Apple's CEO Soap Opera

[alset]

Originally posted by tychay
Dr. Amelio streamlined Apple's design and product chains and did all the custcutting to turned Apple on the course of profitibility long before Mac OS X could be made.

Which is why Jobs cut redundant products.... Gill didn't do nearly as much to free up space and focus on consumer identification as Steve. I know that Gil didn't create the problem, but he did little to help it. What do we have in the modern Mac lineup? i-machines and P-machines. iBook, iMac (consumer) - PowerBook and PowerMac (pro-user). Add the XServe for obvious server needs and eMac for education and you have an easy to understand line of machines.

Try explaining the difference of eight product lines, rather than two or three options on the four consumer/pro machines and let me know what you think. Customers who have never owned a computer are baffled.

Dan

 

[iChan]

Originally posted by alset
Which is why Jobs cut redundant products.... Gill didn't do nearly as much to free up space and focus on consumer identification as Steve. I know that Gil didn't create the problem, but he did little to help it. What do we have in the modern Mac lineup? i-machines and P-machines. iBook, iMac (consumer) - PowerBook and PowerMac (pro-user). Add the XServe for obvious server needs and eMac for education and you have an easy to understand line of machines.

Try explaining the difference of eight product lines, rather than two or three options on the four consumer/pro machines and let me know what you think. Customers who have never owned a computer are baffled.

Dan

i think it's all well and good having 4 consumer/prosumer lines and the xserve, because for a company on rocky roads, there is nothing better than having a streamlined product portfolio, however, I believe it is time for Apple to introduce further product lines to diversify their products...

what these products are, I don't know... but if anything, the current product line looks a bit thin on the ground.

 

[tychay]

Originally posted by alset
Which is why Jobs cut redundant products.... Gill didn't do nearly as much to free up space and focus on consumer identification as Steve

Actually, the trend was started on Gilbert Amelio's watch and most of the cuts (that you didn't see) happened under him. He was famous for having done the same thing to National Semiconductor and his resignation letter shows that the restructuring was what he was most proud of.

It took a long while before those trends reached a level that the consumer (and the shareholder) could notice. Restructuring cost Apple a lot of money and was a pretty gutsy move when you realize at what rate they were bankrupting themselves at the time. But it had its intended effect--the joke was that Apple's first few quarters of profit were due to Jobs just playing cleanup after Gil worked so hard to load the bases.

I do credit Jobs for making the new strategy clear (with the consumer/professional distinction in his keynotes). He also killed the Newton, folded Claris back into Apple (dropping a whole bunch of software products), and killed the clones.*

The first two, by this point, were making money so Gil didn't see the reason to do that (I think they were very smart moves. The former increased focus in the company; the latter was fixing a historical accident created when Apple was a strong company that others feared might become a monopoly). As for the last, killing the close would have (and did) screw over Motorola and the clone manufactures, so he didn't have the balls to do that.

Many regard the Jobs's killing the clones as the definitive act that saved Apple. When he took over the company, that action was a foregone conclusion given his public statements about them. But never forget, there was a consequence: the years in which everyone seemed to make faster computers except Apple: late 2000- early 2003.

The fact that Apple could find a path through that (IBM) is either one "insanely great" of all time, or simply dumb luck.

* Jobs also got rid of the striped multicolor logo. That could be considered a costcutting move because I heard it cost Apple a fortune to print it on their computers.

 

[iomar]

Well, as far as I know Steve Jobs is doing a great job at Apple ever since he is back. He has turned apple 180 degrees around. I remember those days right before Steve become came back to Apple. Apple was doing really bad and I was so afraid that any day I will lose my Mac for a PC at work. But not it is all different I think the table is turned. Apple is going strong and soon we will see a lot of PC users switching to Apple. OS X is wonderful! The new G5s are great. Can't wait to get one of them my self.

 

[jderman]

steve jobs = john galt

Did Gil bring back Steve, or did Steve's reality-distortion field bring back Steve

I cant help but draw comparisons to Mr. Jobs actions and love of his ego with out a comparison...

 

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by jderman
I cant help but draw comparisons to Mr. Jobs actions and love of his ego with out a comparison...

Ego does not explain it all IMO.

I interviewed Guy Kawasaki a few years ago for an article I was writing and I asked him a couple of questions about Steve Jobs. Guy's enigmatic response was that explaining Steve would be like trying to explain air to a fish. I took that to mean that Guy didn't comprehend Steve any better than anyone else.

 

[jderman]

I didn't intend to use the word ego in a negative sense. almost everything that has come out of apple in the second reign of Jobs has been HIS vision. In other words: Everything Apple is Steve Jobs.

 

[Sayhey]

IMHO, it is not even close - Spindler was the worst CEO in Apple's history. Remember the stories of him hiding under his desk? Sculley is a distant second. Amelio did important things in a time of crisis, though he lacked the vision necessary to bring Apple back (outside the vision to bring Steve back that is.) Without Jobs there would be no Apple - both in his first and second terms as CEO. Does it mean Steve is perfect? Hell no! However, Apple needs him to survive in a Microsoft world.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by jderman
I didn't intend to use the word ego in a negative sense. almost everything that has come out of apple in the second reign of Jobs has been HIS vision. In other words: Everything Apple is Steve Jobs.

Absolutely, yes -- but I think a singular vision is about the only way for a company like Apple to survive. The company managed to fritter away every advantage it had in the days when it was run by committee and fiefdom. It would be welcome and probably helpful if Steve could present a somewhat less egomaniacal and eccentric public persona, but it seems like everyone who's made a difference in this industry is at least a bit odd in one way or another.

 

[jderman]

Absolutely, yes -- but I think a singular vision is about the only way for a company like Apple to survive. The company managed to fritter away every advantage it had in the days when it was run by committee and fiefdom. It would be welcome and probably helpful if Steve could present a somewhat less egomaniacal and eccentric public persona, but it seems like everyone who's made a difference in this industry is at least a bit odd in one way or another.

I totally agree, apples success is in no small part due to the singular vision of steve jobs. My original post was a positive criticism. I think of Jobs as an ego-ist (a good thing). I'll take a closed-minded narrow focused man with a vision and a goal over a weak leader who accepts every suggestion proposed to him (Spindler) any day. In part, i think might have been happy to see the (near)fall of apple in the late 90's because that gave him the chance to truly realize his vision with complete creative control. The buck stops at Steve these days, not the board. As for his public persona vs. the others, yeah he's totally in love with himself and blows off a lot of un-nessicary hot air, but who cares? As long as apple keeps making the best system out there, I'll stick with them. I won't hesitate for a second to jump ship when someone comes out with a superior system.

As for the other CEO's:

Spindler- Was a weak personality who basically took orders. (Can't think of anyone else like him)

Amelio- Good guy wrong place, you don't hire a truck driver to style your hair. His best decision was to step down and I applaud him for that.

Scully- Sold soda: but had a good solid buisness model. His greast achievement was giving apple's employees "creative slack" that allowed them to create some really cool products (However not practical).

 

[fatbarstard]

This Thread is Jolly Good Fun

Trying to decide who was the best and worst CEO is a bit like trying to ask someone who is blind whether they like red or blue... for every vote for there is going to be a vote against...

Back in the mid 1990s I worked for a company that was moving from Mac to Windows becuase of the cost of the machines and the crappy software... I had the dubious role of looking after a bunch of these machines and no one was sad when a Mac was replaced by a PC. In short Appled sucked.

Now I won't have a PC. Just not going to happen. Why? Great products, great price and great software.

Jobs is certainly a visionary but he has also delivered. Whether the previous three guys were bad is a matter of taste - its so easy to be wise in hindsight. They made the best decisions they could at the time with the info they had available... The company is still here so nothing they did was terminal.

But remember great leaders stand on the shoulders of those that came before... Steve Jobs leagcy will not what he did while he was CEO version 2, but who he picks to lead the company when he goes.... that guy will have one hell of an act to follow....

 

[PretendPCuser]

Re: This Thread is Jolly Good Fun

Originally posted by fatbarstard
But remember great leaders stand on the shoulders of those that came before... Steve Jobs leagcy will not what he did while he was CEO version 2, but who he picks to lead the company when he goes.... that guy will have one hell of an act to follow....

I got a funny visual of Jobs standing on his own shoulders here. (though obviously there were other CEOs inbetween).

Has there ever been another person who CEO'd a company and then came back to re-CEO the same company?

Kinda funny!