PDA

View Full Version : CEO of the year.


MacBytes
Nov 20, 2006, 09:06 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Polls
Link: CEO of the year. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20061120220628)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

wmmk
Nov 20, 2006, 09:23 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Polls
Link: CEO of the year. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20061120220628)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

oh man! people under 18 can't vote!?!?! I have plenty of stock in custodial accounts!

sushi
Nov 20, 2006, 09:28 PM
Just voted. Thanks!

Kingsly
Nov 20, 2006, 10:16 PM
Voted.

Jobs for President!
:D

dsnort
Nov 20, 2006, 10:20 PM
I voted for Steve Jobs, but, can you imagine the CIA under Steve? ( Wouldn't nobody know crap!!!)

Allotriophagy
Nov 20, 2006, 10:24 PM
I refuse to vote. Not one of those guys is hot.

ezekielrage_99
Nov 20, 2006, 11:18 PM
I was hoping Sol Trujilo or Phil Burgess was going to be on that list...... :D

Run Telstra in to the ground guys.

egretry
Nov 21, 2006, 02:40 AM
I refuse to vote. Not one of those guys is hot.

Where is Steve of Microshaft? Trash bin?:eek:

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

MacQuest
Nov 21, 2006, 06:18 AM
Where is Steve of Microshaft? Trash bin?:eek:

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Ahem... miCrapsoft doesn't use Trash Bins in winBlows xPee, they use Recyle Bins.

And yes, that is where I would presume steve "the missing link" emBallmer would be.

:D

BenRoethig
Nov 21, 2006, 07:53 AM
I don't know. Steve jobs has done a great job, but his own biases have kept Apple from doing phenomenally. Could could be doing much better. To me, you have to squeeze every ounce of potential out of your company and Steve hasn't quite done that.

cwt1nospam
Nov 21, 2006, 08:08 AM
I don't know. Steve jobs has done a great job, but his own biases have kept Apple from doing phenomenally. Could could be doing much better. To me, you have to squeeze every ounce of potential out of your company and Steve hasn't quite done that.

He's taken a maverick company that all the experts thought would be out of business years ago and made it into the industry leader. Every PC company follows what Apple does.

You need to look at where Apple is compared to other companies that didn't just give up and sell Windows boxes. Companies like SGI and Sun. Compared to them, Apple is doing phenomenally. Compared to Windows box distributors like HP and Dell, Apple looks even better! Remember, it isn't your sales volume or market share that matters, it's your profitability and the direction you're headed in that counts.

MacBoobsPro
Nov 21, 2006, 08:20 AM
It isn't your sales volume or market share that matters, it's your profitability and the direction you're headed in that counts.

Also remember that SJ has made the brand something that everyone sees as innovative, quality and cool.

The brand is a companies biggest asset (when nurtured correctly).

Think CocaCola = great tasting quality drink from a confident company that has stayed true to its brand.

Think Pepsi = crap tasting drink from a company that doesnt know what it wants to be. How many 'rebrands?'

Which is the most successful?

Apple know exactly what they want and are going about it the right way. They are in a transitional period with regards to product line up i.e. from selling just computers to electronic devices and music - but their targets remain the same. So in that respect they have greatly enhanced profit potential and reinforced the Apple brand.

Steve Jobs has made the difference.

EDIT: Steve Jobs (among others) has made the difference. Lets be fair :)

p0intblank
Nov 21, 2006, 08:25 AM
I obviously voted for Jobs. :)

lmalave
Nov 21, 2006, 08:28 AM
I don't know. Steve jobs has done a great job, but his own biases have kept Apple from doing phenomenally. Could could be doing much better. To me, you have to squeeze every ounce of potential out of your company and Steve hasn't quite done that.

Explain please? Which of Steve's biases are hurting Apple? With the iPod line, Apple's execution has been flawless this year. Where was Steve biased here? He's biased toward simplicity, so he introduced Video only when he felt it was ready. He introduced an FM Tuner/remote so that users that *want* an FM Tuner can have it. And indications are that Apple is about to release an iPhone to beat back the music player phone threat.

And on Macs? Steve switched to Intel. He had Apple implement its own BootCamp, freely inviting users to also install Windows on the Macs. The Macs are completely standards-based and use basically no propietary hardware components. What bias are you talking about? Are you just talking about the 1-button mouse? 'Cause I really don't think that's a make-or-break issue that's "kept Apple from doing phenomenally".

So please explain your comment further...

mkrishnan
Nov 21, 2006, 08:43 AM
I actually ended up voting for Pandey of XeChem, because I think the work they're doing is very pioneering and opens up new windows in the combination of pro-social and profitable business strategy. Jobs would've been a good choice to me also, though, because although his leadership has been outstanding for many years, he has particularly done very well this year.

There are several other people like Buffett on the list whom I hold in high regard, but to me haven't done anything particularly interesting on the list.

With Wagoner's inclusion, it's good to see that good performance as a CEO is not a criteria for nomination. ;)

BenRoethig
Nov 21, 2006, 08:50 AM
Explain please? Which of Steve's biases are hurting Apple? With the iPod line, Apple's execution has been flawless this year. Where was Steve biased here? He's biased toward simplicity, so he introduced Video only when he felt it was ready. He introduced an FM Tuner/remote so that users that *want* an FM Tuner can have it. And indications are that Apple is about to release an iPhone to beat back the music player phone threat.

And on Macs? Steve switched to Intel. He had Apple implement its own BootCamp, freely inviting users to also install Windows on the Macs. The Macs are completely standards-based and use basically no propietary hardware components. What bias are you talking about? Are you just talking about the 1-button mouse? 'Cause I really don't think that's a make-or-break issue that's "kept Apple from doing phenomenally".

So please explain your comment further...

Front row and iWork are both incomplete. Little has been done to bring Macs to metro areas smaller than half a million people. The current product line excludes users, even some who had traditionally bought Macs before. Apple could have 10% of the market if Apple would branch out beyond the artsy content creation crowd.

lmalave
Nov 21, 2006, 08:58 AM
My choice is definitely Steve Jobs.

Apple took a huge risk in making the switch to Intel, and this is the year that Apple successfully implemented that switch. Not only did Apple deliver the Intel Macs ahead of schedule (compared to most people's expectations), but he was able to significantly increase market share, especially toward the end of the year.

Apple was also able to at least maintain sales in the iPods by continuing to improve the design (especially with the nanos). Maintaining and increasing sales is no small feat when you already have complete market saturation the way the iPod does.

Lastly, Apple put its cards down on the table in terms of movie/video downloads, beginning with the Disney deal, the increase in TV show video resolution to 640x480, and the preview of the iTV.

All in all, quite a banner year for Apple. Though HP would be my close 2nd choice for its massive marketshare gains and threat to eclipse both Dell and IBM as the top Tech company. But Apple faced bigger risks with the Intel transition and executed flawlessly.

lmalave
Nov 21, 2006, 09:17 AM
Front row and iWork are both incomplete. Little has been done to bring Macs to metro areas smaller than half a million people. The current product line excludes users, even some who had traditionally bought Macs before. Apple could have 10% of the market if Apple would branch out beyond the artsy content creation crowd.

Ok, I could see the Front Row criticism, but again I think this is a case of Apple waiting until a technology is more mature. I mean, compare it to Windows Media Center. Microsoft has 10x the market share of Apple, and yet only a tiny percentage of people are using Windows Media Center in their living room. It's really only technophile early adopters that are even attempting to use WMC as a full DVR/entertainment solution. Wait until Apple updates Front Row to coincide with the iTV launch, then decide. I think the mass market will find the iTV/wireless solution more elegant than having a clunky computer shoved into your entertainment center.

iWork is totally irrelevant to market share. Ask yourself this: even if Apple offered a full-feature iWork equivalent for every Microsoft Office application, do your really think the mass market would abandon Microsoft Office to use iWork? I really don't think so. The mass market just wants to know that Microsoft Office will run on the Mac. I think Apple has been right in emphasizing the ability to run Microsoft Office, rather than emphasizing iWork. I think iWork is there just as a backup in case Microsoft some day decides to pull the plug on the Mac version of Office.

And as far as the Mac marketing to an urban/artsy crowd, I think you have it wrong. I think Apple, more than its competitors, is marketing to YOUTH, because they know that younger customers will be much, much more open to "switching" than their parents. I think *that's* primarily what you're seeing in the advertising. I'm not a fan of the latest Mac advertising campaign, but when I look at the 2 characters I primarily see the contrast as "OLDER/corporate/boring" vs. "YOUTH/entertainment/fun". And all indications are that the marketing is starting to be very successful. Some college computer stores are reporting almost 50% Mac sales. Get the kids hooked on Macs, and hopefully they'll grow up to be lifelong Mac users...

BenRoethig
Nov 21, 2006, 09:41 AM
Ok, I could see the Front Row criticism, but again I think this is a case of Apple waiting until a technology is more mature. I mean, compare it to Windows Media Center. Microsoft has 10x the market share of Apple, and yet only a tiny percentage of people are using Windows Media Center in their living room. It's really only technophile early adopters that are even attempting to use WMC as a full DVR/entertainment solution. Wait until Apple updates Front Row to coincide with the iTV launch, then decide. I think the mass market will find the iTV/wireless solution more elegant than having a clunky computer shoved into your entertainment center.

People aren't using it their living room. They're using it as a VCR and transferring the game or show on to DVD. iTV has no chance. It's not a PVR. It's a way of playing iTunes movies on your T.V. Unlike it's music counterpart, iTunes movies and iTV offer nothing over DVDs. The quality and compression technology need to get much better.

iWork is totally irrelevant to market share. Ask yourself this: even if Apple offered a full-feature iWork equivalent for every Microsoft Office application, do your really think the mass market would abandon Microsoft Office to use iWork? I really don't think so. The mass market just wants to know that Microsoft Office will run on the Mac. I think Apple has been right in emphasizing the ability to run Microsoft Office, rather than emphasizing iWork. I think iWork is there just as a backup in case Microsoft some day decides to pull the plug on the Mac version of Office.

iWork is not an MS office competitor. It's an Appleworks replacement, aka a MS Works competitor. Yes it is relevant to market share. Suzy and John Q Want a family computer and look at the iMac. It's a little pricey, but they really like the looks and space saving all in one design. They find out that little Johnny can't do his homework on the iMac unless they work over another $80 for a program that can't even do spreadsheets. They buy an HP instead. Yes, I've actually seen that scenario happen. Computers can't do anything without software and people make documents much more often then they make a home movie.

autrefois
Nov 21, 2006, 10:10 AM
I'm leaning towards Steve Jobs for 2006 CEO of the year, but I will withhold my vote until December 31, since the year isn't over yet. :)

lmalave
Nov 21, 2006, 10:17 AM
People aren't using it their living room. They're using it as a VCR and transferring the game or show on to DVD. iTV has no chance. It's not a PVR. It's a way of playing iTunes movies on your T.V. Unlike it's music counterpart, iTunes movies and iTV offer nothing over DVDs. The quality and compression technology need to get much better.


But again, what percentage of people are using Windows Media Center machines as a PVR? A tiny percentage of Windows users. Believe me, I've had a Windows Media Center HP laptop before. The basic problem is that if the computer isn't in your living room, then you need to have a separate cable box to connect to your computer's TV tuner. And then the recording quality is still crappy. Have you *used* a Windows Media Center computer before? I have. Windows Media Center is going to get outflanked by the combination of PVR-enabled cable boxes (for people that don't care about saving it to DVD), and DVD recorders (which are now as cheap as DVD players used to be just a few years ago, and as cheap as VCRs were in the early 90's).

And I think you're not seeing the full vision of the iTV. I don't think it will just be a way to play iTunes movies on your TV. Fundamentally, it's an internet-connected device that's also connected to your TV, so there's nothing preventing the iTV from displaying streaming video content even if it isn't on your hard drive. I think in the future streamed movies-on-demand and streaming live TV are going to become much more widely adopted, and Apple will be poised to capitalize on that...

lmalave
Nov 21, 2006, 10:49 AM
iWork is not an MS office competitor. It's an Appleworks replacement, aka a MS Works competitor. Yes it is relevant to market share. Suzy and John Q Want a family computer and look at the iMac. It's a little pricey, but they really like the looks and space saving all in one design. They find out that little Johnny can't do his homework on the iMac unless they work over another $80 for a program that can't even do spreadsheets. They buy an HP instead. Yes, I've actually seen that scenario happen. Computers can't do anything without software and people make documents much more often then they make a home movie.

Ok, this is valid criticism. The Mac should bundle another free Office-lite app with their Macs since they have abandoned AppleWorks development. I use Open Office and I think it's great, but it's definitely not ready for the mass market. Not because OpenOffice lacks features or ease of use, but rather because it requires X11 and most users will go "huh" when they see X11 starting up (expecially since by default X11 will launch an xterm window).

I think maybe what Apple should do is bundle something like Open Office with their macs, just make it more seamless.

But again, despite your personal anecdote I think you're talking about a very small percentage of users that would actually base their decision on one machine coming preinstalled with Microsoft Works vs. the Mac not having an equivalent. For most consumers, office is basically *the* application they're concerned about - and P.S. the Student/Teacher edition of Office is available for both the PC and the Mac for just $130.