Steve was the person who made sure no-one's ego was a threat to the success of Apple.
Steve, though, had the biggest ego of all.
But... Steve was Apple, and Apple was Steve. Thus, Apple's ego was the biggest, and that, IMHO is most important: Out-ego people like Ive and Forstall. Make them work.
And yes, there have been failures on Steve's run (Cube, dot-Mac) but, Apple had acknowledged them and (at least tried to) correct them.
Apple under Steve made it possible to switch core OS (Mac OS 9 -> Mac OS X), switch CPU platform (PPC -> Intel) and create a complete new personal device: iOS devices.
Does anyone really think the Apple of now can achieve such novelties and changes?
Of course not. Apple is simply keeping afloat, and expanding the global markets... Not products.
[doublepost=1473546913][/doublepost]
That's true, but the previous clone fiasco was with computers that directly competed with Macs. If Apple licenses OS X only for Xeon workstations then does that cannabilize their iMac sales? Honest question, I don't know the answer.
It does send out a message if Apple does that:
- buy an iMac of you don't want / need power
- get an HP if you need performance.
And, knowing Apple's pricing: a nicely configured iMac would probably cost about the same as an entry-level HP workstation.
I don't think this will help the marketing of the Mac.
Better to strike a deal with HP: let them (HP) design and manufacture the workstation, place a special Apple-EFI ROM chip on the motherboard, wrap it in a nice space grey enclosure, and call it a Mac Pro Xeon...