In a weblog sponsored by the Apple Computer History website, a former Apple marketing director admits that he, assisted by everyone who worked at Apple with him, “killed” the company. He cites a culture of “individual brilliance and group stupidity.” A Wired News article has more details and responses from some of his Apple contemporaries.
I am not a Mac user but… Thank god for Next it must have saved Mac today – even though it was a failure in its day.
But then when I was a grad student I lusted after those cool black cubes that I couldn’t afford – Hell maybe I could find one on Ebay.
It’s easy to blame all these failures on the company’s senior execs, but frankly, they weren’t powerful enough to inflict damage this comprehensive.
Personally, that’s where I see the downfall. Ideas that don’t make it to market aren’t the fault of engineers. Or secretaries. Or the janitor. Nor is it the canteen lady. It is the management.
Apple’s dead?
True though, Microsoft never really had any real, lasting competition. And once they were big enough, they just bought out or suppressed anyone who dare challenge.
Apple aren’t killed, there just getting better. The more they homogenise their OS the more users they will have. If they wish to target the niche market, then their sales will reflect this.
after reading the web log, it was apparent that the guy was just trying to figure out what happened to their visions. the log was (somewhat) interesting although i’m sure most ‘outsiders’ don’t have that same view of apple.
it is a shame, i guess, that their visions didn’t come about, but whoop de do. apple has regrouped and made themselves into a player. they may not have the same goals as they did back then, but they are doing something right.
the wired article makes it sound like this guy was just pissed at his coworkers as he ‘blasted’ them left and right. whatever. wired put a pretty nasty spin on a pretty un-nasty log. boo wired.
apple did some stupid things and there were clearly problems with management so i don’t doubt the allegations. But Apple is not dead it is looking better and better.
i will remember you while i am installing my new OS later this year. i will right there at the head of the line to buy Panther, the latest OS from…. errrr…… Apple?
But Apple is notorious for having very good times and very bad times. They’ve had a series of successes, like iTunes and iPod, but none of them, from what I can tell, has been raking in the cash. Take iTunes – they’ve sold 10 million songs, but how much profit is that, really? Maybe 2 million bucks, which is nearly pocket change.
The iPod is a great piece of hardware, but its price puts it out of reach to the normal consumer. While selling high-priced gadgets to the top 10% earners of the US population gets you good mindshare, it’s not helping with marketshare.
Apple _needs_ a $500 retail computer. This is the only way their market share is going to increase in any serious fashion. Leveraging multiple product lines doesn’t work if no one’s using any of them very much.
-Erwos
Didn’t we just read, right here on OSnews, that Apple has experiences an increase in sales this last year and has billions in reserve? With stats like that, how can anyone say Apple is dead? A small market share, as long as it is growing, means life. Doesn’t it?
“Apple _needs_ a $500 retail computer. This is the only way their market share is going to increase in any serious fashion. Leveraging multiple product lines doesn’t work if no one’s using any of them very much. ”
You’ll set off a storm with that statement. I agree that they need a basic white box-like apple mini-tower that costs under $650 to drive market share up. Market share is important.
When the guys says “killed Apple”, he’s essentially talking about the path that knocked it off as the dominant force of the industry that it once was.
Today, Apple comes out with amazing things, but they register only as a blip on the over all computing radar, and even less so on the market.
The market has turned Apple in to a kind of 3rd party research lab. They come out with concepts and ideas that they unleash on their customers, the rest of the world ponders it from afar, then they try and scrape what seems to buzz well in the market and layer it on to their own systems and then sell it s “new and improved”.
The problem is that the folks doing this are like the movie execs trying to squeeze a sequel out of a movie, taking the bits that they think sold well (stupid jokes, one liners, explosions, car chases, etc) and plop them into some other horrible vehicle to get it on the screen. The final product is rarely interesting at all because they never understand why they worked in the first place.
So, what happens is that They take these good ideas by Apple (and I’m not suggesting that Apple is Pure or Perfect, even MS has good ideas occasionally), and basically do them injustice on another platform and thereby dilute Apples power in the market place.
“Oh look, a GUI!” “Yeah, it’s just like the Mac.” “Really? Huh..gee that’s not that great…”
The computer world has so much momentum that folks are not willing to change for the sake of a single interesting idea. And over time, as those ideas are diluted and stuck to their current system, Apple only ends up with one or two interesting ideas over what they have now, so it’s almost never worth “switching”.
So, while Apple is leading the way, it’s always having to catch up.
Interestingly, the time frame he mentions were for the most part the “Steve Jobless” years. For those who complain about Steve’s iron hand tactics…well that’s just what you have to do in order to get a few of the innovative products to market. Steve must decide what should be focussed on and get his very talented staff to unite to that vision. Also, in the internet age where 2 days is apparently a long time, I don’t think people have quite thought throught just how bad it would be to release so many more innovative products in a constant barrage. Maybe this guy is upset of all that fell by the wayside but it takes time for people to adapt to changes. I actually think Apple has released if anything too many “innovations”. These things take time for people to accept and learn to use to their potential. I’ll give one example: Rendezvous has been out for a year and its full potential is nowhere near realized. I could see that perhaps this or other things like it found in OS X could sadly fade because there were so many others that were focussed on. Many other examples could be sited. You just can not release that many new things or they will not be digested by the public. Also, the expectations on this company are insane. People expect a “mac caliber” innovative product to be released every 6 months by Apple. Apple failed huh? Because they can not create something as innovative as the mac every year? I think they do enough. They sure satisfy me.
…was probably the smartest thing they’ve done. Outside that, the OS was going down the drain. And there’s only so much a pretty graphic user interface can do you know. It can impress your girlfriends, but that’s about it. Everyday a MAC user wakes up, he or she should thank Steve and then thank Unix.
Regards,
Mystilleef
This “no marketshare” or “blip on the rader” stuff completely ignores the fact that the iPod is the world’s most popular digital music player. Who cares if the iPod is expensive? It’s still beating the crap out of the competition. Which just shows you: if Macs ran Windows, Apple would probably sell three times as many computers. The barrier here is software: people think the Mac OS won’t run their software. And, occasionally, they’re right. However, in probably about 80% of the cases — higher for average consumers — everything they need is available. So what’s the problem? Stupidity, that’s all. People are stupid: when some computer geek idiot tells them they need a PC, and Macs are dumb, then those people will buy a PC. Plain and simple.
But the iPod is a different story. They can plug their iPod into their Dell, IBM, HP, Toshiba, white-box, whatever, PC and it will work fine. There is no compatibility problem — hence the fact that the iPod is a runaway success.
So what’s Apple supposed to do? I don’t know, but I’d say everything they are doing right now is pretty much on target. Keep marketing, keep making cool products, don’t let go of the speed drive (go eat ****, Motorola), push OS X in UNIX-friendly sectors, etc. I think it will pay off in the end. And, of course, keep hyping the iPod. Make it an industry standard, make it part of the language, like “xerox” and “kleenex”.
Regards,
Jared
Typical collectivist bromides…YOU don’t matter. Only the TEAM matters. Don’t judge others’ incompetence. Don’t strive for the top. Wallow in mediocrity. Being better then your TEAMMATES is not nice. Be dumb like the rest of the collective.
Nothing great has ever been accomplished by a committee.
While the iPod is still expensive ($300-$500) it totally owns the MP3 player market. In gadget-happy Japan, it currently has 42% marketshare, while in the US (as of July ’03) it is projected to have 54% marketshare by the end of the year.
When the guy said they “killed Apple”, he was referring to the Apple that he worked for. He seems to think of the current Apple as a completely different company that just inherited the name and products. So, please read the article before throwing out the “Apple isn’t dead” comments.
In the article it says that when Steve Jobs returned he “had to burn the old company to the ground in order to salvage something viable out of it.” He even says “Maybe the new Apple he’s building will someday have the same authority and heft as the old one”.
The blog was about the daily strifes at work at Apple – not about pure innovation / technology / products. In effect, he was saying that people at Apple spent a lot of time by themselves – whereas to be more successful (business-wise) management and teams tend to work together better. Perhaps Microsoft is able to do this and is the reason for their success.
Personally, that’s where I see the downfall. Ideas that don’t make it to market aren’t the fault of engineers. Or secretaries. Or the janitor. Nor is it the canteen lady. It is the management.
There is a difference between “senior execs” and management.
However, I believe that if a few senior execs can turn the company around (ie. the return of Jobs) then clearly the previous senior execs can be blamed for failure to solve that problem.
As a senior execs it is your job to foster a healthy cooperative working environment. Failure to do so means you are to blame for the consequences.
Simply: because it’s to expensive. It has great GUI,
gread BSD OS, great software, but I could buy a decent PC
with no OS preinstalled and install Linux for much less.
Apple shuld make possible for Mac software, to run on
cheaper hardware. Maybe cheaper than Intel, why not.
BSD would run on allmost anything.
DG
I think the word you are looking for is “vision”. Steve Jobs has a vision. I think previous execs at Apple were just trying to run a company and make money.
nobody killed mac. It can come back , if it separates its hardware from s/w. Its damn costly to buy a good mac. If they come up with OS only, it can give good competition to MS. But nobody wants to do it bcoz they think apple for fat purses and its an item for them. But in reality its the cost tht takes over the market.
the moment apple realizes this, it can win the market. As long as it sells the macs at the cost of bmw the market will be single digit only.
hi guys well i haven’t really seen the early days in computers of 1980’s or early 90’s how ever just to know what was going on i have read everything about it internet has to offer & also seen a movie based on rivalry in early days of Apple & Microsoft (movie name “PIRATES OF SILICON VALLEY”) after seeing that movie i felt that Steve Jobs had a perfect vision of future & he was not allowing MS to get ahead of them however his way of working was weird (or you can say he was arrougant) but he was making money for Apple. i find the man who decided to fire Steve Jobs from his job as one to blame for apple being behind of compition. sure jobs came back in 96 but what had happend? MS was rulling PC. PC were cheaper than Apple. Apple was sinking. & most important part MS was part of Apple. so Jobs hands were tied to do anything. but still i must say he came a long way in getting apple on the right track. remember OS X has functionality of Unix in State of the art GUI. alright some geeks may say it looks like candy but hey thats what it is all about looks (why you think proche spend billions of $ on design of their car?) & yes apple pcs are expensive but now a days need for computers for different tasks is increasing & OSX has all functionality embeded in it. so i think rather than buying 2 – 3 PCs you are better of buying a mac cause it works out to be cheaper!
now interesting question “What if steve jobs would have stayed at Apple?” hmmmmm may be MSBLAST for OSX??????????
The Beatles killed Apple computer, back in 2003, when they sued them over the Apple trademark because iTunes and iPods play music.
Too bad The Beatles don’t play music anymore.
“Apple did some stupid things and there were clearly problems with management so i don’t doubt the allegations. But Apple is not dead it is looking better and better.”
What the article overlooks is that if you want to do something new, most projects will fail. All those “disasters” that he quotes are unavoidable. You have to start ten projects to get one success.
Everything in the article suggests that he has become (and maybe was then) safe and middle aged. As somebody else posted, there is nothing worse than Team Spirit if you want innovation.
and talks about things have changed since. Maybe the apple of the mid-90s is dead?
The old joke already said it all. Many large corporations are bureaucratic and stifling, but then there are startups and larger companies like Apple (Sculley/Spindler years) and Enron that go to the opposite extreme of not having any controls. Finding the right balance ain’t easy. It sounded like they needed at least one military type in senior management whose job it was to kick butt and cancel projects before they got out of hand.
I can already picture the “I killed Apple” t-shirts (white block letters on black, of course).
The more they homogenise their OS the more users they will have.
Right…Apple and homogenising their OS. Let’s see:
* QuickDraw vs Quartz2D
* Carbon Events vs NSEvent vs WaitForNextEvent()
* TYPE/Creator vs .xyz suffix
* Cocoa vs Carbon
* Mach-O vs PEF
* “:” vs “/” as path separator, including different file system roots
* HFS+ vs UFS, case insensitive vs case sensitive
Classic MacOS was homogenous, but MacOS X is a strange bastard.
Maybe the apple of the mid-90s is dead?
Isn’t exactly that his point?
Quote: “But let’s not lose sight of the fact that he [Mr Jobs] had to burn the old company to the ground in order to salvage something viable out of it.”
“Apple _needs_ a $500 retail computer. This is the only way their market share is going to increase in any serious fashion. Leveraging multiple product lines doesn’t work if no one’s using any of them very much. ”
You’ll set off a storm with that statement. I agree that they need a basic white box-like apple mini-tower that costs under $650 to drive market share up. Market share is important.
So instead of targeting the middle income bracket, instead Apple should now head for the ultra-cheap-skate-I-pirate-all-my-software-off-friends market? No, there is a difference between market QUATITY and QUALITY. The PC market may have a large QUATITY but when it comes to people willing to pay for a QUALITY good or service, the number of people shrinks to a VERY small number.
Most people don’t know what a Mac is, where one buy one and the myth of incompatibility and lack of applications still perpetuate the problems. In a nutshell Apples problem is a lack of GLOBAL marketing, realising that although the US is a dead horse, there are millions around the world; Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, who have not made their choice yet.
Apple should realise that by constantly being focused on the US, they’re flogging a dead horse. Microsoft has already one the US but they are still fighting battles overseas. Apple is in a unique position, unlike the competition, who have a good knowledge of designing software and hardware, it is just too bad they suck at marketing it.
It’s nice to see that at least a few people still read Ayn Rand.
“…was probably the smartest thing they’ve done. Outside that, the OS was going down the drain. And there’s only so much a pretty graphic user interface can do you know. It can impress your girlfriends, but that’s about it. Everyday a MAC user wakes up, he or she should thank Steve and then thank Unix”
Mystilleef:
It seems that its only us Unix?Linux heads that really get it – Apple paid Next to take it over – and give it a real Unix operating system – otherwise the old Apple really would be dead now.
But of course, Ayn Rand wasn’t against colletivism as in voluntary cooperation in a place of work, rather against collectivism like socialism and communism where cooperation is forced.
Besides, a lot of people read Ayn Rand… just that most of them end up thinking she’s a nut.
I would propose an additional lesson: that even when the outlook is bleak, you can get the results you want by going in and fighting for what matters to you. That’s what happened with new management at Apple; they, and all the employees at Apple, turned the company’s fortunes around by themselves. A far cry from Michael Dell’s “I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.” approach (his statement in an interview in 1997 when asked what he would do if he were in Steve Jobs’ position).
In a nutshell Apples problem is a lack of GLOBAL marketing, realising that although the US is a dead horse, there are millions around the world; Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, who have not made their choice yet.
Although I can’t speak for Europe or Asia, your completely off the ball when it comes to New Zealand and Australia. Both countries have a greater penertration of computers and the Internet than the USA. Due to the simple economics of the exchange rate, we might not upgrade quite so often, but trust me, we know what a Mac is.
For the record, we made our decision a while ago. It’s pretty much the same. Most people have PCs, a few have Macs. A small but growing minority are heading towards Linux.
If you go back ten years, Apple computers were the choice in schools due to some very large sponsorship deals. After that, things went downhill for Apple has MS muscled in and started handing out gobs of free software to schools.
The reality is that Macs, regardless of their merits, have virtually no future. The simple problem is cost. Macs are really only readily affordable in North America and Japan. Apple has almost no hope of getting a foothold in Asia or India. A basic G5 costs the about one years salary for an Indian IT graduate – or a lifetime of saving for an ordinary Indian person.
Macs might be great so are Mercedes…just that 90%+ of the worlds people cannot/afford justify the purchase of either.
Although I can’t speak for Europe or Asia, your completely off the ball when it comes to New Zealand and Australia. Both countries have a greater penertration of computers and the Internet than the USA. Due to the simple economics of the exchange rate, we might not upgrade quite so often, but trust me, we know what a Mac is.
I’m a New Zealander and I know what the situation is. The number of people I have talked to who don’t know that they can buy Office for Mac and able to share Office files with their colleagues, well, it is mind boggling.
People assume that because it is a different computer, it automatically makes them incompatible with the rest of the world.
For the record, we made our decision a while ago. It’s pretty much the same. Most people have PCs, a few have Macs. A small but growing minority are heading towards Linux.
Most of these people would have chosen something else had they known that there was something else out there. Most assume that a computer is a computer and that they all run Windows and anything that doesn’t is either crap or incompatible with the rest of the world, which is completely false.
If you go back ten years, Apple computers were the choice in schools due to some very large sponsorship deals. After that, things went downhill for Apple has MS muscled in and started handing out gobs of free software to schools.
You would find that isn’t the case. The main computers being used in New Zealand schools were BBC Micros then later replaced either with Amigas or Acorn. It has just been recently that they have been moving to the PC.
This guy is giving himself too much credit – he thinks he has killed Apple but Apple is far from dead.
He left in 1997 which is right around the turning point of Apple. But that Apple does look like it’s on its way to oblivion. This guy obviously hasn’t been following the recent events, ‘cuz with OS X maturing, a line of awesome laptops and now the G5, Apple is poised for a great comeback.
“People are stupid: when some computer geek idiot tells them they need a PC, and Macs are dumb, then those people will buy a PC.”
I think you brought up a good point. Apple should market more to the geek crowd rather than the novice. Apple’s image of being dummy-proof is actually hurting it in some ways – ill-informed people think “Macs are for dummies, I’m not dummy hence I don’t need a Mac”.
Many alpha geeks have already discovered the joy of OS X. But Apple needs to market to them more anyway – I believe just a little bit of investment in this direction will go a long way.
test