4 ms·

Don't worry Oleg. Jobs got ousted from Apple at one point too...

bdcravens 12y ago
Everyone loves the Steve Jobs example, but remember that Apple was a few quarters away from implosion, and he founded a second company that was highly successful. They took on massive investment from a company most considered their largest enemy.
- aaronbrethorst 12y ago
  > he founded a second company that was highly successful. NeXT was a commercial failure. > They took on massive investment from a company most considered their largest enemy. $150mm wasn't a very big investment for Microsoft. Just compare their market caps at the time for a sense of the different in scale between the companies: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple%2C+microsoft+market+cap+on+august+7+1998 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple%2C+microsoft+mark... It also wasn't that much for Apple. Just five months earlier, they reported a $740mm quarterly loss, or 5x what Microsoft invested in them. The purpose of the investment was primarily to help bolster credibility in Apple as an ongoing concern. Microsoft's reason for doing this was to try and keep the DoJ at bay.
  - awad 12y ago
    > NeXT was a commercial failure. Pixar, however, was not.
    - aaronbrethorst 12y ago
      Apologies, you caught me at a crabby, pedantic moment. Who cares if Pixar was a commercial success or not? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. I'm going to dissect what I was replying to: Everyone loves the Steve Jobs example, but remember that Apple was a few quarters away from implosion, and he founded a second company that was highly successful. They took on massive investment from a company most considered their largest enemy. First: Apple was a few quarters away from implosion puts you in the frame of mind that we're not discussing Steve Jobs' post-Apple entrepreneurial experiences in general, but, instead, examples from the computer industry, which would imply that we're talking about NeXT. Furthermore, NeXT was founded in 1985. Pixar was founded in 1986. So, even if you set aside what I wrote above, and just take an entirely literal view of the following: he founded a second company that was highly successful You still have to come to the conclusion that the GP was discussing NeXT, not Pixar.
      - Rapzid 12y ago
        What's your definition of successful? Here's mine. NeXT and its technology were acquired by Apple for $429m and 1.5 million Apple shares. This technology was was used in the creation of OSX. The acquisition brought Job's back to Apple and into the CEO chair where he lead the company on the path to becoming the most cash rich in the world. #winning
        wastedhours 12y ago
        The acquisition was successful, but was NeXT as a company successful? (The latter being the point that's being made).
        deciplex 12y ago
        Well, if the benchmark for success is "write a bullshit app and get acquired by megacorp" that is pretty common these days, then yes they were successful as a company.
        wpietri 12y ago
        I was a NeXT developer from 0.9 through the acquisition, and I can testify that NeXT was a commercial failure. Many great ideas, and it did well enough in some tiny commercial niches like finance. But if Apple hadn't fucked up its own OS development so thoroughly that they had to buy a replacement, NeXT would have either been out of business or a modest maker of OO development tools. Even without NeXT, Apple could well have brought back Jobs as CEO. I'd say that everything subsequent to Jobs returning to Apple was Jobs's success, not NeXT's.
      - bdcravens 12y ago
        No, I was addressing the idea that Steve Jobs had demonstrated subsequent success. Apple didn't come crawling back screaming "mea culpa"; without secondary success as a founder, Jobs would be a few paragraphs in Apple's wikipedia entry.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        Agreed, and I'd add that I wouldn't really say Jobs founded Pixar. Pixar was a Lucasfilm spinoff with an existing team and product when Jobs got involved as an investor and board chairman.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Everyone loves the Steve Jobs example, but remember that Apple was a few quarters away from implosion, and he founded a second company that was highly successful. They took on massive investment from a company most considered their largest enemy.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago
> he founded a second company that was highly successful. NeXT was a commercial failure. > They took on massive investment from a company most considered their largest enemy. $150mm wasn't a very big investment for Microsoft. Just compare their market caps at the time for a sense of the different in scale between the companies: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple%2C+microsoft+market+cap+on+august+7+1998 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple%2C+microsoft+mark... It also wasn't that much for Apple. Just five months earlier, they reported a $740mm quarterly loss, or 5x what Microsoft invested in them. The purpose of the investment was primarily to help bolster credibility in Apple as an ongoing concern. Microsoft's reason for doing this was to try and keep the DoJ at bay.
- awad 12y ago
  > NeXT was a commercial failure. Pixar, however, was not.
  - aaronbrethorst 12y ago
    Apologies, you caught me at a crabby, pedantic moment. Who cares if Pixar was a commercial success or not? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. I'm going to dissect what I was replying to: Everyone loves the Steve Jobs example, but remember that Apple was a few quarters away from implosion, and he founded a second company that was highly successful. They took on massive investment from a company most considered their largest enemy. First: Apple was a few quarters away from implosion puts you in the frame of mind that we're not discussing Steve Jobs' post-Apple entrepreneurial experiences in general, but, instead, examples from the computer industry, which would imply that we're talking about NeXT. Furthermore, NeXT was founded in 1985. Pixar was founded in 1986. So, even if you set aside what I wrote above, and just take an entirely literal view of the following: he founded a second company that was highly successful You still have to come to the conclusion that the GP was discussing NeXT, not Pixar.
    - Rapzid 12y ago
      What's your definition of successful? Here's mine. NeXT and its technology were acquired by Apple for $429m and 1.5 million Apple shares. This technology was was used in the creation of OSX. The acquisition brought Job's back to Apple and into the CEO chair where he lead the company on the path to becoming the most cash rich in the world. #winning
      - wastedhours 12y ago
        The acquisition was successful, but was NeXT as a company successful? (The latter being the point that's being made).
        deciplex 12y ago
        Well, if the benchmark for success is "write a bullshit app and get acquired by megacorp" that is pretty common these days, then yes they were successful as a company.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        I was a NeXT developer from 0.9 through the acquisition, and I can testify that NeXT was a commercial failure. Many great ideas, and it did well enough in some tiny commercial niches like finance. But if Apple hadn't fucked up its own OS development so thoroughly that they had to buy a replacement, NeXT would have either been out of business or a modest maker of OO development tools. Even without NeXT, Apple could well have brought back Jobs as CEO. I'd say that everything subsequent to Jobs returning to Apple was Jobs's success, not NeXT's.
    - bdcravens 12y ago
      No, I was addressing the idea that Steve Jobs had demonstrated subsequent success. Apple didn't come crawling back screaming "mea culpa"; without secondary success as a founder, Jobs would be a few paragraphs in Apple's wikipedia entry.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      Agreed, and I'd add that I wouldn't really say Jobs founded Pixar. Pixar was a Lucasfilm spinoff with an existing team and product when Jobs got involved as an investor and board chairman.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]