Jack:
Going from memory here…when Steve Jobs returned to Apple his first major
move was to reduce the number of product lines from 7 to 4. In addition to
the Newton, Apple was designing printers (with Canon engines in them), the
QuickTake (I think) digital camera, and a host of other products that were
taking up lots of engineering talent and not producing results that
contributed to the core products. That's a big thing in a tech company —
creating synergies in R&D.
He also instituted a change in attitude. Prior to Steve returning, it was,
as I heard from long term employees at Apple, very easy to get a project
funded. The joke - "What's the difference between Apple Computer and the
Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts have adult supervision."
Part of the deal that Steve struck was that Apple would license/acquire/use
the NextOS, a much needed change in the OS that Apple could provide.
Pint/Taligent had been a disaster and Apple was dead in the water with the
Windows 95 torpedo coming right at them. About that time, the sage Michael
Dell stated (paraphrasing) that Apple should live up to its fiduciary duty
by liquidating the company and returning the proceeds to the stockholders.
My, how times change, eh?
Apple's smart guys were busy integrating the Next OS into something that
could run on the Mac but there was also a parallel project that ran for
quite some time that I've never seen discussed (though I don't follow Apple
that much). I had the opportunity to work for PowerSchool which was a
division of Apple for a few years and we were in a "remote outpost" in
Folsom, CA.
One bright morning, well after the carnage caused by the Web Objects
version of PowerSchool had cleared up, a couple of engineers from Cupertino
showed up in the midst of our herd of 4D developers. I struck up a
conversation with one of them and the topic turned to OS X and Intel chips.
During the conversation he told me, with no fanfare, that Apple had taken
pains to make sure that OS X was compatible with X86 for years. Having been
a Mac advocate for years (even though I bought my HP laptop when I was an
Apple employee), I was surprised since I'd never heard of that.
Soon afterward, Steve announced that Apple would be moving to the Intel
chip and, as they say, the rest is history.
Apple desperately needed OS X and, to a lesser degree, to make the
transition away from Motorola/IBM who were not putting the R&D money into
chips and, because Apple was buying in relatively small quantities, Apple
wasn't able to reduce chip cost. That's a tough sell when their product
was, relatively speaking, expensive.
Wait, there's more!
After selling iMacs that come in flavors, hence greying the line between
marketing and product, the next move was to get the iPod out the door and
into the hands of "Switchers". The symbiosis between marketing and product
design became pretty tight and "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell" gave way to
the Switchers marketing campaign.
I'm fortunate to have an unopened copy of the first edition of MacWorld
magazine. That issue detailed the release of the Macintosh which
represented a fundamental change in how the public (knowingly) interacts
with computers. Pruning back on Apple's product line, the "flavored" iMacs,
the iPod, and the Switchers campaign can be seen as part of a shift driven
by Steve Jobs and that long term effort is, I believe, as fundamental as
the first one that Steve caused.
I knew the die was cast when Apple made this poster available to its
employees:
Loading Image...(Pardon the picture quality)
In summary, products are part of the mix, no question but, as Kirk Brooks
et al are wont to highlight, an excellent product does not equate to
dominance or guarantee success. Instead, it's a combination of products,
marketing, and hard work.*
*Everyone using 4D on Windows - make that every one using 4D - should say a
quiet "Thank you" to the band of merry iconoclasts (lead by Dominique
Hermsdorff?) who had the courage and foresight to disobey MDD's stunning
crie de couer at DevCon that "4D would never run on Windows". Ugh.
--
Douglas von Roeder
949-336-2902
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Jack Des Bouillons <
Post by Jack Des BouillonsHuh?
Marketing didn't save Apple...great PRODUCTS saved Apple...and it wasn't the
Mac that did it. The Mac was certainly the best O/S, but slick marketing
didn't move the market share...whole new types of products (iPod, iPhone,
iPad) put Apple where they are today...and I would submit that the success
of these products had less to do with their marketing campaigns and more to
do with their brilliance in design (not just the physical design)...
As always..in my opinion.
Jack des Bouillons
Post by Kirk BrooksThey had the best OS going for years
and nearly died until they got their marketing act together.
**********************************************************************
4D v13 is available now - with more than 200 new features to make
your applications richer and faster
http://www.4d.com/products/new.html
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
4D v13 is available now - with more than 200 new features to make
your applications richer and faster
http://www.4d.com/products/new.html
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-Unsubscribe-d2/MUvgItPNWk0Htik3J/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************