Live data from Hacker News

Steve Jobs on why Xerox failed

m.youtube.com

21–30 of 87 posts

Re: Steve Jobs on why Xerox failed

#21
post #9

It happens to a majority of companies when they grow. Product innovation seizes to exist as market share grows ('don't mess things up! don't be too risky!') and Sales takes ownership.

Well isn't it something like: in times of wealth sales & marketing take over to promote growth (like a CMO becomes the CEO); in rough times it's finances that take over to cut costs and prevent losses (like a CFO becomes the CEO)...

The thing is, for some big companies Product is under the wing of marketing in some way... even if product releases are from a selected internal catalog to fill local market needs.

Re: Steve Jobs on why Xerox failed

#22
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Tim Cook is no Marketing or Sales Person, he is definitely a number person. All the % growth, YoY, revenue etc. One of the reason why Steve never initiated Stock buy back and were sitting on big pile of cash were simple, he could bet on products that might or might not make money. ( He was never really sure ) They will have enough resources to weather the storm. He knew technology moves so fast that one single…

In the 90s Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy, was dependent solely on the Mac, contracting rather than growing and had no operating system strategy. Today, Apple earns 70b/year profit, is growing at 10% per year and is incredibly diversified. They could survive on any one of their businesses and in recent years grew two from nothing i.e. Services and Wearables into 1B+ businesses. And they still have their 1B/year…

>( they aren't bad... we just thought it could be better )

And those points are precisely, numbers. In terms of Products, Three years after the introduction of MacBook Pro Touch Bar, I still think the previous gen MacBook Pro is much better. Four Years after introduction of Homekit, Nearly 7 years since they kicked out Scott forstall because of Apple Maps, and it is still pieces of crap outside US, UK and China. How Many years after App Stores? Think MacBook Air was long in the work? It was because of huge amount of criticism from MBP they decided to make a Retina MacBook Air just to shut us up. ( For the time being )

It is not that their numbers aren't doing good, but their product and services quality are declining. Most of their Product Line seems like a mess. And we are paying a premium for it, we are not iSheep, but that value proposition is declining everyday.

Oh, Did I mention All MacBook Pro TouchBar had a design flaw with Thunderbolt that increase the MacBook failure rate? Yes these things happen under Steve as well, but once these were known a new iteration of design would have been make a year later, instead we are sitting on the same shit for years.

Re: Steve Jobs on why Xerox failed

#23
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Tim Cook is no Marketing or Sales Person, he is definitely a number person. All the % growth, YoY, revenue etc. One of the reason why Steve never initiated Stock buy back and were sitting on big pile of cash were simple, he could bet on products that might or might not make money. ( He was never really sure ) They will have enough resources to weather the storm. He knew technology moves so fast that one single…

In the 90s Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy, was dependent solely on the Mac, contracting rather than growing and had no operating system strategy. Today, Apple earns 70b/year profit, is growing at 10% per year and is incredibly diversified. They could survive on any one of their businesses and in recent years grew two from nothing i.e. Services and Wearables into 1B+ businesses. And they still have their 1B/year…

It's the usual market disease of "growth above all" - apple's growth is slowing, ergo they're in trouble. Doesn't matter that the current revenues/profits are astronomical, only thing that matters is that it keeps getting more, more, more!

Re: Steve Jobs on why Xerox failed

#24
post #2

For Tim Cook it would be a good idea to take a closer look at this video...

What you’re saying doesn’t make any sense to me. Tim Cook isn’t from a Sales/Marketing background whilst many of the VPs at Apple are from Product backgrounds. Also the company is one of the most product centric companies around. Also under Tim Cook’s reign Apple has dominated the wearables market with a product that everybody dismissed in the beginning.

The Apple Watch was the last product Steve Jobs envisioned and planned. You can't put that on Tim Cook.

And right now they are being more number centric rather than innovation centric as in the past years.

Re: Steve Jobs on why Xerox failed

#25
Reminds me of the online travel industry. I did some time with Travelocity, Orbitz, and Expedia. Now its all Expedia. Expedia was always better, but not because they had a better product, but because they were better at finance and relationships. Travelocity had the best two products in the industry: travel packages and branded white labels.

I remember in each of these companies there were easily more than 10x product development people as marketing and merchandising people, but marketing people ran the companies. They had no idea about craftsmanship. Many of their ideas were in opposition to product quality would ultimately kill Travelocity as a slow poison.

My timing into all of this was interesting. I got into this in late 2007. At that exact moment Travelocity concluded industry growth in North America was finished. People had finally come online and organic growth was done. Now the only growth remaining was competition. Within a year all the executives left.

When Travelocity started its internal collapse in 2013 (I was in Afghanistan at the time) their superior products still had strong value even as the company quickly lost marketshare and employees. On top of that Travelocity had the strongest brand of the online travel companies, which was the thing they really wanted. In 2014 the company was diced up. Orbitz got the white label partnership business and Expedia got the Travelocity brand. In 2015 Expedia put in an offer to purchase Orbitz. A third of Orbitz's value was that partner business it got from Travelocity, because it would provide growth potential to Expedia it couldn't build from its brand alone. Now Travelocity is about a 50 person marketing team of Expedia, but it accounts for about a third of Expedia's core online revenue. At its high in 2012 Travelocity was about a 3500 employee company under Sabre.

The interesting thing about being at all 3 is the similarities in marketing driven goals and the similarities in technology. The technologies, the front end and the Java webapp middleware, were nearly identical. Same sorts of bloat. Same sorts of shifting positions on frameworks. Same sorts of aged archaic code that continued to live on 15 years later.

EDIT:

This is why the two products I mentioned were the industry's best. Vacation packages (flight + hotel + other things) by far had the highest margin. When you go to an online travel agency they are always pushing you to purchase a hotel, because hotels have substantially higher margin than flights, (like $50 compared to $7), but vacations packages could be worth anywhere from 1.5x to 4x hotel margin. Travelocity figured this out the best and were able to offer the cheapest packages at the highest margin rates. That was a big deal.

When all things retail fail, as they eventually always will, contracted partnerships will continue to pay. In additional to financial security they provide access to industries, data, and financial schemes otherwise not available. If you are a growth strategist this is what you want.

Re: Steve Jobs on why Xerox failed

#26
post #2

For Tim Cook it would be a good idea to take a closer look at this video...

Or Cook could just listen to the legions of formerly loyal iPhone customers who refuse to buy phones that don't have a 3.5mm plug or require one to use Face ID. Or the Mac users who are eternally pissed off that products are too expensive and under-equipped (Mac mini) or "intentionally broken" (Touch Bar on MacBook Pro) or forgotten (is the Mac Pro ever going to get a hardware update -- or the iPod Touch for that matter?). Innovation is good but don't ditch products that work (iPhone SE, iPod nano) in the name of "innovations" that are proven flops.

Formerly loyal customers are giving Apple TONS of great product ideas but they aren't listening.

Re: Steve Jobs on why Xerox failed

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you’re saying doesn’t make any sense to me. Tim Cook isn’t from a Sales/Marketing background whilst many of the VPs at Apple are from Product backgrounds. Also the company is one of the most product centric companies around. Also under Tim Cook’s reign Apple has dominated the wearables market with a product that everybody dismissed in the beginning.

The Apple Watch was the last product Steve Jobs envisioned and planned. You can't put that on Tim Cook. And right now they are being more number centric rather than innovation centric as in the past years.

No evidence Steve Jobs was involved in the planning/design of the Apple Watch. In fact during the Wired interview with Ive:

“Ive began dreaming about an Apple watch just after CEO Steve Jobs’ death in October 2011. He soon brought the idea to Dye and a small group of others in the design studio.”

And plenty of innovations for me: A12X/T2/W1 SOCs, FaceID, Apple Watch ECG, HomePod spatial detection, Beats1 Radio, Handoff/Continuity, Apple Pay.

Re: Steve Jobs on why Xerox failed

#28
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Tim Cook is no Marketing or Sales Person, he is definitely a number person. All the % growth, YoY, revenue etc. One of the reason why Steve never initiated Stock buy back and were sitting on big pile of cash were simple, he could bet on products that might or might not make money. ( He was never really sure ) They will have enough resources to weather the storm. He knew technology moves so fast that one single…

In the 90s Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy, was dependent solely on the Mac, contracting rather than growing and had no operating system strategy. Today, Apple earns 70b/year profit, is growing at 10% per year and is incredibly diversified. They could survive on any one of their businesses and in recent years grew two from nothing i.e. Services and Wearables into 1B+ businesses. And they still have their 1B/year…

For a company that size, "incredibly diversified" is a huge overstatement I think. They have devices (phones, tablets, computers, watches), 3rd party content store and... they all rely on each other (ecosystem effect), which makes them arguably even less diversified. Remove phones and (I believe) the whole company would just crash. How their plans for for new lines of business in 2019 and 2020 will be crucial.

Compare that to for example how Microsoft have split their dependence on Windows, and now have xbox, azure, office as truly diverse business lines. Or Amazon and their AWS division (their content still relies too much on Prime subscriptions coming from the store).

"Doing bad" is not a good description, but in terms of trajectory, they are far from a safe strategic bet right now.

Re: Steve Jobs on why Xerox failed

#29
post #2

For Tim Cook it would be a good idea to take a closer look at this video...

I'm not a big Apple fan. I've bought some of their laptops after the transition to Intel, but slowly switched away when macOS became less of a priority. That said, I think Apple is sitting on top of another blockbuster, similar to the iPhone in terms of impact, if they know how to play it well. I'm referring to the Apple Watch equipped with a non-invasive glucose sensor. I realize that they have a bit of a regulatory…

> I've bought some of their laptops after the transition to Intel, but slowly switched away when macOS became less of a priority

I recall at one of his last keynotes Jobs pointed out that compared to what the iPhone and iPad were bringing in the Mac/macOS division was small by comparison but compared to computer companies like HP or Dell that Apple was shipping more units of higher quality products to fiercely loyal users/fans (this observation preceded announcements of new/upgraded computers iirc). I realize Apple has an obsession with Ferrari-like cool, slick looks to their laptops but I think a blue-collar, enterprise-aimed laptop that says "I'm a serious developer/business person, I will lug an 8 pound laptop if it gives me lots of RAM, lots of processing power, and an all day batter, even if it's not sexy but gets the job done more reliably than anything else in existence" would be a wildly popular product. In short: something like a Lenovo P series (with 8 cores, up to 128GB RAM and a full, QUALITY keyboard without the BS touchbar) but running macOS. Hell, steal the advertising memes that Ford and Chevy use for selling their trucks: an industrial-grade laptop workstation for the knowledge workers who make the knowledge economy work.

I would buy two right away.

Re: Steve Jobs on why Xerox failed

#30

Reminds me of the online travel industry. I did some time with Travelocity, Orbitz, and Expedia. Now its all Expedia. Expedia was always better, but not because they had a better product, but because they were better at finance and relationships. Travelocity had the best two products in the industry: travel packages and branded white labels. I remember in each of these companies there were easily more than 10x produc…

A buddy of mine in the SEO space kept quitting Expedia to go work for the competition and finding himself back on the Expedia team via acquisitions. After the 3rd or so time he got so frustrated he quit the travel industry entirely lol.
Post reply on HN