|
|
|
|
|
|
by IdeaHamster
5398 days ago
|
|
|
I understand what you are saying...that Steve has the taste and design sense to guide Apple's development process. While I agree that this is true, I don't think this is why Apple has been successful. It's Steve's obsession with perfection that has driven the company; his unwillingness to ship just anything that will sell and make money. Steve doesn't do it all himself. Even much of the original Macintosh design is probably better attributed to Jeff Raskin, Woz, and Bill Atkinson. Steve is a good showman, and good showmen know to never introduce the stage-hands, but Steve has had plenty. Now, you might argue that if Steve had zero taste, then he also would not have had the sense to demand design perfection. That may be true. But if you are a CEO of a company today and you are hoping to replicate Apple's success, you would be much better served by cutting your product line in 1/4 and demanding absolute perfection from the remaining products, than by going off to find a guru, take Caligraphy classes, and stare at van Gogh all day... |
|
|
No, that's not really what I'm saying. I'm saying that "celebrities" become celebrated in part because whatever it is they do is to some degree baffling to most people and yet wonderful. That which is baffling is more commonly offensive to people. Baffling but wonderful leads to a sense of mystique. If what Steve did could be replicated by just studying his track record, I don't think Apple would have brought him back. That's a rather unusual turn of events. Firing the Big Boss most often leads to deep wounds of a sort that won't close unless hell freezes over.
I will note I am not suggesting anyone run off and find a guru. I'm a big believer in "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him". People have to learn to think for themselves. That's where the magic of life happens. That's what leads to the best decisions.
Thanks for your reply. Pleasant conversation is always a good thing.
Peace.