| > Jobs could recommend a successor, but the board of directors had the power to reject the recommendation. And what point are you trying to make? Jobs recommended him, the board selected him. Saying the board had to agree doesn't change the fact that Jobs and board felt he was qualified and the best option for a successor, which was the point. >> If you read the accounts, Jobs didn’t want more than two expansion slots > I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove? You said "Jobs was behind Apple II" and a host of other products, but at best in the case of Apple II he saw Woz's good design as something he could take and sell. He was hardly responsible for what that product actually was. >>> Macintosh >> Commercial failure. > Um, no. No it was not. Yes, it was. I'd suggest actually reading up on the product release and what happened after. If it hadn't been for the cash cow of Apple II, the company could have failed. That's according to numerous accounts, including Woz. I believe it was at least three years before it even matched the sales of (what was then an 11 year old) Apple II. > Jobs was the leader of a team. Like Tim Cook. > By the way, Cook purged Forstall from Apple. Yes, and if you understand what happened there, it was the right thing to do. And the rest of the exec team, especially Ive, was very happy about that move. > I never argued that. What I argue is that Tim Cook is not a "product person" like Jobs was. Cook is not making design decisions; Jobs was. By every account I've read, Jobs primary contribution was as an editor, saying "no" to bad ideas. And again, by every "insider account" I've seen published, Tim Cook is doing the same. Jobs wasn't spending most of his days brainstorming with the design team, although he did do some of that. More than Tim Cook, sure, but most of the idea generation in the company was coming from a large crowd of people, not Steve Jobs. |
This is ridiculous. I'm not going to argue with you after this reply, because you're rewriting history.
> I'd suggest actually reading up the product release and what happened after.
I'd suggest not making assumptions. I don't have to "read up [sic] the product release and what happened after", because I was alive at the time. Were you?
"The Macintosh sold 50,000 units in 74 days, outselling every other computer" "Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first-year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Macintosh#1985%...
>> Jobs was the leader of a team.
> Like Tim Cook.
No. As I already said, "Cook literally never led a software or hardware product team until he became CEO".
> Yes, and if you understand what happened there, it was the right thing to do.
It wasn't. Cook was purging a rival for power, and Maps was just an excuse. If it was right, then why didn't Jobs fire Forstall?
> By every account I've read, Jobs primary contribution was as an editor, saying "no" to bad ideas.
This is essential. I would love it if Cook said no to bad ideas. Soooooo many bad ideas lately. Terrible ideas.
> And again, by every "insider account" I've seen published, Tim Cook is doing the same.
Citations needed.