The way the story was discussed/reported in Silicon Valley, at the time:
Technically, Steve was relieved of management responsibility and told he would hold no future management position at Apple.
He was not fired.
Some time later Steve quit to form NeXT -- taking some key Apple employees with him.
A distinction without a difference. He was striped of all power, which is the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David
I can't help but see similarities. Back then apple went from a garage operation to a company worth a couple billion dollars. You and apparently the experts on the board at the time think he was destructive at a time when he should be responsible. And the same opinion seems to hold true again. If experts or people in general think apple and Steve are being destructive to their reputation I say let them think that. Cause then the iphone5 and ipad2 will come out. If the stock price takes a hit in the short term they can buy back some stock to award to engineers that work the long hours needed to keep apple ahead in a fast paced industry. Beyond that from what I've read the experts don't seem to doubt that apple is set for their direction and have a very capable team to execute. What would be nice is if apple had a replacement visionary ready. On that, everyone including the experts are silent.
Expert opinions would hold more sway with with me if they would have used their skills to examine the companies whose CEOs and top "earners" made incredible amounts of money bankrupting their companies and dragging the entire country into a recession worse than anything since the great depression.
You might want to read up on the history of Apple, particularly at this juncture. The company was a mess. They had dead-end projects running all over the place, with nobody in charge. Steve literally broke the Mac project away from the rest of the company and kept it secret. It was total disfunction. Steve was convinced that the Mac should have no external connections, including networking. The engineers snuck in AppleTalk -- which it turned out, saved the Mac from would have been an almost instant demise. The period is full of Steve stories, and few of them are very pretty.
So I don't follow the similarities. Today, I think Apple does have a good team in place. It's time for Steve to step aside, and to let them run the company.
You might want to read up on the history of Apple, particularly at this juncture. The company was a mess. They had dead-end projects running all over the place, with nobody in charge. Steve literally broke the Mac project away from the rest of the company and kept it secret. It was total disfunction. Steve was convinced that the Mac should have no external connections, including networking. The engineers snuck in AppleTalk -- which it turned out, saved the Mac from would have been an almost instant demise. The period is full of Steve stories, and few of them are very pretty.
So I don't follow the similarities. Today, I think Apple does have a good team in place. It's time for Steve to step aside, and to let them run the company.
You keep saying Steve now is different from Steve then. But then you keep bringing up Steve's "troubled days" 25 years ago. Why would you want Steve to step aside *now* (assuming he was healthy)? What is he hindering by being CEO? Do you think without Steve in the past 5 years the iPhone4 and iPad could have become what it is? The rest of Apple without Steve would slowly slip into the mainstream. In 5 years another Samsung, or Dell or Sony. Do you disagree?
It's been a great success but a bitter, bitter fight for Apple this past 10 years. They had to fly in the face of everything everyone new. iMac, iPod, iPhone, OS X, Intel, non-user-replaceable batteries, iOS, a tablet nobody thought would be worthwhile because it's just "a big iPod touch". Digital downloads not BluRay. Mobile applications that weren't written in Java and which weren't rubbish, which people were willing to spend hundreds of bucks on.
Without Steve... Well, okay, maybe one will get BluRay, if that makes one happy. But you'd also have a tablet that runs OS X that is just as expensive as a Mac, with a stylus no less. The difference of Apple 2000-2015 with and without Steve is almost unfathomable.
You keep saying Steve now is different from Steve then. But then why would you want Steve to step aside now (assuming he was healthy)? What is he hindering by being CEO? Do you think without Steve in the past 5 years the iPhone4 and iPad could have become what it is?
Because he isn't healthy, because he clearly can't keep up his CEO duties. The past is past -- the future is what's important now.
Stability at the top is important to any company, and especially to one as large as Apple. Steve has provided phenomenal leadership over the past dozen years. One of his tasks over that time was, or should have been, building a leadership cadre that can take the company beyond what he can accomplish himself. If that task is complete, then I think the time has come to let the bird fly. Show everyone that Apple is a great company, not just a cult of personality. Steve should step aside as CEO, remain as chair, and if Tim Cook is really the man, let him run the company. Officially. Otherwise it looks like he's letting his ego decide, or perhaps he's not convinced that Apple can run without him. Both are bad messages.
Because he isn't healthy, because he clearly can't keep up his CEO duties. The past is past -- the future is what's important now.
Stability at the top is important to any company, and especially to one as large as Apple. Steve has provided phenomenal leadership over the past dozen years. One of his tasks over that time was, or should have been, building a leadership cadre that can take the company beyond what he can accomplish himself. If that task is complete, then I think the time has come to let the bird fly. Show everyone that Apple is a great company, not just a cult of personality. Steve should step aside as CEO, remain as chair, and if Tim Cook is really the man, let him run the company. Officially. Otherwise it looks like he's letting his ego decide, or perhaps he's not convinced that Apple can run without him. Both are bad messages.
So Steve is deciding this process all on his own... the Board of Directors is not involved at all?
A distinction without a difference. He was striped of all power, which is the same thing.
You might want to read up on the history of Apple, particularly at this juncture. The company was a mess. They had dead-end projects running all over the place, with nobody in charge. Steve literally broke the Mac project away from the rest of the company and kept it secret. It was total disfunction. Steve was convinced that the Mac should have no external connections, including networking. The engineers snuck in AppleTalk -- which it turned out, saved the Mac from would have been an almost instant demise. The period is full of Steve stories, and few of them are very pretty.
So I don't follow the similarities. Today, I think Apple does have a good team in place. It's time for Steve to step aside, and to let them run the company.
"Steve led the development of what was called AppleTalk and AppleLink. AppleTalk was the communications that enabled the Macintosh to communicate to the laser printer that enabled? desktop publishing."
I'm no apple historian but that is from a recent interview with John Sculley.
I do see this as Steve handing over leadership roles, just not according to your timeline. Also leaving open a possibility of a Mark Twain moment( rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated).
The way the story was discussed/reported in Silicon Valley, at the time:
Technically, Steve was relieved of management responsibility and told he would hold no future management position at Apple.
He was not fired.
Some time later Steve quit to form NeXT -- taking some key Apple employees with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
A distinction without a difference. He was striped of all power, which is the same thing.
With all due respect, it is not the same thing from a legal perspective, alone. If you had ever run a business you would understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David
I can't help but see similarities. Back then apple went from a garage operation to a company worth a couple billion dollars. You and apparently the experts on the board at the time think he was destructive at a time when he should be responsible. And the same opinion seems to hold true again. If experts or people in general think apple and Steve are being destructive to their reputation I say let them think that. Cause then the iphone5 and ipad2 will come out. If the stock price takes a hit in the short term they can buy back some stock to award to engineers that work the long hours needed to keep apple ahead in a fast paced industry. Beyond that from what I've read the experts don't seem to doubt that apple is set for their direction and have a very capable team to execute. What would be nice is if apple had a replacement visionary ready. On that, everyone including the experts are silent.
Expert opinions would hold more sway with with me if they would have used their skills to examine the companies whose CEOs and top "earners" made incredible amounts of money bankrupting their companies and dragging the entire country into a recession worse than anything since the great depression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
You might want to read up on the history of Apple, particularly at this juncture. The company was a mess. They had dead-end projects running all over the place, with nobody in charge.
Some of this is true!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Steve literally broke the Mac project away from the rest of the company and kept it secret. It was total disfunction.
This is an often-used construct employed by large corporations -- similar to the Skunk Works at Lockheed Aircraft.
If you are a student of Apple history you will realize that this approach was totally brilliant. It isolated the Mac project from the distractions in the rest of the company. One of the reasons that Apple survives to this day is because of the resuscitation provided by the success of the Mac project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Steve was convinced that the Mac should have no external connections, including networking. The engineers snuck in AppleTalk -- which it turned out, saved the Mac from would have been an almost instant demise. The period is full of Steve stories, and few of them are very pretty.
Some citations on this, please!
AppleTalk was an integral part of the first Mac in order to support the LaserWriter (Introduced 1 year after the Mac). The LaserWriter was a Canon Laser Copier with a special motherboard supplied by Apple -- the motherboard was a specialized Mac (actually, more powerful than the Mac). The original white LaserWriter also had an RS-232 port but was too slow to be useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
The period is full of Steve stories, and few of them are very pretty.
The period is full of Steve stories, many are pretty inspiring, some are not -- guess which get the most publicity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
So I don't follow the similarities. Today, I think Apple does have a good team in place. It's time for Steve to step aside, and to let them run the company.
I agree that Apple has a quality management team in place -- possibly the best there is in the free market.
Whether it is time for Steve to step aside is up to Steve and Apple.
So Steve is deciding this process all on his own... the Board of Directors is not involved at all?
And just how independent is the board? Not very, by all accounts. For one thing, Steve is the chair, and has had a hand in picking all of its members. They are very unlikely to overrule anything Steve wants, so I suspect any misgivings held by individual board members are kept to themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David
"Steve led the development of what was called AppleTalk and AppleLink. AppleTalk was the communications that enabled the Macintosh to communicate to the laser printer that enabled? desktop publishing."
I'm no apple historian but that is from a recent interview with John Sculley.
I do see this as Steve handing over leadership roles, just not according to your timeline. Also leaving open a possibility of a Mark Twain moment( rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated).
Scully didn't come on until 1985. All of the basic developments of the Mac occurred years earlier.
I hope he doesn't wait until it's beyond obvious that he can't attend to his duties as CEO.
And just how independent is the board? Not very, by all accounts. For one thing, Steve is the chair, and has had a hand in picking all of its members. They are very unlikely to overrule anything Steve wants, so I suspect any misgivings held by individual board members are kept to themselves.
Scully didn't come on until 1985. All of the basic developments of the Mac occurred years earlier.
I hope he doesn't wait until it's beyond obvious that he can't attend to his duties as CEO.
C'mon, Doc... at least try and get your facts straight.
Sculley was there for [on edit - "some of"] the development of the Mac in '83, and it was he who pushed for the higher introduction price of the Mac.
I don't put much credence in anything else you've said up to this time either...
And just how independent is the board? Not very, by all accounts. For one thing, Steve is the chair, and has had a hand in picking all of its members. They are very unlikely to overrule anything Steve wants, so I suspect any misgivings held by individual board members are kept to themselves.
Scully didn't come on until 1985. All of the basic developments of the Mac occurred years earlier.
I hope he doesn't wait until it's beyond obvious that he can't attend to his duties as CEO.
As I said I'm no apple historian but I did take the time to try and find some history as you advised. Of course it was from John Sculley
Do you have any evidence that appletalk was "snuck" in?
Because he isn't healthy, because he clearly can't keep up his CEO duties. The past is past -- the future is what's important now.
I don't think it's good for him to appear on stage in the condition he is in. If I was in that state, I'd put every effort into bulking up. His clothes hang very loose:
He looks a good bit older than 56 like that. If he aims to get to his 2003-2005 weight, that would at least look a bit more healthy:
I don't think it's good for him to appear on stage in the condition he is in. If I was in that state, I'd put every effort into bulking up. His clothes hang very loose:
He looks a good bit older than 56 like that. If he aims to get to his 2003-2005 weight, that would at least look a bit more healthy:
I do think that Steve looks wan.
However, I, and many others, find his public appearances exhilarating and inspiring -- especially in light of his recent setbacks.
I think there is a slim chance we are both bogging down in minutiae.
I'd say a pretty significant one.
These boards are full of people who like nothing better than to find that someone has made a small mistake, which they will use to triumphantly "prove" that hereafter anything they say can be utterly ignored. It's far too easy to get lured into that swamp.
the man who had pancreatic cancer and a liver transplant is taking another leave of absence for undisclosed health reasons, and half of the comments here are about how to profit from it.
"stock buying opportunity"? really?
i wish Jobs a speedy recovery, not for my stock, but for himself, his family, and his inspiration to Apple, it's employees, and it's fans.
Take it easy. I'm sure "vultures" also wish him speedy recovery and another 50 years as Apple's CEO, but not buying some of the most desirable stocks in the industry just because CEO is having health problems is a bit silly from any business perspective.
Well said, he is the visionary at Apple and actually had the power to implement his vision...
I wish him and his family well.....
While I've heard the same stories of him being difficult to work for (and suspect there's at least a grain of truth to that given his vision/perfectionism), I have to say he was very personable when I spoke to him (many - like 15!?) years ago about his days at Atari. This was in the hall at a NeXT roadmap meeting, mind you, and he didn't tell me to go pound sand for wasting his time, he instead talked one-on-one about games and shared some amusing work stories from those days. And yes, I thought that was very cool then and very nice of him to take the time out since I was (oh, and still am!) a nobody compared to him and his impact on the industry.
I certainly wish him and his family all the best, a speedy recovery, and the strength to get through whatever life is throwing at them. From a purely selfish side, I also hope to see him back at Apple soon since I love the products he's been behind.
Because he isn't healthy, because he clearly can't keep up his CEO duties. The past is past -- the future is what's important now.
Stability at the top is important to any company, and especially to one as large as Apple. Steve has provided phenomenal leadership over the past dozen years. One of his tasks over that time was, or should have been, building a leadership cadre that can take the company beyond what he can accomplish himself. If that task is complete, then I think the time has come to let the bird fly. Show everyone that Apple is a great company, not just a cult of personality. Steve should step aside as CEO, remain as chair, and if Tim Cook is really the man, let him run the company. Officially. Otherwise it looks like he's letting his ego decide, or perhaps he's not convinced that Apple can run without him. Both are bad messages.
This is an idiotic sentiment. There is no indication that he will not be healthy enough to return and even if he is not there is no lack of stability at the top. There is probably not one person at Apple that would not prefer the current state of affairs over his simply resigning tomorrow.
Why is it that you keep advocating that Apple divest itself of its important assets (Steve and its massive warchest) for some short term benefits?
If he wishes to and can stay more years and die in the saddle that gives him more time to completing his lifelong ambitions which are very close, I think, to realization. The iPad is probably a few revisions away from really changing the face of computing in the way he expected the Mac to do all those years ago.
These boards are full of people who like nothing better than to find that someone has made a small mistake, which they will use to triumphantly "prove" that hereafter anything they say can be utterly ignored. It's far too easy to get lured into that swamp.
Well the best way to avoid that swamp is to gracefully admit that you may have been incorrect rather than backpedalling into even more absurd positions to avoid having to admit any error.
Comments
The way the story was discussed/reported in Silicon Valley, at the time:
Technically, Steve was relieved of management responsibility and told he would hold no future management position at Apple.
He was not fired.
Some time later Steve quit to form NeXT -- taking some key Apple employees with him.
A distinction without a difference. He was striped of all power, which is the same thing.
I can't help but see similarities. Back then apple went from a garage operation to a company worth a couple billion dollars. You and apparently the experts on the board at the time think he was destructive at a time when he should be responsible. And the same opinion seems to hold true again. If experts or people in general think apple and Steve are being destructive to their reputation I say let them think that. Cause then the iphone5 and ipad2 will come out. If the stock price takes a hit in the short term they can buy back some stock to award to engineers that work the long hours needed to keep apple ahead in a fast paced industry. Beyond that from what I've read the experts don't seem to doubt that apple is set for their direction and have a very capable team to execute. What would be nice is if apple had a replacement visionary ready. On that, everyone including the experts are silent.
Expert opinions would hold more sway with with me if they would have used their skills to examine the companies whose CEOs and top "earners" made incredible amounts of money bankrupting their companies and dragging the entire country into a recession worse than anything since the great depression.
You might want to read up on the history of Apple, particularly at this juncture. The company was a mess. They had dead-end projects running all over the place, with nobody in charge. Steve literally broke the Mac project away from the rest of the company and kept it secret. It was total disfunction. Steve was convinced that the Mac should have no external connections, including networking. The engineers snuck in AppleTalk -- which it turned out, saved the Mac from would have been an almost instant demise. The period is full of Steve stories, and few of them are very pretty.
So I don't follow the similarities. Today, I think Apple does have a good team in place. It's time for Steve to step aside, and to let them run the company.
You might want to read up on the history of Apple, particularly at this juncture. The company was a mess. They had dead-end projects running all over the place, with nobody in charge. Steve literally broke the Mac project away from the rest of the company and kept it secret. It was total disfunction. Steve was convinced that the Mac should have no external connections, including networking. The engineers snuck in AppleTalk -- which it turned out, saved the Mac from would have been an almost instant demise. The period is full of Steve stories, and few of them are very pretty.
So I don't follow the similarities. Today, I think Apple does have a good team in place. It's time for Steve to step aside, and to let them run the company.
You keep saying Steve now is different from Steve then. But then you keep bringing up Steve's "troubled days" 25 years ago. Why would you want Steve to step aside *now* (assuming he was healthy)? What is he hindering by being CEO?
It's been a great success but a bitter, bitter fight for Apple this past 10 years. They had to fly in the face of everything everyone new. iMac, iPod, iPhone, OS X, Intel, non-user-replaceable batteries, iOS, a tablet nobody thought would be worthwhile because it's just "a big iPod touch". Digital downloads not BluRay. Mobile applications that weren't written in Java and which weren't rubbish, which people were willing to spend hundreds of bucks on.
Without Steve... Well, okay, maybe one will get BluRay, if that makes one happy. But you'd also have a tablet that runs OS X that is just as expensive as a Mac, with a stylus no less. The difference of Apple 2000-2015 with and without Steve is almost unfathomable.
You keep saying Steve now is different from Steve then. But then why would you want Steve to step aside now (assuming he was healthy)? What is he hindering by being CEO?
Because he isn't healthy, because he clearly can't keep up his CEO duties. The past is past -- the future is what's important now.
Stability at the top is important to any company, and especially to one as large as Apple. Steve has provided phenomenal leadership over the past dozen years. One of his tasks over that time was, or should have been, building a leadership cadre that can take the company beyond what he can accomplish himself. If that task is complete, then I think the time has come to let the bird fly. Show everyone that Apple is a great company, not just a cult of personality. Steve should step aside as CEO, remain as chair, and if Tim Cook is really the man, let him run the company. Officially. Otherwise it looks like he's letting his ego decide, or perhaps he's not convinced that Apple can run without him. Both are bad messages.
Because he isn't healthy, because he clearly can't keep up his CEO duties. The past is past -- the future is what's important now.
Stability at the top is important to any company, and especially to one as large as Apple. Steve has provided phenomenal leadership over the past dozen years. One of his tasks over that time was, or should have been, building a leadership cadre that can take the company beyond what he can accomplish himself. If that task is complete, then I think the time has come to let the bird fly. Show everyone that Apple is a great company, not just a cult of personality. Steve should step aside as CEO, remain as chair, and if Tim Cook is really the man, let him run the company. Officially. Otherwise it looks like he's letting his ego decide, or perhaps he's not convinced that Apple can run without him. Both are bad messages.
So Steve is deciding this process all on his own... the Board of Directors is not involved at all?
A distinction without a difference. He was striped of all power, which is the same thing.
You might want to read up on the history of Apple, particularly at this juncture. The company was a mess. They had dead-end projects running all over the place, with nobody in charge. Steve literally broke the Mac project away from the rest of the company and kept it secret. It was total disfunction. Steve was convinced that the Mac should have no external connections, including networking. The engineers snuck in AppleTalk -- which it turned out, saved the Mac from would have been an almost instant demise. The period is full of Steve stories, and few of them are very pretty.
So I don't follow the similarities. Today, I think Apple does have a good team in place. It's time for Steve to step aside, and to let them run the company.
"Steve led the development of what was called AppleTalk and AppleLink. AppleTalk was the communications that enabled the Macintosh to communicate to the laser printer that enabled? desktop publishing."
I'm no apple historian but that is from a recent interview with John Sculley.
I do see this as Steve handing over leadership roles, just not according to your timeline. Also leaving open a possibility of a Mark Twain moment( rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated).
The way the story was discussed/reported in Silicon Valley, at the time:
Technically, Steve was relieved of management responsibility and told he would hold no future management position at Apple.
He was not fired.
Some time later Steve quit to form NeXT -- taking some key Apple employees with him.
A distinction without a difference. He was striped of all power, which is the same thing.
With all due respect, it is not the same thing from a legal perspective, alone. If you had ever run a business you would understand.
I can't help but see similarities. Back then apple went from a garage operation to a company worth a couple billion dollars. You and apparently the experts on the board at the time think he was destructive at a time when he should be responsible. And the same opinion seems to hold true again. If experts or people in general think apple and Steve are being destructive to their reputation I say let them think that. Cause then the iphone5 and ipad2 will come out. If the stock price takes a hit in the short term they can buy back some stock to award to engineers that work the long hours needed to keep apple ahead in a fast paced industry. Beyond that from what I've read the experts don't seem to doubt that apple is set for their direction and have a very capable team to execute. What would be nice is if apple had a replacement visionary ready. On that, everyone including the experts are silent.
Expert opinions would hold more sway with with me if they would have used their skills to examine the companies whose CEOs and top "earners" made incredible amounts of money bankrupting their companies and dragging the entire country into a recession worse than anything since the great depression.
You might want to read up on the history of Apple, particularly at this juncture. The company was a mess. They had dead-end projects running all over the place, with nobody in charge.
Some of this is true!
Steve literally broke the Mac project away from the rest of the company and kept it secret. It was total disfunction.
This is an often-used construct employed by large corporations -- similar to the Skunk Works at Lockheed Aircraft.
If you are a student of Apple history you will realize that this approach was totally brilliant. It isolated the Mac project from the distractions in the rest of the company. One of the reasons that Apple survives to this day is because of the resuscitation provided by the success of the Mac project.
Steve was convinced that the Mac should have no external connections, including networking. The engineers snuck in AppleTalk -- which it turned out, saved the Mac from would have been an almost instant demise. The period is full of Steve stories, and few of them are very pretty.
Some citations on this, please!
AppleTalk was an integral part of the first Mac in order to support the LaserWriter (Introduced 1 year after the Mac). The LaserWriter was a Canon Laser Copier with a special motherboard supplied by Apple -- the motherboard was a specialized Mac (actually, more powerful than the Mac). The original white LaserWriter also had an RS-232 port but was too slow to be useful.
The period is full of Steve stories, and few of them are very pretty.
The period is full of Steve stories, many are pretty inspiring, some are not -- guess which get the most publicity.
So I don't follow the similarities. Today, I think Apple does have a good team in place. It's time for Steve to step aside, and to let them run the company.
I agree that Apple has a quality management team in place -- possibly the best there is in the free market.
Whether it is time for Steve to step aside is up to Steve and Apple.
So Steve is deciding this process all on his own... the Board of Directors is not involved at all?
And just how independent is the board? Not very, by all accounts. For one thing, Steve is the chair, and has had a hand in picking all of its members. They are very unlikely to overrule anything Steve wants, so I suspect any misgivings held by individual board members are kept to themselves.
"Steve led the development of what was called AppleTalk and AppleLink. AppleTalk was the communications that enabled the Macintosh to communicate to the laser printer that enabled? desktop publishing."
I'm no apple historian but that is from a recent interview with John Sculley.
I do see this as Steve handing over leadership roles, just not according to your timeline. Also leaving open a possibility of a Mark Twain moment( rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated).
Scully didn't come on until 1985. All of the basic developments of the Mac occurred years earlier.
I hope he doesn't wait until it's beyond obvious that he can't attend to his duties as CEO.
And just how independent is the board? Not very, by all accounts. For one thing, Steve is the chair, and has had a hand in picking all of its members. They are very unlikely to overrule anything Steve wants, so I suspect any misgivings held by individual board members are kept to themselves.
Scully didn't come on until 1985. All of the basic developments of the Mac occurred years earlier.
I hope he doesn't wait until it's beyond obvious that he can't attend to his duties as CEO.
C'mon, Doc... at least try and get your facts straight.
Sculley was there for [on edit - "some of"] the development of the Mac in '83, and it was he who pushed for the higher introduction price of the Mac.
I don't put much credence in anything else you've said up to this time either...
And just how independent is the board? Not very, by all accounts. For one thing, Steve is the chair, and has had a hand in picking all of its members. They are very unlikely to overrule anything Steve wants, so I suspect any misgivings held by individual board members are kept to themselves.
Scully didn't come on until 1985. All of the basic developments of the Mac occurred years earlier.
I hope he doesn't wait until it's beyond obvious that he can't attend to his duties as CEO.
As I said I'm no apple historian but I did take the time to try and find some history as you advised. Of course it was from John Sculley
Do you have any evidence that appletalk was "snuck" in?
Because he isn't healthy, because he clearly can't keep up his CEO duties. The past is past -- the future is what's important now.
I don't think it's good for him to appear on stage in the condition he is in. If I was in that state, I'd put every effort into bulking up. His clothes hang very loose:
He looks a good bit older than 56 like that. If he aims to get to his 2003-2005 weight, that would at least look a bit more healthy:
I don't think it's good for him to appear on stage in the condition he is in. If I was in that state, I'd put every effort into bulking up. His clothes hang very loose:
He looks a good bit older than 56 like that. If he aims to get to his 2003-2005 weight, that would at least look a bit more healthy:
I do think that Steve looks wan.
However, I, and many others, find his public appearances exhilarating and inspiring -- especially in light of his recent setbacks.
Go, Steve -- as long as you wish!
C'mon, Doc... at least try and get your facts straight.
Sculley was there for [on edit - "some of"] the development of the Mac in '83, and it was he who pushed for the higher introduction price of the Mac.
I don't put much credence in anything else you've said up to this time either...
The Mac project was started in 1979, and was taken over by Steve in 1981. Scully joined the company in 1983.
As I said I'm no apple historian but I did take the time to try and find some history as you advised. Of course it was from John Sculley
Do you have any evidence that appletalk was "snuck" in?
This article treats Steve's opposition to networking as a rumor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LocalTalk
I've read more definite tellings of this story in other places but I don't recall the source. I'll have another look for this when I have more time.
This article treats Steve's opposition to networking as a rumor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LocalTalk
I've read more definite tellings of this story in other places but I don't recall the source. I'll have another look for this when I have more time.
I think there is a slim chance we are both bogging down in minutiae.
I think there is a slim chance we are both bogging down in minutiae.
I'd say a pretty significant one.
These boards are full of people who like nothing better than to find that someone has made a small mistake, which they will use to triumphantly "prove" that hereafter anything they say can be utterly ignored. It's far too easy to get lured into that swamp.
the man who had pancreatic cancer and a liver transplant is taking another leave of absence for undisclosed health reasons, and half of the comments here are about how to profit from it.
"stock buying opportunity"? really?
i wish Jobs a speedy recovery, not for my stock, but for himself, his family, and his inspiration to Apple, it's employees, and it's fans.
Take it easy. I'm sure "vultures" also wish him speedy recovery and another 50 years as Apple's CEO, but not buying some of the most desirable stocks in the industry just because CEO is having health problems is a bit silly from any business perspective.
Well said, he is the visionary at Apple and actually had the power to implement his vision...
I wish him and his family well.....
While I've heard the same stories of him being difficult to work for (and suspect there's at least a grain of truth to that given his vision/perfectionism), I have to say he was very personable when I spoke to him (many - like 15!?) years ago about his days at Atari. This was in the hall at a NeXT roadmap meeting, mind you, and he didn't tell me to go pound sand for wasting his time, he instead talked one-on-one about games and shared some amusing work stories from those days. And yes, I thought that was very cool then and very nice of him to take the time out since I was (oh, and still am!) a nobody compared to him and his impact on the industry.
I certainly wish him and his family all the best, a speedy recovery, and the strength to get through whatever life is throwing at them. From a purely selfish side, I also hope to see him back at Apple soon since I love the products he's been behind.
Because he isn't healthy, because he clearly can't keep up his CEO duties. The past is past -- the future is what's important now.
Stability at the top is important to any company, and especially to one as large as Apple. Steve has provided phenomenal leadership over the past dozen years. One of his tasks over that time was, or should have been, building a leadership cadre that can take the company beyond what he can accomplish himself. If that task is complete, then I think the time has come to let the bird fly. Show everyone that Apple is a great company, not just a cult of personality. Steve should step aside as CEO, remain as chair, and if Tim Cook is really the man, let him run the company. Officially. Otherwise it looks like he's letting his ego decide, or perhaps he's not convinced that Apple can run without him. Both are bad messages.
This is an idiotic sentiment. There is no indication that he will not be healthy enough to return and even if he is not there is no lack of stability at the top. There is probably not one person at Apple that would not prefer the current state of affairs over his simply resigning tomorrow.
Why is it that you keep advocating that Apple divest itself of its important assets (Steve and its massive warchest) for some short term benefits?
If he wishes to and can stay more years and die in the saddle that gives him more time to completing his lifelong ambitions which are very close, I think, to realization. The iPad is probably a few revisions away from really changing the face of computing in the way he expected the Mac to do all those years ago.
These boards are full of people who like nothing better than to find that someone has made a small mistake, which they will use to triumphantly "prove" that hereafter anything they say can be utterly ignored. It's far too easy to get lured into that swamp.
Well the best way to avoid that swamp is to gracefully admit that you may have been incorrect rather than backpedalling into even more absurd positions to avoid having to admit any error.