Ex-Apple employee says company a 'failure' - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Nomad · 09-14-2003, 02:53 AM

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/...appleemployee/

-Snip-

Michael Mace, once a marketing director at Apple, says that overall, Apple Computer has been a "massive failure." Instead of changing the world from "bad computer design and stifling corporate dictates," Apple today is "the eccentric elderly uncle of the computer industry -- still interesting, still beloved, but no longer truly powerful," he writes in an open letter to the Apple Computer History Weblog.

"Although we successfully forced personal computing to move to the graphical interface, since then fundamental innovation in personal computing has ground to a stop," Mace writes. "The operating system most computers users work with every day is stuck in 1993, with very little fundamental improvement in the last decade. The applications on users' desktops, bloated beasts like Word and PowerPoint, haven't substantially improved in years."
There's no effective competition because Apple failed, and it failed because the tale of the company's employees from the late 1980s to the late 1990s, himself included, is one of "individual brilliance and group stupidity," he adds.

"Never in my career have I worked with brighter, more interesting, more capable people. Probably I never will again," Mace writes. "And yet, despite all our braininess, as a team we were the Keystone Kops of computing. For every innovation we brought to market, a dozen great ideas were strangled in the labs. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on massive projects that yielded exactly nothing. Remember Taligent? Kaleida? Jaguar [not the Mac OS X version, but an early effort to move Apple to RISC-based computing]? OpenDoc? The list is almost endless. Even today, the PC world has yet to fully deploy innovations that we worked on and failed to bring to market in the 1990s, things like component software and the advanced user interface ideas in the Sybil project."

Apple's problem during the time was that the company's employees and executives didn't work together, but were segmented by their own projects and personal agendas, Mace feels. Things are different now that Steve Jobs has returned to the fold, but he had "to burn the old company to the ground in order to salvage something viable out of it," he adds.

http://apple.computerhistory.org/stories/storyReader$72

kel · 09-14-2003, 06:34 AM

The company failed... this is true...

That says nothing of the product being a great (although overpriced) appliance.

Magpie0001 · 09-14-2003, 07:20 AM

I use a Pc but If I had the money Id get an apple for sure. It couldnt be worse than Windows, It couldnt.

Realizm · 09-14-2003, 07:24 AM

I don't really see the company as a complete failure. Lots of software is still bloated as he said, but this is not entirely the fault of Apple. Many software developers seem to make a lot of their strong applications bloated. Apple has pretty much had to follow what the developers made (most of the software seems to get ported to Mac, right? Take Office, for example.)

Microsft makes their OS and Office as bloated as they like. If Apple wants to keep any kind of decent office apps they had to take what bloated stuff MS gave them.

While UI has stayed basically the same over the last decade, it is finally taking a turn with OS X, at least on Apple's side. It actually opened up to developers with *nix experience and leaves room for more ideas to get out in the mainstream.

It is hard to make extreme innovations in UI design because you have to have something that will be accepted by the users. Can users really handle such drastic changes, even though they are improvements?

If it was anything like in Pirates of Silicon Valley, then maybe they can't. The corporate people thought the UI at Palo Alto was just plain nuts, didn't they?

Have to take some smaller steps in order to gain acceptance by the community as a whole. There isn't a lot of room for Apple to just force something on the community either, like MS could with their so incredibly large user base.

Apple continues to make innovations on the hardware side, as far as I can tell. Take the iPod. While originally limited to the Mac side, it has now moved to support both Windows and Mac, think I also heard people getting it to work on Linux. A very very small compact music player holding lots of songs, or doubling as a storage device. The iMac(s) all in their own way have provided an opening in hardware innovation by catering to the senses of its users (Some of them, not everybody wants to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow). Smaller hardware with bigger bang. Software that can really kick it with the big guys. It's an improvement if you ask me. Hardly a failure

I don't have very good grammar skills and I probably spoke a lot of rubbish, but the above is what I think anyway.

Scipio · 09-14-2003, 08:41 AM

The thing is, they're corporations, and they're out there to make money. Despite its best efforts, Apple has been defeated in the marketplace by Microsoft and its supporting manufacturers. Apple has a strong niche market right now, and if it continues to improve its products, its long-term outlook isn't all bad.

Right now, their stuff is aesthetically pleasing and functional, but overpriced. The pc market is very cost driven, and Apple's penetration in the low-end market is limited.

poof · 09-14-2003, 04:18 PM

What <b>Magpie0001</b> said. If the G5 would fit into my home net seamlessly I would buy it. I played with one at CompUSA and it was a spiff little unit. As far as the company failing, accountants can make the numbers say whatever they want them to say. Ask those Enron execuconvicts.

rubicon · 09-14-2003, 04:20 PM

Mr. Mace didn't really point out how Apple, specifically, failed. Seems he alluded more to the industry as a whole - Word and WordPerfect as the example.

As for failed operating systems, well, what company doesn't have them? It's part of innovation and, often, marketing. I think we can substitute word "Apple" and insert any other computer company and the story would be the same.

I'm a strong Windows user and more recently OS X on my portable. That PowerBook is one of the best computers I have ever purchased - all the power and none of the bullshit of Windows and "standard" PC hardware.

One last thought... There may not have been much competition to Microsoft over the years but that is changing. Apple still competes as does the little Penguin. Owing to the amount of time and effort required to compete in the OS space, a competitor isn't going to pop out overnight. It takes time to establish itself and grow. I can't wait to see the OS landscape in 5 to 10 years. I'm not so sure that Microsoft will be as comfortable.

emotes · 09-14-2003, 05:27 PM

It comes down to money.... Are they profitable (or have the ability to turn a profit?) If so, they did not fail.

Totally Head · 09-14-2003, 06:59 PM

5 % market share, being beat by Linux, yup, i'd say failure too

burgerdog · 09-15-2003, 01:11 AM

Comparing Apple to MS is somewhat off. They both do make OSes, but Apple is a hardware manufacturer, and that more than anything is why they don't have more market share.

If you could put OSX onto any reasonably cirrent (lets say 1g mHz/ 256 RAM), Apple would dominate a much more significant piece of the overall pie. Less viruses/bugs, prettier GUI, and a better public image.

I look at stuff like Final Cut Pro, the aquisition of Shake, all the free and excelleint "i" apps and consider the company to be a huge success.

09-14-2003, 02:53 AM	#1 (permalink)
Nomad Heathen Location: California	Ex-Apple employee says company a 'failure' http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/...appleemployee/ -Snip- Michael Mace, once a marketing director at Apple, says that overall, Apple Computer has been a "massive failure." Instead of changing the world from "bad computer design and stifling corporate dictates," Apple today is "the eccentric elderly uncle of the computer industry -- still interesting, still beloved, but no longer truly powerful," he writes in an open letter to the Apple Computer History Weblog. "Although we successfully forced personal computing to move to the graphical interface, since then fundamental innovation in personal computing has ground to a stop," Mace writes. "The operating system most computers users work with every day is stuck in 1993, with very little fundamental improvement in the last decade. The applications on users' desktops, bloated beasts like Word and PowerPoint, haven't substantially improved in years." There's no effective competition because Apple failed, and it failed because the tale of the company's employees from the late 1980s to the late 1990s, himself included, is one of "individual brilliance and group stupidity," he adds. "Never in my career have I worked with brighter, more interesting, more capable people. Probably I never will again," Mace writes. "And yet, despite all our braininess, as a team we were the Keystone Kops of computing. For every innovation we brought to market, a dozen great ideas were strangled in the labs. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on massive projects that yielded exactly nothing. Remember Taligent? Kaleida? Jaguar [not the Mac OS X version, but an early effort to move Apple to RISC-based computing]? OpenDoc? The list is almost endless. Even today, the PC world has yet to fully deploy innovations that we worked on and failed to bring to market in the 1990s, things like component software and the advanced user interface ideas in the Sybil project." Apple's problem during the time was that the company's employees and executives didn't work together, but were segmented by their own projects and personal agendas, Mace feels. Things are different now that Steve Jobs has returned to the fold, but he had "to burn the old company to the ground in order to salvage something viable out of it," he adds. http://apple.computerhistory.org/stories/storyReader$72

09-14-2003, 06:34 AM	#2 (permalink)
kel WARNING: FLAMMABLE Location: Ask Acetylene	The company failed... this is true... That says nothing of the product being a great (although overpriced) appliance. __________________ "It better be funny"

09-14-2003, 07:20 AM	#3 (permalink)
Magpie0001 Nobody Loves Me Location: Irish In Madrid	I use a Pc but If I had the money Id get an apple for sure. It couldnt be worse than Windows, It couldnt. __________________ Music is my first love & It will be my last.

09-14-2003, 08:41 AM	#5 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	The thing is, they're corporations, and they're out there to make money. Despite its best efforts, Apple has been defeated in the marketplace by Microsoft and its supporting manufacturers. Apple has a strong niche market right now, and if it continues to improve its products, its long-term outlook isn't all bad. Right now, their stuff is aesthetically pleasing and functional, but overpriced. The pc market is very cost driven, and Apple's penetration in the low-end market is limited. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

09-14-2003, 04:20 PM	#7 (permalink)
rubicon Stop. Think. Question. Location: Redondo Beach, CA	Mr. Mace didn't really point out how Apple, specifically, failed. Seems he alluded more to the industry as a whole - Word and WordPerfect as the example. As for failed operating systems, well, what company doesn't have them? It's part of innovation and, often, marketing. I think we can substitute word "Apple" and insert any other computer company and the story would be the same. I'm a strong Windows user and more recently OS X on my portable. That PowerBook is one of the best computers I have ever purchased - all the power and none of the bullshit of Windows and "standard" PC hardware. One last thought... There may not have been much competition to Microsoft over the years but that is changing. Apple still competes as does the little Penguin. Owing to the amount of time and effort required to compete in the OS space, a competitor isn't going to pop out overnight. It takes time to establish itself and grow. I can't wait to see the OS landscape in 5 to 10 years. I'm not so sure that Microsoft will be as comfortable. __________________ How you do anything is how you do everything.

09-14-2003, 07:24 AM	#4 (permalink)
Realizm Insane Location: A fuzzy cloud.	I don't really see the company as a complete failure. Lots of software is still bloated as he said, but this is not entirely the fault of Apple. Many software developers seem to make a lot of their strong applications bloated. Apple has pretty much had to follow what the developers made (most of the software seems to get ported to Mac, right? Take Office, for example.) Microsft makes their OS and Office as bloated as they like. If Apple wants to keep any kind of decent office apps they had to take what bloated stuff MS gave them. While UI has stayed basically the same over the last decade, it is finally taking a turn with OS X, at least on Apple's side. It actually opened up to developers with *nix experience and leaves room for more ideas to get out in the mainstream. It is hard to make extreme innovations in UI design because you have to have something that will be accepted by the users. Can users really handle such drastic changes, even though they are improvements? If it was anything like in Pirates of Silicon Valley, then maybe they can't. The corporate people thought the UI at Palo Alto was just plain nuts, didn't they? Have to take some smaller steps in order to gain acceptance by the community as a whole. There isn't a lot of room for Apple to just force something on the community either, like MS could with their so incredibly large user base. Apple continues to make innovations on the hardware side, as far as I can tell. Take the iPod. While originally limited to the Mac side, it has now moved to support both Windows and Mac, think I also heard people getting it to work on Linux. A very very small compact music player holding lots of songs, or doubling as a storage device. The iMac(s) all in their own way have provided an opening in hardware innovation by catering to the senses of its users (Some of them, not everybody wants to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow). Smaller hardware with bigger bang. Software that can really kick it with the big guys. It's an improvement if you ask me. Hardly a failure I don't have very good grammar skills and I probably spoke a lot of rubbish, but the above is what I think anyway.

09-14-2003, 04:18 PM	#6 (permalink)
poof Psycho	What <b>Magpie0001</b> said. If the G5 would fit into my home net seamlessly I would buy it. I played with one at CompUSA and it was a spiff little unit. As far as the company failing, accountants can make the numbers say whatever they want them to say. Ask those Enron execuconvicts.

09-14-2003, 05:27 PM	#8 (permalink)
emotes Upright Location: Ohio	It comes down to money.... Are they profitable (or have the ability to turn a profit?) If so, they did not fail.

09-14-2003, 06:59 PM	#9 (permalink)
Totally Head Upright	5 % market share, being beat by Linux, yup, i'd say failure too __________________ <p align="center"><img src="mikejackson1.gif" width="66" height="69" border="0"> <br> </p>

09-15-2003, 01:11 AM	#10 (permalink)
burgerdog Tilted Location: All Under Heaven	Comparing Apple to MS is somewhat off. They both do make OSes, but Apple is a hardware manufacturer, and that more than anything is why they don't have more market share. If you could put OSX onto any reasonably cirrent (lets say 1g mHz/ 256 RAM), Apple would dominate a much more significant piece of the overall pie. Less viruses/bugs, prettier GUI, and a better public image. I look at stuff like Final Cut Pro, the aquisition of Shake, all the free and excelleint "i" apps and consider the company to be a huge success.