Steve Jobs: What He Hoped His Legacy Would Be

I recently finished the Steve Jobs biography by Walter Isaacson. If you haven't read it, you might find the following comments from Jobs interesting.

My passion has been to build an enduring company where
people were motivated to make great products. Everything else was secondary.
Sure, it was great to make a profit, because that was what allowed you to make
great products. But the products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to
make money. It’s a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything: the people you hire, who gets promoted, what you discuss in
meetings.

Steve-Jobs-In-20s

 


Some people say, “Give the customers what they want.” But
that’s not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they’re going to want
before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, “If I’d asked customers what they
wanted, they would have told me, ‘A faster horse!’” People don’t know what they
want until you show it to them. That’s why I never rely on market research. Our
task is to read things that are not yet on the page. Edwin Land of Polaroid
talked about the intersection of the humanities and science. I like that
intersection. There’s something magical about that place. There are a lot of
people innovating, and that’s not the main distinction of my career. The reason
Apple resonates with people is that there’s a deep current of humanity in our
innovation. I think great artists and great engineers are similar, in that they
both have a desire to express themselves. In fact some of the best people
working on the original Mac were poets and musicians on the side. In the
seventies computers became a way for people to express their creativity. Great
artists like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo were also great at science.
Michelangelo knew a lot about how to quarry stone, not just how to be a
sculptor.

People pay us to integrate things for them, because they
don’t have the time to think about this stuff 24/7. If you have an extreme
passion for producing great products, it pushes you to be integrated, to
connect your hardware and your software and content management. You want to
break new ground, so you have to do it yourself. If you want to allow your
products to be open to other hardware or software, you have to give up some of
your vision.

At different times in the past, there were companies that
exemplified Silicon Valley. It was Hewlett-Packard for a long time. Then, in
the semiconductor era, it was Fairchild and Intel. I think that it was Apple
for a while, and then that faded. And then today, I think it’s
Apple and Google—and a little more so Apple. I think Apple has stood the test
of time. It’s been around for a while, but it’s still at the cutting edge of
what’s going on.

It’s easy to throw stones at Microsoft. They’ve clearly
fallen from their dominance. They’ve become mostly irrelevant. And yet I
appreciate what they did and how hard it was. They were very good at the
business side of things. They were never as ambitious product-wise as they
should have been. Bill likes to portray himself as a man of the product, but
he’s really not. He’s a businessperson. Winning business was more important
than making great products. He ended up the wealthiest guy around, and if that was
his goal, then he achieved it. But it’s never been my goal, and I wonder, in
the end, if it was his goal. I admire him for the company he built—it’s
impressive—and I enjoyed working with him. He’s bright and actually has a good
sense of humor. But Microsoft never had the humanities and liberal arts in its
DNA. Even when they saw the Mac, they couldn’t copy it well. They totally
didn’t get it.

I have my own theory about why decline happens at companies
like IBM or Microsoft. The company does a great job, innovates and becomes a
monopoly or close to it in some field, and then the quality of the product
becomes less important. The company starts valuing the great salesmen, because
they’re the ones who can move the needle on revenues, not the product engineers
and designers. So the salespeople end up running the company. John Akers at IBM
was a smart, eloquent, fantastic salesperson, but he didn’t know anything about
product. The same thing happened at Xerox. When the sales guys run the company,
the product guys don’t matter so much, and a lot of them just turn off. It
happened at Apple when Sculley came in, which was my
fault, and it happened when Ballmer took over at Microsoft. Apple was lucky and
it rebounded, but I don’t think anything will change at Microsoft as long as
Ballmer is running it.

I hate it when people call themselves “entrepreneurs” when
what they’re really trying to do is launch a startup and then sell or go
public, so they can cash in and move on. They’re unwilling to do the work it
takes to build a real company, which is the hardest work in business. That’s
how you really make a contribution and add to the legacy of those who went
before. You build a company that will still stand for something a generation or
two from now. That’s what Walt Disney did, and Hewlett and Packard, and the
people who built Intel. They created a company to last, not just to make money.
That’s what I want Apple to be.

I don’t think I run roughshod over people, but if something
sucks, I tell people to their face. It’s my job to be honest. I know what I’m
talking about, and I usually turn out to be right. That’s the culture I tried
to create. We are brutally honest with each other, and anyone can tell me they
think I am full of shit and I can tell them the same. And we’ve had some
rip-roaring arguments, where we are yelling at each other, and it’s some of the
best times I’ve ever had. I feel totally comfortable saying “Ron, that store
looks like shit” in front of everyone else. Or I might say “God, we really
fucked up the engineering on this” in front of the person that’s responsible.
That’s the ante for being in the room: You’ve got to be able to be super honest.
Maybe there’s a better way, a gentlemen’s club where we all wear ties and speak
in this Brahmin language and velvet codewords, but I
don’t know that way, because I am middle class from California.

I was hard on people sometimes, probably harder than I
needed to be. I remember the time when Reed was six years old, coming home, and
I had just fired somebody that day, and I imagined what it was like for that
person to tell his family and his young son that he had lost his job. It was
hard. But somebody’s got to do it. I figured that it was always my job to make
sure that the team was excellent, and if I didn’t do it, nobody was going to do
it.

You always have to keep pushing to innovate. Dylan could
have sung protest songs forever and probably made a lot of money, but he
didn’t. He had to move on, and when he did, by going electric in 1965, he
alienated a lot of people. His 1966 Europe tour was his greatest. He would come
on and do a set of acoustic guitar, and the audiences loved him. Then he brought
out what became The Band, and they would all do an electric set, and the
audience sometimes booed. There was one point where he was about to sing “Like
a Rolling Stone” and someone fromthe audience yells
“Judas!” And Dylan then says, “Play it fucking loud!” And they did. The Beatles
were the same way. They kept evolving, moving, refining
their art. That’s what I’ve always tried to do—keep moving. Otherwise, as Dylan
says, if you’re not busy being born, you’re busy dying.

What drove me? I think most creative people want to express
appreciation for being able to take advantage of the work that’s been done by
others before us. I didn’t invent the language or mathematics I use. I make
little of my own food, none of my own clothes. Everything I do depends on other
members of our species and the shoulders that we stand on. And a lot of us want
to contribute something back to our species and to add something to the flow.
It’s about trying to express something in the only way that most of us know
how—because we can’t write Bob Dylan songs or Tom Stoppard plays. We try to use
the talents we do have to express our deep feelings, to show our appreciation
of all the contributions that came before us, and to add something to that
flow. That’s what has driven me.

Steve Jobs Should Shut Down Apple – Michael Dell’s Recommendation

Jobs had a public war of words with Dell Computer CEO Michael Dell, starting when Jobs first criticized Dell for making "un-innovative beige boxes." On October 6, 1997, in a Gartner Symposium, when Michael Dell was asked what he would do if he owned then-troubled Apple Computer, he said "I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." In 2006, Steve Jobs sent an email to all employees when Apple's market capitalization rose above Dell's. The email read:

Team, it turned out that Michael Dell wasn't perfect at predicting the future. Based on today's stock market close, Apple is worth more than Dell. Stocks go up and down, and things may be different tomorrow, but I thought it was worth a moment of reflection today. Steve.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs

Now…

Apple’s market cap — it is an astonishing $186.7 billion dollars — that’s bigger than:

Google $172B
Cisco $131.7B
HP $117.5B
Intel $110.4B
Verizon $85.7B
Amazon $51.7B
Research In Motion $34B
Dell $26.5B

Source: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/5-questions-about-the-apple-islate/

How Green are electronics companies

Greenpeace International rates the big electronics companies.

Link: How the companies line up | Greenpeace International

7.7 Sony Ericsson – New leader due to improved takeback reporting, new models PVC free, but falls down on takeback practice. More
7.7 Samsung – Big improvements, with more products free of the worst toxic chemicals. Loses points for incomplete takeback practice. More
7.3 Sony – More products free of toxic PVC and improved reporting on recycling and takeback especially in the US. More
7.3 Dell – Unchanged since the last version, still no products on the market without the worst chemicals. More
7.3 Lenovo – Unchanged since the last version, still no products on the market without the worst chemicals. More
7 Toshiba – Much improved on toxic chemicals but still lobbies in the US for regressive takeback policies. More
7 LGE – Unchanged since the last version, need better takeback for products other than phones. More
7 Fujitsu-Siemens – Unchanged since the last version, needs toxic elimination timelines, better takeback coverage and reporting of amounts recycled.
More
6.7 Nokia– A steep fall! Strong on toxic chemicals but penalty point deducted for deficiencies in takeback practice in Thailand, Russia and Argentina during our testsing. More
6.7 HP – Finally provided timelines for eliminating worst toxic chemicals, though not for all products; needs to improve takeback coverage. More
6 Apple – Slightly improved with new iMacs and some iPods reducing the use of toxic chemicals, takeback programme still needs more work. More
5.7 Acer – Unchanged since the last version, needs better takeback coverage and reporting of amounts recycled. More
5 Panasonic – Unchanged since the last version, need better takeback coverage and reporting of amounts recycled. More
5 Motorola – Big faller due to penalty point for poor takeback practice in Philippines, Thailand and India revealed by our testing. Still no timelines for eliminating the most harmful chemicals. More
4.7 Sharp – New to the guide – some plus points on toxic chemicals elimination but poor takeback policy and practice. More
2.7 Microsoft – New to the guide – long timeline for toxic chemicals elimination (2011) and poor takeback policy and practice. More
2

Philips – New to the guide – no timeline for toxic chemicals elimination and zero points on e-waste policy and practice. More

0 Nintendo – New to the guide – first global brand to score zero across all criteria! More

via Ecogeek