gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) (09/26/85)
Any comments on the Steve Jobs fiasco? Personally, I'm rooting for Jobs. If Apple has become a big dumb company, its good employees should be ENCOURAGED to go off and form startup(s), where they can do good things for society instead of battling petty departmental politics. In recent Apple moves (firing Jobs, hassling him afterward) bigness and dumbness are certainly evident. (Followups to net.micro only, please.)
dan@gumby.UUCP (09/27/85)
> Any comments on the Steve Jobs fiasco? Personally, I'm rooting for > Jobs. If Apple has become a big dumb company, its good employees > should be ENCOURAGED to go off and form startup(s), where they can do > good things for society instead of battling petty departmental > politics. In recent Apple moves (firing Jobs, hassling him afterward) > bigness and dumbness are certainly evident. > In the category of terminal bigness, dumbness, and arrogance: Jobs' enthusiasm for closed architecture, and his insistence that the only developers Apple would give the time of day to were the big ones (Microsoft, Lotus, etc.), takes a bigger cake than anything done by the surviving Apple management. According to John Sculley, the man who tossed Jobs, the next generation of Apple machines will have an open architecture, and Apple will be immediately working to improve its relations with, and support for, third party developers. Sounds good to me.
eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) (09/27/85)
> Any comments on the Steve Jobs fiasco? Personally, I'm rooting for > Jobs. ... As an Apple stock holder and Apple][ and ][e owner, I'm rooting for Apple Computer all the way. With Jobs out of the way, maybe the ]['s and the Macs will be allowed to grow (and hopefull the stock price, too). > > (Followups to net.micro only, please.) OK, I'll play ball, but I really think this should be in net.micro.apple (not in net.micro.mac --- they are too thin-skinned). -- Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve
kds@intelca.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker) (09/29/85)
This is an interesting question. Talking with a friend, though, he thought
that Apple is compelled to sue Jobs, since it seems that while acting
from a position of responsibility to Apple, he recruited a group of people
whose leaving Apple could cause the company hardship. Whether they would
have left on their own is irrelevant, since at the time Jobs had a financial
responsibility to Apple. If Apple had failed to sue Jobs, Apple itself could
be sued by a group of its stockholders, since Jobs has put their assets
in jeopardy. In this litigous society, Apple's actions seem prudent to
Apple, albeit nasty to Jobs.
On the more interesting side, it will be interesting to see what Apple comes
up with in the way of future products. One wonders if the Lisa or especially
the Mac would have happened if it weren't for the driving force of Jobs.
Does Alan Kay still "work" there? (I remember hearing that he did, sorta).
There was also a rumor on the net today that the next product was an
"open" Mac, but this still could be Jobs' doing...Does all this mean that
Apple will start taking the corporate stance and begin making IBM clones?
--
...and I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody outside of a small circle
of friends...
Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design for a large, Silicon Valley firm
{pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,qantel}!intelca!kds
---the above views are personal. They may not represent those of the
employer of its submitter.lbg@gitpyr.UUCP (Lee B Grey, Programmer Extraordinaire) (09/29/85)
In article <159@l5.uucp>, gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > Any comments on the Steve Jobs fiasco? Personally, I'm rooting for > Jobs. If Apple has become a big dumb company, its good employees > should be ENCOURAGED to go off and form startup(s), where they can do > good things for society instead of battling petty departmental > politics. In recent Apple moves (firing Jobs, hassling him afterward) > bigness and dumbness are certainly evident. Hear, hear! (Or is it "Here, here!"?)
stuart@bcsaic.UUCP (stuart gove) (10/02/85)
>> Any comments on the Steve Jobs fiasco? Personally, I'm rooting for >> Jobs. If Apple has become a big dumb company, its good employees >> should be ENCOURAGED to go off and form startup(s), where they can do >> good things for society instead of battling petty departmental >> politics. In recent Apple moves (firing Jobs, hassling him afterward) >> bigness and dumbness are certainly evident. >> > >In the category of terminal bigness, dumbness, and arrogance: Jobs' >enthusiasm for closed architecture, and his insistence that the only >developers Apple would give the time of day to were the big ones >(Microsoft, Lotus, etc.), takes a bigger cake than anything done by >the surviving Apple management. > >According to John Sculley, the man who tossed Jobs, the next generation >of Apple machines will have an open architecture, and Apple will be >immediately working to improve its relations with, and support for, >third party developers. Sounds good to me. Ditto. However unfortunate the circumstances were that led to Jobs' dismissal, the fact remains that he attempted to target the business market with the Mac without listening to what business users wanted. Apple management appears willing now to opening the Mac's architecture, a move which will certainly improve the Mac's market potential. ----- Stuart Gove Boeing Computer Services "I was a narrator for bad mimes." -- Steven Wright
kucharsk@gumby.UUCP (10/08/85)
> >> Any comments on the Steve Jobs fiasco? Personally, I'm rooting for > >> Jobs. If Apple has become a big dumb company, its good employees > >> should be ENCOURAGED to go off and form startup(s), where they can do > >> good things for society instead of battling petty departmental > >> politics. In recent Apple moves (firing Jobs, hassling him afterward) > >> bigness and dumbness are certainly evident. > >> > > > >In the category of terminal bigness, dumbness, and arrogance: Jobs' > >enthusiasm for closed architecture, and his insistence that the only > >developers Apple would give the time of day to were the big ones > >(Microsoft, Lotus, etc.), takes a bigger cake than anything done by > >the surviving Apple management. > > > >According to John Sculley, the man who tossed Jobs, the next generation > >of Apple machines will have an open architecture, and Apple will be > >immediately working to improve its relations with, and support for, > >third party developers. Sounds good to me. > > Ditto. However unfortunate the circumstances were that led to Jobs' > dismissal, the fact remains that he attempted to target the business > market with the Mac without listening to what business users wanted. > Apple management appears willing now to opening the Mac's architecture, > a move which will certainly improve the Mac's market potential. > > > ----- > Stuart Gove > Boeing Computer Services > > "I was a narrator for bad mimes." -- Steven Wright Personally, I wish Mr. Jobs all the luck in the world. Apple was started to get computers to the people, and now they're just a business, like everyone else. Too bad.
murlocker@water.UUCP (M. Urlocker) (10/11/85)
> > >In the category of terminal bigness, dumbness, and arrogance: Jobs' > > >enthusiasm for closed architecture, and his insistence that the only > > >developers Apple would give the time of day to were the big ones > > >(Microsoft, Lotus, etc.), takes a bigger cake than anything done by > > >the surviving Apple management. > > > ... > > Ditto. However unfortunate the circumstances were that led to Jobs' > > dismissal, the fact remains that he attempted to target the business > > market with the Mac without listening to what business users wanted. > > Apple management appears willing now to opening the Mac's architecture, > > a move which will certainly improve the Mac's market potential. > > > > ... > > Personally, I wish Mr. Jobs all the luck in the world. Apple was started to > get computers to the people, and now they're just a business, like everyone > else. Too bad. All this comes down to the same old argument: Can you build a good "hack" *and* make a buck. A lot of people think the two goals are mutually exclusive. Jobs didn't. If you were out to bring a computer "to the people" *and* make money, wouldn't you maximize your likelihood of success by courting the most successfull software developers? Would you bet the farm on some unknowns in a garage? Or would you hedge your bets and actively support those most likely to make good, and make info available to the others at their expense... Admittedly, the closed architecture was a mistake on both points, but the way the market was going, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.... mark