Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Yang who wrote (6928)	12/21/1997 8:15:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213173

>>The best place for Jobs is on the far side of the moon, where all there can give him their undivided attention and we will not hear a squeak from him.<< Bill, I don't know exactly why you're so pissy at Jobs. The stock is down right now but blaming everything on Jobs is not only unfair but also unrealistic. I simply don't think naming a new CEO guarantees that Apple's problems will suddenly go away. We've been down this road before when Amelio took the helm. Everyone seem to agree that he was the man for the job; however the result falls well short of the expectation. Amelio did take actions to turn Apple around but the execution was poor. It took much longer than we all had hoped and Apple paid dearly both in restructuring charges and in the truck load of bad publicity. Who is to say that Ed Zander can do better? >> Amelio was the one who paid a lot of attention to his pay check and did little good for Apple. He missed the critical point when he could have opened up the system to controlled cloning, with Apple in control of the OS, BIOS and getting paid a portion of the CPU costs he could have made cloning work. Instead he made a flawed deal, and the cloners, knowing what was wrong, picked high end fixed fee stuff to cloen. The low end market fled. So Amelio was the second bad act. Scully was the first, how do they pick their CEOs, green point contests?>> No one seems to be comaplaining when AAPL shot up to 29 when Jobs negotiated with MSFT. Now people are bitching because AAPL is down near 13 for a variety of reasons. There are several reasons why AAPL is down right now few can be blamed on Jobs. The asian turmoil and Apple's lack lustered Q4 result rank 1 and 2 on my list. Having only been as the intrim CEO for the last few months I don't see how Jobs could have prevented the poor Q4 result and who can you blame for the financial troubles in asia? Once Apple can show a profitable quarter we'd be back in the 20s and possibly 30s. >> Drowning men clutch at straws, as they say. Jobs had the aura of the founder, he left when times were just starting to go bad as a direct result of his insistence on a proprietary controlled system. Did not the lesson of IBM with Microchannel, Wang, and all the other dinosaurs teach him a thing?. No he formed a glee club with him as the lead fool. Scully and Amelio may be competent but they failed to see the right way. Apple went from bad(jobs) to worse(Scully), worse(Amelio), worse(Jobs). Jobs knows that Apple is in deep doo doo, and that is whay he will not officially take the helm. It would look bad on his resume?, as he would soon be out of a job. Any takeover would kick Jobs out in a heartbeat.>> Jobs is a brilliant man. Few can match his ability to get things done. >> Jobs lacks brilliance, he was at the right place at the right time. The creative work in the Apple was done by the guy in the triad that soldered parts to the boards(1 of the three) He has a passion for Apple. >>does he also lust for Madonna???<< I know not all of you will agree with me but I believe the actions that Jobs took in the last few month has been in Apple's best interest. There have been many positive changes at Apple in terms of technology, marketing and production. I don't think Steve Jobs can take the credit for all of these because changes in these areas take a while to implement. But lets look at some of the things Steve has done or brought to Apple. In the few short months Steved assembled a new board, >>rounded up the usual suspects<< crushed PowerComputing, >> Dumb and dumber, he should have modified the agreement with a sliding scale of fees so that the cloners would be able to make the entire panoply of Apple products and hopefully broaden the base and get the numbers up, Apple would have made a similar % on each level, discouraging cherry picking. revamped compensation package for executives, >>Good<< brought executives from NeXT to develop Rhapsody, >>Good<< made alliance with MSFT and CompUSA >>good<< , with ORCL deal still in the works, >>bad<< launched a new marketing campaign with G3, >>Good to market it, but a bad campaign that shows foolishness<< Think Different and AppleStore. >>Direct sales are one way, but suboptimal, free wide open clones are the only way, with Apple getting money from all tiers. You might not agree with any particular one or even all of the above. I don't think any of them is responsible for the drop in AAPL. >>Jobs hanging around has kept any capable CEO out of there, what capable person would take that task with Jobs cronies and other baggage? Caused the drop. >> Killing of clones, caused the drop, as it showed that APple had not learned the lessons of history, and thus needed another lesson by repeating them, and falling further. >>Oracle, any sniff of Ellison is anathema to any open system sort of company. His niche will soon start to contract. Bill