Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

What's the Ultimate How to Be Steve Jobs Guide?

<< < (2/2)

Lashiec:
True but how many guys, even skilled speakers, get fired and get back in?
-Paul Keith (October 11, 2009, 08:51 PM)
--- End quote ---

More people than it should, actually. And most of them are not even decent speakers.

It's not like Jobs was the only choice.

--- End quote ---

As I said, there were only three choices. NeXT was a good product, why it was chosen was a matter of luck.

With Pixar though, Jobs had to at least had the foresight and the people to realize how big Pixar would eventually be...or he got extremely lucky.

--- End quote ---

Actually, it was luck. Pixar is a company with a certainly interesting history, starting with who founded it, and how much Jobs paid for it. Jobs didn't have any foresight, the work that Pixar did at the time was starting to become standard in all movies, the CG movies were simply the result of Pixar employees toying with the tools they had at their disposition. Jobs was lucky here because Pixar had John Lasseter and several other talented guys as employees. If it wasn't for them, Pixar would never have been saved, nor it would become what it is today. Personally, I doubt Jobs has any real input in how things at Pixar should be done, except maybe if they're related to real business. He has many things to attend to, starting with Apple, which probably takes most of his time.

Paul Keith:
Thanks for expanding Lashiec.

These were definitely things I didn't know of.

In particular, I didn't know it was easy to get re-hired back. Care to expand how that often works?

One other question, what was Jobs motivation for buying Pixar? As you said, the technology was becoming standard so why this particular company?

40hz:
One other question, what was Jobs motivation for buying Pixar? As you said, the technology was becoming standard so why this particular company?
-Paul Keith (October 12, 2009, 11:23 AM)
--- End quote ---

Because Pixar was hot; getting a lot of industry buzz; and Jobs had nothing going for him after the Next Computer debacle.

One more example of Steve's "formula for success"...hitch a ride on somebody else's star.

That approach gives you the best of both worlds. If it works out (like Pixar), you claim credit for having THE VISION!!!

And if it bombs (as was the case with Next Computer), you just blame the designers, the engineers, the programmers, the press - and everybody else - while ignoring the fact that your arrogant and bizarre marketing program*, coupled with your surly attitude, was mostly to blame for its demise.

_____

*No joke. My company tried to buy a Next machine in 1990.

We had seen an ad (I think it was in the WSJ), did some in-depth research, and decided this was something we needed to get in on the ground floor of.

There were only something like three places within 200 miles of us that carried them, but fortunately for us, one of them was local.

We showed up at the closest (BusinessLand) with check in hand only to learn you couldn't just go in and buy one of these boxes - you had to "talk to their Next specialist first." A more correct phrase would have been "be interviewed."

This designated Next Computer Sales Associate chatted a bit, blandly accepted our praise for the product, and then asked us what we intended to use our Next machine for. At the time, we were heavily into Macintosh/Adobe/Quark (sales, support, service and consulting) so we figured it was a natural for our business. We told him mostly R&D for graphic applications and electronic publishing along with possible use as a development platform for applications programming.

Apparently, that wasn't a correct answer. Because we were then told there were "only a limited number of Next machines available." And furthermore, that our company didn't "fit the profile of the organizations Next is trying to attract to this product." After that, we were basically bid "good day."

I might have thought it was just a fluke with that particular store until we ran into almost the exact same treatment at another. Like the first, they weren't the slightest bit interested in selling us a Next machine. The only real difference between the two stores came when my partner Bill casually remarked how "Mac-like" he thought the interface was. In response, we got hit with a half-shouted tirade from a salesman who told us (at length) how he was "sick and tired of people comparing Next to Macintosh." We walked out without being asked after about five minutes of listening to this guy.

Later on, we found out they were primarily interested in selling Next to universities, colleges, federal agencies and big name corporations - along with an occasional celebrity or two. Ordinary businesses and people need not apply. So as you can see, Steve Jobs' fondness for Snob Affinity Marketing was rearing its ugly head as early as 1990.

 8)

Paul Keith:
Thanks 40hz. I didn't realize Pixar was hot then.

The interesting bit about your NEXT story is that I couldn't see what the logic of the marketing was. That is really bizarre.

40hz:
Thanks 40hz. I didn't realize Pixar was hot then.-Paul Keith (October 13, 2009, 03:50 PM)
--- End quote ---

Well, they were pretty much already in bed (as an independent group) with George Lucas and ILM as early as 1984 even if they weren't called Pixar at that point. If I remember correctly, some of the key people had even been with Lucas & Co. as far back as 1979 or 1980.

So I guess Steve Jobs' only measurable 'contribution' was giving these guys the name Pixar.

Hmmmm...sound familiar? I think I see a pattern emerging...

The interesting bit about your NEXT story is that I couldn't see what the logic of the marketing was. That is really bizarre.

--- End quote ---

It was even crazier at first. His original plan was to restrict Next sales to colleges and other higher education institutions. The first year it was out, those were the only people who could actually buy one. Go figure. It was supposedly only put into retail channels over Mssr. Jobs most strenuous objections.

Apparently the investors won that argument.

FWIW I never understood the rationale either. But either way, Next was pretty much a dead issue about 18 months later. There were a few attempts to keep it going, but it eventually faded into the mists  - just like the Lisa, the twiggy drive, and all those other things Steve was so hot on.

Too bad. The NextStep interface and architecture were way ahead of their time. We'd probably be a lot farther along today if Next caught on when it had its chance.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page