Slashdot Mirror
Behind a Steve Jobs Keynote
Shree writes "The Guardian has an article about what it takes to prepare that smooth Steve Jobs-style keynote. When Steve launches iPhoto and says 'here we have 5000 or so photos', he actually means here we have 5000 or so carefully picked photos ... " From the article: "Objectively, Apple Computer is a mid-sized company with a tiny share of its primary market. Apple Macintoshes are only rarely seen in corporate environments, and most software companies don't even offer Apple-compatible versions of their products. To put it another way, Apple is just bit larger than Cadbury-Schweppes and about the same size as Nike or Marks and Spencer in terms of annual sales. Such comparisons come up short in trying to describe Apple's place in the world of business, because they leave out a key factor: Steve Jobs."
I've heard a lot of people say that a lot of (presumably other) people hang on Steve Jobs' every word. But somehow I've never met anyone who actually did seem to hang on the words of Steve Jobs. The buzz around Apple products seems grounded in reality - the buzz around Jobs seems like manufactured press.
He's like the CEO equivalent of Paris Hilton: everyone's sure he's famous, no one's really sure what he's famous FOR. No really, there a ton of sex tapes going around the internet - that's not enough to make someone famous. As far as I can tell Paris got famous because she was famous. As far as I can tell, Jobs is famous for the same reason: because he's famous.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
It is a strange comparison because, even though revenue may be in the same ballpark figure as these other companies, they are not growing as quickly as Apple has done since it launched the iPod, and while Apple may be medium sized now, it is steadily getting larger. It is also well known to anyone aged 16-30 - how many American readers know what product M&S sells, or what its famous for.
I also don't understand why he appears to suggest that announcements made by the CEOs of other companies are scrutinised by brokers and other analysts. It was interesting to see all the work that goes into Jobs' presentations, but I think the author of the article was over-egging the importance of these presentations by attempting to diminish the size of Apple's importance and comparing the impact of the announcements to those made by other similarly sized companies. A bit dishonest I feel
Source: 500 Days at the Helm: The Rise and Fall of Gil Amelio by Tom Hormby
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
My guess is that Phil Schiller is the heir apparent. If (God Forbid) Jobs were to drop dead, I'm sure the market would (over)react*, but Apple has succeeded not just because of Steve's leadership, but also because of the team he has put in place. He doesn't run the company single-handed, despite his legendary status and mythic qualities.
*Buying opportunity!
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
...because if there is anyone in the industry who could be described as an oracle to what the future holds, he's it. But more than just predicting it, he directs the company to make it. The NeXT machine heralded the future back in 1988....Unix-based, security-focused OS with a great GUI and awesome development tools. Did he actually write any of it? No, but unlike another operating system (*cough* Linux) that has awesome tech but remains a bit ... unfocused ... and an operating system that seems focused on the wrong things (*cough* Windows) Steve Jobs had/has a clear vision of what he wanted, and where things should go. And frankly, whether you like him as a person or not, he seems to have been pretty much correct.
Consider this example: The original iMac had no floppy drive and used USB ports instead of ADB. People *howled*, but time has proven him right...the iMac did more to jumpstart widespread adoption of USB than anything else (I had two PCs that had USB ports that went to the junkyard without ever having been used). On top of everything else, I'm sure companies did a good business for awhile selling ADB-to-USB converters and USB-based floppy drives.
Jobs is the only guy who has the cajones to risk alienating everyone to push the tech world further, and the world always catches up. *That* is why he is deservedly famous.
BTW, contrast this to Wozniak who is also decidely famous, but as the wizard who made it all work. It's too bad the two of them didn't collaborate on more things...maybe those warp drives wouldn't be so far off after all...
Who modded the parent post up? It's totally devoid of fact.
Steve Jobs initially became famous over twenty years ago for leading the company who developed the, then, most successful microcomputer of its generation, the Apple II. He then pushed his boundaries of fame with the whole Macintosh / 1984 commercial thing and became seen as a visionary and leader of the industry. This was no accident or coincidence.
He then bankrolled and managed (in the business sense, rather than creatively) Pixar for many years, eventually engineering a clever IPO and became a centimillionaire in the process (and now a billionaire).
To compare Steve Jobs to Paris Hilton is ridiculous. Jobs has put in a lot of hard work, a lot of money, and run himself ragged on his route to success.. he was no overnight sensation.
I do this sort of stuff for a living, and while most of the shows I do are more on the "hey gang, let's do a meeting" level, when someone's spending a couple of million bucks to fly in a few thousand folks, put them in hotels, and cram them into one ballroom, there's a very high level of expectation.
Sure, a lot of companies have Really Dull Meetings, but some others are much like the "Jobs Model." Slick, professionally-produced presentations, lots of cool videos and music, light shows, several HDTV-level projection screens, 100 kilowatt sound systems, and expensive pro talent to help entertain the crowd between product demos.
You also get stuff like Larry Ellison rappelling down from the ceiling of the ballroom, the head of a soft drink company crashing a golf cart through a frangible projection screen, rotating platforms for the audience (to turn them to different stages) for another soft drink company, or any of a hundred different Big Show stories.
You also get the Big Disasters when they don't prepare right. Like the above-mentioned rotating platforms not turning when the weight of the crowd is actually on them, or a full-sized luxury car on a raft in a lake doing a quick 180 degree roll and ending up suspended under water...
We need more perfectionists like that in this industry. This is an interesting read.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Yes and no. According to the latest figures available (3rd Quarter 2005), Apple is currently the 6th largest computer maker (after Dell, HP, Lenovo/IBM, Acer, and Fujitsu-Siemens). However, they also do have only a 2.3% market share:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html
(scroll down past the 2 charts at the top)
Now, when it comes to installed base, I believe Macs are much higher, something like 8-10% or so, though I don't have solid proof of this (I think PC Mag did a study a couple of years ago which determined that Macs usually average a 5-7 year 'usable life' as opposed to 3-5 years for PCs, which would explain the higher installed base numbers)
I'm extremely uncomfortable in this akward position of defending Bill Gates - but since I value the method of thinking about any given thought I'm going to do it.
In my opinion, Bill Gates is to be blamed... They are the result of Bill making money the center of his whole life. They are the result of his sneaky aggressive behavior.
Money is clearly not the center of Bill Gates life. If it was, he wouldn't be the biggest philanthropist of all time. This doesn't make him a saint (he may be in it for fame and ego) but it does indicate that money isn't his only idol. You quick assertion that it is indicates to me that you - like many of us - are quick to oversimplify and lay far more blame than can really be laid at the foot of corporate figureheads.
Note that Bill Gates suffers from depression. This is exactly what you would expect of a man who has spent his entire adult life acting out sneaky aggression. It's all fun and games to paint demonic horns and a tail on Bill, but in all seriousness you continue to indicate this desire - universal to humans - to live in a universe that is neat and tidy. Things happen because they are someone's fault, people's actions can be explained by their character - which is itself simple and comprehensible.
The points I'm questioning are bigger than either Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. It has to do with the way that we manufacture celebrity for celebrity's sake - just as we manufacture notoriety for notoriety's sake.
The truth is that sometimes things happen not "just because", but for a variety of reasons that are so complex that there's really no better explanation. A multi-billion dollar business is an incredibly complex structural organization. Of course a CEO can set the tone - it's about leadership. Steve Jobs appears to be a leader. But how much do you think that leadership translates directly into "cool new products?"
I think that there's a ton of luck that goes into it as well. I imagine there are probably many people who could do what Steve is doing, but who will never be in that position (and probably suck in whatever position they are in now because they don't have the temperment for it).
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
I am an actual former NeXT Registered Developer. I was CEO of a software company that developed expert systems for physicians on the NeXT. We were instrumental in getting the MUMPS language ported to the NeXT.
Steve, at the time, had a real hard-on for stuff that WASN'T another spreadsheet, word processor, etc. (although everyone loved the hell out of Lotus Improv and that was definitely Steve's baby) so we were one of the companies selected to show our stuff in San Francisco in Septmember of 1990.
This was the event where the NeXT Dimension color card for the Cubes was introduced, along with the NeXTStation pizza-box, and of course, NeXTStep 2.0.
We were in the building for 3 or 4 days before the big show getting our stuff working on almost hourly new builds of the OS.
So, more than a few of us took breaks and watched Steve rehearse his presentation. Trust me, he leaves nothing to chance...nothing. His air of casualness is the result of lots or preparation and practice.
He absolutely IS a showman, but he's also unquestionably, undeniably brilliant.
People remember the Apple IIe and the first (1984) Mac, but forget the Lisa. That "girl" was one of the greased skids for showing Steve the door. Not because it failed, but because Steve wanted about 500 million to 1 billion to build a better machine like it...the NeXT. No, that wasn't its name...but the idea was already there. The board balked, he got the bum rush from his own company.
NeXTStep was/is Mac OS/X. Avi Tevanian was at NeXT, he's Chief Scientist or something at Apple now. Testified at the Microsoft anti-trust trial, etc.
Steve didn't write the MACH kernel or bolt on BSD primitives and Display PostScript to NeXTStep, but damn sure knew what people to recruit and hire to get it done. And then took them back to Apple.
Considering that the Lisa and the seminal ideas for NeXTStep came about around 1985-86...about the time OS/2 and Windows were being created, I'd say the current state of the Mac OS and Windows shows the man ain't too stupid.
No, I am not a Mac fanatic. I have more PC hardware than NeXT and Mac hardware. I'm pretty much agnostic on this stuff...been doing it too long to be religious about any of it these days.
The point is that there's a whole lot to the guy doing the keynotes at MacWorld.
Steve is cool.
I am my own gestalt.
Amelio didn't make great product decisions, and it certainly took Jobs, the iMac, etc. to get Apple back into public favor.
But Amelio, not Jobs, was the real financial savior of the company. When he was hired, there were going to be losses as far as the eye could see -- Apple really had not got its costs under control, and seemed to have no motivation to change old losing business practices such as custom-building all components and pricing without considering the rest of the market. Amelio, not Jobs, really got Apple to move toward industry-standard components and better inventory/distribution practices; Apple, while continuing to shrink, stopped losing money on his watch. It turned from Mercedes-Benz circa 1991 into Porsche circa 2004.
Like the other guy said, no Jobs without Amelio. I wish people would give him his due.
Jobs, for his part, is successful because he's a showman. People like entertainers, pure and simple. (That's why Paris is a mystery... she's not entertaining in any way...)