Slashdot Mirror
Woz On Apple's Success
Frankenbuffer writes "The Globe and Mail today has a short interview with Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple. Steve muses on spinning off iPod as a separate division. He also questions the move to Intel." From the article: "Microsoft wants to get out of the whole image of the big, black Darth Vader evil guy ... Innovation is probably going on within the company, because any time you put smart engineers in places eventually they wind up talking and innovating no matter how much you try to hold them back. I hope Microsoft improves and becomes more like Apple."
MOD PARENT UP!
If there is one thing I've learned as an engineer, it's that no matter how innovative your engineers, if your management is nothing but bottom-line looking buzzword spewers, you are going to be twisting in the wind.
I swear, the next time a manager tells me that I need to leverage my win-win situation to think outside the box synergisticly, I'm going to mail the CEO the christmas party pictures I took...it graphically proves that our admin used to be a gymnast...
Boldly going where I surely don't belong...
From the article:
"Still, the switch to Intel is a necessary one from an engineering standpoint, he said, because Apple needed a way to improve performance per watt. Mr. Wozniak would have liked Apple to continue using Motorola processors, but "Intel just did a very good logic design.""
Sounds like sound logic to me. No questioning there at all.
Ever since I read Linzmayer's Apple Confidential , I've felt a little sorry for Steve Wozniak. Here's a man who was used by Steve Jobs to launch a brand and didn't even get justly compensated, and then he essentially gets forced out of his own company in a way much worse than Jobs' infamous departure.
But then I realized that, in spite of his lesser success and his challenges, Woz is probably a much happier man. Anyone who gives as much as he does to charity and cares as much about having disadvantaged kids must have a lot of inner peace.
I don't really understand what Woz means by saying that her hopes intel becomes more like Apple. Would we really just want 1 kind of machine? Does he want Microsoft to only licence their software to hardware vendors that only make PC's that are white boxes? Does he want Microsoft to take out support for obsolete hardware everytime they upgrade their operating system? I mean innovation is one thing. But Microsoft already has shown that people don't really need pretty bozes; they want something that will mostly work with all their software and hardware that they have sitting around.
I'd be interested in seeing what direction he'd take the iPod in if he had the chance. Judging by his involvement in the Danger Inc Hiptop, he's big into small internet communication devices and who wouldn't like a WiFi iPod with a web browser? That screen is becoming bigger all the time.
Right now people seem to be straining to turn the iPod into an Input device, or at least to give it that capability. I'd be very interested to see what the Woz could do with it.
Apple's innovation would seem more related to its marketing than its engineering.
He was co-founder of apple and creator of the original Apple personal computers. Reasonable to presume he has a few insights worth listening to.
Even if you remove the iPod from the picture, the Macintosh business is growing by double-digits, year over year. With the iPod, Apple's a sixty billion dollar company. Without it, they would probably be a thirty billion dollar company, which is still Freaking Huge.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Because he helped start the personal computer revolution that enabled you to be typing on your computer in your home or office to write that comment. And he brings technical authority, since the Apple II computer was the last personal computer to be designed entirely by a single human being. Whether you use Windows or Linux, it all traces back to Apple.
"Sufferin' succotash."
He hopes his "long-time nemesis" improves and becomes more like Apple? Why?
Does he realize that if Microsoft improves their image and becomes more like Apple it is only going to hurt Apple?
Guess someone has some MS stock that he wants to see go up.
Well, here in Ole Silicon Valley where I take the train every day to work (no, unfortunately not at Apple) they seem to have a lot of penetration. There are three laptops that I see on the train, PowerBooks, ThinkPads, and Dell whatevers. I'd say I see each in about equal numbers. Given that I have a bais to notice PowerBooks ('cause they're dead sexy!) maybe PB's account for more like 20%. Still, pretty good numbers in the Valley where I'd say a lot of the tech trend setters are.
His design ideas in the Apple ][ were revolutionary, so he as geek cred because of his clever engineering skills.
Plus, he's kind of a hippy who marginalized himself at Apple and eventually quit because it stopped being fun, so he also has anti-establishment cred.
He's also very good at talking about technology, and a fairly likable person, so the press loves the guy.
Finally, Steve Jobs haters love to hail him as the "real" genius behind anything good that Apple has ever done, in spite of the fact that he was never really part of the Macintosh team and hasn't been involved in any company of note for a couple of decades now.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Except in limited cases, big companies don't innovate on their own. It's too freaking expensive, which makes it even riskier than it is for the garage/basement innovators.
It's a much better strategy for big companies to acquire small innovative companies.
Industry Comparison: Apple doing better than Dell in terms of operating margin. MS still better 40+%
ROE very nice!
I mention this because a couple of years ago I was once with a bunch of mgt types and they were saying that Apple should get out of the PC business because they were an industry laggard. It looks like things have changed.
Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
But iPods are also distracting Apple from its focus on computing, he said, and the company might be better served by spinning off the business.
Given the huge success of the iPod, perhaps a better strategy would be to spin off the computing business.
FREE - Java, J2EE and Ajax Audiobooks for Software Developers - www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
I hope Microsoft becomes more like Apple too... and build a decent OS on a solid Unix core.
MadOgre.com
Apple has always been a "consumer" company, not a business player. When I see graphs of computer sales it makes me laugh, as Apple's market is almost purely non-business and "% of computer sales" means nothing to them. Look at the "% of computer sales to home users" and you will see that Apple is making vast in-roads in its target audience.
Microsoft, Dell, HP and the rest target anyone with a pulse, which in my mind makes it less attractive. Apple's best move was the IPod because it not only makes wads of money, but increases the consumer's awareness of the whole Apple brand as a consumer company, and so the consumers are more likely to buy an Apple Mac if their IPod works well for them, then a Windows based computer which is made by HP, runs Microsoft, and runs Napster which getting support for is a nightmare (no, it's a hardware problem, no it's Windows at fault, etc...). My 2 cents...
You aren't to critical mass yet:
In my work group, we spend staff meetings keeping track of the jargon used by management. It's interesting to track over time.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The problem with that approach -- as fashionable as it may (and I think it's popularity may have peaked) -- is that after you've finished spinning off every highly profitable division of your company, all you're left with are the unprofitable or marginally-profitable divisions, plus some nasty overheads, which is not normally a recipie for staying in buisiness. The parent organization closing up shop ideally wouldn't matter too much, except that some of those unprofitable or marginal divisions can often be important for the long term profitability of all those currently high-performing divisions/spin-offs, as customer experience suffers because of integration or legacy support issues, or the well of innovation dries up (R&D divisions are rarely profit centers in themselves) and there's less room for experimentation. Also, without the easily-accessed combined financial resources of the whole, spun-off divisions can find themselves without the reserves needed to weather temporary downturns. Unlocking value is a great short term strategy, but I'm not so sure it makes sense for companies planning for the long haul, such as Apple, especially when Apple's branding and premium pricing relies so heavily on integration and a seamless user experience.
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
>Apple may have needed to improve performance, but not necessarily performance per watt
laptops. heard of them?
He's the talented engineer that singlehandledly designed and built the Apple I as well as a great deal of Apple's later technology.
He built neat stuff because he loved doing it, not because he wanted to become really wealthy or something else. He is a good example of the archetypal hacker.
He loves high-tech practical jokes.
He's credited with pushing hard for two major aspects of computers where his impact had a lasting effect on the industry -- gaming capabilities and openness. He liked playing video games, and wanted them to be affordable and available to all kinds of people. He also wanted them to be expandable and something that people could reconfigure and build new systems out of.
He's a nice, funny guy, which contrasts with Jobs:
He [Jobs] was given the task of creating a circuit board for the Atari game Breakout. According to Atari Founder Nolan Bushnell, Atari had offered $100 to each chip that was reduced in the machine. Unfortunately (and admittedly), Steve [Jobs] had little interest or knowledge in circuit board design. He made a deal with Stephen Wozniak: the bonus would be split evenly between them, if Woz could create a circuit board with a minimal number of chips. Much to the amazement of Atari, Wozniak reduced the number of chips by 50. Unfortunately he had made the design so tight that it was impossible to reproduce on an assembly line. At the time, Jobs told Wozniak that Atari had only given them $500 (rather than $5000), and that Wozniak's share was thus $250.
Today, Jobs is a power broker and the Woz teaches computer science to kids and encourages people to be hackers and engineers. The Woz is a geek and Jobs is a marketer -- and we all want a friendly hero to love.
He and Jobs started Apple partly with money made from selling blue boxes (devices that let people get free calls at the time) so he has a bit of appeal to the pirate folks out there as well.
Basically, The Woz is the kind of guy that we all wish we had a lot more of in society, and wish that more people would emulate. That's why people like to hang on his every word. I attended a talk he gave once, and while I didn't walk away with my life changed, you get the feeling that this is a guy who really has figured out life and how to enjoy doing what he loves.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Given the huge success of the iPod, perhaps a better strategy would be to spin off the computing business.
It is surprising how Woz misunderstands the success of the iPod so deeply. He seems to think of it as a Palm Pilot. A standalone gadget. Jobs obviously takes a different view. He sees a vertically integrated entertainment industry from content production to device presentation. The iPod gets its cache by being associated with other enlightened Apple solutions. Spin it off and the magic is gone, just like IBM Thinkpads and Lenovo. I am not saying the prospect of proprietary integrated technology solutions excites me, but that it where Apple is headed. Expect to see Jobs as next Disney CEO.
an ill wind that blows no good
From the article:
Mr. Jobs returned to the company as chief executive officer in 1997 and has since led the company to new heights, but Mr. Wozniak has stayed away. His dealings with Apple are minor, he said, although he's still on the payroll "just out of loyalty."
That's awesome. I'm going to go tell my boss right now that I'm leaving, but I wish to remain on the payroll "just out of loyalty"!
Having actually met (and chatted with) Woz a few months back, just after the Intel transition was announced, I got the impression that he was cautiously optimistic. He understood the problems with the G4 and the G5, but he was concerned about Macs becoming too "PC-like" - what differentiates Macs from PCs now? He also knew about the fact that hackers had gotten OS X (the development release at the time) to run on common PCs, but he didn't seem to be nearly as concerned about it as Apple seems to be now (not surprising considering his legacy).
Interestingly, Woz denied having anything to do with ADB (although he is frequently cited as the inventor), he carries a RAZR (despite his association with Danger, the company that produces the Sidekick) and a Bluetooth headset.
I happened to have a Sony MagicLink with me, and Woz indicated that he hadn't seen someone actually using one in years.
Woz: "We're a computer company, and we really think computers. Spinning off a separate division makes a whole lot of sense."
Not anymore they're not. Now they're some combination of a media company, industrial design company, and computer company, to varying degrees. The other other Steve gets that...
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Not to belate the argument, but laptop sales are now growing at a much faster rate than desktops - so it is supremely important that Apple has something competitive in the market.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
They left IBM/Motorola due to supply problems...
Tell me why they would go to another company with supply problems?
All the AMD zealots here seem to continually forget AMD's biggest problem, they cannot produce. Going with Intel is a BUSINESS decision as much as a technical one. We can debate the relative merits till the cows come home and it does not matter one bit.
For the sake of this argument (and only to remove it as a possible sticking point) I will grant that AMD has a superior processor. Bottom line, that is irrelevant. The reason companies like Dell stick with Intel is because Intel offers them a good discount (reasoning and anti-trust not part of this) and more importantly they can deliver VOLUME consistently and without a problem.
Apple has had their share of issues with supply from IBM/Motorola, why would it be in their interests to repeat that? Intel will offer them staff, resources for testing, many things AMD has never been able to offer a business partner. In the business word, these things are very valuable.
...and have a much, much smaller share of the market than they do now.
"It's like consorting with the enemy.""
Intel? The enemy? Wait... weren't PowerPC's made by IBM? For those who seen Pirates of the Silicon Valley, didn't the two Steves consider IBM as their enemy? You know, the stuck-up guys in black suits who did their stuff the same way they did in the 1950's, wasn't it IBM their enemy?
I thought that Steve Jobs would gladly go away from IBM, I recall that Apple has switched from Motorola CPU's to IBM while he was gone, and now he's changing to Intel, seems to make sence to me, since he hates IBM.
But Steve Wozniak's reaction, I really don't understand it, if anyone can explain me.
You just got troll'd!