@Arlor: it seems to be a philosophical question here.
America tends to emphasize individuals over communities. In this view, a being that is a visionary on levels far beyond others is possible. Typical of that is Time's Person of the Year. Other cultures see the flow of time as less attached to individual performance. In their view, Steve Jobs is a bright individual who was at the right time, in the right place, with the right advisors and great charisma.
Why would Steve be more irreplaceable than Warren Buffett or Eisenhower or Bill Gates? Bill for example, did foresee a world where everyone would have their own access to the Web, and pushed IE to kill Netscape, to control that. Steve obviously did not see that, or at least have any great solution to get himself in control of the Web at that time.
Steve Jobs was an amazing individual. Saying he was irreplaceable and Apple is doomed not only ignores the value of Cook, Ive et alii, but it also means that Apple has always been irrelevant as a community, and only Steve mattered. I don't think Steve would agree with that.
FU Larry. Never could stand the guy. Really hate his guts now. And just what exactly did Steve INVENT Larry?
Define "invent." Jobs most certainly was the driving force, the spiritual leader, the idea guy behind the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad. None of these products would have existed without Jobs. In fact none of these devices would even exist today anywhere without Jobs. Do you really think Samsung, Ballmer, HP, Michael Dell, or any of them could have come up with these devices on their own? Nope, we would still have Samsung phones that look like the ones they made befroe the iPhone came out.
You could argue the same thing about Edison or Ford. Technically they invented nothing, they were the same guiding force pushing their teams. They were the visionaries. So yes, in my opinion, Steve Jobs invented a lot.
And if one truly believes history repeats itself then Ellison is correct. Apple fell flat on its face without Jobs the first time around. It remains to be seen if Jobs did in fact inject his DNA into Apple the second time around. This Fall will settle that question. And Apple does not need to actually fail financially for Ellison's prediction to come true. All Apple has to do is become a "normal" company without new ideas, clinging to what worked in the past. That will make Ellison's prediction valid.
I'm neither. I'm just being realistic. The design department doesn't matter, because we're talking about a guy running the company, i.e. a Steve Jobs replacement, not about some minion working below Jonny Ives.
Second, even Jonny Ives has a proper college degree (i.e. not a drop out like Steve), and certainly isn't vocal about his drug experiences as Jobs was.
Realistic in that you don't work at Apple HQ and have no idea what's happening there. Cook doesn't micro-manage. He trusts his team to work out the details. I bet you Jony does all the hiring for his team.
Big fan of Apple for many years and will always admire and respect Mr. Jobs, but all you Apple sycophants are interesting. How dare anyone say anything against the vaunted Apple... burn em at the stake. I just saw the interview on CBS and I liked Ellison, you could see his love and admiration for Mr. Jobs. And he's right... with Jobs - Apple goes up, without Jobs - Apple went down, Jobs returned and Apple rises again. Now that he's deceased, Apple is again going down just a bit, not struggling and still making a ton, but not what they were with Jobs. Since he's passed away, what new product has Apple released? That would be zero!!! iPad Mini doesn't count, shrinking Jobs' iPad which is said he agreed to before dying is not a new product. Just a lot of updates & upgrades and mini-redesigns, but nothing new. Cook keeps saying how they're working on things, but to date - today - nothing. What... a watch...woop-dee-doo, a smart watch, stop the presses, when there are already smart watches out there and everyone else is working on one also, so even that wouldn't be new. A new product (to me) is Cook stepping out on that stage and revealing something completely new that no one is expecting or at least has out yet and other companies race to copy.
Define "invent." Jobs most certainly was the driving force, the spiritual leader, the idea guy behind the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad. None of these products would have existed without Jobs. In fact none of these devices would even exist today anywhere without Jobs. Do you really think Samsung, Ballmer, HP, Michael Dell, or any of them could have come up with these devices on their own? Nope, we would still have Samsung phones that look like the ones they made befroe the iPhone came out.
You could argue the same thing about Edison or Ford. Technically they invented nothing, they were the same guiding force pushing their teams. They were the visionaries. So yes, in my opinion, Steve Jobs invented a lot.
And if one truly believes history repeats itself then Ellison is correct. Apple fell flat on its face without Jobs the first time around. It remains to be seen if Jobs did in fact inject his DNA into Apple the second time around. This Fall will settle that question. And Apple does not need to actually fail financially for Ellison's prediction to come true. All Apple has to do is become a "normal" company without new ideas, clinging to what worked in the past. That will make Ellison's prediction valid.
He used the word invent, not innovate. That's why I asked what Steve invented.
But what exactly have all of those become that makes them "OK"? Super- wealthy schlocky conglomerates with mediocre products? Is that what Apple is to become?
I can't say I'm in complete disagreement with Ellison. What has Apple really done in the time between the release of the iPhone 4S and now? Not much...
We now have the iPhone 5, the iPad mini a couple of horrid looking ipods (except for the touch) and the Retina MacBooks. None of these releases have had the impact of the original products though...
And if one truly believes history repeats itself then Ellison is correct. Apple fell flat on its face without Jobs the first time around.
Apple didn't fall flat because of the ABSENCE of Jobs, Apple fell flat because of the PRESENCE of the Pepsi guy. And mind you, it was Jobs who brought that guy on board. So you might as well say, Apple's almost bankruptcy is actually Jobs' own doing.
It wasn't the absence of Jobs that was the problem, it was the bad leadership that was present that drove Apple to the brink.
Any other way of seeing it, is cultish.
Any decent leader and a bunch of good engineers and designers can make Apple successful, just as Chanel is still a leading fashion house, even with Coco long dead.
I'm neither. I'm just being realistic. The design department doesn't matter, because we're talking about a guy running the company, i.e. a Steve Jobs replacement, not about some minion working below Jonny Ives.
Second, even Jonny Ives has a proper college degree (i.e. not a drop out like Steve), and certainly isn't vocal about his drug experiences as Jobs was.
Realistic in that you don't work at Apple HQ and have no idea what's happening there. Cook doesn't micro-manage. He trusts his team to work out the details. I bet you Jony does all the hiring for his team.
For one, I know plenty of people who work at Apple, and I'm not talking as retail drones in the shopping malls, but in product development, and for two, no matter who does the interviewing, HR has to approve the hiring, and for three, again for the second time, we're not talking about hiring design underlings for Ive, but hiring a CEO who'd take Jobs' place
It doesn't matter how many LSD dropping college drop-outs are working in some capacity at Apple, if the corporate management decides they are going with plastic screens instead of gorilla glass, because it saves $.50/phone, meaning an extra $30m in profit etc.
The question is, who calls the shots, and how does that person think, and what's that person's design sensibility.
If Cook thought iOS7 is a crock of shit, no matter what Ive's design credentials are and regardless if Cook is micromanaging or not, the product wouldn't see the light of day looking like it does, because the buck stops at the CEO, he's ultimately responsible for what the company makes, ships and sells.
So when the discussion is about why no company would hire a guy like Jobs to run the company, then stop deflecting to whether or not maybe somewhere at some level a guy like Jobs might end up getting hired into some subordinate role that has insignificant bearing on the future of the company, and certainly no bearing on the topic of discussion.
What... a watch...woop-dee-doo, a smart watch, stop the presses, when there are already smart watches out there and everyone else is working on one also, so even that wouldn't be new.
it's worth pointing out that there were portable MP3 players before the iPod, there were smartphones before the iPhone, there was OOP/OOL before NeXT, there were GUIs before the Mac, and there were personal computers before the Apple ][.
Neither Jobs nor Apple are known for firsts, they are known for waiting until they know how to do things right and good enough that it's more than just a toy.
So what do I care how many useless smart watches other companies make, none of which have truly a compelling reason for me to buy one, other than being a tech geek toy, a trinket, waste of money for no real utility? The question is, if/when Apple introduces a smart watch, will it actually be useful, or be in the same category of "gadget of the month"? If/when they release a smart watch, will it actually have a usable battery life unlike the other devices? Will it do something I don't want to be ever without again?
I can't say I'm in complete disagreement with Ellison. What has Apple really done in the time between the release of the iPhone 4S and now? Not much...
We now have the iPhone 5, the iPad mini a couple of horrid looking ipods (except for the touch) and the Retina MacBooks. None of these releases have had the impact of the original products though...
People often look at what Apple is doing now that Steve's gone and criticize but what would be different if Steve was still there? Any kind of stories can be invented about what Apple could be doing differently if Steve was still around e.g Steve would have designed iOS differently, he would have made a bigger phone, he would have made a Mac Pro like the old one and kept the 17" MBP because he understood people's needs, he would have destroyed Android by now, he'd have made a TV etc. There's no evidence for any of this, people just project their own preferences into the unknown and it's distasteful when you think about it from the point of view of Steve's closest colleagues. The constant suggestions that they are somehow betraying his legacy when they know better than anyone what that was.
There's no question that Apple would be a stronger company if he was still there but they are still a strong company without him because he didn't do everything by himself. Some people are worried about the long-term for Apple but that would have been the case no matter the circumstances. People don't live forever; would Steve have still been running the company at 70, 80 years old? What other technology advancements needed to be made? Computers have gone from mainframes to pockets in Steve's lifetime. Apple's focus is computers so all they would have done is put another computer somewhere else but there aren't really many places left to put one that would make a big impact.
Looking ahead 20-30 years, even the familiar faces we see now will likely be all gone. My biggest concern for the long-term future of Apple isn't Steve but Tim, Jony, Phil, Bob, Craig and others. Who follows after them and what kind of mess are they going to make of the company? It's quite clear to me that the current team is strong enough to keep the company running steadily for the next decade but their management style and drive will eventually be diluted through another generation.
One thing is for sure though, we will always need computers just like we need home appliances. Even if Apple changes next to nothing in their Mac line from this point on, I'll still take it over Windows and Linux. In mobile, I just can't see Apple ever reaching a losing position, which would be a position where they have to stop making mobile devices. As for major innovation, this only matters if a competitor has a chance of doing it first. When has Samsung, Google, Microsoft, RIM etc done anything innovative enough that they now drive the technology sector? All they've ever done is make "me too" products on the back of Apple.
Larry is out to lunch Comparing apple at pre scully times and the chaos when scully came on board..To what apple evolved to after steves return and the team that is in charge now ..... . Is as ignorant a view as it can get. Steve and apple were immature in the 90s .. Scully was a sugar water sales person. The whole company was divided and in chaos. Apple now is fully mature with solid direction and solid team put together by Steve. Run by one of the most brilliant individuals in tec industry. P.s. Steve was not the sole innovator in apple. He was a visionary and a great leader and marketer... But most of the innovation at apple came from other people in the team.. As it does today !
Now that everyone here has dismissed anything Larry had to say, I'll mention that he also said that what Larry Page (specifically) did with using Oracle's Java code was evil. Not that Page was evil or Google was evil but that this one time Page was [B]acting[/B] evil in using any java code. Does that make Ellison OK now?
EDIT: Strange day. I'm in with two story mentions so far today that AI puts up it's own article on a few minutes later. (Yeah I know it's not because I mentioned 'em)
So when the discussion is about why no company would hire a guy like Jobs to run the company, then stop deflecting to whether or not maybe somewhere at some level a guy like Jobs might end up getting hired into some subordinate role that has insignificant bearing on the future of the company, and certainly no bearing on the topic of discussion.
Oh, I think I misread it. In any case just because most companies won't hire a creative guy as CEO, the CEO doesn't drive/decide every detail. If a creative really wants something, he/she should be able to explain why. I don not know of any mid size to large companies that only rely on the CEO for everything. That is why there are mgmt teams.
Okay so Jobs brought us the new age of tablets and touch screen smartphones and nice UX design.
What has Tim Cook done? iPad mini is still a tablet by the way, so it still falls under Jobs.
Shut up and go away.
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah
I wonder what apple does without Steve jobs there?
Holds a daily seance to try to get in touch with him. Phil Schiller was in charge of the Ouija board until it spelled out G-R-O-W-B-A-C-K-T-H-E-M-U-L-L-E-T.
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
IGZO will solve everything. I said EVERYTHING.
And when it doesn't, LiquidMetal will.
You watch, once IGZO displays start existing, LiquidMetal will be the new IGZO.
Good thing we have a CEO of one successful company telling us how each and every company is gonna do or we might not be able to predict the future like this. Anyone else think Larry Ellison looks like Mickey Rourke lately?
Oracle CEO Larry Ellison opinion is simply base on opinion that is spinning in the past. He is the one who doesn't have any vision to speak on the basic of what is taking place in technology. He is blind in front of iOS 7; re engineering of iMac series and many more. Today he has teamed up with underdog Microsoft and trying to create false illusions among public in an effort to populate the world with third rated products according to the whom and fancy of Bill Gates. It is not going to work as Steve Jobs has already laid a strong foundation for Apple even without his presence but his vision do exist in each one working with Apple and those who uses their product do remain so loyal. This will not sink with LE as his world just revolves with R D B M S and nothing else
He was focused and wasn't a tech geek wanting to make stuff for fellow tech geeks. When it wasn't an improvement for the average person, he didn't glorify it as an improvement. He didn't let cheapness or tech geekery rule him or his company. He resisted such modes of thinking. At the same time, he was domineering and obsessively controlling, while having a silver tongue and charisma to ensure that any disagreement with him had to go a long way to change what his preference was. He was a mix of good vision and harsh control. I wouldn't have ever wanted to work in his company, but I think his effects on the computer industry have been mostly the right ones needed to push the industry to overcome stagnation in its childhood (which it's still in).
That's what I observe as what Steve Jobs did at Apple. Will Apple show it has learned that lesson of focus and forward motion or will it succumb to leadership by committee of people who have conflicting visions (or no vision at all)? An organism like a society or corporation doesn't have long term memory because its constituent parts are constantly changing. The chances are that the default group think and mess of conflicting opinions will take hold again. I hope I'm wrong. The industry isn't near done maturing.
When Steve died Apple lost their best salesman. No one else comes close. Tim and Phil are OK on stage but not great. Jony is great in the videos but he won't go on stage. Steve could make you want anything. That's not the case with Tim. He's getting better but he's still not great.
Comments
@Arlor: it seems to be a philosophical question here.
America tends to emphasize individuals over communities. In this view, a being that is a visionary on levels far beyond others is possible. Typical of that is Time's Person of the Year. Other cultures see the flow of time as less attached to individual performance. In their view, Steve Jobs is a bright individual who was at the right time, in the right place, with the right advisors and great charisma.
Why would Steve be more irreplaceable than Warren Buffett or Eisenhower or Bill Gates? Bill for example, did foresee a world where everyone would have their own access to the Web, and pushed IE to kill Netscape, to control that. Steve obviously did not see that, or at least have any great solution to get himself in control of the Web at that time.
Steve Jobs was an amazing individual. Saying he was irreplaceable and Apple is doomed not only ignores the value of Cook, Ive et alii, but it also means that Apple has always been irrelevant as a community, and only Steve mattered. I don't think Steve would agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
FU Larry. Never could stand the guy. Really hate his guts now. And just what exactly did Steve INVENT Larry?
Define "invent." Jobs most certainly was the driving force, the spiritual leader, the idea guy behind the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad. None of these products would have existed without Jobs. In fact none of these devices would even exist today anywhere without Jobs. Do you really think Samsung, Ballmer, HP, Michael Dell, or any of them could have come up with these devices on their own? Nope, we would still have Samsung phones that look like the ones they made befroe the iPhone came out.
You could argue the same thing about Edison or Ford. Technically they invented nothing, they were the same guiding force pushing their teams. They were the visionaries. So yes, in my opinion, Steve Jobs invented a lot.
And if one truly believes history repeats itself then Ellison is correct. Apple fell flat on its face without Jobs the first time around. It remains to be seen if Jobs did in fact inject his DNA into Apple the second time around. This Fall will settle that question. And Apple does not need to actually fail financially for Ellison's prediction to come true. All Apple has to do is become a "normal" company without new ideas, clinging to what worked in the past. That will make Ellison's prediction valid.
Realistic in that you don't work at Apple HQ and have no idea what's happening there. Cook doesn't micro-manage. He trusts his team to work out the details. I bet you Jony does all the hiring for his team.
Big fan of Apple for many years and will always admire and respect Mr. Jobs, but all you Apple sycophants are interesting. How dare anyone say anything against the vaunted Apple... burn em at the stake. I just saw the interview on CBS and I liked Ellison, you could see his love and admiration for Mr. Jobs. And he's right... with Jobs - Apple goes up, without Jobs - Apple went down, Jobs returned and Apple rises again. Now that he's deceased, Apple is again going down just a bit, not struggling and still making a ton, but not what they were with Jobs. Since he's passed away, what new product has Apple released? That would be zero!!! iPad Mini doesn't count, shrinking Jobs' iPad which is said he agreed to before dying is not a new product. Just a lot of updates & upgrades and mini-redesigns, but nothing new. Cook keeps saying how they're working on things, but to date - today - nothing. What... a watch...woop-dee-doo, a smart watch, stop the presses, when there are already smart watches out there and everyone else is working on one also, so even that wouldn't be new. A new product (to me) is Cook stepping out on that stage and revealing something completely new that no one is expecting or at least has out yet and other companies race to copy.
I miss you Steve Jobs, rest peacefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodlink
Good God, Larry.
GE has fared pretty well without Edison.
Ford has done OK without, well, Ford.
Apple will be just fine without Steve.
How will Oracle be without you?
This man has no sense of legacy.
You forgot DIsney.
But what exactly have all of those become that makes them "OK"? Super- wealthy schlocky conglomerates with mediocre products? Is that what Apple is to become?
I can't say I'm in complete disagreement with Ellison. What has Apple really done in the time between the release of the iPhone 4S and now? Not much...
We now have the iPhone 5, the iPad mini a couple of horrid looking ipods (except for the touch) and the Retina MacBooks. None of these releases have had the impact of the original products though...
Quote:
And if one truly believes history repeats itself then Ellison is correct. Apple fell flat on its face without Jobs the first time around.
Apple didn't fall flat because of the ABSENCE of Jobs, Apple fell flat because of the PRESENCE of the Pepsi guy. And mind you, it was Jobs who brought that guy on board. So you might as well say, Apple's almost bankruptcy is actually Jobs' own doing.
It wasn't the absence of Jobs that was the problem, it was the bad leadership that was present that drove Apple to the brink.
Any other way of seeing it, is cultish.
Any decent leader and a bunch of good engineers and designers can make Apple successful, just as Chanel is still a leading fashion house, even with Coco long dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
I'm neither. I'm just being realistic. The design department doesn't matter, because we're talking about a guy running the company, i.e. a Steve Jobs replacement, not about some minion working below Jonny Ives.
Second, even Jonny Ives has a proper college degree (i.e. not a drop out like Steve), and certainly isn't vocal about his drug experiences as Jobs was.
Realistic in that you don't work at Apple HQ and have no idea what's happening there. Cook doesn't micro-manage. He trusts his team to work out the details. I bet you Jony does all the hiring for his team.
For one, I know plenty of people who work at Apple, and I'm not talking as retail drones in the shopping malls, but in product development, and for two, no matter who does the interviewing, HR has to approve the hiring, and for three, again for the second time, we're not talking about hiring design underlings for Ive, but hiring a CEO who'd take Jobs' place
It doesn't matter how many LSD dropping college drop-outs are working in some capacity at Apple, if the corporate management decides they are going with plastic screens instead of gorilla glass, because it saves $.50/phone, meaning an extra $30m in profit etc.
The question is, who calls the shots, and how does that person think, and what's that person's design sensibility.
If Cook thought iOS7 is a crock of shit, no matter what Ive's design credentials are and regardless if Cook is micromanaging or not, the product wouldn't see the light of day looking like it does, because the buck stops at the CEO, he's ultimately responsible for what the company makes, ships and sells.
So when the discussion is about why no company would hire a guy like Jobs to run the company, then stop deflecting to whether or not maybe somewhere at some level a guy like Jobs might end up getting hired into some subordinate role that has insignificant bearing on the future of the company, and certainly no bearing on the topic of discussion.
Quote:
What... a watch...woop-dee-doo, a smart watch, stop the presses, when there are already smart watches out there and everyone else is working on one also, so even that wouldn't be new.
it's worth pointing out that there were portable MP3 players before the iPod, there were smartphones before the iPhone, there was OOP/OOL before NeXT, there were GUIs before the Mac, and there were personal computers before the Apple ][.
Neither Jobs nor Apple are known for firsts, they are known for waiting until they know how to do things right and good enough that it's more than just a toy.
So what do I care how many useless smart watches other companies make, none of which have truly a compelling reason for me to buy one, other than being a tech geek toy, a trinket, waste of money for no real utility? The question is, if/when Apple introduces a smart watch, will it actually be useful, or be in the same category of "gadget of the month"? If/when they release a smart watch, will it actually have a usable battery life unlike the other devices? Will it do something I don't want to be ever without again?
People often look at what Apple is doing now that Steve's gone and criticize but what would be different if Steve was still there? Any kind of stories can be invented about what Apple could be doing differently if Steve was still around e.g Steve would have designed iOS differently, he would have made a bigger phone, he would have made a Mac Pro like the old one and kept the 17" MBP because he understood people's needs, he would have destroyed Android by now, he'd have made a TV etc. There's no evidence for any of this, people just project their own preferences into the unknown and it's distasteful when you think about it from the point of view of Steve's closest colleagues. The constant suggestions that they are somehow betraying his legacy when they know better than anyone what that was.
There's no question that Apple would be a stronger company if he was still there but they are still a strong company without him because he didn't do everything by himself. Some people are worried about the long-term for Apple but that would have been the case no matter the circumstances. People don't live forever; would Steve have still been running the company at 70, 80 years old? What other technology advancements needed to be made? Computers have gone from mainframes to pockets in Steve's lifetime. Apple's focus is computers so all they would have done is put another computer somewhere else but there aren't really many places left to put one that would make a big impact.
Looking ahead 20-30 years, even the familiar faces we see now will likely be all gone. My biggest concern for the long-term future of Apple isn't Steve but Tim, Jony, Phil, Bob, Craig and others. Who follows after them and what kind of mess are they going to make of the company? It's quite clear to me that the current team is strong enough to keep the company running steadily for the next decade but their management style and drive will eventually be diluted through another generation.
One thing is for sure though, we will always need computers just like we need home appliances. Even if Apple changes next to nothing in their Mac line from this point on, I'll still take it over Windows and Linux. In mobile, I just can't see Apple ever reaching a losing position, which would be a position where they have to stop making mobile devices. As for major innovation, this only matters if a competitor has a chance of doing it first. When has Samsung, Google, Microsoft, RIM etc done anything innovative enough that they now drive the technology sector? All they've ever done is make "me too" products on the back of Apple.
Comparing apple at pre scully times and the chaos when scully came on board..To what apple evolved to after steves return and the team that is in charge now ..... . Is as ignorant a view as it can get.
Steve and apple were immature in the 90s .. Scully was a sugar water sales person. The whole company was divided and in chaos.
Apple now is fully mature with solid direction and solid team put together by Steve. Run by one of the most brilliant individuals in tec industry.
P.s. Steve was not the sole innovator in apple. He was a visionary and a great leader and marketer... But most of the innovation at apple came from other people in the team.. As it does today !
EDIT: Strange day. I'm in with two story mentions so far today that AI puts up it's own article on a few minutes later. (Yeah I know it's not because I mentioned 'em)
Oh, I think I misread it. In any case just because most companies won't hire a creative guy as CEO, the CEO doesn't drive/decide every detail. If a creative really wants something, he/she should be able to explain why. I don not know of any mid size to large companies that only rely on the CEO for everything. That is why there are mgmt teams.
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
Okay so Jobs brought us the new age of tablets and touch screen smartphones and nice UX design.
What has Tim Cook done? iPad mini is still a tablet by the way, so it still falls under Jobs.
Shut up and go away.
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah
I wonder what apple does without Steve jobs there?
Holds a daily seance to try to get in touch with him. Phil Schiller was in charge of the Ouija board until it spelled out G-R-O-W-B-A-C-K-T-H-E-M-U-L-L-E-T.
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
IGZO will solve everything. I said EVERYTHING.
And when it doesn't, LiquidMetal will.
You watch, once IGZO displays start existing, LiquidMetal will be the new IGZO.
Good thing we have a CEO of one successful company telling us how each and every company is gonna do or we might not be able to predict the future like this. Anyone else think Larry Ellison looks like Mickey Rourke lately?
That's what I observe as what Steve Jobs did at Apple. Will Apple show it has learned that lesson of focus and forward motion or will it succumb to leadership by committee of people who have conflicting visions (or no vision at all)? An organism like a society or corporation doesn't have long term memory because its constituent parts are constantly changing. The chances are that the default group think and mess of conflicting opinions will take hold again. I hope I'm wrong. The industry isn't near done maturing.