Originally posted by JGowan
I'm sorry but saying that a person who is CEO material will ALWAYS have the Midas touch, no matter what, is just ridiculous. I'm certain there are stories, time and time again, where a person takes many business ventures before hitting the right place, product and time for the people. There is a certain amount of luck involved, but you can't fault Jobs because NeXT didn't go over. It just wasn't right. There were people who took on Apple who had been very successful at other corporations but couldn't get Apple into the Black. Are you kicking them in the teeth?
Jobs has shown with Apple and Pixar that he certainly knows how to run a company or two. And not just "recently". Look at both of those companies and tell us that the companies did not do an immediate ABOUT FACE the moment Steve Jobs came on. Right... I didn't think so.
Right. Because we all know that the reason NeXT failed was because the timing was wrong and Steve was running into bad luck. It had nothing to do with marketing a machine for college students at $10K. No, it was timing and luck. Forget a great product turned rotten by mismanagement and lack of clairvoyant vision. It also had little or nothing to do with extreme egomaniacal behavior. He certainly didn't display such traits repeatedly during those days (and even today, sometimes).
Yes, I'm kicking them in the teeth. I didn't kick Steve in the teeth, I simply pointed out his inability to successfully run a company in his youth. But, since you ask, I am kicking Gil Amelio in the teeth. I'm kicking Spindler in the teeth. I'm kicking Scully in the teeth. Those three kicks are just for you.
I really love when someone turns my fact-based post, intended to inform those who haven't followed the story, into an attack on Steve. It was not an attack at all. To repeat: Steve's absence from Apple did not cause their downward spiral. Steve was equally (or more) destructive at NeXT as Scully, Spindler or Amelio were at Apple. This is fact, and can be discovered in a number of books at your local library.
Pixar did NOT do an immediate about face when Steve came on. Steve saw Pixar as a hardware company, not an animation firm. Steve picked up Pixar in 1986, I believe. Trying to sell $135K machines that required $35k Sun machines to run them cost Pixar over $10 million per year. Toy Story was release in 1995. This was the first time Pixar really had anything going for it. Huge turn-around, huh?
Don't take it from me... Said Pam Kerwin, "We were in debt from the start. That was no way to run a business. There were no business brains at Pixar."
Today, Steve's role in Pixar is mostly the silent-investor. This isn't because he isn't interested in Pixar, but because they don't need his input (a case made clear when he tried to interfere with their work in the past). He renegotiated a contract with Disney, following the success of Toy Story, but that's not hands-on leadership. That's watching that you don't get screwed by your partner. He took them public, but that's making a profit. Pixar is mostly self-contained, with Steve backing them financially. Actually, I'm sure they don't even need his money, now that they make a killing in theaters and on DVD.
Apple
did, in fact, turn around right away. Hm, couldn't be that Steve was better able to run a company after spending some years being humbled, could it? Why, that was exactly my point in the original post! Who woulda thought?
BTW - Don't ever give me the "Right, I didn't think so," line concerning anything like this. I research before I post. I
will come back and prove my point with details.
Dan
PS - I never used the term "Midas." That was in someone else's post. I'd appreciate if you don't attribute anyone else's words to my stated views when you quote me or respond to my posts.
