microsoft wants to make a claim on their coding scheme and start charging, there is no legal avenue to stop them.
Wal-Mart's music store supports WMA. It has no Macintosh or UNIX support. It is more restrictive than itms. It would have been bad for Apple to acquiesce and make concessions to them.
One final note ... while people want to bag on Fairplay, it should be noted that burning restrictions are not based on the songs, but the play order. In other words, you can burn the songs as many times as you want, you are just limited from burning them in a particular order. If you don't care about matching the sequence from the CD, feel free to burn as many times as you like.