4 ms·
I don't see it as sad, the existence of NeXT as a separate entity allowed many possibilities. I.e. it left room open for a completely different startup to roll
by yabadabadoes 7y ago
I don't see it as sad, the existence of NeXT as a separate entity allowed many possibilities. I.e. it left room open for a completely different startup to roll new tech directions back into Apple and NeXT to end up as new direction at SGI, HP or whatever. Even if the end looked a lot like the status quo should have looked, a wider range of possibilities shape the industry and individual motivation.
- tambourine_man 7y agoThe fact that Jobs had to found another company is unfortunate and symptomatic to me. There’s no reason why huge companies can’t foster innovation, besides bad management. See Bell Labs and Xerox Parc. You would think a place with almost unlimited money for R&D would be perfect for nurturing an ambitious project, but instead most go for VC. What’s sad to me is that it’s cheaper and easier to buy a startup than to fix broken culture, given a large enough company.
- yabadabadoes 7y agoBell and Xerox are great examples of why. If the ideas were separate entities, Bell or Xerox could have decided which to buy back and run as a business. They didn't decide anything and each idea had to be stolen by a visitor.