NeXT's hardware and software units "failed" (in that they stopped existing) at different times, and I think you could say for different reasons.
The hardware failed because, as so many have pointed out, it wasn't cost-competitive -- didn't give enough bang for the buck. Better marketing might have helped, not by doing a better spin job or finding fancier words and pictures, but by correctly analyzing a market need, helping Engineering shape the product to that need, and then winning that market. However, given the small volumes the NeXT cubes and workstations were being produced in, it's hard to imagine that even with the right product for the right people at the right time, they could have made it at the right price.
Also, part of being cost-competitive would have been having the right software infrastructure -- all those developers who could make software for this hardware. Anyone who has ever ported commercial software to multiple platforms knows that the effort could kill you. NeXT tried to have a developer program, but resources were thin. (Moreover, if you believe that Microsoft has at times improperly wielded monopoly power, this would be a good time to insert your thoughts on whether there were other reasons developers didn't port programs to NeXTSTEP.)
The software company, which survived the end of the hardware, failed because the company couldn't come up with a workable market strategy. Also, there was a lot of pressure to succeed fast, and so there was a lot of switching strategies without waiting to see if what was in place was working. Education, business, enterprise solutions, whatever -- all were tried and none stuck. There was a lot of turnover in the marketing dept in those days.
The good news is that Apple seems not to be having any of these problems. I would like to think that Steve and crew learned from their years in Redwood City, and that they are also listening to the advice of the marketing gurus who were already at Apple. It seems to be working so far.
On a different line: You could say that the company didn't "fail" at all, given that so many remember it and so many products have already descended from it. Its legacy lives on.
Slashdot Mirror
The hardware failed because, as so many have pointed out, it wasn't cost-competitive -- didn't give enough bang for the buck. Better marketing might have helped, not by doing a better spin job or finding fancier words and pictures, but by correctly analyzing a market need, helping Engineering shape the product to that need, and then winning that market. However, given the small volumes the NeXT cubes and workstations were being produced in, it's hard to imagine that even with the right product for the right people at the right time, they could have made it at the right price.
Also, part of being cost-competitive would have been having the right software infrastructure -- all those developers who could make software for this hardware. Anyone who has ever ported commercial software to multiple platforms knows that the effort could kill you. NeXT tried to have a developer program, but resources were thin. (Moreover, if you believe that Microsoft has at times improperly wielded monopoly power, this would be a good time to insert your thoughts on whether there were other reasons developers didn't port programs to NeXTSTEP.)
The software company, which survived the end of the hardware, failed because the company couldn't come up with a workable market strategy. Also, there was a lot of pressure to succeed fast, and so there was a lot of switching strategies without waiting to see if what was in place was working. Education, business, enterprise solutions, whatever -- all were tried and none stuck. There was a lot of turnover in the marketing dept in those days.
The good news is that Apple seems not to be having any of these problems. I would like to think that Steve and crew learned from their years in Redwood City, and that they are also listening to the advice of the marketing gurus who were already at Apple. It seems to be working so far.
On a different line: You could say that the company didn't "fail" at all, given that so many remember it and so many products have already descended from it. Its legacy lives on.