The man who really saved Apple

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by Ca$hflow, Mar 26, 2010.

  1. Ca$hflow macrumors 6502

    Ca$hflow

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Location:
    London, ON
    #1
    Gil Amelio

    That's right. It occurred to me. In July 1997 Apple CEO Gil Amelio bought neXT for around $400 million. In August and September of 1997, Steve Jobs executed a board room coo to fire Gil Amelio. If Gil Amelio did not broker the deal for apple to buy neXt then Steve Jobs wouldn't have been CEO and perhaps not see todays apple success.

    Source: On the Firing Line: My 500 days at Apple by Gil Amelio
     
  2. kolax macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #2
    So you're saying if he didn't do the deal that brought Steve back, Apple wouldn't be what it is today?

    That means that Steve saved Apple.
     
  3. pooryou macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #3
    A lot of people don't realize that the iMac was actually in development before Steve came back to Apple.
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #4
    Source?

    And "in development" could mean alot of things from a finished project to "so guys, what are we doing next? Ideas?"
     
  5. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #5
    How about this?: John Sculley saved Apple by firing Steve Jobs, thus allowing him to come back many years later with different experiences and thus mold Apple's success.

    EDIT: Or better yet: Steve Jobs saved Apple by hiring John Sculley, who fired Steve Jobs...
     
  6. pooryou macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #6
    Source is direct conversation with someone who was high level in the organization at that time. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. There may be other sources out there but I wouldn't know.
     
  7. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #7
    I've just done a lot of reading that would suggest otherwise. You know, articles, books.....
     
  8. Ca$hflow thread starter macrumors 6502

    Ca$hflow

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Location:
    London, ON
    #8
    A bit of an exaggeration. I'm saying that if Apple didn't buy neXT then Steve wouldn't have come back. It was Gil's sense that told him that the OS at the time sucks and that apple needed an OS. Thus he chose to go after neXT step which later became the fundamental workings of Snow Leopard as we know it today. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Absolutely yes to your first question.

    No to your statement after thou. It would be like saying that man created the City of New York without acknowledging that God created the earth and the heavens. New York would not exist if it wasn't for God creating the earth and the heavens.

    Don't blow it out of proportion thou. I'm not saying Gil is a god, neither is Steve.
     
  9. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #9
    You are constructing an oversimplified cause-and-effect chain and then following it back to the where it makes your point: "Gil saved Apple". I just think that's a little naive and takes advantage of hindsight. And really it was probably more Ellen Hancock who was responsible for the purchase of NeXT. Sure, Gil hired her but there's that chain again.
     
  10. Ca$hflow thread starter macrumors 6502

    Ca$hflow

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Location:
    London, ON
    #10
    My point isn't Gil saved Apple. My point is Gil saved apple by making the executive decision with the board of directors to purchase neXT by delegating and assisting Ellen Hancock in the transaction.

    It would be like Steve Jobs making the executive decision with the board of directors to create and launch iPad by delegating Jonathan Ive and the design team and engineers.
     
  11. kolax macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #11
    So basically, you're saying:

    "I built your office. Therefore, I am very important, because if I hadn't built your office, you wouldn't be able to do any work".

    You are making huge logical fallacies.
     
  12. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #12
    But nowhere in your OP did you mention the board or Ellen Hancock. And I'm sure there were others besides those involved in the transaction that played important parts. Even if you want to say it was this event that Gil championed that saved Apple, I feel there are probably many other events that also contributed to Apple's success, including the introduction of the iPod and the availability of the iTunes Store for Windows users. Without these events, I'm pretty sure Apple would be a much different beast these days.
     
  13. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #13
    OK. Most people who were around at the time believe that Gil Amelio was largely responsible for Apple's problems rather than the solution to them. As CEO, it was within Amelio's power to save Apple. Unfortunately, it was not within his ability.

    Apple's most immediate problem was that it needed a successor OS to System 7. Well, Apple had a successor. It was called System 8 [aka Copland]. System 8 was a great OS. Its problem was that it was about 10% incompatible with System 7. OpenSTEP, which became MacOS X 10, was 100% incompatible with System 7. If Amelio had made the decision to accept the 90% compatibility of System 8, then Apple would have had a marvelous new OS years before it was able to bring MacOS X 10 to market.

    Most Mac users and fans would agree that things turned out for the best. However, we can never know what would have been. But, if Amelio had made the difficult decision to repurpose System 8, then he would have been remembered for something other than the guy who brought Jobs back to Apple.
     
  14. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #14
    Ok, I can tell there is some difference of opinion going on here
    But I glaze over when I try to comprehend the nuances of it
     
  15. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #15
    I'm surprised nobody came in and said it was Microsoft who saved Apple by buying stocks in them and keeping them afloat.

    No individual saved Apple, it was all just a chain of events that occurred in the right way. Apple got lucky with Steve Jobs and Next.

    Steve Jobs could've easily screw up and destroy Apple in the process. Would you blame Gil for making the decision to hire him or would you blame Jobs?

    The fact is, Steve Jobs is Apple and Apple is Steve Jobs, that's the image in many people's mind.
     
  16. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #16

    Were there pigeons on the Apple Board back then?
     
  17. Ca$hflow thread starter macrumors 6502

    Ca$hflow

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Location:
    London, ON
    #17
    Actually Apple didn't get Microsoft to buy stocks cause they needed the money. They were already profitable that year, it's just there profit was declining year after year. Microsoft bought apple stocks as an agreement to settle a patent dispute.

    I don't buy that apple was lucky. Everything that I've seen done was with meticulous planing.

    You do have a point there.


    That's exactly it, it a fact that.... Fact and truth are two totally separate things. Steve Jobs saving apple is a subjective meaning.

    Ahhhh yeeaahh!?!?

    Logical Fallacies? Your trying to create the chicken and egg controversy.

    Ya and those things happened with steve. However steve wouldn't be there if Gil didn't convince apple to buy neXT. Gil made a FUNDAMENTAL choice that changed and saved apple-granted that steve made marvellous works within the company; but,.. steve wouldn't be there without Gil at apple.
     
  18. kernkraft macrumors 68020

    kernkraft

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #18
    Source?




    But for the original poster - it's 'coup'.
     
  19. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    You have an opinion and you appear to be willing to repeat it until everyone else moves on to something else. However, you opinion is based on extremely specious reasoning. You claim that Gil Amelio saved Apple because his actions caused Jobs to come back to Apple.
    Answer me these questions:
    • Do you honestly believe that Amelio was the only person responsible for the return of Jobs?
    • Do you believe that Amelio was the person who played the biggest role in bringing Jobs back to Apple?
    • How do you apportion the level of effort by each party in bringing Jobs back to Apple?
    • How do you assess the importance of each type of effort?
     

Share This Page