The Difference Between Jobs & Gates
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020110.html"; target="_blank">Cringely's take</a>.
[quote] One thing that Gates told me in that interview was he didn't understand why Jobs had gone back to Apple at all. "Why would he do that?" Bill asked. "He has to know that he can never win."
Now let's jump to the present, specifically to this week's introduction of the new flat screen iMac at the MacWorld show in San Francisco. There, too, the darker pundits were coming to pretty much the same conclusion as Bill Gates: The new iMacs, while pretty in a baked Alaska kind of way, aren't going to return Apple to its glory days. It didn't matter how good the iMacs were, Apple was too far behind to ever catch up.
None of this matters to Steve Jobs. It took me a long time to figure this out, but he is quite content with the status quo. That's because Steve's definition of success is different from Bill's, and from that of most other people in the computer industry. Success to Steve means getting his own way. That's all. Forget about market share. It's all about longevity and personal dominance.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote] One thing that Gates told me in that interview was he didn't understand why Jobs had gone back to Apple at all. "Why would he do that?" Bill asked. "He has to know that he can never win."
Now let's jump to the present, specifically to this week's introduction of the new flat screen iMac at the MacWorld show in San Francisco. There, too, the darker pundits were coming to pretty much the same conclusion as Bill Gates: The new iMacs, while pretty in a baked Alaska kind of way, aren't going to return Apple to its glory days. It didn't matter how good the iMacs were, Apple was too far behind to ever catch up.
None of this matters to Steve Jobs. It took me a long time to figure this out, but he is quite content with the status quo. That's because Steve's definition of success is different from Bill's, and from that of most other people in the computer industry. Success to Steve means getting his own way. That's all. Forget about market share. It's all about longevity and personal dominance.
<hr></blockquote>
Comments
Nowhere in the PC world, do you get, innovation, design, ease of use, compatibility, functionality, etc as you get from Apple. And to think that we nearly died a few years ago. (Now if MOTO could get on with the G5, we could have the power aswell). Markets don't change overnight, but Apple must surely be the only company in the computer world that stands a chance of playing with M$ at their level, but it will take a lot of time.
Gates:Jobs::Megalomaniac:Egomaniac
Oh, in case you meant Michael and Steven, they are like burgers, one with cheese, one with bacon, I let you guess who's who.
But, I don't agree with the statement that "Apple can never win". They are returning to their glory days in Education, where they now have a better than 50% market share...I know they probably used to have a bit more....but they have that 50% in the faces of companies like HP and Dell (not to mention M$). That is unbelievable. Those companies have revenue three to 20 times that of Apple's (VERY approximate numbers...I know Dell's Sales were around $18B two years ago)
I think they could slowly win the market share battle. But, to do so they are going to have to do somthing BIG and LONG LASTING about the Pro line and the MHZ thing. This has probably cost them 5% in market share alone (just speculating). People think Macs are slower, and in some cases they are. There is no reason Apple can't offer DDR RAM and ATA 100 at this point. They have been available for how long now? They are going to have to realize that Pro Users are not stupid and know comp specs better than consumers. Hopefully they DO know this....I hope for a solution soon.
IMO they could slowly gain market share by doing the following things:
1) Dramatically increase TV advertising over an extended period of time. This includes commecials and product placement. We could also include other forms of print adverstising here. They need to push the ease of use and software solutions to people as WELL as raw performance. Enough of some of these beatnick "cool, man" ads. Or at least LESS of them. They also need to advertise the OS more as a hardware selling point. ("MAC OS X, the World's Most Advanced Operating System....only on the Apple Macintosh").
2) Obviously expand the retail store presence and then advertise those stores too. Perhaps consider franchising these stores under strict controls.
3) Run direct competitve ads bashing MS WIndows, Dell, Gateway and HP. Play up speed, ease of use...beat the hell out them.
Doing all these things will require a MAJOR increase in the advertising budget. I don't think Apple is going to do any of these things though....mostly because it seems Jobs is quite content to be a boutique.....what I m saying that is if they wanted to wanted to win the war, I think they could. But, it would take millions, maybe billions of dollars and perhaps 10 years to do it. All in all though I think it could be done....and they would be bigger and richer than ever when the "war" was over.
But whatever, I love their stuff (except for the POS PowerMac right now). So I'm happy.
[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I agree - this is very important. Although I think their ads have been good as of late...no so beatnik-y but very targeted to everyday people (see iMovie kid in airplane ad, iPod dancing guy ad, and new(born) iPhoto ad from keynote). What they still need to focus on is SOFTWARE. You know and I know that Office is a) out for mac and b) better than the windoze version - but when I told that to my soon-to-be father-in-law (trying to convince him to get an iMac to replace his dying gateway) he had no idea. A lot of people are still unnecessarily skeptical that mac doesn't have any software...this needs to change.
rr.
I mean, you see all of these people doing mockups with their ideal computer/iMac whatever and you know if they were in Jobs' shoes (in charge of Apple) they'd be making exactly the computer they wanted too.
I know I would.
Nothing wrong with being a perfectionist if you can get away with it. Much better than the alternative anyways.
Steve Jobs is philosophically driven, almost theological. In order for your vision to be fulfilled, you have to be a 'control freak'--but I don't think that's the best way to describe this form of management. The new iMac is the perfect example. There is a philosophy behind this machine that goes beyond the computing experience.
Jobs' interest in market share is only to satisfy shareholders. He's already on record stating that there's nothing wrong with being a niche player.
Finally, what's the point in striving to be the 'biggest', when the longevity is in being the 'best'.
<strong>As the standardized tests would say:
Gates:Jobs::Megalomaniac:Egomaniac</strong><hr></blockquote>
well said i can add that :
Jobs is a visoniary.
Gates is a money maker.
Both are genius in they landscape, Jobs is more charismatic but have a terrible temperament (i don't whish to be on his order, despite all the admiration i may have for him)
When Gates is in the same position, you can see him holding back the smirk of a dictator. I think he actually takes pride in the fact that whatever he's introducing could blow, and everyone will think they have to use it anyway.
Jeff
It depends on how you define winning.
My friend who owns his own restaraunt is clearly the winner over the ceo of McDonalds, in my eyes.
Sure, Mickey D's makes more money than my friend, but what a lousy meal. And my friend does quite well financially, so how should that make him a loser? Would he only be a winner if he franchised his restaraunt (killing the unique quality of the meal - and the resaraunt - in the process)?
Marketshare does not a winner make.
Unless you consider Nsync and Brittany Spears to be the "winners" of the music world.
hmmm...