
Steve at NeXT - alexandros
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2011/08/25/Steve-at-NeXT
======
annon
"Mr. Cook sent an email around to everyone saying Apple wouldn’t change. That
seems a little weird to me; I seem to remember that not too many years ago
Apple was a computer company that didn’t do music. Isn’t change at the center
of their success?"

I don't think he was saying that they will keep making the same products
forever, it's that their core values aren't going to change, as they
shouldn't. It's in the companies nature to experiment in new products, and
that is what is not going to change.

"...in history’s rear-view, his biggest achievement will be having ripped
music retailing out of the labels’ hands, and mobile software out of the
telephone companies."

Those are great achievements, but Apple II? Lisa/Mac? Pixar? Rescuing a
failing company and bringing it from oblivion to the most valuable company in
the world in only 14 years?

~~~
vilda
Note that Pixar was Steve's investment - it was not related to Apple.

Also note that the investment was in Pixar's graphics computers(!) not
animation art. In reality, Steve was fighting with Pixar to stop animations
and sell their hi-tech computers only. He fails and that starts great
animation studio which later abandoned computer manufacturing.

~~~
amirmc
Sounds like all his failures were about trying to ship hardware when it was
the software that was most interesting for people.

~~~
jacques_chester
But many of his greatest successes are almost pure hardware stories (Apple II,
iMac, iBook, iPod, iPhone, MacBook Air, iPad), so you can't fault him for
humming a catchy tune.

~~~
amirmc
Are they really 'pure hardware'? I'm not so sure anymore. Admittedly I don't
know much about the older stuff but some folks have argued that (most of) the
hardware for things like the iPod/iPhone already existed but Apple had a
fantastic knack for _combining_ it in a compelling, design-driven way (inc.
the interface/interaction). That's where the success lay. From that point of
view it wasn't about the hardware but more the design and software.

I'm just thinking aloud here (not really trying to 'defend a point' as such).

~~~
TetOn
You make a key point. When you think of the original iPod or the iPhone or
several of the iMac designs, you most likely first think of the striking
physical design of the device. The "Jony Ive" effect, if you will.

But each of these is and was utterly defined by the software they ran. Take
the original iPod; without that great interface the device _really would_ have
boiled down to "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." and gone nowhere
in the market, like basically all of its competitors at the time. Same thing
with the iPhone. The interface is the thing, but that interface happens to
exist only inside a wonderful, plainly well built and beautifully designed
device that you enjoy holding in your hand even when it's off. One without the
other would utterly change the effect of the whole...and I'd say this has been
the key to Apple's resurgence: More often than not over the last ~14 years,
they've delivered the whole package.

------
christoph
I think the real take home point which seems to have been missed elsewhere the
last couple of days is:

 _Jeepers, the essential point about business is that you never know how the
story’s going to end._

 _I really don’t know how it’s going to play out. But then, neither does
anyone else. I really hope they go on making great computers for me to use,
and great mobile devices to compete against._

I really couldn't agree with this point more. I've actually got quite annoyed
reading all the articles the last few days with various people looking into
the crystal ball predicting the future. Not even Steve knows how the story is
going to end.

~~~
VMG
The speculations stemming from people looking into the crystal ball explaining
the past are also very annoying.

Nobody knows if Jobs' personality, his attention to detail, his business
strategy, luck or something else entirely are the reason for Apples success.
In most cases CEOs have limited influence on the company, so most analyses
I've read seem to fall victim to the Narrative Fallacy[1].

[1] <http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Narrative_fallacy>

edit: removed scribd link to unauthorized copy _The Drunkards Walk_ by Leonard
Mlodinow which has a section on CEOs influence on a companies success.

------
sunchild
When Tim Cook says "Apple won't change", I take that to mean that Apple will
continue to stay ahead of the curve. Not changing means changing everything
from time to time, since that's become Apple's SOP over the past years.

------
pohl
So Bray took Cook's we'll-be-the-same-Apple email to mean that Apple won't
enter new markets? How is that even a reasonable interpretation?

~~~
jmreid
It's not a reasonable interpretation. Bray is just very far outside of Apple
to interpret it the correct way. That email wasn't from Tim Cook to the world,
it was from Tim Cook, new CEO, to his employees.

------
doe88
"I work for Google, but the opinions expressed here are my own, and no other
party necessarily agrees with them."

He tries very hard to be fair & balanced though, at least as much as you could
expect from such context.

~~~
rimantas
I think the post would be better if only account on encounter with Steve was
there, no speculations. Hardly there is any bias involved, it seems to me that
Tim is in the totally different universe than Apple and I doubt he will ever
"get it". Not that he has to.

------
tobylane
I get the feeling the R&D budget at Apple is just the salary and benefits of
the Vice Presidents, who have final word (and often first) on their products -
Scott Forstall (iOS), Jonathan Ive (hardware design) and Phil Schiller
(marketing/Mac).

