Tuesday: Jobs vs. Sculley

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by arn, Jun 1, 2002.

  1. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #1
    ThinkSecret states that Tuesday will be the day for a "major announcement" from John Sculley (former Apple CEO).

    Meanwhile, in an unrelated event Steve Jobs is supposedly due for an Apple announcement on the same day.
     
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Location:
    NH
    #2
    I bet it's the 10.1.5 update...


    but anyway, let's go Steve!!! Who's with me?
     
  3. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #3
    Something is up. . .

    Am I the only one who has noticed that all the main announcements are being taken care of before MWNY? We've had the XServe, iBook, TiBook---something is going to happen!

    By Apple announcing things early, they are adding argument to the case of a G5 in MWNY.

    Just a thought.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Grokgod

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2002
    Location:
    Deep within the heart of madness!
    #4
    G5 G5 G5, not again!

    If this means that the G5 will come out,
    I will eat my pademan!
    <PAINFUL Star Wars reference to balance painful G5 rehtoric!>

    Could it be 10.15 and Powermac speed bumps, that would be so weird, I would marry a wookie!

    Yet all the cool recent announcements that havent been at a MacWorld.

    Is there a method to all the weird madness?
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    #5
    Re: Something is up. . .

    No, it's just that Apple will not wait to announce stuff at big shows anymore. When it's ready, it will be announced.

    10.1.5 isn't worth the publicity and interviews for stevie. This is something else, like a new iDevice like stylus or tablet or iApp like video conferencing or something. Still can't figure out what it could be.
     
  6. big
    macrumors 65816

    big

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    #6
    For review....Current info on 10.1.5 update (from the Installer)

    Mac OS X Update 10.1.5 delivers enhancements which improve the reliability of Mac OS X applications, delivers improved networking, security, and expanded peripheral device support. Specific improvements include:

    Peripheral Device Support:
    -Expanded support for new Canon digital cameras
    -Improved support for Nikon FireWire cameras
    -Expanded support for SmartDisk, EZQuest, and LaCie disc recording devices
    -Improved support for MO drives

    Application Improvements:
    -Increased stability of Mail and Sherlock
    -Emails are properly retained when rebuilding the Draft mailbox
    -Updated Carbon applications can use Quartz anti-aliasing technology for high quality text display

    Networking and Security Improvements:
    -Improves networking via AFP when accessing multi-level directories on Windows NT file servers
    -Significant improvement to file searching on local and remote volumes
    -Mail accounts go off-line to indicate that SSL encryption settings are not supported by the mail server

    WebDAV Improvements:
    -More efficient iDisk mounting and file navigation
    -Added support for connecting to iDisk using default DNS settings of AirPort
    -Support for mounting a WebDAV volume from a non-standard http port

    Asian Language Improvements:
    -Significant updates to the Korean Input Method, especially important when using AppleWorks
    -Internet Connect and AirPort applications updated with Chinese and Korean localized content
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Location:
    Detroit
    #7
    whoa thats a good description whered u get that from 10.1.5's readme? :)
    As for tuesday my guess is that Sculley will be doing some seperate business thing most likely introducing Vanilla Pepsi (Coke recently released Vanilla Coke). Steve will introduce A) iApp. (iMix) B) iDevice (iCam?) C) Nothing (hey its only a rumor)
    MWNY Releases- PowerMac, iMac, 10.2
     
  8. jg3
    macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Location:
    Urbana, IL
    #8
    [ed note: posts incorrectly assuming this was a joint announcement were deleted]

    Guys, slow down and read the post and/or article more closely. This is not a joint announcement; it just so happens that Sculley has some "major" announcement for Tuesday, and Jobs was going to also announce something that day, but not nearly as important. However, since Jobs doesn't like Sculley, and wouldn't want him to steal whatever thunder he might have, he might reschedule his announcement, although the article is purely speculative in that regard. That is all.
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    Sayer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #9
    Apple's Lineage

    Everyone who was CEO of Apple nearly ran it into the ground including the first Steve Jobs' Dynasty. Sculley was a yes-man to Steve pretty much, but when it became crunch time he sided with the Apple Board. Kind of a puss I guess.

    Frankly its amazing that Steve Has not spun the company into the ground this time around (he must have actually learned something from the failure of NeXT).

    Steve won't be going anywhere, his ego won't allow him to fail TWICE in the very company that made him rich (to begin with) and a success in this world.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    the great ether
    #10
    Jobs react to Scully?

    It may not be joint but . . .

    Jobs defer to Scully by changing his announcement, that would be admitting that Scully is bigger news than Jobs.

    10.1.5 is not that big a deal. 10.2 would be.
    It should be interesting.
     
  11. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
    Location:
    Maui, Hawaii
    #11
    new iDevice?

    I think its the new iJobs......... when your Mac crashes (pre-OSX only) Steve's likeness comes on and tells you how cool its going to be soon.......
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    Foocha

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    London
    #12
    Some simple facts:
    1. Sculley will never work at Apple again: the board & the share holders would not allow it.
    2. The two announcements are unrelated.
    3. Job's is bigger than Sculley, in media terms, and Apple is bigger than any startup, unless Sculley's announcement really is something like a cure for cancer (unlikely).

    The timing of this announcement, close to the 10.1.5 update, is so close that it can't be a coincidence. However, a minor point update hardly justifies Job's talking to the press. I suspect there's more to the 10.1.5 update, and the other rumor that seems to fit the bill is the related rumor about Microsoft updates of Internet Explorer & Office.

    Apple has had bad press coverage for the poor experience of Web browsing on an iMac. If the new Internet Explorer is tagged version 6, has anti-aliased type, uses Aqua widgets, matches the Windows feature-set and is Much Much faster, then that really is a minor upgrade worth talking to the press about.

    Alternatively, 10.1.5 might be the first version of OS X to ship with Netscape, perhaps as the default browser. Perhaps Apple has got the scoop on Netscape 7 - they're certainly getting very close to AOL these days.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    macktheknife

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    #13
    Re: If John Sculley's coming back to Apple.....

    Just wanted to clarify a few things about the reign of John Sculley.

    Sculley has been--rightly or wrongly--villified by Mac loyalists for ousting Steve Jobs back in 1985 and missing the Windows threat in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I am no fan of the man myself, but Sculley should be given credit for pulling Apple from the brink when he introduced the first usable Macs (the Macintosh Plus and the Mac SE and II series) as well as desktop publishing programs like PageMaker and tools such as LaserWriter. If you can trace Apple's dominance of the desktop publishing and graphic design industry, it would undoubtedly start during here. See "Apple" by Jim Carlton and "Apple Confidential" by Owen Linzmayer for more details.

    I would also like to comment on another post's remarks concerning the merits of Sculley's desire to protect Apple's profit margins. As a high-risk company in a high-risk industry, investors naturally expect above-average profit margins to compensate for the risk they are taking. One can accuse Sculley of short-sightedness, but protection of profit margin is not something CEOs of fast-growing companies can ignore. Also, the same post mentioned that Apple should have issued more debt to fund the production of the Mac. As any corporate finance textbook will tell you, this is a big no-no. No company who experiences volatile sales (technology companies such as Apple for example) should issue debt to fund expansion. The logic behind this is simple: Volatility in sales also translate into volatility in cash flow, and since cash alone is necessary to pay off any interest that accompanies debt, volatility in cash flow raises the possibility of financial distress (i.e. bankruptcy). This is what is happening to the Telecos who gorged on debt. While the Mac may look like a hit in retrospect, remember that Steve Jobs could have easily bankrupted the company had he embarked on a course of debt-funded expansion.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Foocha

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    London
    #14
    We can't credit Sculley for the development of PageMager - this was surely thanks to Adobe. In fact, if you want to see who saved Apple back then, Adobe are probably the guys, and if you want to see what Sculley did to thank them for their trouble, look no further than the kick in the teeth he delivered in doing a deal with Microsoft over TrueType!

    Hmmm.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Foocha

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    London
    #15
    Oops - PageMaker was thanks to Aldus back then wasn't it!
     
  16. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    #16
    In reply to mactheknife........

    mactheknife:

    I didn't vilify Sculley for ousting Jobs back in '85. (That would be another post -- don't get me started.) I vilified him for RUINING the Mac.

    If a new product with a flashy introduction doesn't succeed right out of the gate, it is tagged as a loser and finds it almost impossible to recover. (Witness the Cube; it never recovered after it was tagged as a loser. Even after improvements and price adjustments. No buyer wanted to be associated with it, a la Edsel.)

    The 1984 Mac sold like gangbusters in the first months it was out. That's because it was snapped up by early adopters and computer enthusiasts who would pay almost anything.

    Then there was no follow-through. The product sputtered after the early adopter phase ran its course.

    Average computer users -- not diehard Apple fans -- weren't biting.

    The reasons they didn't bite were that the Mac was 1.) pricey and 2.) a totally new, unproven platform with almost no software and third party support.

    Early adopters don't care about such things (as much).

    When you launch a new unproven platform with almost no software you have no business asking for a premium price.

    You're lucky anyone buys it at all, and you HAVE to attract buyers with price, because you can't attract them with available software and support -- it isn't there.

    When the platform takes off, you can command higher prices, but not before.

    "Protecting profit margin" is a luxury you can ill-afford on a new, untested, unproven, unsupported technology. Widespread adoption and acceptance of the platform should be your first priority and fattening profit margins should come later.

    Charging $1999 for the 1984 Mac and issuing some public debt to fund its manufacture and promotion was EXACTLY WHAT APPLE NEEDED TO DO.

    You say, "As any corporate finance textbook will tell you. this is a big no-no."

    That's why entrepreneurs with little business schooling succeed and academicians write textbooks from the comfort of their tenured professorships.

    Sculley was not an entrepreneur, he was a bureaucrat. Jobs was an entrepreneur and a brave risk-taker.

    Issuing public debt to fund the 1984 Mac's launch and production and charging $1999 was a risk -- A BIG RISK. No doubt.

    But the risk all hinged on whether the Mac was a good product worthy of success and I contend it was.

    Five hundred bucks is a lot of money (especially in 1984). I submit it would have made the difference and the Mac would have taken the personal computer market by Tsunami. (It didn't.)

    You'd be amazed at how close a relationship exists between price and demand. A small difference can translate to huge sales. Sometimes as little as $25 can be the deal breaker. I submit that $500 was a HUGE deal breaker.

    The Mac faltered at its intro and never really recovered. It had to claw its way back and has been clawing its way ever since -- even today.

    Yes it HAD to latch on to the Desktop Publishing niche, because it had no choice. It needed a niche because it couldn't succeed as a general purpose personal computer.

    (The hideous, unfriendly, green text screen IBM PC and clones succeeded because of a large scale price war combined with WIDESPREAD ADOPTION. In the face of this, Apple was seeking 50% and higher profit margins. Thank Sculley and Gessee for this -- Gassee has since stated that this was a big mistake.)

    (Gasee also said in his book The Third Apple, "It is difficult to revive a product that has had a poor start.")

    Lastly, you suggest we read Owen Linzmayer for perspective.

    Good idea. I invite you to read his comparison of John Sculley to Neville Chamberlain -- the great Hitler appeaser.

    The reason why Apple's lawsuits against Microsoft for ripping off the Mac failed to succeed wasn't because the judge(s) failed to see where Microsoft ripped off the Mac, it was because Sculley signed an agreement with Bill Gates giving Microsoft a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nontransferable license to use these derivative works in present and future software programs, and to license them to and through third parties for use in their software programs."

    The judge(s) found most of Apple's claims against Microsoft covered by this agreement.

    Thanks, John.
    :mad:
     
  17. arn
    thread starter macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #17
    Read This: I deleted some replies as "punishment" for not actually reading the article.

    Sculley is announcing something "earth-shattering" that is unrelated to Apple. The only relation to Apple is that he was a former Apple CEO.

    arn
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    the great ether
    #18
    history repeating . . .

    I read the post and the (what, think secret?) article, they sure know how to hype it.
    I remember back when the mac came out and reading reviews but ya it was too expensive, I was self employed, i could claim it as an expense etc, but it still came out of my pocket. I could buy a Peugeot 604 for C$4000. and did. I was in the car all day so that was luxereeee and convenience. Did not think then that a computer would mean that anytime, it was just a tool to keep track of how much money I was making and how much taxes to pay. That was eighty-four but by eighty-nine I was in a different line of work and knew that Inform Designer/Manager/User was an amazing product but the execs didn't get it ( we had customers filling in 1000's of forms a day, and had to be able to find them . . .) where are they now? Macs were too expensive! to sell to management. we had POS systems that were state of the art but just green text on a nice grey screen, I could go on . . . about the times when management bought PC type stuff and got soaked and the solution wasn't. So here we are again Scully and Jobs, remember Jobs hired him away from what, Pepsi? It could still interesting.
    Do you want to drive a 79 Peugeot 604 or a 79 Chevrolet Impala? What kind of man are you?
     
  19. big
    macrumors 65816

    big

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    #19
    oh my installer, that's where...I do not see the final build of 10.1.5 being that great, especially after running it for several weeks. as always, we'll have to wait and see what happens tuesday.
     
  20. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2002
    #20
    will be the day for an "earth-shattering" company/product announcement

    Anytime I hear, "....will be the day for an "earth-shattering" company/product announcement ....", I cringe.

    I keep thinking of that damned scooter from Dean Kamen, the Segway.

    Somehow when I hear people say, "earth shattering", "life altering", "awe inspiring new invention"...I just scream, but it was JUST A SCOOTER!!! Heck, it'll be sold on QVC one day and then labled as a "As Seen on TV" product and later sold at Walmart..

    I'm done venting, I'll go take my medication now and sit in the corner and rock myself back to sleep... (heh, j/k)...but seriously, it was JUST A SCOOTER.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    #21
    Re: will be the day for an "earth-shattering" company/product announcement

    And the wheel is just a circle. So what's your point? No great invetion is earth shattering in essence anyways.

    Sorry, but I think the segway is awesome. Self balancing, effecientlly powered, small, compact and a pleasent welcome to the environment as a mode of transportation. I can see this taking off in a few years.
     
  22. big
    macrumors 65816

    big

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    #22
    what would be earth shattering would be to dump our oil dependant ways, and move to a more concentrated populous. With the advent of technology and the internet, this will be easier to do.

    sorry always looking for a release on New Urbanism...the 20th century is over, we don't have to be modern anymore.
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    macktheknife

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    #23
    Re: In reply to mactheknife........

    meek:

    I am not going to start a flame war on something as stupid as trying to defend John Sculley (I had already said I was no fan of the man myself), so I'm just going to give a quick response and call it a day.

    I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that correct pricing is important to attract more buyers as low prices typically equals high demand. I merely wanted to point out that high profit margins are important--although far from essential--for a company like Apple to justify its high-risk operations.

    As you said: "That's why entrepreneurs with little business schooling succeed and academicians write textbooks from the comfort of their tenured professorships. " Yes, I agree that entrepreneurs are courageous and intelligent individuals who have the guts to put their money where their mouths are. Tom Siebel spoke at my brother's graduation last weekend, and it was quite inspiring to hear how he started his own company back in the early 90s with a few millions, an office in ghetto East Palo Alto, and second-hand furniture he bought at auctions (including the fold-out table that served as his desk for 2 years).

    That said, let us not forget that ideas that originate in the classroom and academic halls eventually find their way into practitioners' hands. Option pricing, asset-backed securities (such as single-family mortgages), modern portfolio theory (measurement of risk), etc. were all products of brilliant thinkers in academia. Also, for every Tom Siebel, you have hundreds of petsmart.coms whose convictions and courage to take risk was eclipsed by their inability to manage the basic business.

    In any case, I stand by my comment on the danger of high-growth companies using debt to fund expansion schemes, as such companies should use equity to fund growth that will lead to cash only several years down the road. Yes, we can admire the entrepreneurship and the risk-taking courage of all those telecom startups, but to gorge on massive debt to fund unprofitable projects was to ask for trouble. So I do not disagree with your assessment that Apple should have cut its prices. I merely questioned the means that you had suggested that they do it as well as highlighting the constraints that the company had to contend with.

    Lastly, I completely agree with your assessment of Sculley's short-sightedness and stupidity in practically giving Bill Gates a window (very bad pun intended ;) ) of opportunity to sell his crappy software to the masses.
     
  24. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    #24
    Re: In reply to mactheknife........

    The reason why Apple's lawsuits against Microsoft for ripping off the Mac failed to succeed wasn't because the judge(s) failed to see where Microsoft ripped off the Mac, it was because Sculley signed an agreement with Bill Gates giving Microsoft a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nontransferable license to use these derivative works in present and future software programs, and to license them to and through third parties for use in their software programs."

    The judge(s) found most of Apple's claims against Microsoft covered by this agreement.

    Thanks, John.
    :mad: [/B][/QUOTE]

    From what i remember, Gates did give Jobs an undisclosed amount of money as an out of court settlement for blatant OS rip-offs Microsoft used in Windows, as well as investing heavily into Apple Computer (not enough to have any say in the company-Jobs ain't no fool)
    boobers
     
  25. macrumors 65816

    peterjhill

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #25
    Re: Apple's Lineage

    umm... Steve managed to run Next well enough to get bought out by Apple, thus setting himself up for the second coming of Steve. Also Pixar is doing incredibly well. Steve sure the hell is unconventional, I will give you that. But it should be pretty darn obvious that Steve know how to make a profitable company. Give the man some respect!
     

Share This Page