Meet the Board of Directors... who are they and what do they have to do with us?
- Thread starter MacLuv
- Start date
Hmm... I thought Ellison had already stepped back from the board, but my memory might fail on me here...
As I don't know any of them personally, I can't really say much about them. I also don't know what they actually DO for Apple and if they're any good at that, but as Javintosh pointed out, there are several fields in Apple's strategy that must be catered for.
Guess as long as one person's track record doesn't have 'microsofts kill our competition division' on it (i.e. a clear enemy of Apple), it doesn't really matter to me.
My guess is that much of Apple's strategy is really in the hand of Steven P. Jobs. And as far as I can see, the strategy has paid out. Apple's new strategy, the Digital Hub strategy, has been copied just weeks after its introduction by many companies, Microsoft among them. I guess that's a good sign about that strategy. And Apple is - maybe together with Sony - the only company really fulfilling this strategy.
Mac OS X is on a very good track if you look at its development from Mac OS X Public Beta to Mac OS X 10.2.x "Jaguar".
Apple has introduced an entry-level notebook, the iBook, which will sell like hot cakes this Christmas season at a price tag of 999$. On the high end, it has introduced the fastest portable Macintosh ever: The PowerBook G4 with 1 GHz and a SuperDrive it's the first truly mobile video editing and production solution.
Apple has also introduced .mac, an internet services PRODUCT (instead of all those .net strategies that are not yet really products) that actually sells and makes money.
Apple faces three major problems in these days, and I don't guess that switching variables in the 'team' will solve them.
The first, and biggest in my opinion, problem is the current low in the computer industry. Apple chose to 'innovate their way out of this'. And I think it's the only way to go.
The second problem is that a big portion of the market buys products (and their specs) rather than working solutions. And what Apple provides is the digital hub computer that lets you work creatively and easily with the electronic gadgets you also have and more importantly with the _media_ those gadgets carry (video, images, audio). Apple does well here but has to also care for the specs. See third problem.
The third problem, closely connected to the second one, is that Apple uses processors whose speed, which is nowadays measured in GHz, lacks in comparison with the competitors' processors.
So, basically, I think all Apple has to do is to get faster processors for their computers. Apple has several options here, and as Mac OS X is a highly portable operating system, they could basically choose any of the current processor families. However, since Apple is in the mid of switching its customers from OS 9 to OS X, it would be a bad move to start moving its customers yet again while still being in the first move. Steven P. Jobs said that they won't switch NOW, but that once the transition to OS X has been made, they would have options and that they like to have options.
Basically, I think Apple is on a very, very good path here. Exchanging heads wouldn't solve any of those three problems - it would create new and different ones.
Coming from another thread, I see that you mostly blame Steve Jobs for everything. While I agree upon the fact that he has been a bad leader in the past, I must say that I think he has changed quite a bit. If you ask the people who work for him directly, you'll get quite different answers than twenty years ago.
And in recent years, Steve Jobs - although he didn't do it alone - saved Apple. Simple fact: Apple would have died if Gil Amelio hadn't brought him (and NeXT) back. There might have been other options at the time, but if you look at the charts for recent years, you'll see that 'the second coming of Steven P. Jobs' saved Apple. And he can do again what he has done before. Replacing him would not only be a very difficult move, as his image in the computer world is unrivalled (he's basically the pop idol among computer CEOs), it would be a clear mistake.
As I don't know any of them personally, I can't really say much about them. I also don't know what they actually DO for Apple and if they're any good at that, but as Javintosh pointed out, there are several fields in Apple's strategy that must be catered for.
Guess as long as one person's track record doesn't have 'microsofts kill our competition division' on it (i.e. a clear enemy of Apple), it doesn't really matter to me.
My guess is that much of Apple's strategy is really in the hand of Steven P. Jobs. And as far as I can see, the strategy has paid out. Apple's new strategy, the Digital Hub strategy, has been copied just weeks after its introduction by many companies, Microsoft among them. I guess that's a good sign about that strategy. And Apple is - maybe together with Sony - the only company really fulfilling this strategy.
Mac OS X is on a very good track if you look at its development from Mac OS X Public Beta to Mac OS X 10.2.x "Jaguar".
Apple has introduced an entry-level notebook, the iBook, which will sell like hot cakes this Christmas season at a price tag of 999$. On the high end, it has introduced the fastest portable Macintosh ever: The PowerBook G4 with 1 GHz and a SuperDrive it's the first truly mobile video editing and production solution.
Apple has also introduced .mac, an internet services PRODUCT (instead of all those .net strategies that are not yet really products) that actually sells and makes money.
Apple faces three major problems in these days, and I don't guess that switching variables in the 'team' will solve them.
The first, and biggest in my opinion, problem is the current low in the computer industry. Apple chose to 'innovate their way out of this'. And I think it's the only way to go.
The second problem is that a big portion of the market buys products (and their specs) rather than working solutions. And what Apple provides is the digital hub computer that lets you work creatively and easily with the electronic gadgets you also have and more importantly with the _media_ those gadgets carry (video, images, audio). Apple does well here but has to also care for the specs. See third problem.
The third problem, closely connected to the second one, is that Apple uses processors whose speed, which is nowadays measured in GHz, lacks in comparison with the competitors' processors.
So, basically, I think all Apple has to do is to get faster processors for their computers. Apple has several options here, and as Mac OS X is a highly portable operating system, they could basically choose any of the current processor families. However, since Apple is in the mid of switching its customers from OS 9 to OS X, it would be a bad move to start moving its customers yet again while still being in the first move. Steven P. Jobs said that they won't switch NOW, but that once the transition to OS X has been made, they would have options and that they like to have options.
Basically, I think Apple is on a very, very good path here. Exchanging heads wouldn't solve any of those three problems - it would create new and different ones.
Coming from another thread, I see that you mostly blame Steve Jobs for everything. While I agree upon the fact that he has been a bad leader in the past, I must say that I think he has changed quite a bit. If you ask the people who work for him directly, you'll get quite different answers than twenty years ago.
And in recent years, Steve Jobs - although he didn't do it alone - saved Apple. Simple fact: Apple would have died if Gil Amelio hadn't brought him (and NeXT) back. There might have been other options at the time, but if you look at the charts for recent years, you'll see that 'the second coming of Steven P. Jobs' saved Apple. And he can do again what he has done before. Replacing him would not only be a very difficult move, as his image in the computer world is unrivalled (he's basically the pop idol among computer CEOs), it would be a clear mistake.
kendall
Registered
Who would want to put Apple out of business? 
Gil Amelio actually brought Apple back to profitability. It was mainly Michael Spindler who sunk Apple Computer. John Sculley didn't help either. Without any technical knowledge, he soon realized selling computers was a lot harder than selling sugar-warter.
Steve Jobs pioneered the iMac which did save Apple. Had the iMac not been so well received, Apple would be out of business today. Also, Jobs initiated the $150 million deal with Microsoft. Again, saving Apple Computer from certain death.
If they would have went with BeOS, we'd likely have a far more technically advanced OS today.
Gil Amelio actually brought Apple back to profitability. It was mainly Michael Spindler who sunk Apple Computer. John Sculley didn't help either. Without any technical knowledge, he soon realized selling computers was a lot harder than selling sugar-warter.
Steve Jobs pioneered the iMac which did save Apple. Had the iMac not been so well received, Apple would be out of business today. Also, Jobs initiated the $150 million deal with Microsoft. Again, saving Apple Computer from certain death.
If they would have went with BeOS, we'd likely have a far more technically advanced OS today.
sheepguy42
AFOL
Yeah, I though I read that like a month or 2 ago.
I think your second problem is more on target, and the third is just an example of why the second is a problem. People are used to computer companies marketing specs, technical details, with this fuzzy idea of actually using those specs pushed in the background. You are right, Apple sells solutions; I think that is what will help the company gain acceptance and marketshare from the public. It is refreshing for people to look at Apple's offerings, and see right away what those offerings do for them, rather than a bunch of useless numbers. I think the biggest marketing challenge right now is .mac, since most people already have, in some way, most of what it provides. I like to think of it as my own internet real-estate, where it doesn't matter if I switch ISPs or connection methods: it's always there. For one annual fee, I get 100MB of incredibly flexibe (read: many uses) disk space I can access from any computer online; 15MB of email space at an email address that, again, I can access how I want, where and when I want; virus protection; automatic backup software (and an offsite place to backup to!); and all of the special integrated services in MacOS X and the iApps which can only be used by .mac users. When I explain it this way, most people seem to appreciate it more. Unfortunately it is hard to express this in mass marketing.
Yes, MacLuv. I've been to the library five minutes ago and read them through.
I've actually read two of them partially. Must say, I've been around those times, too. I SAID there had been other options than to buy NeXT if you read my post. But looking back you see that Apple was in a VERY bad state and if you remember the times, you'll also remember that the coming back of Steve Jobs was highly appreciated by not only the Macintosh community, but also by the press. The iMac was a High of Apple Computer. It's futile to discuss what happened if, but clearly Apple is healthier since Steve Jobs' return. You can still click on the link I provided above to see it. If you don't see it, you're blind.
I've actually read two of them partially. Must say, I've been around those times, too. I SAID there had been other options than to buy NeXT if you read my post. But looking back you see that Apple was in a VERY bad state and if you remember the times, you'll also remember that the coming back of Steve Jobs was highly appreciated by not only the Macintosh community, but also by the press. The iMac was a High of Apple Computer. It's futile to discuss what happened if, but clearly Apple is healthier since Steve Jobs' return. You can still click on the link I provided above to see it. If you don't see it, you're blind.
Excalibur
Registered
If I remember right... Be wanted an insane amount of money that was several times that of what they paid for NeXT, plus they got Steve Jobs back. I think the cost of the buy is what screwed that deal more than anything. Plus Be was unproven technology, we as NeXT had been proven in its markets for being complete and tested.
NeXT was well known for its vast development tools. I don't think Apple made the wrong choice of OS technology to buy, I do wonder why the optimization is so tough there, but the technology we are getting from it is well worth it overall I believe.
NeXT was well known for its vast development tools. I don't think Apple made the wrong choice of OS technology to buy, I do wonder why the optimization is so tough there, but the technology we are getting from it is well worth it overall I believe.
Originally posted by sheepguy42
I think your second problem is more on target, ... (about .mac
Well, it's only a part of the strategy. I think it's a simple fact that people DO believe in MHz nowadays. AMD struggles with this, too. As bad as it is: Apple MUST face this fact in some or other way. They're simply losing sales the way it is now.
Or they can give more hands on experience by opening new stores. International ones would be a GOOD idea. Retail chains carrying Macs? They can die for all I care for, as long as we get Apple stores in good locations here in Europe, too.
sheepguy42
AFOL
I agree that the stores is at least one of the best ways to fight the problem. I think that is why the Apple Retail stores have done so well, despite the usual doom predictions. Most people I've met, once they give a current Mac running Jag a test drive, love it. Even with a (supposedly) snappier interface, WinXP does not by any means give them the same enjoyment & satisfaction out of using their computer.
In case you wonder why I only look at XP for comparison, people using an older version of Windows will have to get a new machine within a short time, say now to 3 years. Most of them are the best target for switchers, and they end up having to choose between Mac/Jag and {insert PC manu. here}/XP. Users of various UNIX flavors and Linux distros look for a different set of characteristics, and tend to be more knowledgable when it comes to MHZ Myth and other misleading details. They will see the value of having all of their UNIX tools and cool stuff alongside mainstream apps that may never go beyond Win/Mac desktop territory.
Nope, they wouldn't.
Motorola themselves at the time said they've squeezed every bit of life out of the 68K line of processors. They were at the verge of introducing a RISC based chip when IBM approached Apple about the PowerPC. Motorola was kind of forced into this alliance at first. But coming from the 68040 @ 40 MHz, the first PowerPC 601 processors sampled at 60-100 MHz. And it scaled. Development of the second generation PowerPC processors scaled even better. And the G3 looked very, very promising at the beginning. It was the big initial G4 desaster combined with Apple's commitment to it that failed the Mac faithful for more than a year.
Things like that happen - and IBM wasn't ready at the time to fill the gap. (Yes, there WERE faster G3 processors, but that would have been a marketing nightmare for one and a strategical nightmare, too, as Apple was preparing Mac OS X, which was aimed at AltiVec.)
Motorola themselves at the time said they've squeezed every bit of life out of the 68K line of processors. They were at the verge of introducing a RISC based chip when IBM approached Apple about the PowerPC. Motorola was kind of forced into this alliance at first. But coming from the 68040 @ 40 MHz, the first PowerPC 601 processors sampled at 60-100 MHz. And it scaled. Development of the second generation PowerPC processors scaled even better. And the G3 looked very, very promising at the beginning. It was the big initial G4 desaster combined with Apple's commitment to it that failed the Mac faithful for more than a year.
Things like that happen - and IBM wasn't ready at the time to fill the gap. (Yes, there WERE faster G3 processors, but that would have been a marketing nightmare for one and a strategical nightmare, too, as Apple was preparing Mac OS X, which was aimed at AltiVec.)
kendall
Registered
Where is my 1GHz G3 with 200MHz system bus?
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0110/15.ibm.php
Stuff like this pisses me off. The technology is there, its totally possible. It would be a killer platform yet Apple has to hold it back because they forked themselves with the G4. My 800MHz G3 is faster than my 667Mhz G4. Apps are more responsive and launch faster. The overall feel of the Aqua GUI is smoother. I'm sure Photoshop rendering would still be slower but who cares, thats one of 1000 things I use my computer for. For the 999 other things, my G3 kicks my previous G4s butt. Its $1000 cheaper and a whole hell of a lot cooler.
I want my 1GHz G3 and I want it NOW!
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0110/15.ibm.php
Stuff like this pisses me off. The technology is there, its totally possible. It would be a killer platform yet Apple has to hold it back because they forked themselves with the G4. My 800MHz G3 is faster than my 667Mhz G4. Apps are more responsive and launch faster. The overall feel of the Aqua GUI is smoother. I'm sure Photoshop rendering would still be slower but who cares, thats one of 1000 things I use my computer for. For the 999 other things, my G3 kicks my previous G4s butt. Its $1000 cheaper and a whole hell of a lot cooler.
I want my 1GHz G3 and I want it NOW!