“The saga of Steven P. Jobs is so well known that it has entered the nation’s mythology: he’s the prodigal who returned to Apple in 1997, righted a listing ship and built it into one of the most valuable companies in the world,” Randall Stross reports for The New York Times. “But the Jobs of the mid-1980s probably never could have made Apple what it is today if he hadn’t embarked on a torment-filled business odyssey.”
“Mr. Jobs was relieved of operating responsibilities in a company reorganization in May 1985. But he was still the company’s chairman. Apple was ailing: sales of the Macintosh, introduced the previous year, were falling well below expectations; inventory was piling up; and the company seemed headed for its first-ever loss. In September 1985, Mr. Jobs resigned from Apple to start a new computer company he called Next,” Stross reports. “Suppose Mr. Jobs had not left in 1985. Suppose he had convinced the Apple board to oust his nemesis, John Sculley, then chief executive and president. Under Mr. Jobs’s uninterrupted direction, would Apple have arrived at the pinnacle it has reached today, but 12 years earlier?
MacDailyNews Take: One thing’s for sure: Without NeXT, there’d be no Mac OS X/iOS and, therefore, possibly no Apple, at least not as we know it today.
Stross reports, “It took 12 dispiriting years, much bruising, and perspective gained from exile. If he had instead stayed at Apple, the transformation of Apple Computer into today’s far larger Apple Inc. might never have happened.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Lynn W.,” James W.,” and “iWill” for the heads up.]
Greg has it right. It ended up taking 15 years to do with the Mac OS what Steve wanted to do in 1985. He also wanted a fully networked office built around the Macintosh and laser printers. It took, arguably, 10 years for Microsoft to finally bring that to the table. It would have happened much sooner and much better if Apple had been able to understand Steve’s vision, though. Now, with him in charge, it doesn’t matter who does or doesn’t understand his vision; they (the board, etc…) just need to realize he’s almost always right, which they do. Just hang on and enjoy the ride.
This isn’t to say he’s not a better CEO now than he would have been had he not had his exile. That’s pretty hard to quantify with all the “what ifs” involved. The vision has been there all along, though.
Nobody knows what would have been happened to Apple if Jobs stayed there. Could be worse, could be better, but never the same, thats for sure.
Nobody knows what would have been happened to Apple if Jobs stayed there. Could be worse, could be better, but never the same, thats for sure.
The entire article reeks lazy writing. He even wrote on Jobs in the early 90s, interviewing the ‘Next’ employees. How could he not know that Jobs had to sign a non-compete agreement against Apple’s desktop lines (Macs mostly), he was to target the higher end workstations and up? And what’s with this wanting to spell NeXT intentionally wrong and making sure people understand that. It’s like suggesting, that’s cute and all, but he won’t be playing that silly game.
Finally, I agree with many here, we lost a decade of advancement of computers because Jobs was amiss, and even when he came back, they have wasted a lot of his time by not supporting the initial release of the new Mac OS.
The entire article reeks lazy writing. He even wrote on Jobs in the early 90s, interviewing the ‘Next’ employees. How could he not know that Jobs had to sign a non-compete agreement against Apple’s desktop lines (Macs mostly), he was to target the higher end workstations and up? And what’s with this wanting to spell NeXT intentionally wrong and making sure people understand that. It’s like suggesting, that’s cute and all, but he won’t be playing that silly game.
Finally, I agree with many here, we lost a decade of advancement of computers because Jobs was amiss, and even when he came back, they have wasted a lot of his time by not supporting the initial release of the new Mac OS.
If the various books that have been released about Apple over the years are true (The Little Kingdom, East Of Eden, The Second Coming Of Steve Jobs, etc), my opinion is that Apple could NOT have done when Jobs was ousted what it was capable of doing in 1997 when he returned. According to one of these histories (can’t recall which one at this time, sorry), Jobs was ready to create ANOTHER new, incompatible computer platform and operating system, something that would be better than the Mac, at the time he was demoted and ultimately left Apple. If anything, pushing things in that direction would have DECREASED the chances that Apple would have survived the 1990s, as resources would have been redirected from the Mac to this Next Big Thing, just as Apple II resources had been directed to supporting the Mac in its early years.
The time Jobs spent away from Apple with NeXT forced him to create a new computer with fewer resources than he might have had at Apple, and better focused things on the operating system ultimately created (NeXTSTEP), which was the foundation of Mac OS X when he came back to Apple. It is unlikely that he would have gone to a Unix-based OS unless he had been forced to do so. (This is speculation here, so I could certainly be wrong).
Regarding Pixar: Jobs’ purchase from George Lucas of the company that became Pixar also played a crucial role in who he was when he came back to Apple. His personal line-of-credit for the company kept them going while they were in the early phases of creating the computer animation that preceded Toy Story, as well as during the time Toy Story was actually written and produced. The money Jobs made from the IPO after Toy Story came out and was a hit made it possible for him to be a CEO who accepted only $1 per year in salary in the early years after his return.
The bottom line is that the state-of-the-art in technology in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s was not sufficiently advanced or powerful to have created anything near to what we have today in Mac OS X, iOS, or the computing devices made to run those OSes. And it is certainly not clear what would have come of Apple if Jobs had continued to lead it during that era. Time away created the perfect mix of events to allow him to be successful again.
IMHO, that is.
If the various books that have been released about Apple over the years are true (The Little Kingdom, East Of Eden, The Second Coming Of Steve Jobs, etc), my opinion is that Apple could NOT have done when Jobs was ousted what it was capable of doing in 1997 when he returned. According to one of these histories (can’t recall which one at this time, sorry), Jobs was ready to create ANOTHER new, incompatible computer platform and operating system, something that would be better than the Mac, at the time he was demoted and ultimately left Apple. If anything, pushing things in that direction would have DECREASED the chances that Apple would have survived the 1990s, as resources would have been redirected from the Mac to this Next Big Thing, just as Apple II resources had been directed to supporting the Mac in its early years.
The time Jobs spent away from Apple with NeXT forced him to create a new computer with fewer resources than he might have had at Apple, and better focused things on the operating system ultimately created (NeXTSTEP), which was the foundation of Mac OS X when he came back to Apple. It is unlikely that he would have gone to a Unix-based OS unless he had been forced to do so. (This is speculation here, so I could certainly be wrong).
Regarding Pixar: Jobs’ purchase from George Lucas of the company that became Pixar also played a crucial role in who he was when he came back to Apple. His personal line-of-credit for the company kept them going while they were in the early phases of creating the computer animation that preceded Toy Story, as well as during the time Toy Story was actually written and produced. The money Jobs made from the IPO after Toy Story came out and was a hit made it possible for him to be a CEO who accepted only $1 per year in salary in the early years after his return.
The bottom line is that the state-of-the-art in technology in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s was not sufficiently advanced or powerful to have created anything near to what we have today in Mac OS X, iOS, or the computing devices made to run those OSes. And it is certainly not clear what would have come of Apple if Jobs had continued to lead it during that era. Time away created the perfect mix of events to allow him to be successful again.
IMHO, that is.
Wasn’t Jobs brought back? There seems this notion that somehow Jobs just swept back into apple of his own volition like the hero of the day to save it from itself. But that wasn’t the case. When the decision was made to purchase Next- a decision NOT made by jobs- it gave Jobs his in back at apple. He certainly hasn’t made the same mistakes twice by taking absolute control this time around. Nonetheless, he didn’t buy Next- Gil Amelio did. Jobs sold Next. So Amelio should be credited with making a very good decision. But it’s Gil who?
Wasn’t Jobs brought back? There seems this notion that somehow Jobs just swept back into apple of his own volition like the hero of the day to save it from itself. But that wasn’t the case. When the decision was made to purchase Next- a decision NOT made by jobs- it gave Jobs his in back at apple. He certainly hasn’t made the same mistakes twice by taking absolute control this time around. Nonetheless, he didn’t buy Next- Gil Amelio did. Jobs sold Next. So Amelio should be credited with making a very good decision. But it’s Gil who?
too many variables.
What would have happened if he didn’t meet Avie Tevanian? What if Avie had gone to Stanford or MIT instead of Carnegie-Mellon?
Or Jonathan Ives would have followed a different path?
All of us are at the whim of capricious fate or chaos theory: over two years ago, I chanced across an article on Macsimum News – which I hardly ever visit – and at some point in the next two weeks we may sign a deal that alters my life as a result.
too many variables.
What would have happened if he didn’t meet Avie Tevanian? What if Avie had gone to Stanford or MIT instead of Carnegie-Mellon?
Or Jonathan Ives would have followed a different path?
All of us are at the whim of capricious fate or chaos theory: over two years ago, I chanced across an article on Macsimum News – which I hardly ever visit – and at some point in the next two weeks we may sign a deal that alters my life as a result.
This is a stupid article. If-then fantasies are for weak minded people. What happened happened because it’s the only thing that could have happened. It’s called reality.
This is a stupid article. If-then fantasies are for weak minded people. What happened happened because it’s the only thing that could have happened. It’s called reality.
Making Stevie out to be a religious figure via the headline? No wonder the Apple fanboys get so much shit. MDN, you’re the Glenn Beck of Mac sites.
Making Stevie out to be a religious figure via the headline? No wonder the Apple fanboys get so much shit. MDN, you’re the Glenn Beck of Mac sites.
Randall Stross has nothing of interest to offer. He’s just another guy who wanted an interview from SJ, got turned down, and decided to write a hatchet job.
His book was crap.
-jcr
Randall Stross has nothing of interest to offer. He’s just another guy who wanted an interview from SJ, got turned down, and decided to write a hatchet job.
His book was crap.
-jcr
Amelio should be credited with making a very good decision.
Yes, he certainly should. If he’d chosen Be instead, Apple would no longer exist.
-jcr
Amelio should be credited with making a very good decision.
Yes, he certainly should. If he’d chosen Be instead, Apple would no longer exist.
-jcr
Mental masturbation. I believe Steve that both he and history changed in order to make the present possible. He didn’t “resign from Apple,” he was booted from the company he founded!
Who knows what would have happened otherwise?
Are you that bored with the present and promises and challenges of the future that one would waste time speculating on a “what-if” scenario, a story that simply can’t be told?
Mental masturbation. I believe Steve that both he and history changed in order to make the present possible. He didn’t “resign from Apple,” he was booted from the company he founded!
Who knows what would have happened otherwise?
Are you that bored with the present and promises and challenges of the future that one would waste time speculating on a “what-if” scenario, a story that simply can’t be told?
@silverhawk
Scully is down here with us in the swamps of Palm Beach chasing skirts and trying to get some $$ in a divorce settlement with his ex wife to be. He not only failed Apple but failed his Very Rich wife!
@silverhawk
Scully is down here with us in the swamps of Palm Beach chasing skirts and trying to get some $$ in a divorce settlement with his ex wife to be. He not only failed Apple but failed his Very Rich wife!
The Apple board under Scully chickened out with the possibility of replacing the decrepit Mac System OS with Unix. They wanted to follow the footstep of Microsoft into becoming a software licensing company. Steve Jobs at that time was a maverick with a restless spirit for perfection and constant change. But the Apple board wanted the status quo to remain and were attuned to WallStreet’s wisdom on how companies are supposed to be run and therefore had more trust in Scully’s Pepsi ability to market Apple products like sugary water.
The Apple board under Scully chickened out with the possibility of replacing the decrepit Mac System OS with Unix. They wanted to follow the footstep of Microsoft into becoming a software licensing company. Steve Jobs at that time was a maverick with a restless spirit for perfection and constant change. But the Apple board wanted the status quo to remain and were attuned to WallStreet’s wisdom on how companies are supposed to be run and therefore had more trust in Scully’s Pepsi ability to market Apple products like sugary water.