During Steve Jobs' absence, Apple didn't put market share above all else: they put profits above all else and let the quality of their computers suffer. Apple created tons of different choices for consumers which just ended up confusing the hell out of everyone, and they had so many different side projects that never went anywhere and were just soaking up resources (Newton, Star Wars, Pippin, etc.).
Apple was losing money, yes, but they had tons of cash and Apple was never in danger of going bankrupt. Their hard-core Mac base stuck by them (including me) for most of the 90s as well. What almost put Apple out of business was that their products were just crappy, and the operating system was languishing while Windows gradually incorporated any advantages that the Mac OS had at that time.
When Steve Jobs came back, he focused the company's efforts on the Mac, simplified the product line to a simple product matrix, axed all side projects that weren't actually producing any results, and slowly built a comprehensive strategy for the future of the Mac OS. Today's Apple shows all the results.
The Mac mini and the iMac are still good computers, and offer pretty good bang for their buck. Just because Apple doesn't update them often doesn't mean they're not good. (In fact, it was the Mac Pro that was the most neglected computer until the most recent update -- it went for about a year and a half without any really significant updates.)
Sorry, but you're mostly wrong. Your facts are generally right, but your analysis isn't.
First off, yes Markkula (sp?) and the board put profits above all else. They were content with dwindling market share as long as they maintained fat margins and year over year growth. And Apple did have consistent year over year growth. I don't remember the exact numbers but I believe it was something like 20-35% on average. And while those numbers seemed good, the PC market at that time was growing exponentially.
Eventually, they tried to fix this, as they were faced with gradual irrelevance. Which lead to the market share strategy and the Performa line.
Yes, Apple was spread far too thin, trying to be a one stop shop for everything. They were a bit like Microsoft, attempting to compete in virtually every possible space. They had the Pippin, designed their own monitors and printers, and had so many computer lines it was difficult to remember them all.
There were a lot of factors. Quality was one of them but I'd put it way way down on the list. Then again I might be skewed as I really never paid attention to the Performas. I was corporate IT and the closest thing to a consumer Mac we saw was the occasional LC. Besides, who could keep track of all the Performa model numbers? Anyway, things like the Copland disaster and the release of Windows 95 did far more to hurt Apple than any quality issues. Oh, and the fact that almost every single Apple product had it's own unique design and unique parts.
You're right that Apple was not in real danger of going bankrupt. Then again, Novell is mostly still around, isn't it. And SCO just fairly recently went bankrupt. In other words, they were about to go legacy. They could stick around for a long time, but they were becoming irrelevant. And under Gil Amelio, right before Jobs came back, Apple lost a huge amount of money. And they did NOT have tons of cash.
When Jobs came back, he executed basic turnaround strategy. He returned to the core competency of the company, making computers. And he stripped the line to the bone, to save money. Anything that was not part of the core business was axed, regardless of whether they were profitable or not. Usually they were not. But they also discontinued products like printers.
I won't argue about the excellent long term strategy that he developed with management. However, I'd say it went like this (and yes, I'm simplifying things a lot). First stop the bleeding. Which was killing extraneous lines and simplifying the product matrix. One consumer Mac, the iMac. One tower design. And installing a GREAT management team. But let's not forget that the Cube was a disaster. And that the original iMac was around far far too long. And that frankly, Apple today would be nowhere without the iPod. The iMac initially "saved" Apple when Jobs returned. Basically, it brought some stability and profits and bought Apple time. But the iPod, which Apple sort of threw out there and hoped something would happen, turned into a phenomenon. The iPod is what made Apple today. Without it, Apple would probably not be enjoying the market share gains it is experiencing now. It would not have the iPhone. And it wouldn't have the equivalent of a Microsoft Office cash cow to fund other projects. What the market has proven is that having superior quality, superior OS, and superior user experience does not translate to market dominance in computers. Apple had most of those things in the 80's and 90's and still got crushed by Windows. Mindshare is more important and the iPod delivered it.
