But, when Jobs took over, Apple still had about an 8% marketshare. That plummeted to about 2.8% before it began to rise again. It took over 6 years. Amelio didn't have nearly that long to prove his worth, though he was credited with substantially staunching Apple's red ink, and settling the ground that Jobs later walked onto.
Bravo! Bravo!
That is one of the finest re-writes of history I've ever seen.
Jobs (probably one of the most brilliant and cold-blooded negotiators in the history of the industry) just kinda 'lucked' into the iPod. Not 'recognized', or 'nurtured'.... 'lucked'. Kinda just tripped over NeXT OS as well, huh?
Apple was dead in the water when he returned and its resurrection was nothing short of staggering. Amelio was pursuing what? BeOS? Gimme a f***ing break.
Bet you are still calling the current financial cliff the US is heating toward 'Clinton's Recession'.
That is one of the finest re-writes of history I've ever seen.
Jobs (probably one of the most brilliant and cold-blooded negotiators in the history of the industry) just kinda 'lucked' into the iPod. Not 'recognized', or 'nurtured'.... 'lucked'. Kinda just tripped over NeXT OS as well, huh?
Apple was dead in the water when he returned and its resurrection was nothing short of staggering. Amelio was pursuing what? BeOS? Gimme a f***ing break.
Bet you are still calling the current financial cliff the US is heating toward 'Clinton's Recession'.
I already have a corrected number, but that's just a part of it.
For the first five or more years after Jobs took over, Apple's fate was still questionable. There was never any question that actions taken by Amelio saved the company back then. That's been acknowledged.
And Job's intentions to unveil Rhapsody as Apple's new OS was strongly contested. If he had gotten his way with that, it's doubtful that Apple would still be here, as no major developer would have moved to the new platform. Jobs, and Apple's Next people, were pushed to come out with OS X the way we know it.
And yes, even with the iPod, Jobs said that they thought it would be a nice little product for Apple. He gave every indication that that's all it was. He was pushed into allowing Windows support only after months of Windows people buying, and working out how to support it. I did make very clear though, that once the popularity of the iPod became clear to Apple, he and his people did see what they had, and ran with it.
But, now, with Apple's great success, there is also great concern that arrogance may be Apple's undoing.
One of the reasons I criticize Apple at times is because I have a fair amount of stock, and I want to see continued success. If people continue to refuse to see the truth, and just sip the Koolaid, they will miss the reality.
One doesn't have to want to look at the situation through rose colored glasses to admire the company, and buy its products. Believe me, I've bought more of Apple's products over the years than any 100 people put together, and am responsible for recommending far more than that, so calm down, as your last two sentence's show you are in a parallel universe.
I already have a corrected number, but that's just a part of it.
One of the reasons I criticize Apple at times is because I have a fair amount of stock, and I want to see continued success.
I own stock too. And I could not be happier with the performance of Apple in the past six years (over half of Steve Jobs time at Apple). The stock price in 2001 averaged around $10. As of Friday, the stock was about $184. That's 18.4 times the price in 2001. I'd call that kind of performance excellent. There are not many companies that can match that kind of growth. I am not talking about drinking the Kool-Aid or wearing rose colored glasses. That kind of performance would make anyone happy. I don't know how anyone can look at this success and not see that Steve Jobs has done an amazing job running Apple. I don't know how long this kind of amazing growth can continue. No company can maintain this kind of success indefinitely. Having said that, the iPhone is not even six months old. We have not seen version 2 of the iPhone. If Apple keeps upgrading the iPhone like they did the iPod, Apple could see a lot of growth over the next few years. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple kept growing at a very respectable rate for the next five years or so.
Leopard looks great. It makes Vista look like the pitiful piece of crap it is. I am sure Leopard will help increase the Mac's market share even higher. Having more DRM free music available is not going to hurt the iPod, I believe it will help instead. It means more music will be available to play on any device and the iPod remains the best music player out there. I don't see any reason why the iPod should not continue dominating the market. You would have to be tremendously pessimistic not to believe that Apple will continue to succeed in the next few years.
I own stock too. And I could not be happier with the performance of Apple in the past six years (over half of Steve Jobs time at Apple). The stock price in 2001 averaged around $10. As of Friday, the stock was about $184. That's 18.4 times the price in 2001. I'd call that kind of performance excellent. There are not many companies that can match that kind of growth. I am not talking about drinking the Kool-Aid or wearing rose colored glasses. That kind of performance would make anyone happy. I don't know how anyone can look at this success and not see that Steve Jobs has done an amazing job running Apple. I don't know how long this kind of amazing growth can continue. No company can maintain this kind of success indefinitely. Having said that, the iPhone is not even six months old. We have not seen version 2 of the iPhone. If Apple keeps upgrading the iPhone like they did the iPod, Apple could see a lot of growth over the next few years. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple kept growing at a very respectable rate for the next five years or so.
Leopard looks great. It makes Vista look like the pitiful piece of crap it is. I am sure Leopard will help increase the Mac's market share even higher. Having more DRM free music available is not going to hurt the iPod, I believe it will help instead. It means more music will be available to play on any device and the iPod remains the best music player out there. I don't see any reason why the iPod should not continue dominating the market. You would have to be tremendously pessimistic not to believe that Apple will continue to succeed in the next few years.
I agree that Apple is doing extremely well, and I'm surely hoping that it continues to do so. That's why I think we have to realistic about it's failures, and mis-steps, as well.
By the way, $184 is about 37 times as much value as it was then, at $10, or about 23 times as much as when I bought it at $16.93 a share mid 2004.
I think both NBC Universal and Time Warner are monitoring closely how well the Amazon download service does in terms of music downloads. The very fact Amazon encodes their DRM-free MP3 music files in 256 kbps VBR format means that the sound quality is very good to start with, and that could entice both NBC Universal and Time Warner to sign digital distribution deals with Amazon.
Too many companies, too much hassle, and it's going to keep on being like this. I am glad Amazon is going DRM free screw itunes for making music that is purchasable not able to be used on any other medium. Good for Warner.
It's not just the US. If you're in a country governed by the Berne convention, then off-license use is very questionable legality at best. Most countries are Berne signatories. The ones that aren't signatories are usually very tiny countries, like single islands, tiny archipelagos and such.
but unlike other countries (US), that won't make a difference. we have flea markets full of "unlicensed" music and movies, right on the main avenues and streets of latam cities, open during business hours selling this stuff and it's ok... any conventions or copyright laws are not enforced, known or cared about. that's latam. so, same difference. in here it's like... "who cares. we don't even have itunes. let's go to the flea market or download from russian stores wooo"
Will to compensate creators for something of value.
Investment in the chance that the creators go on to make more good stuff if compensated for their previous creations.
If people were concerned with that, they would have been buying the CD's to begin with, not waiting for them to magically appear as digital downloads to buy.
Quote:
Convenience of finding the things you search for easily.
The utility of finding good stuff you weren't aware of, with functions like Amazon's "what did people buy after viewing this", recommendation lists, et cetera.
Trust that you are really getting what you think you are getting - not a virus infested, spanish subtitled version recorded with a cell phone camera in a theater.
At least these have some validity. But seaching a P2P network isn't that much harder than any other search, like iTunes or Amazon.
The last point, knowing what you're getting, is perhaps the biggest selling point for piracy vs. digital downloads. That and knowing the purchased content will have some modicum of quality.
Quote:
I used to pirate *everything*. Now all the software on my computer is legit.And if CD sales were stopped, music sales wouldn't plummet because people would just go back to C cassettes? No. There are lots of people today who have never grown to deal with optical disks. Better alternatives exist and there is no going back.
Well, there would have to be cassettes to go back to, wouldn't there? Do they still make cassettes? You'd probably have an easier time finding a vinyl record. Yes, I do think that people would go back to their old ways if downloads ceased to exist, either buying the CD or borrowing it and copying from a friend. The few converted pirates would go back to pirating. And the even fewer who didn't understand the concept of a CD would pretty quickly figure it out. As soon as there is a better alternative to an optical disc, I will embrace it, but I won't accept a step back in quality in the process.
There was never any question that actions taken by Amelio saved the company back then. That's been acknowledged.
Yes, he hired Jobs via buying NeXT then stepped out of the picture. So what? Apple wouldn't be half the company it is today if Amelio had remained CEO until 2007.
$740M loss Q1, $33M loss Q2, $30M profit Q3, $161M loss Q4. That's Amelio's record.
What was Amelio's grand plan? Reshuffling of PL centers. Newton spin-off. Hiring his replacement (probably not intentionally) and being smart enough to realize Jobs > Gassee by several orders of magnitude regardless of NeXT vs BeOS.
Contrast that with Jobs. New BoD, axing clones, MS Office for the Mac and a 5-year cross patent agreement with MS, direct sales of computers over the web and phone. Boom. WHILE running Pixar.
Comments
But, when Jobs took over, Apple still had about an 8% marketshare. That plummeted to about 2.8% before it began to rise again. It took over 6 years. Amelio didn't have nearly that long to prove his worth, though he was credited with substantially staunching Apple's red ink, and settling the ground that Jobs later walked onto.
Bravo! Bravo!
That is one of the finest re-writes of history I've ever seen.
Jobs (probably one of the most brilliant and cold-blooded negotiators in the history of the industry) just kinda 'lucked' into the iPod. Not 'recognized', or 'nurtured'.... 'lucked'. Kinda just tripped over NeXT OS as well, huh?
Apple was dead in the water when he returned and its resurrection was nothing short of staggering. Amelio was pursuing what? BeOS? Gimme a f***ing break.
Bet you are still calling the current financial cliff the US is heating toward 'Clinton's Recession'.
Bravo! Bravo!
That is one of the finest re-writes of history I've ever seen.
Jobs (probably one of the most brilliant and cold-blooded negotiators in the history of the industry) just kinda 'lucked' into the iPod. Not 'recognized', or 'nurtured'.... 'lucked'. Kinda just tripped over NeXT OS as well, huh?
Apple was dead in the water when he returned and its resurrection was nothing short of staggering. Amelio was pursuing what? BeOS? Gimme a f***ing break.
Bet you are still calling the current financial cliff the US is heating toward 'Clinton's Recession'.
I already have a corrected number, but that's just a part of it.
For the first five or more years after Jobs took over, Apple's fate was still questionable. There was never any question that actions taken by Amelio saved the company back then. That's been acknowledged.
And Job's intentions to unveil Rhapsody as Apple's new OS was strongly contested. If he had gotten his way with that, it's doubtful that Apple would still be here, as no major developer would have moved to the new platform. Jobs, and Apple's Next people, were pushed to come out with OS X the way we know it.
And yes, even with the iPod, Jobs said that they thought it would be a nice little product for Apple. He gave every indication that that's all it was. He was pushed into allowing Windows support only after months of Windows people buying, and working out how to support it. I did make very clear though, that once the popularity of the iPod became clear to Apple, he and his people did see what they had, and ran with it.
But, now, with Apple's great success, there is also great concern that arrogance may be Apple's undoing.
One of the reasons I criticize Apple at times is because I have a fair amount of stock, and I want to see continued success. If people continue to refuse to see the truth, and just sip the Koolaid, they will miss the reality.
One doesn't have to want to look at the situation through rose colored glasses to admire the company, and buy its products. Believe me, I've bought more of Apple's products over the years than any 100 people put together, and am responsible for recommending far more than that, so calm down, as your last two sentence's show you are in a parallel universe.
I already have a corrected number, but that's just a part of it.
One of the reasons I criticize Apple at times is because I have a fair amount of stock, and I want to see continued success.
I own stock too. And I could not be happier with the performance of Apple in the past six years (over half of Steve Jobs time at Apple). The stock price in 2001 averaged around $10. As of Friday, the stock was about $184. That's 18.4 times the price in 2001. I'd call that kind of performance excellent. There are not many companies that can match that kind of growth. I am not talking about drinking the Kool-Aid or wearing rose colored glasses. That kind of performance would make anyone happy. I don't know how anyone can look at this success and not see that Steve Jobs has done an amazing job running Apple. I don't know how long this kind of amazing growth can continue. No company can maintain this kind of success indefinitely. Having said that, the iPhone is not even six months old. We have not seen version 2 of the iPhone. If Apple keeps upgrading the iPhone like they did the iPod, Apple could see a lot of growth over the next few years. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple kept growing at a very respectable rate for the next five years or so.
Leopard looks great. It makes Vista look like the pitiful piece of crap it is. I am sure Leopard will help increase the Mac's market share even higher. Having more DRM free music available is not going to hurt the iPod, I believe it will help instead. It means more music will be available to play on any device and the iPod remains the best music player out there. I don't see any reason why the iPod should not continue dominating the market. You would have to be tremendously pessimistic not to believe that Apple will continue to succeed in the next few years.
I own stock too. And I could not be happier with the performance of Apple in the past six years (over half of Steve Jobs time at Apple). The stock price in 2001 averaged around $10. As of Friday, the stock was about $184. That's 18.4 times the price in 2001. I'd call that kind of performance excellent. There are not many companies that can match that kind of growth. I am not talking about drinking the Kool-Aid or wearing rose colored glasses. That kind of performance would make anyone happy. I don't know how anyone can look at this success and not see that Steve Jobs has done an amazing job running Apple. I don't know how long this kind of amazing growth can continue. No company can maintain this kind of success indefinitely. Having said that, the iPhone is not even six months old. We have not seen version 2 of the iPhone. If Apple keeps upgrading the iPhone like they did the iPod, Apple could see a lot of growth over the next few years. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple kept growing at a very respectable rate for the next five years or so.
Leopard looks great. It makes Vista look like the pitiful piece of crap it is. I am sure Leopard will help increase the Mac's market share even higher. Having more DRM free music available is not going to hurt the iPod, I believe it will help instead. It means more music will be available to play on any device and the iPod remains the best music player out there. I don't see any reason why the iPod should not continue dominating the market. You would have to be tremendously pessimistic not to believe that Apple will continue to succeed in the next few years.
I agree that Apple is doing extremely well, and I'm surely hoping that it continues to do so. That's why I think we have to realistic about it's failures, and mis-steps, as well.
By the way, $184 is about 37 times as much value as it was then, at $10, or about 23 times as much as when I bought it at $16.93 a share mid 2004.
It's not just the US. If you're in a country governed by the Berne convention, then off-license use is very questionable legality at best. Most countries are Berne signatories. The ones that aren't signatories are usually very tiny countries, like single islands, tiny archipelagos and such.
but unlike other countries (US), that won't make a difference. we have flea markets full of "unlicensed" music and movies, right on the main avenues and streets of latam cities, open during business hours selling this stuff and it's ok... any conventions or copyright laws are not enforced, known or cared about. that's latam. so, same difference. in here it's like... "who cares. we don't even have itunes. let's go to the flea market or download from russian stores wooo"
Will to compensate creators for something of value.
Investment in the chance that the creators go on to make more good stuff if compensated for their previous creations.
If people were concerned with that, they would have been buying the CD's to begin with, not waiting for them to magically appear as digital downloads to buy.
Convenience of finding the things you search for easily.
The utility of finding good stuff you weren't aware of, with functions like Amazon's "what did people buy after viewing this", recommendation lists, et cetera.
Trust that you are really getting what you think you are getting - not a virus infested, spanish subtitled version recorded with a cell phone camera in a theater.
At least these have some validity. But seaching a P2P network isn't that much harder than any other search, like iTunes or Amazon.
The last point, knowing what you're getting, is perhaps the biggest selling point for piracy vs. digital downloads. That and knowing the purchased content will have some modicum of quality.
I used to pirate *everything*. Now all the software on my computer is legit.And if CD sales were stopped, music sales wouldn't plummet because people would just go back to C cassettes? No. There are lots of people today who have never grown to deal with optical disks. Better alternatives exist and there is no going back.
Well, there would have to be cassettes to go back to, wouldn't there? Do they still make cassettes? You'd probably have an easier time finding a vinyl record. Yes, I do think that people would go back to their old ways if downloads ceased to exist, either buying the CD or borrowing it and copying from a friend. The few converted pirates would go back to pirating. And the even fewer who didn't understand the concept of a CD would pretty quickly figure it out. As soon as there is a better alternative to an optical disc, I will embrace it, but I won't accept a step back in quality in the process.
There was never any question that actions taken by Amelio saved the company back then. That's been acknowledged.
Yes, he hired Jobs via buying NeXT then stepped out of the picture. So what? Apple wouldn't be half the company it is today if Amelio had remained CEO until 2007.
$740M loss Q1, $33M loss Q2, $30M profit Q3, $161M loss Q4. That's Amelio's record.
What was Amelio's grand plan? Reshuffling of PL centers. Newton spin-off. Hiring his replacement (probably not intentionally) and being smart enough to realize Jobs > Gassee by several orders of magnitude regardless of NeXT vs BeOS.
Contrast that with Jobs. New BoD, axing clones, MS Office for the Mac and a 5-year cross patent agreement with MS, direct sales of computers over the web and phone. Boom. WHILE running Pixar.