Microsoft never had to make a consumer friendly product that didn't ride on someone else's coattails. That's how they achieved the major success. The rest of it with Office was illegal hampering of their major competitors, which is why they lost that first Federal lawsuit in the early '90's. Then by killing Netscape with more shenanigans later, in which they again got caught.
Their only other big "success" if you can call it that, has been the XBox 360. But they've lost over a billion dollars a year on their entertainment division since the first XBox came out. So therefor, the word "success" is laced with some venom.
They really don't know how to make a consumer product. That's hard to believe, but it's true. It's company culture.
I don't know if there is any way around it.
What they've really never had to do is compete on a level playing field. They are very practiced when it comes to yanking the rug out from under real or theoretical competitors (often as you say by illegal means), but if they are remarkably inept when it comes to developing and delivering new products from scratch in a competitive market. What Microsoft needs is a Jobsian personality at the top, someone who can say "that sucks, do it over!" I mean, clearly their approach to mobile sucks. Why doesn't anyone at Microsoft in a position to do something about it, know this? Such a mystery!
I'm not even sure your assertion is true here, I think you're assuming this part. My dad doesn't understand computers at all and he has 5 apps open on his computer right now.
I'll retract that comment. This link suggests that 75% multitask.
What they've really never had to do is compete on a level playing field. They are very practiced when it comes to yanking the rug out from under real or theoretical competitors (often as you say by illegal means), but if they are remarkably inept when it comes to developing and delivering new products from scratch in a competitive market. What Microsoft needs is a Jobsian personality at the top, someone who can say "that sucks, do it over!" I mean, clearly their approach to mobile sucks. Why doesn't anyone at Microsoft in a position to do something about it, know this? Such a mystery!
Microsoft made its fortune as a mostly business oriented company. They've never had to worry about consumer concerns because even when consumers began buying into computers seriously in the mid '90s, they mostly did so because of their work experiences. So they bought work machines and software for home. Most other software was supplied by third parties. The one or two things they did offer, such as a game or two or a consumer version of some professional software, did well, but that was it. PC people bought it because they had little else to buy until the consumer industry gathered momentum.
Once MS attempted to get into other areas, they were out of their league. Investments in telecommunications went bust, as did major investments elsewhere.
Monopoly profits were so high that they had to spend the money on something, and so they did. But I think that in that rush, they simply made ill conceived decisions.
This whole thing reminds me of conversations I've had about talent.
People think that just because someone can play an instrument well enough, or sing, or paint etc, that the person has talent.
Not so. Almost anyone can be trained to do that. It's a craft, and the skills can be learned by most people who are willing to put the effort in.
But talent is different. A rare few are really talented. But even true talent takes time and effort to bring out properly.
What I see is that both Gates and Ballmer are both very smart guys, despite the silly comments we get here about that. Gates was a wily one, and willing to commit himself to unethical and sometimes illegal behavior to get what he wanted. Ballmer, less so. I also think that Ballmer's actions are often contrived.
But neither one is truly talented in "seeing" and "feeling" what is good and what isn't.
Jobs, early on showed promise, but was very rough, and unprepared for his role. That's the major reason why he left Apple. During his NEXT years he again showed that he didn't really understand what was wanted and needed. That doesn't detract from NEXT's excellent software, just that he couldn't persuade anyone to buy the products in any great numbers. It's been estimated that NEXT sold no more than 50,000 machines in total, which is why they dropped hardware later on.
When he came back to Apple he didn't show anything special the first few years either, despite his fans' thinking.
But as time went on, he seems to have learned. The first iPod was in his words; "A nice little product for us". I really don't think they knew what they had in the beginning. Only when demand went through the roof, for PC users as well (remember it didn't work with PC's in the beginning, and when it finally did, Apple had to supply other software for it for a while) did he understand what had happened.
And this is where things changed. As there's no doubt that Jobs is fully in charge of the company's direction, there's no doubt that he decided to take the next steps, and they were brilliant.
Everything that Apple is today stems from what seems to be that sudden realization they had. Jobs has taken the ship in a new direction.
But he shows talent in understanding products and design. He also became confident enough to surround himself with other major talents in that area, something not often done.
That's the difference. While Ballmer, and no doubt Gates, need to have product design done by committee, Jobs can spec much of it himself, and decide the final details.
It's a big difference, and why MS can't go down that path. From their beginnings, to their leadership, they don't have the constitution for it, or the ability.
Microsoft made its fortune as a mostly business oriented company. They've never had to worry about consumer concerns because even when consumers began buying into computers seriously in the mid '90s, they mostly did so because of their work experiences. So they bought work machines and software for home. Most other software was supplied by third parties. The one or two things they did offer, such as a game or two or a consumer version of some professional software, did well, but that was it. PC people bought it because they had little else to buy until the consumer industry gathered momentum.
Once MS attempted to get into other areas, they were out of their league. Investments in telecommunications went bust, as did major investments elsewhere.
Monopoly profits were so high that they had to spend the money on something, and so they did. But I think that in that rush, they simply made ill conceived decisions.
This whole thing reminds me of conversations I've had about talent.
People think that just because someone can play an instrument well enough, or sing, or paint etc, that the person has talent.
Not so. Almost anyone can be trained to do that. It's a craft, and the skills can be learned by most people who are willing to put the effort in.
But talent is different. A rare few are really talented. But even true talent takes time and effort to bring out properly.
What I see is that both Gates and Ballmer are both very smart guys, despite the silly comments we get here about that. Gates was a wily one, and willing to commit himself to unethical and sometimes illegal behavior to get what he wanted. Ballmer, less so. I also think that Ballmer's actions are often contrived.
But neither one is truly talented in "seeing" and "feeling" what is good and what isn't.
Jobs, early on showed promise, but was very rough, and unprepared for his role. That's the major reason why he left Apple. During his NEXT years he again showed that he didn't really understand what was wanted and needed. That doesn't detract from NEXT's excellent software, just that he couldn't persuade anyone to buy the products in any great numbers. It's been estimated that NEXT sold no more than 50,000 machines in total, which is why they dropped hardware later on.
When he came back to Apple he didn't show anything special the first few years either, despite his fans' thinking.
But as time went on, he seems to have learned. The first iPod was in his words; "A nice little product for us". I really don't think they knew what they had in the beginning. Only when demand went through the roof, for PC users as well (remember it didn't work with PC's in the beginning, and when it finally did, Apple had to supply other software for it for a while) did he understand what had happened.
And this is where things changed. As there's no doubt that Jobs is fully in charge of the company's direction, there's no doubt that he decided to take the next steps, and they were brilliant.
Everything that Apple is today stems from what seems to be that sudden realization they had. Jobs has taken the ship in a new direction.
But he shows talent in understanding products and design. He also became confident enough to surround himself with other major talents in that area, something not often done.
That's the difference. While Ballmer, and no doubt Gates, need to have product design done by committee, Jobs can spec much of it himself, and decide the final details.
It's a big difference, and why MS can't go down that path. From their beginnings, to their leadership, they don't have the constitution for it, or the ability.
Very well written view and I find it very compelling. I think SJ always was in another dimension compared to his piers but sometimes being in the right place at the right time PLUS realizing it, is required. He had that gift, and more than once, which is rare in one life time.
I'll retract that comment. This link suggests that 75% multitask.
I guess I'm only observing luddites.
No I still think you were on the money. I bet a large portion that said they multitasking were referring to drinking coffee and reading the paper at the same time as waiting for Windows to update.
Microsoft made its fortune as a mostly business oriented company. They've never had to worry about consumer concerns because even when consumers began buying into computers seriously in the mid '90s, they mostly did so because of their work experiences. So they bought work machines and software for home. Most other software was supplied by third parties. The one or two things they did offer, such as a game or two or a consumer version of some professional software, did well, but that was it. PC people bought it because they had little else to buy until the consumer industry gathered momentum.
Once MS attempted to get into other areas, they were out of their league. Investments in telecommunications went bust, as did major investments elsewhere.
Monopoly profits were so high that they had to spend the money on something, and so they did. But I think that in that rush, they simply made ill conceived decisions.
This whole thing reminds me of conversations I've had about talent.
People think that just because someone can play an instrument well enough, or sing, or paint etc, that the person has talent.
Not so. Almost anyone can be trained to do that. It's a craft, and the skills can be learned by most people who are willing to put the effort in.
But talent is different. A rare few are really talented. But even true talent takes time and effort to bring out properly.
What I see is that both Gates and Ballmer are both very smart guys, despite the silly comments we get here about that. Gates was a wily one, and willing to commit himself to unethical and sometimes illegal behavior to get what he wanted. Ballmer, less so. I also think that Ballmer's actions are often contrived.
But neither one is truly talented in "seeing" and "feeling" what is good and what isn't.
Jobs, early on showed promise, but was very rough, and unprepared for his role. That's the major reason why he left Apple. During his NEXT years he again showed that he didn't really understand what was wanted and needed. That doesn't detract from NEXT's excellent software, just that he couldn't persuade anyone to buy the products in any great numbers. It's been estimated that NEXT sold no more than 50,000 machines in total, which is why they dropped hardware later on.
When he came back to Apple he didn't show anything special the first few years either, despite his fans' thinking.
But as time went on, he seems to have learned. The first iPod was in his words; "A nice little product for us". I really don't think they knew what they had in the beginning. Only when demand went through the roof, for PC users as well (remember it didn't work with PC's in the beginning, and when it finally did, Apple had to supply other software for it for a while) did he understand what had happened.
And this is where things changed. As there's no doubt that Jobs is fully in charge of the company's direction, there's no doubt that he decided to take the next steps, and they were brilliant.
Everything that Apple is today stems from what seems to be that sudden realization they had. Jobs has taken the ship in a new direction.
But he shows talent in understanding products and design. He also became confident enough to surround himself with other major talents in that area, something not often done.
That's the difference. While Ballmer, and no doubt Gates, need to have product design done by committee, Jobs can spec much of it himself, and decide the final details.
It's a big difference, and why MS can't go down that path. From their beginnings, to their leadership, they don't have the constitution for it, or the ability.
I agree with this, but I'm not sure you're giving El Jobso enough credit.
They mave have lucked into the iPod product, but the iPod and iPhone aren't just neat products that are well designed, they're great franchises. They are very resistant to competition with advantages that competitors are struggling to match.
I also don't think SJ get enough credit for his business vision. His eye for product design is well understood but his business vision not to try to simply steal market share from MS is proving to be wise. If someone would have told you ten years ago that apple still wouldn't have 10% market share would you have thought that Apple would be as profitable and have as much influence in the tech industry as they do? Granted a lot of that profit and mind share comes from the iPod and iPhone franchises but the Mac business is still highly profitable and influential.
Years ago someone asked SJ what he would do if he were running Apple. He said he would milk the Mac franchise until the next big thing comes along. Does that sound familiar? No doubt that there is some luck involved, but SJ is making a lot of his luck for Apple.
Monopoly profits were so high that they had to spend the money on something, and so they did. But I think that in that rush, they simply made ill conceived decisions.
Nice analysis. I fully agree.
Honing in on this observation, I think this is the place where Microsoft slipped off the rails. They had that "hedge of money" (credit to Guy Kawasaki for the line) which gave them a far too comfortable margin for error. Combine that with the arrogance of having success come too quickly and too easily, and you get a habit of thinking you were born to win. Even retreats look like victories to someone in that mindset.
This dovetails into previous discussions we've had about Apple's cash hoard. With huge cash reserves, and so much more pouring in every day, it's easy to spend it in the wrong place, not to mention, to start believing your own hype. So this is also a place where Apple could make a big mistake, or a series of small ones that add up. It's tough to stay hungry when you're stuffing your face. Microsoft couldn't do it.
I agree with this, but I'm not sure you're giving El Jobso enough credit.
Oh no, I've given him plenty f credit. business s a very difficult thing. I know that from my own experiences over the years. but its subtle.
{quote]
They mave have lucked into the iPod product, but the iPod and iPhone aren't just neat products that are well designed, they're great franchises. They are very resistant to competition with advantages that competitors are struggling to match.[/quote]
I didn't mention that is was so well designed. I thought that was understood. I did give my opinion later in the post about Jobs, Apple, and design.
I didn't want to go into all the details of what we already know about this, and have discussed many times.
Quote:
I also don't think SJ get enough credit for his business vision. His eye for product design is well understood but his business vision not to try to simply steal market share from MS is proving to be wise. If someone would have told you ten years ago that apple still wouldn't have 10% market share would you have thought that Apple would be as profitable and have as much influence in the tech industry as they do? Granted a lot of that profit and mind share comes from the iPod and iPhone franchises but the Mac business is still highly profitable and influential.
As I said, he learned over the years.
Quote:
Years ago someone asked SJ what he would do if he were running Apple. He said he would milk the Mac franchise until the next big thing comes along. Does that sound familiar? No doubt that there is some luck involved, but SJ is making a lot of his luck for Apple.
I already said that here in an earlier post. You must not have read it.
Honing in on this observation, I think this is the place where Microsoft slipped off the rails. They had that "hedge of money" (credit to Guy Kawasaki for the line) which gave them a far too comfortable margin for error. Combine that with the arrogance of having success come too quickly and too easily, and you get a habit of thinking you were born to win. Even retreats look like victories to someone in that mindset.
Yes, exactly.
Quote:
This dovetails into previous discussions we've had about Apple's cash hoard. With huge cash reserves, and so much more pouring in every day, it's easy to spend it in the wrong place, not to mention, to start believing your own hype. So this is also a place where Apple could make a big mistake, or a series of small ones that add up. It's tough to stay hungry when you're stuffing your face. Microsoft couldn't do it.
And this is where I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for some time.
No I still think you were on the money. I bet a large portion that said they multitasking were referring to drinking coffee and reading the paper at the same time as waiting for Windows to update.
Multitasking comes in many forms.. Waiting for a Windows update.. Hmm.. that's another story..
I'll retract that comment. This link suggests that 75% multitask.
I guess I'm only observing luddites.
Sometimes these are only form a small group of reespondants and does not represent that many people can multitask, so it can be potentially inaccurate IMO..
Microsoft made its fortune as a mostly business oriented company. They've never had to worry about consumer concerns because even when consumers began buying into computers seriously in the mid '90s, they mostly did so because of their work experiences. So they bought work machines and software for home. Most other software was supplied by third parties. The one or two things they did offer, such as a game or two or a consumer version of some professional software, did well, but that was it. PC people bought it because they had little else to buy until the consumer industry gathered momentum.
Once MS attempted to get into other areas, they were out of their league. Investments in telecommunications went bust, as did major investments elsewhere.
Monopoly profits were so high that they had to spend the money on something, and so they did. But I think that in that rush, they simply made ill conceived decisions.
This whole thing reminds me of conversations I've had about talent.
People think that just because someone can play an instrument well enough, or sing, or paint etc, that the person has talent.
Not so. Almost anyone can be trained to do that. It's a craft, and the skills can be learned by most people who are willing to put the effort in.
But talent is different. A rare few are really talented. But even true talent takes time and effort to bring out properly.
What I see is that both Gates and Ballmer are both very smart guys, despite the silly comments we get here about that. Gates was a wily one, and willing to commit himself to unethical and sometimes illegal behavior to get what he wanted. Ballmer, less so. I also think that Ballmer's actions are often contrived.
But neither one is truly talented in "seeing" and "feeling" what is good and what isn't.
Jobs, early on showed promise, but was very rough, and unprepared for his role. That's the major reason why he left Apple. During his NEXT years he again showed that he didn't really understand what was wanted and needed. That doesn't detract from NEXT's excellent software, just that he couldn't persuade anyone to buy the products in any great numbers. It's been estimated that NEXT sold no more than 50,000 machines in total, which is why they dropped hardware later on.
When he came back to Apple he didn't show anything special the first few years either, despite his fans' thinking.
But as time went on, he seems to have learned. The first iPod was in his words; "A nice little product for us". I really don't think they knew what they had in the beginning. Only when demand went through the roof, for PC users as well (remember it didn't work with PC's in the beginning, and when it finally did, Apple had to supply other software for it for a while) did he understand what had happened.
And this is where things changed. As there's no doubt that Jobs is fully in charge of the company's direction, there's no doubt that he decided to take the next steps, and they were brilliant.
Everything that Apple is today stems from what seems to be that sudden realization they had. Jobs has taken the ship in a new direction.
But he shows talent in understanding products and design. He also became confident enough to surround himself with other major talents in that area, something not often done.
That's the difference. While Ballmer, and no doubt Gates, need to have product design done by committee, Jobs can spec much of it himself, and decide the final details.
It's a big difference, and why MS can't go down that path. From their beginnings, to their leadership, they don't have the constitution for it, or the ability.
That's a very informative post, Melgross. Interesting stuff about Apple and Microsoft. Thanks for your time to post that stuff!
And this is where I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for some time.
I know. If I were immediately alarmed, I would have sold my AAPL already, and I'm not ready to do that. But I am watchful for signs of smugness and self-satisfaction. You know, the things that nearly killed Apple before -- and are slowly strangling Microsoft.
One of my theories about why Apple has been so successful over the past few years is that the powers that be understood one, fundamental thing: that only staying even would be seen as a failure. That kind of raw survival impulse is a great motivator. A lot of big companies have shown us what happens when they lose it -- GM, IBM, and now Microsoft. Others could easily be named.
I know. If I were immediately alarmed, I would have sold my AAPL already, and I'm not ready to do that. But I am watchful for signs of smugness and self-satisfaction. You know, the things that nearly killed Apple before -- and are slowly strangling Microsoft.
One of my theories about why Apple has been so successful over the past few years is that the powers that be understood one, fundamental thing: that only staying even would be seen as a failure. That kind of raw survival impulse is a great motivator. A lot of big companies have shown us what happens when they lose it -- GM, IBM, and now Microsoft. Others could easily be named.
Now it appears as though Apple may be considering a stock buyback in the future.
I have to say that I don't like them either. I'd much rather see investments to the business.
But if they would do something like this, and throw their money away, which is what stock buybacks are, I' just rather they did give it to us instead. So I would be with you there.
I can't understand why they would do a stock buyback with their earnings per share moving up anyway, and the stock price as well.
Oh no, I've given him plenty f credit. business s a very difficult thing. I know that from my own experiences over the years. but its subtle.
{quote]
They mave have lucked into the iPod product, but the iPod and iPhone aren't just neat products that are well designed, they're great franchises. They are very resistant to competition with advantages that competitors are struggling to match.
I didn't mention that is was so well designed. I thought that was understood. I did give my opinion later in the post about Jobs, Apple, and design.
I didn't want to go into all the details of what we already know about this, and have discussed many times.
As I said, he learned over the years.
+1. In fact, nothing can dethrone any Apple product till now, save the Apple TV. Really, there is nothing out there that can overcome the standard laid down by Apple.
I already said that here in an earlier post. You must not have read it.[/QUOTE]
I have to say that I don't like them either. I'd much rather see investments to the business.
But if they would do something like this, and throw their money away, which is what stock buybacks are, I' just rather they did give it to us instead. So I would be with you there.
I can't understand why they would do a stock buyback with their earnings per share moving up anyway, and the stock price as well.
I doubt a buyback will occur now. If Apple was going to buy back shares, they'd have done it a few months ago, when AAPL was selling for under $!00. Reading the original article, it's clear that this just the speculation of one analyst, and not anything he knows Apple to be considering. In theory buybacks do raise share value for stockholders by automatically increasing EPS from what it would have been, but I don't see it happening, or moving the needle very much if it did.
I doubt a buyback will occur now. If Apple was going to buy back shares, they'd have done it a few months ago, when AAPL was selling for under $!00. Reading the original article, it's clear that this just the speculation of one analyst, and not anything he knows Apple to be considering. In theory buybacks do raise share value for stockholders by automatically increasing EPS from what it would have been, but I don't see it happening, or moving the needle very much if it did.
It's hard to tell from the article for certain, but it seems as though he's saying that Apple told him that they were considering it. It's open to interpretation.
I never like the idea. It has, at best, fleeting advantage for stockholders, as more often than not, stock prices slide right back down again after a short time. It's mostly used by companies whose stock is on an inevitable slide. It, of course, does nothing for the company itself. Profits remain the same. It's more like a cover-up. If EPS doesn't look good, instead of doing what would bring it up, we'll pretend we did, by buying shares back and retiring them. The only time I think it's valid is when they need to do so for the sake of compensation.
It's used when management is devoid of ideas of how to make the business more successful.
It can partially reverse the dilution effect of granting a lot of options to management, but I can't get too excited by a buyback either. When AAPL was at $80 it might have been a bit of a confidence builder for the board to buy back shares, and say in effect, that the stock is cheap now. At this point, I don't see what purpose is served.
It can partially reverse the dilution effect of granting a lot of options to management, but I can't get too excited by a buyback either. When AAPL was at $80 it might have been a bit of a confidence builder for the board to buy back shares, and say in effect, that the stock is cheap now. At this point, I don't see what purpose is served.
Companies usually maintain "live" shares for the purpose of compensation, options etc. So dilution isn't always happening, even so, it depends on the number of shares out there. Apple has a bit over 900 million in public hands, MS has over 9 billion.
Comments
Microsoft never had to make a consumer friendly product that didn't ride on someone else's coattails. That's how they achieved the major success. The rest of it with Office was illegal hampering of their major competitors, which is why they lost that first Federal lawsuit in the early '90's. Then by killing Netscape with more shenanigans later, in which they again got caught.
Their only other big "success" if you can call it that, has been the XBox 360. But they've lost over a billion dollars a year on their entertainment division since the first XBox came out. So therefor, the word "success" is laced with some venom.
They really don't know how to make a consumer product. That's hard to believe, but it's true. It's company culture.
I don't know if there is any way around it.
What they've really never had to do is compete on a level playing field. They are very practiced when it comes to yanking the rug out from under real or theoretical competitors (often as you say by illegal means), but if they are remarkably inept when it comes to developing and delivering new products from scratch in a competitive market. What Microsoft needs is a Jobsian personality at the top, someone who can say "that sucks, do it over!" I mean, clearly their approach to mobile sucks. Why doesn't anyone at Microsoft in a position to do something about it, know this? Such a mystery!
I'm not even sure your assertion is true here, I think you're assuming this part. My dad doesn't understand computers at all and he has 5 apps open on his computer right now.
I'll retract that comment. This link suggests that 75% multitask.
I guess I'm only observing luddites.
What they've really never had to do is compete on a level playing field. They are very practiced when it comes to yanking the rug out from under real or theoretical competitors (often as you say by illegal means), but if they are remarkably inept when it comes to developing and delivering new products from scratch in a competitive market. What Microsoft needs is a Jobsian personality at the top, someone who can say "that sucks, do it over!" I mean, clearly their approach to mobile sucks. Why doesn't anyone at Microsoft in a position to do something about it, know this? Such a mystery!
Microsoft made its fortune as a mostly business oriented company. They've never had to worry about consumer concerns because even when consumers began buying into computers seriously in the mid '90s, they mostly did so because of their work experiences. So they bought work machines and software for home. Most other software was supplied by third parties. The one or two things they did offer, such as a game or two or a consumer version of some professional software, did well, but that was it. PC people bought it because they had little else to buy until the consumer industry gathered momentum.
Once MS attempted to get into other areas, they were out of their league. Investments in telecommunications went bust, as did major investments elsewhere.
Monopoly profits were so high that they had to spend the money on something, and so they did. But I think that in that rush, they simply made ill conceived decisions.
This whole thing reminds me of conversations I've had about talent.
People think that just because someone can play an instrument well enough, or sing, or paint etc, that the person has talent.
Not so. Almost anyone can be trained to do that. It's a craft, and the skills can be learned by most people who are willing to put the effort in.
But talent is different. A rare few are really talented. But even true talent takes time and effort to bring out properly.
What I see is that both Gates and Ballmer are both very smart guys, despite the silly comments we get here about that. Gates was a wily one, and willing to commit himself to unethical and sometimes illegal behavior to get what he wanted. Ballmer, less so. I also think that Ballmer's actions are often contrived.
But neither one is truly talented in "seeing" and "feeling" what is good and what isn't.
Jobs, early on showed promise, but was very rough, and unprepared for his role. That's the major reason why he left Apple. During his NEXT years he again showed that he didn't really understand what was wanted and needed. That doesn't detract from NEXT's excellent software, just that he couldn't persuade anyone to buy the products in any great numbers. It's been estimated that NEXT sold no more than 50,000 machines in total, which is why they dropped hardware later on.
When he came back to Apple he didn't show anything special the first few years either, despite his fans' thinking.
But as time went on, he seems to have learned. The first iPod was in his words; "A nice little product for us". I really don't think they knew what they had in the beginning. Only when demand went through the roof, for PC users as well (remember it didn't work with PC's in the beginning, and when it finally did, Apple had to supply other software for it for a while) did he understand what had happened.
And this is where things changed. As there's no doubt that Jobs is fully in charge of the company's direction, there's no doubt that he decided to take the next steps, and they were brilliant.
Everything that Apple is today stems from what seems to be that sudden realization they had. Jobs has taken the ship in a new direction.
But he shows talent in understanding products and design. He also became confident enough to surround himself with other major talents in that area, something not often done.
That's the difference. While Ballmer, and no doubt Gates, need to have product design done by committee, Jobs can spec much of it himself, and decide the final details.
It's a big difference, and why MS can't go down that path. From their beginnings, to their leadership, they don't have the constitution for it, or the ability.
Microsoft made its fortune as a mostly business oriented company. They've never had to worry about consumer concerns because even when consumers began buying into computers seriously in the mid '90s, they mostly did so because of their work experiences. So they bought work machines and software for home. Most other software was supplied by third parties. The one or two things they did offer, such as a game or two or a consumer version of some professional software, did well, but that was it. PC people bought it because they had little else to buy until the consumer industry gathered momentum.
Once MS attempted to get into other areas, they were out of their league. Investments in telecommunications went bust, as did major investments elsewhere.
Monopoly profits were so high that they had to spend the money on something, and so they did. But I think that in that rush, they simply made ill conceived decisions.
This whole thing reminds me of conversations I've had about talent.
People think that just because someone can play an instrument well enough, or sing, or paint etc, that the person has talent.
Not so. Almost anyone can be trained to do that. It's a craft, and the skills can be learned by most people who are willing to put the effort in.
But talent is different. A rare few are really talented. But even true talent takes time and effort to bring out properly.
What I see is that both Gates and Ballmer are both very smart guys, despite the silly comments we get here about that. Gates was a wily one, and willing to commit himself to unethical and sometimes illegal behavior to get what he wanted. Ballmer, less so. I also think that Ballmer's actions are often contrived.
But neither one is truly talented in "seeing" and "feeling" what is good and what isn't.
Jobs, early on showed promise, but was very rough, and unprepared for his role. That's the major reason why he left Apple. During his NEXT years he again showed that he didn't really understand what was wanted and needed. That doesn't detract from NEXT's excellent software, just that he couldn't persuade anyone to buy the products in any great numbers. It's been estimated that NEXT sold no more than 50,000 machines in total, which is why they dropped hardware later on.
When he came back to Apple he didn't show anything special the first few years either, despite his fans' thinking.
But as time went on, he seems to have learned. The first iPod was in his words; "A nice little product for us". I really don't think they knew what they had in the beginning. Only when demand went through the roof, for PC users as well (remember it didn't work with PC's in the beginning, and when it finally did, Apple had to supply other software for it for a while) did he understand what had happened.
And this is where things changed. As there's no doubt that Jobs is fully in charge of the company's direction, there's no doubt that he decided to take the next steps, and they were brilliant.
Everything that Apple is today stems from what seems to be that sudden realization they had. Jobs has taken the ship in a new direction.
But he shows talent in understanding products and design. He also became confident enough to surround himself with other major talents in that area, something not often done.
That's the difference. While Ballmer, and no doubt Gates, need to have product design done by committee, Jobs can spec much of it himself, and decide the final details.
It's a big difference, and why MS can't go down that path. From their beginnings, to their leadership, they don't have the constitution for it, or the ability.
Very well written view and I find it very compelling. I think SJ always was in another dimension compared to his piers but sometimes being in the right place at the right time PLUS realizing it, is required. He had that gift, and more than once, which is rare in one life time.
I'll retract that comment. This link suggests that 75% multitask.
I guess I'm only observing luddites.
No I still think you were on the money. I bet a large portion that said they multitasking were referring to drinking coffee and reading the paper at the same time as waiting for Windows to update.
Microsoft made its fortune as a mostly business oriented company. They've never had to worry about consumer concerns because even when consumers began buying into computers seriously in the mid '90s, they mostly did so because of their work experiences. So they bought work machines and software for home. Most other software was supplied by third parties. The one or two things they did offer, such as a game or two or a consumer version of some professional software, did well, but that was it. PC people bought it because they had little else to buy until the consumer industry gathered momentum.
Once MS attempted to get into other areas, they were out of their league. Investments in telecommunications went bust, as did major investments elsewhere.
Monopoly profits were so high that they had to spend the money on something, and so they did. But I think that in that rush, they simply made ill conceived decisions.
This whole thing reminds me of conversations I've had about talent.
People think that just because someone can play an instrument well enough, or sing, or paint etc, that the person has talent.
Not so. Almost anyone can be trained to do that. It's a craft, and the skills can be learned by most people who are willing to put the effort in.
But talent is different. A rare few are really talented. But even true talent takes time and effort to bring out properly.
What I see is that both Gates and Ballmer are both very smart guys, despite the silly comments we get here about that. Gates was a wily one, and willing to commit himself to unethical and sometimes illegal behavior to get what he wanted. Ballmer, less so. I also think that Ballmer's actions are often contrived.
But neither one is truly talented in "seeing" and "feeling" what is good and what isn't.
Jobs, early on showed promise, but was very rough, and unprepared for his role. That's the major reason why he left Apple. During his NEXT years he again showed that he didn't really understand what was wanted and needed. That doesn't detract from NEXT's excellent software, just that he couldn't persuade anyone to buy the products in any great numbers. It's been estimated that NEXT sold no more than 50,000 machines in total, which is why they dropped hardware later on.
When he came back to Apple he didn't show anything special the first few years either, despite his fans' thinking.
But as time went on, he seems to have learned. The first iPod was in his words; "A nice little product for us". I really don't think they knew what they had in the beginning. Only when demand went through the roof, for PC users as well (remember it didn't work with PC's in the beginning, and when it finally did, Apple had to supply other software for it for a while) did he understand what had happened.
And this is where things changed. As there's no doubt that Jobs is fully in charge of the company's direction, there's no doubt that he decided to take the next steps, and they were brilliant.
Everything that Apple is today stems from what seems to be that sudden realization they had. Jobs has taken the ship in a new direction.
But he shows talent in understanding products and design. He also became confident enough to surround himself with other major talents in that area, something not often done.
That's the difference. While Ballmer, and no doubt Gates, need to have product design done by committee, Jobs can spec much of it himself, and decide the final details.
It's a big difference, and why MS can't go down that path. From their beginnings, to their leadership, they don't have the constitution for it, or the ability.
I agree with this, but I'm not sure you're giving El Jobso enough credit.
They mave have lucked into the iPod product, but the iPod and iPhone aren't just neat products that are well designed, they're great franchises. They are very resistant to competition with advantages that competitors are struggling to match.
I also don't think SJ get enough credit for his business vision. His eye for product design is well understood but his business vision not to try to simply steal market share from MS is proving to be wise. If someone would have told you ten years ago that apple still wouldn't have 10% market share would you have thought that Apple would be as profitable and have as much influence in the tech industry as they do? Granted a lot of that profit and mind share comes from the iPod and iPhone franchises but the Mac business is still highly profitable and influential.
Years ago someone asked SJ what he would do if he were running Apple. He said he would milk the Mac franchise until the next big thing comes along. Does that sound familiar? No doubt that there is some luck involved, but SJ is making a lot of his luck for Apple.
Monopoly profits were so high that they had to spend the money on something, and so they did. But I think that in that rush, they simply made ill conceived decisions.
Nice analysis. I fully agree.
Honing in on this observation, I think this is the place where Microsoft slipped off the rails. They had that "hedge of money" (credit to Guy Kawasaki for the line) which gave them a far too comfortable margin for error. Combine that with the arrogance of having success come too quickly and too easily, and you get a habit of thinking you were born to win. Even retreats look like victories to someone in that mindset.
This dovetails into previous discussions we've had about Apple's cash hoard. With huge cash reserves, and so much more pouring in every day, it's easy to spend it in the wrong place, not to mention, to start believing your own hype. So this is also a place where Apple could make a big mistake, or a series of small ones that add up. It's tough to stay hungry when you're stuffing your face. Microsoft couldn't do it.
I'll retract that comment. This link suggests that 75% multitask.
I guess I'm only observing luddites.
In all fairness to you, that is a reposted Intel press release. Press release stats are as suspicious as stats spouted for political reasons.
I agree with this, but I'm not sure you're giving El Jobso enough credit.
Oh no, I've given him plenty f credit. business s a very difficult thing. I know that from my own experiences over the years. but its subtle.
{quote]
They mave have lucked into the iPod product, but the iPod and iPhone aren't just neat products that are well designed, they're great franchises. They are very resistant to competition with advantages that competitors are struggling to match.[/quote]
I didn't mention that is was so well designed. I thought that was understood. I did give my opinion later in the post about Jobs, Apple, and design.
I didn't want to go into all the details of what we already know about this, and have discussed many times.
I also don't think SJ get enough credit for his business vision. His eye for product design is well understood but his business vision not to try to simply steal market share from MS is proving to be wise. If someone would have told you ten years ago that apple still wouldn't have 10% market share would you have thought that Apple would be as profitable and have as much influence in the tech industry as they do? Granted a lot of that profit and mind share comes from the iPod and iPhone franchises but the Mac business is still highly profitable and influential.
As I said, he learned over the years.
Years ago someone asked SJ what he would do if he were running Apple. He said he would milk the Mac franchise until the next big thing comes along. Does that sound familiar? No doubt that there is some luck involved, but SJ is making a lot of his luck for Apple.
I already said that here in an earlier post. You must not have read it.
Nice analysis. I fully agree.
Honing in on this observation, I think this is the place where Microsoft slipped off the rails. They had that "hedge of money" (credit to Guy Kawasaki for the line) which gave them a far too comfortable margin for error. Combine that with the arrogance of having success come too quickly and too easily, and you get a habit of thinking you were born to win. Even retreats look like victories to someone in that mindset.
Yes, exactly.
This dovetails into previous discussions we've had about Apple's cash hoard. With huge cash reserves, and so much more pouring in every day, it's easy to spend it in the wrong place, not to mention, to start believing your own hype. So this is also a place where Apple could make a big mistake, or a series of small ones that add up. It's tough to stay hungry when you're stuffing your face. Microsoft couldn't do it.
And this is where I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for some time.
No I still think you were on the money. I bet a large portion that said they multitasking were referring to drinking coffee and reading the paper at the same time as waiting for Windows to update.
Multitasking comes in many forms.. Waiting for a Windows update.. Hmm.. that's another story..
I'll retract that comment. This link suggests that 75% multitask.
I guess I'm only observing luddites.
Sometimes these are only form a small group of reespondants and does not represent that many people can multitask, so it can be potentially inaccurate IMO..
Microsoft made its fortune as a mostly business oriented company. They've never had to worry about consumer concerns because even when consumers began buying into computers seriously in the mid '90s, they mostly did so because of their work experiences. So they bought work machines and software for home. Most other software was supplied by third parties. The one or two things they did offer, such as a game or two or a consumer version of some professional software, did well, but that was it. PC people bought it because they had little else to buy until the consumer industry gathered momentum.
Once MS attempted to get into other areas, they were out of their league. Investments in telecommunications went bust, as did major investments elsewhere.
Monopoly profits were so high that they had to spend the money on something, and so they did. But I think that in that rush, they simply made ill conceived decisions.
This whole thing reminds me of conversations I've had about talent.
People think that just because someone can play an instrument well enough, or sing, or paint etc, that the person has talent.
Not so. Almost anyone can be trained to do that. It's a craft, and the skills can be learned by most people who are willing to put the effort in.
But talent is different. A rare few are really talented. But even true talent takes time and effort to bring out properly.
What I see is that both Gates and Ballmer are both very smart guys, despite the silly comments we get here about that. Gates was a wily one, and willing to commit himself to unethical and sometimes illegal behavior to get what he wanted. Ballmer, less so. I also think that Ballmer's actions are often contrived.
But neither one is truly talented in "seeing" and "feeling" what is good and what isn't.
Jobs, early on showed promise, but was very rough, and unprepared for his role. That's the major reason why he left Apple. During his NEXT years he again showed that he didn't really understand what was wanted and needed. That doesn't detract from NEXT's excellent software, just that he couldn't persuade anyone to buy the products in any great numbers. It's been estimated that NEXT sold no more than 50,000 machines in total, which is why they dropped hardware later on.
When he came back to Apple he didn't show anything special the first few years either, despite his fans' thinking.
But as time went on, he seems to have learned. The first iPod was in his words; "A nice little product for us". I really don't think they knew what they had in the beginning. Only when demand went through the roof, for PC users as well (remember it didn't work with PC's in the beginning, and when it finally did, Apple had to supply other software for it for a while) did he understand what had happened.
And this is where things changed. As there's no doubt that Jobs is fully in charge of the company's direction, there's no doubt that he decided to take the next steps, and they were brilliant.
Everything that Apple is today stems from what seems to be that sudden realization they had. Jobs has taken the ship in a new direction.
But he shows talent in understanding products and design. He also became confident enough to surround himself with other major talents in that area, something not often done.
That's the difference. While Ballmer, and no doubt Gates, need to have product design done by committee, Jobs can spec much of it himself, and decide the final details.
It's a big difference, and why MS can't go down that path. From their beginnings, to their leadership, they don't have the constitution for it, or the ability.
That's a very informative post, Melgross. Interesting stuff about Apple and Microsoft. Thanks for your time to post that stuff!
And this is where I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for some time.
I know. If I were immediately alarmed, I would have sold my AAPL already, and I'm not ready to do that. But I am watchful for signs of smugness and self-satisfaction. You know, the things that nearly killed Apple before -- and are slowly strangling Microsoft.
One of my theories about why Apple has been so successful over the past few years is that the powers that be understood one, fundamental thing: that only staying even would be seen as a failure. That kind of raw survival impulse is a great motivator. A lot of big companies have shown us what happens when they lose it -- GM, IBM, and now Microsoft. Others could easily be named.
I know. If I were immediately alarmed, I would have sold my AAPL already, and I'm not ready to do that. But I am watchful for signs of smugness and self-satisfaction. You know, the things that nearly killed Apple before -- and are slowly strangling Microsoft.
One of my theories about why Apple has been so successful over the past few years is that the powers that be understood one, fundamental thing: that only staying even would be seen as a failure. That kind of raw survival impulse is a great motivator. A lot of big companies have shown us what happens when they lose it -- GM, IBM, and now Microsoft. Others could easily be named.
Now it appears as though Apple may be considering a stock buyback in the future.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/08/...eisel.on.aapl/
At the bottom.
I have to say that I don't like them either. I'd much rather see investments to the business.
But if they would do something like this, and throw their money away, which is what stock buybacks are, I' just rather they did give it to us instead. So I would be with you there.
I can't understand why they would do a stock buyback with their earnings per share moving up anyway, and the stock price as well.
Oh no, I've given him plenty f credit. business s a very difficult thing. I know that from my own experiences over the years. but its subtle.
{quote]
They mave have lucked into the iPod product, but the iPod and iPhone aren't just neat products that are well designed, they're great franchises. They are very resistant to competition with advantages that competitors are struggling to match.
I didn't mention that is was so well designed. I thought that was understood. I did give my opinion later in the post about Jobs, Apple, and design.
I didn't want to go into all the details of what we already know about this, and have discussed many times.
As I said, he learned over the years.
+1. In fact, nothing can dethrone any Apple product till now, save the Apple TV. Really, there is nothing out there that can overcome the standard laid down by Apple.
I already said that here in an earlier post. You must not have read it.[/QUOTE]
Now it appears as though Apple may be considering a stock buyback in the future.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/08/...eisel.on.aapl/
At the bottom.
I have to say that I don't like them either. I'd much rather see investments to the business.
But if they would do something like this, and throw their money away, which is what stock buybacks are, I' just rather they did give it to us instead. So I would be with you there.
I can't understand why they would do a stock buyback with their earnings per share moving up anyway, and the stock price as well.
I doubt a buyback will occur now. If Apple was going to buy back shares, they'd have done it a few months ago, when AAPL was selling for under $!00. Reading the original article, it's clear that this just the speculation of one analyst, and not anything he knows Apple to be considering. In theory buybacks do raise share value for stockholders by automatically increasing EPS from what it would have been, but I don't see it happening, or moving the needle very much if it did.
I doubt a buyback will occur now. If Apple was going to buy back shares, they'd have done it a few months ago, when AAPL was selling for under $!00. Reading the original article, it's clear that this just the speculation of one analyst, and not anything he knows Apple to be considering. In theory buybacks do raise share value for stockholders by automatically increasing EPS from what it would have been, but I don't see it happening, or moving the needle very much if it did.
It's hard to tell from the article for certain, but it seems as though he's saying that Apple told him that they were considering it. It's open to interpretation.
I never like the idea. It has, at best, fleeting advantage for stockholders, as more often than not, stock prices slide right back down again after a short time. It's mostly used by companies whose stock is on an inevitable slide. It, of course, does nothing for the company itself. Profits remain the same. It's more like a cover-up. If EPS doesn't look good, instead of doing what would bring it up, we'll pretend we did, by buying shares back and retiring them. The only time I think it's valid is when they need to do so for the sake of compensation.
It's used when management is devoid of ideas of how to make the business more successful.
It can partially reverse the dilution effect of granting a lot of options to management, but I can't get too excited by a buyback either. When AAPL was at $80 it might have been a bit of a confidence builder for the board to buy back shares, and say in effect, that the stock is cheap now. At this point, I don't see what purpose is served.
Companies usually maintain "live" shares for the purpose of compensation, options etc. So dilution isn't always happening, even so, it depends on the number of shares out there. Apple has a bit over 900 million in public hands, MS has over 9 billion.