3 ms·

As long as he manages to bail out before the whole thing falls apart. The timing didn't work out for Sculley in '93, but maybe Tim will have better luck. Maybe

As long as he manages to bail out before the whole thing falls apart. The timing didn't work out for Sculley in '93, but maybe Tim will have better luck. Maybe "this time is different."

threeseed 8y ago
Apple is a very different company to what it was back then. They only had one revenue source i.e. Mac which was struggling to compete with Microsoft. Today we have Apple with diversified Mac, iPhone, iPad, Watch and Services businesses. And soon to add Glasses and Car if predictions come true.
- charlesism 8y ago
  Apple had at least two other revenue sources when Scully was there†. Apple II was still selling. There was also the LaserWriter. It was tied to their desktops, but their ecosystem today is also interdependent (eg: "services"). Apple was less big in the 80s than today, but they were still huge. There's a reason they lasted a decade despite uninspired management. The situation is remarkably similar, if you ask me. Just replace IBM/MS with Android vendors/Google. † Edit: on second thought, it's not necessarily a plus to say Apple is working on many different products. That was part of the problem post-Steve. See: https://youtu.be/xchYT9wz5hk https://youtu.be/xchYT9wz5hk
EpicBlackCrayon 8y ago
They're eventually going to price themselves out of the market. It's just a matter of when.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Has any huge, ultra-successful, ultra-profitable company ever “priced themselves out of the market”? Not for a single product launch or anything, but in a sustained way that seriously damaged the business long-term?
  - charlesism 8y ago
    Yes. Apple in the 1990s. That is why what they ought to know better now. Mind you, they probably do! I think they just worry about the next few quarters. As for the long-term, little personal incentive because "let the next guy or gal deal with that after I've moved on"
    - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
      Yeah, that’s not what happened to Apple in the 90s. At all.
      - charlesism 8y ago
        Maybe your memory is playing tricks on you? It's why I switched to a PC in the 1990s. And everyone I knew. And everyone I met, read or heard about. What was the point buying a Mac, when you could buy a faster, more compatible PC running Windows 95, which was pretty Mac-like, for half the price?
        MBCook 8y ago
        But the Mac was NEVER the majority/success the iPhone is today (at least in the US). It was always way behind. And price was a big part of the problem. Performance wasn’t until much later.
        charlesism 8y ago
        Not the Mac, but the Apple II was. When the PC industry began, Apple was king for a few years. Then Commodore overtook them in the home market, and IBM in the workplace. I'm not sure what you mean about performance? When I switched, I had the impression PCs were outperforming Macs by a long shot. That must have been within a couple years of the Win95 release. I should probably hedge a bit there because my memory might be off. It was a long time ago.
        8y ago

As long as he manages to bail out before the whole thing falls apart. The timing didn't work out for Sculley in '93, but maybe Tim will have better luck. Maybe "this time is different."

threeseed 8y ago

Apple is a very different company to what it was back then. They only had one revenue source i.e. Mac which was struggling to compete with Microsoft. Today we have Apple with diversified Mac, iPhone, iPad, Watch and Services businesses. And soon to add Glasses and Car if predictions come true.

charlesism 8y ago
Apple had at least two other revenue sources when Scully was there†. Apple II was still selling. There was also the LaserWriter. It was tied to their desktops, but their ecosystem today is also interdependent (eg: "services"). Apple was less big in the 80s than today, but they were still huge. There's a reason they lasted a decade despite uninspired management. The situation is remarkably similar, if you ask me. Just replace IBM/MS with Android vendors/Google. † Edit: on second thought, it's not necessarily a plus to say Apple is working on many different products. That was part of the problem post-Steve. See: https://youtu.be/xchYT9wz5hk https://youtu.be/xchYT9wz5hk

EpicBlackCrayon 8y ago

They're eventually going to price themselves out of the market. It's just a matter of when.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
Has any huge, ultra-successful, ultra-profitable company ever “priced themselves out of the market”? Not for a single product launch or anything, but in a sustained way that seriously damaged the business long-term?
- charlesism 8y ago
  Yes. Apple in the 1990s. That is why what they ought to know better now. Mind you, they probably do! I think they just worry about the next few quarters. As for the long-term, little personal incentive because "let the next guy or gal deal with that after I've moved on"
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    Yeah, that’s not what happened to Apple in the 90s. At all.
    - charlesism 8y ago
      Maybe your memory is playing tricks on you? It's why I switched to a PC in the 1990s. And everyone I knew. And everyone I met, read or heard about. What was the point buying a Mac, when you could buy a faster, more compatible PC running Windows 95, which was pretty Mac-like, for half the price?
      - MBCook 8y ago
        But the Mac was NEVER the majority/success the iPhone is today (at least in the US). It was always way behind. And price was a big part of the problem. Performance wasn’t until much later.
        charlesism 8y ago
        Not the Mac, but the Apple II was. When the PC industry began, Apple was king for a few years. Then Commodore overtook them in the home market, and IBM in the workplace. I'm not sure what you mean about performance? When I switched, I had the impression PCs were outperforming Macs by a long shot. That must have been within a couple years of the Win95 release. I should probably hedge a bit there because my memory might be off. It was a long time ago.
        8y ago