Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DrMotownMac

Contributor
Jul 11, 2008
385
212
Michigan
If you have worked there you'd know it had everything to do with Steve Jobs.

Working at NeXT and having the Apple folks come over completely jealous and in awe of our offices was quite hilarious.

We brought the NeXT culture over to Apple.

Quite a bit of the PIXAR culture comes from NeXT and later Apple when Engineering staff and management from NeXT and Apple moved over to PIXAR.

PIXAR didn't have that ``cool'' culture of layout and what not until after Toy Story was a windfall.

----------



Considering Jobs cannot stomach Ayn Rand I concur.

Jobs is a big admirer of the likes of Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, Hewlett and Packard and other world visionaries.

Ah, I see. You know more about Steve Jobs than Woz does. Watch the linked video too, if you still don't believe it. It must be nice to pull fun facts out of your ass, huh? Too bad they're not true. Looks to me like he CAN stomach Ayn Rand more than you think.

http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com...ugged-help-inspire-steve-jobs-to-start-apple/
 

Wildog27

macrumors member
Jun 10, 2008
87
2
If the publishers of the Steve Jobs biography have any sense, they'll include a bunch of these videos in the appendices of the electronic versions of the book.
 

ericinboston

macrumors 68020
Jan 13, 2008
2,005
476
"Because It Failed to Innovate" is only part of the story. Other problems were:

1)0 Business allure...no business wanted (or even today) Macs...wicked expensive (comparatively), 0 business app support, and 0 business class Tech Support

2)Macs stayed expensive while Wintels got cheaper and cheaper and cheaper as each year went on. Cheaper may not essentially mean better, but when you're talking 1/2 or 1/3 the price, people vote with their wallets...especially if 90% of the rest of the world is choosing Wintel.

3)Apple proprietary methodology (works great for consumers) keeps business-class apps, hardware, support, and services away...thus again businesses wouldn't buy Macs. I am referring to the Mac OS, its licensing, the fact that you must run it on Apple hardware, etc.

4)As my wife puts it: "Macs are fine...but Apple only wants to sell you Apple."

5)Apple was a computer company...they "innovated" by becoming a consumer electronics company (iPod is what saved Apple). Innovating (by changing to a different company) helped...but that's like saying Nike all of a sudden barely sells sneakers and "innovated" by selling prescription glasses. Until 1999, Apple sold computers, printers, mice, monitors, and a handful of applications. From 1999 till present, Apple concentrates on iPods, iPhones, iTunes music purchases, newly-added iPads, and the revenue from AppStore sales. Macs are being purchased at "historic" levels, but Macs are clearly not Apple's direction (as of 2010/2011) and still sit at about 9% adoption rate for consumers worldwide...I think Apple has a big identity crisis with the Mac...and has had this crisis since 1999.


As you all may know, Apple changed its name several years ago...Apple is still a consumer-based company (which is 100% fine). So long as Apple keeps consumers happy, Apple will do well. But Apple still has the Mac line...which they have clearly pulled from the Business world...which may be fine...but Apple needs to be careful in that they don't release a set or 2 of Macs that annoy consumers.
 
Last edited:

kenaroni

macrumors newbie
Jan 18, 2011
6
0
Their (graphics) design and their marketing machinery are superior to the competition and they produce high-end consumer gadgets that serve as bling jewelry - that's where their success comes from.

I have to respond to this. You're kidding, right? Are you saying the iPod was, and is little more than bling jewelry? You must not have lived through the era when music was mostly only available on vinyl records, then 8-track tapes and cassettes. To be able to store all the music you want in a device the size of a deck of cards, and take it with you was like a miracle. That's why everybody wanted an iPod. It was a no-brainer. People have gotten used to small music players now and the excitement has faded. It's still awfully cool to an older guy like me who remembers the way it was.
 

SteveKnobs

macrumors 6502
Jun 23, 2010
434
0
CMU
I have to respond to this. You're kidding, right? Are you saying the iPod was, and is little more than bling jewelry? You must not have lived through the era when music was mostly only available on vinyl records, then 8-track tapes and cassettes. To be able to store all the music you want in a device the size of a deck of cards, and take it with you was like a miracle. That's why everybody wanted an iPod. It was a no-brainer. People have gotten used to small music players now and the excitement has faded. It's still awfully cool to an older guy like me who remembers the way it was.

I think he was implying that a lot (maybe even the majority) of people who buy Apple products (especially iPods, iPhones, and iPads) do so for the image portrayed by owning one. To use the cliche phrase, people buy them "for their looks." Heck, I know I'm guilty of it for a lot of Apple products I bought-Who the heck NEEDS an iPad- I mean seriously? People buy them because they look cool.
 

LeiQQ

macrumors regular
Jul 20, 2011
137
2
Taipei, Taiwan
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

MacSince1990 said:
This is a lie. Apple's problem was not innovation; they had great products in 1996, they were just priced horrifically high and deemed unaffordable by 97% of the population.

Innovation was never an issue at Apple, and anyone who says otherwise, is in my opinion either deluded or simply misinformed. Steve Jobs is far from the only creative mind at work at the company, and words like "innovation" are very often used to distract people from the reality of the situation.

Granted, Scully sucked. Hard. But Jobs was never the sole fertile mind at Apple.

I agree with some of this. I recall that in 1996-7 I wanted to buy a Mac but just couldn't afford it. The iMac was there just in a different form. Things were streamlined, forget everything but USB, make the computers brightly colored cute and affordable. People flocked to them. I had a second hand Mac in 1997 and then in 1998 I got an iMac.
 

SteveW928

macrumors 68000
May 28, 2010
1,834
1,380
Victoria, B.C. Canada
1)0 Business allure...no business wanted (or even today) Macs...wicked expensive (comparatively), 0 business app support, and 0 business class Tech Support

That's called.... stupid businesses, not an Apple problem. I was an IT consultant during Apple's worst years, and my Mac based clients got far more out of their computer systems than did the PC folks. Yes, they did cost more, but compared to HR, they are cheap either way. A computer is a tool, used by a human... a more productive tool equals a more productive person. The computer pays for itself in a few weeks. There were also plenty of business apps. My customers weren't left wanting for sure. Yes, on the high end, they didn't have the service arrangements like HP or others had (where an HP tech shows up and swaps out servers, etc.) but most companies don't really need that.

2)Macs stayed expensive while Wintels got cheaper and cheaper and cheaper as each year went on. Cheaper may not essentially mean better, but when you're talking 1/2 or 1/3 the price, people vote with their wallets...especially if 90% of the rest of the world is choosing Wintel.

First, you don't get a comparable computer for 1/2 or 1/3 the price... apples to oranges (no pun intended). If you take specs into consideration and care at all about quality (so you don't have to buy another one in 1/2 to 1/3 the time), Macs have typically been 10% to 50% more depending on the model. The only time you get into the range you're talking about is if you take the top 'Pro' models and load them up with Apple options (which the magazines often did to ensure the price advantage of the Wintel hardware).

It's also irrelevant if 90% of the world is using X, so long as the remaining 10% is enough market share to drive the software development needed. Apple has always had enough market share for that. There were a few years in Apple's darkest time when some of the software devs began to jump ship. If that had continued, it could have become a problem. It never did.

3)Apple proprietary methodology (works great for consumers) keeps business-class apps, hardware, support, and services away...thus again businesses wouldn't buy Macs. I am referring to the Mac OS, its licensing, the fact that you must run it on Apple hardware, etc.

Yea, it kept some stupid developers away. They were mostly speciality apps that weren't needed unless one was in some very specific discipline. For those cases, just use a Wintel box. I had a few Mac clients in areas like CAD that had a few Wintel boxes for that when they needed AutoCAD or stuff like that (even though there were better CAD apps available on the Mac at the time... like Ashlar's products.)

Having to run Mac OS on Apple hardware was never a problem, but a blessing. The WORST move Apple ever made was when they started to license it to the clones. That was one of the idiotic things the 'experts' were all recommending at the time. It was one of the things that might have done Apple in eventually.

4)As my wife puts it: "Macs are fine...but Apple only wants to sell you Apple."

I hate to insult your wife, but huh? I'm not seeing the point or the problem.


5)Apple was a computer company...they "innovated" by becoming a consumer electronics company (iPod is what saved Apple). Innovating (by changing to a different company) helped...but that's like saying Nike all of a sudden barely sells sneakers and "innovated" by selling prescription glasses. Until 1999, Apple sold computers, printers, mice, monitors, and a handful of applications. From 1999 till present, Apple concentrates on iPods, iPhones, iTunes music purchases, newly-added iPads, and the revenue from AppStore sales. Macs are being purchased at "historic" levels, but Macs are clearly not Apple's direction (as of 2010/2011) and still sit at about 9% adoption rate for consumers worldwide...I think Apple has a big identity crisis with the Mac...and has had this crisis since 1999.

Umm... that's because Jobs understands how these trends work. For example, Windows didn't get in the server room by being good. It got into the server room by making it into enough homes and CEO and IT people's personal computers. The true IT folks hated Windows initially for anything but the desktop (and most thought it silly there as well, but the users wanted it).

Companies and IT (especially big ones) are usually pretty dumb in their technology choices. They copy other big companies in hopes of not getting blamed for picking the wrong thing. If you can point to some other company using product X, you can save your butt. It is the innovative companies who implemented Apple products because they didn't have to cover their butts by using the 'norm'. Consider the widespread use of Lotus Notes in big companies (I rest my case!).

By getting Apple into the hands of the average consumer, even the most die-hard Apple haters eventually had to start recognizing that the iPod and then iPhone were pretty good products. If they were so good, maybe Macs deserved another look as well. With the move to OSX, it also gave people an excuse to take another look as Apple was now more 'pro' with the Unix underpinnings.

Today, since you can run Unix, OSX, Windows, etc. on a Mac, and the hardware is so good, there is hardly any good reason not to use a Mac. In my last IT role (in a Fortune 100), all the top execs used Apple laptops loaded with Windows. The only division of the company that was growing through the rough years after 2001 was using Macs for the whole development team and most of the IT team.

The reason Apple isn't more widely used in business is largely because of close-minded IT and tech folks. Pretty simple really.
 

LeiQQ

macrumors regular
Jul 20, 2011
137
2
Taipei, Taiwan
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

Rafterman said:
Um, you don't think he was already blessed enough?! :confused:

He will probably die from Pancreatic cancer in the not too distant future, at still a relatively young age. Money, success and fame aren't everything.

----------

"It took Microsoft ten years to copy Windows."

And you both copied your OS's (including the mouse) from Stanford and Xerox, the developers of the GUI with mouse control.

So true!
 

DrMotownMac

Contributor
Jul 11, 2008
385
212
Michigan
He will probably die from Pancreatic cancer in the not too distant future, at still a relatively young age. Money, success and fame aren't everything.

I remember, I used to talk to friends in college about this very question: If given the chance, would you have traded your life for John Lennon's? If you were John Lennon, you'd get to be the lead singer of The Beatles, have zillions of dollars, have a crazy rock and roll lifestyle complete with all of the sex, drugs and fame, but you'd have to be dead at 40. On the other hand, as yourself, you may live to be in your 80s, get to see your kids and grandchildren grow up, and lead a fruitful life, but probably not a very exciting or significant one (and by significant, I mean in terms of world impact...like John Lennon or Steve Jobs, I do not mean significant to those close to you).

As my username implies, I am now a doctor -- primary care doctor, to be more precise. And I will tell you, there is something to seeing some of these older patients who have 6 children, 15 grandchildren and 12 great grandchildren. They are patriarchs and matriarchs in their families, and those families are all that matter to most of them when they're older. On the other hand, they have a lot of ailments, they're in and out of hospitals frequently, and most of them say the "golden years" is a myth and I should enjoy my life while I'm young.

The bottom line is that while most of us strive to live longer and healthier lives, NONE of us succeed indefinitely in doing that. We all die, just some sooner than others. So, what makes for a blessed life? I believe it's reaching congruence between what our goals are and what we actually achieve. If my goal is to live to be the patriarch at the Thanksgiving table when I'm 85, then I wouldn't consider Steve Jobs' life a blessing. But, if his goal was to "change the world," than I think Steve Jobs has been blessed.

Think about his quotes in the past. "Do you want to sell sugar water the rest of your life or do you want to change the world?" Or, think about Apple's marketing and advertising, like the "Think Different" campaign. Or, just think about what he says in the interview in the top of this thread. He considers INNOVATION a blessing, and while I'm sure he'd give almost anything to cure his cancer right now, I don't think he has regrets about the way his life has turned out, unlike MANY people I know and see every day.
 

DeepIn2U

macrumors G5
May 30, 2002
12,826
6,880
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
It's amazing to see what one individual can do.

At the time of group think, Steve Jobs' story is proof that all that matters is the individual.

The person is everything, groups are nothing.

It needed a special person like Steve Jobs to get Apple's talented people and ideas, turn it from almost bankruptcy to the most valuable company in the world that it is today.

God, I remember these gray monsters that were just as ugly as Windows computers, but cost three times as much...

The G3 tower, blue and white, was the first turn, and then came the G4...

Great how Steve Jobs dealt with the G4 crisis, where Apple computers lagged behind because the G5 appeared too late, and wasn't enough.

The switch to Intel, and the success of the iPod...

We live in a time where specialists seem to rule. But in business, only companies that can serve a wider range of needs can make it to the top. Apple proved it by adding consumer goods like the iPod and the iPhone to its computer and software business, which resulted in the successful take-off.

Not sure about you but it was the recent former CEO of Palm (before HP buyout) when he worked with Apple as head of engineering that highlighted about the performance of the G4 and that clock speed was a myth. The industry laughed for about 1-2yrs but slowly users of both Windows/Mac began to saw the real truth of this.

Also the G5 was NOT a little too late. That thing was a HOME RUN when it was announced with Panther!! I'll grant the Panther had the most significant user base upgrade until Snow Leopard (due to the price of the latter).

The G3 was seriously WAAAY too long in the tooth and only benefited Motorola/IBM and the Lombard/Pismo/PQ. Those where real laptops and continued to sell when the performance was obviously lacking. When the G4 TiBook debuted we knew the sky was the limit at that point.
 

tkingart

macrumors 6502
Apr 1, 2010
278
0
West Coast
I have always admired and looked up to Steve Job's and what he has done for Apple, and the world. I just hope that he is getting rest and feeling better.
 

Mad-B-One

macrumors 6502a
Jun 24, 2011
789
5
San Antonio, Texas
I don't know what you were watching but its pretty inaccurate.

Pixar was founded by Steve Jobs when he took a group of computer artists from ILM along with Ed Catmull who was the head researcher and founded Pixar. Years later he sold it to Disney and became Disney's largest shareholder.

There are a lot more intricacies to the story but I don't quite remember them off the top of my head but I did a bunch of research on how Pixar was started when I applied for an internship there.

Ehm.... you contradict yourself in the first sentence... Who founded PIXAR accourding to you then? SJ or Ed Catmull? And if you watch the documentary, you will see how it all happened. Essentially, SJ was the money source and everyone involved was just awe of joy when that was secured, but SJ did not found it.
 

SteveW928

macrumors 68000
May 28, 2010
1,834
1,380
Victoria, B.C. Canada
... when he worked with Apple as head of engineering that highlighted about the performance of the G4 and that clock speed was a myth. The industry laughed for about 1-2yrs but slowly users of both Windows/Mac began to saw the real truth of this.

Also the G5 was NOT a little too late. That thing was a HOME RUN when it was announced ...

It amazes me how many were fooled by MHz and just don't get this one.... still don't it seems. The G5 crushed just about everything on the market. It was Intel that seemed to actually wake up (with prodding from Apple I'm sure) to head in the direction of the 'core' architecture (which was not the direction they had been headed). Apple made a lot of gains by going Intel, but at the time of the transition, performance wasn't one of them. I wrote an article about this back in 2006:

Has Apple finally awoke?

I was doing a decent amount of CAD and 3D animation at the time, so I was following performance quite closely. The only things that was able to beat the G5 in performance were a few custom built AMD and Intel based boxes, which were often over-clocked with special cooling, etc. (ie: nothing you could buy in the typical retail store).

The biggest problem was that that the IBM chips were power hungry (as were the Intel chips), so the 'core' architecture gave a huge advantage in portables. The 'PC' folks were having the same problem (they just built huge, heavy, laptops to get around the problem), so they benefited from Apple and Intel's work in this area as well. Notice how quickly other companies followed Apple onto the 'core' platform.
 

janstett

macrumors 65816
Jan 13, 2006
1,235
0
Chester, NJ
To be able to store all the music you want in a device the size of a deck of cards, and take it with you was like a miracle. That's why everybody wanted an iPod. It was a no-brainer.

The iPod was not the first digital music player. At the time I had a Creative something or other that was hard drive based and had 30 or 40 gb storage and was shaped like a CD player, back then the iPod had 5 gb. I think back then it was the Diamond Rio that was the popular player. Apple made it stylish and got the UI right. Then once the craze began it was fashionable to be seen with the white earbuds.

----------

The reason Apple isn't more widely used in business is largely because of close-minded IT and tech folks. Pretty simple really.

There's more to it. A lot more.

I was one of "those guys" who insisted on a Mac in a Wintel world in a company that came out of Bell Labs.

First, they are more expensive, significantly more expensive, than your run of the mill Dell ordered in bulk. When your department is trying to control costs (such as all spending above $100 needing an approval from a VP level executive), you are drawing a huge bulls-eye on your spending.

Second, no support from IT if it breaks. I'm fine with that, but non tech-saavy users would not be.

Third, you are going to be submitting expense reports for software because big companies have site licenses for Windows and Office, notably. These licenses do not include Mac:Office or the Mac equivalents when they are available. Particularly in architecting software, you need a Visio replacement and a MS Project replacement -- or a copy of Parallels/VMWare. So the VP who is already agitated that you needed a computer that's more expensive is going to be even more so that you are expensing additional software that everybody else gets as part of the site license. Plain and simple to an angry VP trying to control costs you are costing more money to do the same job. Remember that for your annual compensation review.

Fourth, infrastructure will be touch-and-go. For example, the VPN software my company used was not supported with OSX so I had to use a PC when I worked from home. They finally did add an OSX client (which was, surprise, not covered by the site license and was yet another expense report to be filled out) and then Apple broke it when Leopard came out and it took them 3-6 months to fix. Additionally, since the company was involved in the creation of 802.11 it ironically had very old wireless infrastructure which the Mac could not work with, so we were unable to use wi-fi and had to carry ethernet cables with us to the conference rooms, etc. Yet the PCs worked with the wi-fi just fine.

So as you can see, it's not simple at all.

------------
It amazes me how many were fooled by MHz and just don't get this one.... still don't it seems. The G5 crushed just about everything on the market. It was Intel that seemed to actually wake up (with prodding from Apple I'm sure) to head in the direction of the 'core' architecture (which was not the direction they had been headed).


Regarding the Power architecture, my memory is that the performance crown would jump back and forth every 3 months or so, although the G5 was falling significantly behind in floating point performance. However, even before it became clear that the G5 was going to be the end of the line, it was getting bested by Intel in the SPEC benchmarks and I remember having very heated e-arguments with Guy Kawasaki on comp.sys.mac.advocacy to that effect. Ironically SJ cited the SPEC benchmarks when announcing the switch to Intel...

At the time when the Core architecture was being cooked up I was working at a start-up which had Intel as one of the VC investors and they were on our board. They had a revelation that power alone was getting insane, that heat and power efficiency should be design points too -- and in doing so exceeded where the Pentium 4 family could have gone - one step back, two steps forward. It had nothing to do with Apple it was an Intel team in Israel working on the laptop-only Pentium M which made the case for stepping back from the P4 POWEEEEEEEER approach and Core was born. This was in the early 2000s and Paul Otellini made the announcement at an Intel developer conference, before he was head honcho.

In summary you have it backwards -- Apple's switch to Intel was prodded by the upside of the Core architecture. And pushed over the edge combined with the power/heat epiphany that Intel and SJ shared and the withering of the PPC's future from IBM/MOT.
 
Last edited:

MacinDoc

macrumors 68020
Mar 22, 2004
2,268
11
The Great White North
Here's hoping that with Jobs' second departure that history doesn't repeat itself. Apple needs to increase its investment in research and development in order to continue its lead in the overall mobile OS market and to increase its OS X share to reach a critical mass that could reduce some of the resistance to buying Apple computers that is currently caused by Windows' dominance.
 

SteveW928

macrumors 68000
May 28, 2010
1,834
1,380
Victoria, B.C. Canada
First, they are more expensive ... When your department is trying to control costs ...

Yea, that's called stupid. Remember my comments from the previous post about HR costs? It might not be IT's fault directly, true, if the overall company is that dumb (yes, many are).

Second, no support from IT if it breaks. I'm fine with that, but non tech-saavy users would not be.

That's called dumb... why would IT not support them, let alone implement them? Remember, my argument was that many IT types were being dumb for not seriously considering Apple... not that there weren't lots of dumb IT types! (there were)

Third, you are going to be submitting expense reports for software because big companies have site licenses for Windows and Office, notably. These licenses do not include Mac:Office or the Mac equivalents when they are available. Particularly in architecting software, you need a Visio replacement and a MS Project replacement -- or a copy of Parallels/VMWare.

Another stupid big company problem. Why do things this way? And, once again, those few extra dollars spent (that the VP is complaining about) are peanuts in the big picture. If your VP can't see the big picture... time for a new VP.

Fourth, infrastructure will be touch-and-go. ... the VPN software my company used was not supported with OSX ... it ironically had very old wireless infrastructure ...

Do I even need to comment?
It sounds like you were a brave Apple fan fighting against a poorly managed company with a silly IT department. The above is all pretty easily fixed with some forward-thinking people in the right positions. Again, remember, I was arguing against exactly the type of close-mindedness you seem to have encountered.

Regarding the Power architecture, my memory is that the performance crown would jump back and forth every 3 months or so

Well, I'm not sure if it was that quickly... but yea, they had been doing this back since I started working in computers in the late 80s (and probably had been before that). Intel and Motorola were constantly trading back and fourth on who had the fastest chips. Intel often used marketing to try and pull ahead rather than technology. (ex: remember the Intel DX4?)

although the G5 was falling significantly behind in floating point performance. However, even before it became clear that the G5 was going to be the end of the line, it was getting bested by Intel in the SPEC benchmarks

Be careful with benchmarks. If you look at the article I posted, I tried to compare in something more real-world... although even that will vary if one does some other 'real world' task than I did (3d rendering).

It had nothing to do with Apple it was an Intel team in Israel working on the laptop-only Pentium M which made the case for stepping back from the P4 POWEEEEEEEER approach and Core was born. This was in the early 2000s and Paul Otellini made the announcement at an Intel developer conference, before he was head honcho.

You could be correct there... I wasn't on the inside. I had heard Otellini had been wooing Steve Jobs for quite some time, and I don't know how far back the relationship went. I had heard at the time that Apple had a big influence on Intel going in that direction so heavily. Maybe my source was wrong though.

In summary you have it backwards -- Apple's switch to Intel was prodded by the upside of the Core architecture. And pushed over the edge combined with the power/heat epiphany that Intel and SJ shared and the withering of the PPC's future from IBM/MOT.

Sure, I'm not saying Apple didn't see the end of the road coming with PPC architecture (though it would have been interesting to see what they could have done with the Cell... the PS3 is pretty awesome, though a much more dedicated device to be sure). It was certainly a win-win for Apple and Intel in a number of ways. I'm still not convinced it was so one-way though.
 

janstett

macrumors 65816
Jan 13, 2006
1,235
0
Chester, NJ
SteveW928, it's pretty clear you've never worked for a big company or had to deal with a departmental budget.

Yea, that's called stupid. Remember my comments from the previous post about HR costs? It might not be IT's fault directly, true, if the overall company is that dumb (yes, many are).

Plain and simple, acquisition of laptops are a budget line-item. Sometimes they come out of corporate, sometimes they are an expense to your department. Spending $2500 on a Macbook Pro versus spending $700 on a bulk-purchased Dell, well, multiply that by 10,000 employees and then have to answer to the CFO for your budget. If you are a manager with 15 people working for you, you WILL be held accountable for 15 x $2500 by your manager. You build the reputation for being the guy who costs more to get his work done. When it comes time to cut costs, guess who is at the top of the list.

That's called dumb... why would IT not support them, let alone implement them? Remember, my argument was that many IT types were being dumb for not seriously considering Apple... not that there weren't lots of dumb IT types! (there were)

Wow. Why should IT support random platforms? IT departments do not just support anything you feel like having. The company has a platform, has a bulk supplier, and has a service contract, with one or more manufacturers. Should they support Linux too? You seem naive to how the world works. The IT department won't have access to training, parts, and service for non-standard platforms and they wouldn't want to add to their responsibilities if they did (and if they did it would significantly increase their costs too, and they are under the same pressure to operate within a budget). Further, more and more IT is being outsourced as the in-house IT support staff is being shrunken.

Another stupid big company problem. Why do things this way? And, once again, those few extra dollars spent (that the VP is complaining about) are peanuts in the big picture. If your VP can't see the big picture... time for a new VP.

Because money grows on trees, right? Companies tighten belts to decrease spending in tough times. They start restricting travel and entertainment, freeze salaries, and sometimes halt major purchases like PCs entirely. Because if you don't you find yourself and your entire department canned. The last resort for tightening belts is to fire people and we'd all prefer to avoid that, right?

Another sad reality of life is that in the technical business as you move up the hierarchy you get people who come from three areas, primarily -- (a) engineering, (b) sales/marketing, and (c) accounting (bean counters). Very often bean counters rise to the top and they're all about meeting budgets and cutting costs, maximizing profits, and increasing the stock price -- all things the Board of Directors likes. IMO it's short sighted and leads to a death spiral that kills innovation, but it is a fact of big corporate life.

I've been at several startups, and there is always an "orgy" phase when the company gets its first round of funding where you go nuts buying equipment and indulging every geek purchase -- top of the line Mac Pros, 30" monitors, etc. In every case when that money runs out you pay the price and the belts get tightened and those days of buying whatever you want without reproach are over.

Maybe you're in college, maybe you've never worked for a big company, maybe you've never worked at a company when money isn't flowing from a fountain. Big company IT departments are all about costs and expenditures and that means a cheap bulk supplier like Dell and a support contract from them. Apple just does not compete in that arena. It's not like a 10 person startup where you just get what you want (within limits) or when you make your personal choice for a computer.
 
Last edited:

DrMotownMac

Contributor
Jul 11, 2008
385
212
Michigan
You have never read Atlas Shrugged, have you...?

WTF??? Have you???

Meanwhile, I DID read the book (albeit, many years ago) and my understanding of what the John Galt character represents is pretty much the way it's summarized in the Wikipedia article about John Galt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt): "As the plot unfolds, Galt is acknowledged to be a creator, philosopher, and inventor who symbolizes the power and glory of the human mind." Sounds a lot like a certain Apple founder to me.

So, please enlighten us all, professor, why does it appear that I've never read Atlas Shrugged? Is it because, unlike Galt, Steve Jobs never goes on strike and shuts down the machinery of our capitalist society? Again, please refer to this website (http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com...ugged-help-inspire-steve-jobs-to-start-apple/) and perhaps you'll better understand why I made the comparison in the first place.

I was just trying to pay a compliment to Steve Jobs. But somehow, no matter how nice I try to be, there's always some arrogant and ignorant ****** who seems to slither out from under a rock just to hurl insults.
 

Sankersizzle

macrumors 6502a
Jun 5, 2010
838
2
Canadadada
WTF??? Have you???

Meanwhile, I DID read the book (albeit, many years ago) and my understanding of what the John Galt character represents is pretty much the way it's summarized in the Wikipedia article about John Galt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt): "As the plot unfolds, Galt is acknowledged to be a creator, philosopher, and inventor who symbolizes the power and glory of the human mind." Sounds a lot like a certain Apple founder to me.

So, please enlighten us all, professor, why does it appear that I've never read Atlas Shrugged? Is it because, unlike Galt, Steve Jobs never goes on strike and shuts down the machinery of our capitalist society? Again, please refer to this website (http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com...ugged-help-inspire-steve-jobs-to-start-apple/) and perhaps you'll better understand why I made the comparison in the first place.

I was just trying to pay a compliment to Steve Jobs. But somehow, no matter how nice I try to be, there's always some arrogant and ignorant ****** who seems to slither out from under a rock just to hurl insults.

11l4yfk.gif
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.