31–40 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is indeed something memorable, but considering main stream America's view on homosexuals, I don't think this is something that should be mentioned too often.
I honestly have not heard about this until now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers... I like all the guys that surround Jobs, Philip Schiller, Scott Forstall, Jonathan Ivy even Bob Mansfield are a good candidates, there is no reason why Apple should look elsewhere for CEO candidates.
IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers... You know very little about Microsoft. You're right there was a difference. Jobs was surrounded by engineers and designers. Gates was surrounded by engineers. Gates top business guy was a math geek from Harvard with not much in the way of business experience (Ballmer).…
Easily the best post in Daring Fireball in months. Reminds me of 'The Tablet' ( http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/the_tablet ) and others to just how different Gruber is from other tech writers, even apple-related-tech writers like Andy Ihnatko, Jason Snell, etc. He throughly thinks about the topic with tremendous insight and unique points of view. This post is an interesting view on the world of tech, finance and jo…
Glancing over the archive, imho Gruber's best posts in the last few months have been his iPad 2 review (custom benchmarks!); taking All Things D, Engadget, et al. to task for weak attribution; and taking non-Apple tablet reviews to task for grading on a curve.
Where the WSJ seems to have black-box-trusted someone else's expertise, Gruber seems to depend only on facts that he has a good command of. In other words, yes, it's easy to side with Gruber here (I know I do), but the problem is that even if he has actually named the correct successor, in at least one crucial aspect of the debate, he is still wrong: it is a disservice to the transformation Apple will have to undergo to simply name the CEO. Who's next is an important fact, but it is not the most important fact.
One thing to notice here is that Apple is a huge and complicated machine, and from the perspective of the CEO who knows all of this, it must seem absolutely precious that people like Gruber, and organizations like the WSJ believe they have a firm grasp on what's going on internally. In a lot of ways, this seems to have inspired the "Hogwash" comment, and on a darker note, it suggests something about the discussion as a whole: that the important bits, the descriptive and interesting bits, the more useful bits, lie in a discussion about what Apple should decide to be post-Jobs. What goals are realistic? What can and can't it be?
The work here is paving the way for who's next, and ensuring that there are clear objectives. THIS is the discussion worth having; points about who the next CEO are subsidiary, and only useful insofar as they give us information about these important questions.
[1] Particularly with his "Hogwash" comment.
Apple needs a design-oriented CEO. Tim can balance that and make the company amazing from an operations-perspective. I don't know who the person is, but I do think he (or she) exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers... I like all the guys that surround Jobs, Philip Schiller, Scott Forstall, Jonathan Ivy even Bob Mansfield are a good candidates, there is no reason why Apple should look elsewhere for CEO candidates.
IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers... You know very little about Microsoft. You're right there was a difference. Jobs was surrounded by engineers and designers. Gates was surrounded by engineers. Gates top business guy was a math geek from Harvard with not much in the way of business experience (Ballmer).…
That P&G gig is pure business, and though I think Ballmer has some understanding of technology and engineering, he doesn't have the near the depth that gates has.
I also disagree with your comments re: the executive engineers, though I'm sure you could convince me otherwise.
Executive Engineers or Designers isn't important, it is a leader with a clear vision which is needed. Gates was able to envision the future technology and push to get it done, same with Jobs. Ballmer just doesn't have that, and Microsoft has missed that over the last few years.
"Edwin Land was brilliant, prescient, prickly, and demanding, and hounded his employees into doing great things they might never have accomplished otherwise. That sounds like Steve Jobs. Land described photography as “the intersection of science and art.”
Jobs likes to cite Land’s quote and says that Apple’s work sits “at the intersection of the liberal arts and technology,” a location which is surely in the same neighborhood. Land demoed new Polaroid products himself at corporate events that were famous for their hypnotic effect. Jobs carries on the tradition.
And both Land and Jobs were forced out of the companies they founded, in two of the more preposterous decisions in business history."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers... You know very little about Microsoft. You're right there was a difference. Jobs was surrounded by engineers and designers. Gates was surrounded by engineers. Gates top business guy was a math geek from Harvard with not much in the way of business experience (Ballmer).…
I'm not sure where you got your info on Ballmer. Yes, he has a degree in Mathematics and Economics from Harvard, but he was a P&G marketing guy before coming to Microsoft. That P&G gig is pure business, and though I think Ballmer has some understanding of technology and engineering, he doesn't have the near the depth that gates has. I also disagree with your comments re: the executive engineers, though I'm sure you c…
I also disagree with your comments re: the executive engineers
I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with. I agree that Ballmer is no Gates. My first post in this thread was how Apple/MS aren't the same companies w/o Jobs/Gates. The follow-up poster made the point that Gates was surrounded by suits, and my point about engineering execs was that Gates wasn't surrounded by suits, but rather by engineers.