Posts Tagged ‘Apple’

I thought I was done writing about Jobs until I read Inside Apple

March 14, 2012

I thought I was done writing about Steve Jobs when I wrote this post but then I read Inside Apple by Adam Lashinsky (editor at large at Fortune Magazine).  I finally understand why Apple was able to achieve so much.  We all know of Jobs the visionary, Jobs the communicator and Jobs the bully.  But frankly, I never thought of Jobs the manager. I learned much more about Apple and maybe even Jobs from this book than the Walter Isaacson’s bio.  I am not going to review Inside Apple  other than to say, I think it was done very well and it is worthing reading not only to understand Apple’s past, present and future but also as a business management book.

Now I am left with a puzzle.  How did Jobs learn to manage in such an effective way (even if it was not in a nice way)? How would  his approach translate to other businesses and organizations?  I am also struck the similarity  between Digital Equipment Corp and Apple.  I vaguely remember that someone left Digital Equipment to run HR at Apple but I am not sure that is correct.  It seems that Jobs took emulated some of the things Ken Olsen did (for instance the off site meeting of 100 key people which was not based on reporting structure but on who Ken wanted) and he rejected some of the things that really damaged Digital like the product lines having a P&L.

How I got the iPad right in 1994 but was wrong about the Information Furnace

January 9, 2012

Today is the 5th anniversary of the announcement iPhone by the late Steve Jobs.  It is hard to imagine that it was just such a short time ago. Something seem to happen so quickly in technology while other things  seem to take a very long time.

I recently came across an article written in June of 1994 (almost 18 years ago). You can find the article at the end of this post or you can go to this link.    It talks about the evolution of computing in the home and in particular discusses something called “The information Furnace”  a term, I believe I created, to describe a Home Server. In 1994, most homes did not have even a single computer.  Typically the computers in the home of early adopters were used for productivity applications like Personal Finance such as Quicken or for hobbies.  Probably less than a million homes were connected to on-line services like Prodigy, CompuServe and AOL – which was less than 1% of the nation. They used dial up modems.   Broadband connectivity was just starting to be tested.

Of course the number of homes that had more than one computer was extremely small.  Home networking as we now know it did not really exist.  The floppy disk was the way information would be moved from one computer in the home to another.  This was called sneaker net many years later.  This was also before the development of what we now cal WiFi.  That meant that early networking within the home required running Ethernet cables.

I was  convinced that  computers would dominate home interactivity. Many at the time thought it would be the interactive set top box. Because I was so involved with the creation of residential broadband technologies in my role as Vice President, Business Development at Intel,  I knew we were creating the technical foundation of a new medium.  A medium  that would impact all aspects of our lives from the way we communicated, learned, shopped, were entertained and informed. The article mentioned above was written about a year before Amazon was established.  A few months after it was published, I was quoted in Fortune Magazine as saying “that the killer app for the Internet would be advertising.”  Google was started about four years later and started selling advertising a few years after that.

Now before you think this post is all about how insightful I was, and I was, it is really about how things turned out differently than I thought and wanted.  It really is about a failure to implement a vision and an exploration of the possibility that things could have ended up differently.

In that very same article (again 1994), I coined the term i-pad (see the Article).  Sixteen years later, Apple announced the iPad on Jan. 27th, 2010. Coincidentally, it happened to be my  65th birthday.

So now back to the story.  I envisioned  pervasive computing throughout the house.  At that time most computers were desktop devices and rather expensive. So I thought there would be one central computer in the home that would have the broadband connection.  Then there would be devices around the home that would provide access to this central computer
(remember I am old enough to have lived through the time sharing days).  The central computer would have the main storage for the home.  For instance it could maintain a family calendar, home files,  etc.   I also felt that this would reduce the complexity of managing information since all information (including  media) would be located in just one place (of course it would be automatically backed-up).

At that time, I was engaged with a number of engineers in the Intel Architecture Lab (IAL).  I was funding a number of programs within the Lab then licensing the resulting technology for equity in early stage companies.  So I am pretty sure that that I discussed these concepts with members of IAL and probably they had a major impact on my thinking.

The problem was that Intel was a chip company and we had a very strong strategic relationship with Microsoft.   We actually had many software designers but every time we got close to some area that Bill Gates considered  Microsoft’s birthright there would be a major battle and Intel would give in.

Microsoft was actually slow to understand how the home computing would develop.  They believed that intelligent set top’s would be the way along with game machines and various appliances.  After working with Microsoft and General Instruments  (the leader in cable boxes at the time) on the development of an Interactive Set Top Box, I became convinced that this was not the way things would develop. This view was also held by Matt Miller (no relation) who was the CTO of General Instruments.  Together, Matt and I persuaded  GI and Intel decided to develop residential broadband technologies and to do it without Microsoft.  Microsoft spent a lot of effort to develop Set Top Box software and made various deals with cable companies including investing a billion dollars into Comcast in 1997.

However, I was not able to get executive management at Intel or Microsoft to understand the need for a home-server.  Andy Grove never really bought into my vision of how computers would be used in the home and invested a great deal of money into a flawed scheme to use ISDN to do video conferencing in the home.  Microsoft would not announce a home-server until 2007.

So computing evolved in the home with more and more homes having multiple computers and eventually sharing a home network.  This network had at its center a router which allowed the devices in the home to easily share one broadband connection. This was one of the tasks that I thought the Information Furnace would do.  But complexity of sharing information in the home increased.  This provided an opportunity  for Apple, to address this need by creating software to synchronize information between computers and devices (iTunes/ iPod is an example). At the same time Web service companies (like Yahoo) dealt with the complexity of email, calendars and contacts by storing them on the Net. Microsoft even bought HotMail in 1997 and started up MSN.

Now most of the functions that I had envisioned for the Information Furnace will be provided by Apple’s iCloud.  Other companies will create similar capabilities.

In away, it is a better solution that the Information Furnace since these capabilities can be professionally managed and maintained. They can be improved without consumer involvement.  But it has taken a long time in coming, and we’re still not there.

Of course the way it played out had a major impact on the companies involved.

Image

AP Article

PCs Evolving Into Information Furnaces :
Technology: Experts predict computers
are evolving into control centers, linking
the telephone, TV, thermostat and other
household electronic devices.

June 30, 1994 | EVAN RAMSTAD | ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK — In the metaphor-mad world of technology, there’s a new phrase making the rounds, one that experts believe describes the direction that personal computers are taking. After 20 years as an independent box, the PC is evolving into a control center that ties together the
phone, TV, thermostat and other electronic devices in every room in the house. An information furnace, they call it.

“It’s equivalent to central heating,” said Avram Miller, Intel’s vice president of corporate business development. “This analogy with power is very good. If you look at electricity, electricity was designed to do only one thing–lighting. Clearly, there’s a lot more to it than that now.” Like a furnace, the PC of the future could be hidden from view, in the basement, a closet or drawer. The devices it links would take different shapes depending on their use and location. A unit in the den might have a keyboard and screen while one in the living room might be a big screen with stereo speakers and a
player for programs on compact disc. The incorporation of telephone-answering machines into consumer PCs last summer was an early
example of this trend, which will be a key topic at the annual PC Expo this week at New York’s Jacob Javits Convention Center.

Intel CEO Andrew Grove has titled his keynote speech for the show “The Ubiquitous Information Appliance.”
The acceleration of the trend is important for Intel to drive demand for advances in its key product–the microprocessor or “brain” of a PC.
Packard Bell Inc. earlier this month rolled out PCs with built-in TV and radio receivers as well as phone answering and fax capabilities. With them, a technician played a Bach compact disc, the radio and TV and worked on a word-processing program simultaneously.
It’s not just today’s electronic items that could be hooked up but those on the drawing board of technologists and inventors. Last week, Timex Corp. and Microsoft Corp. even demonstrated a watch that can take in messages from a computer. “One of the devices that’s interesting, we call it an I-pad, an information pad,” Miller said. “It would be a device that has a flat-panel screen. You can write on it, touch it. You might be able to speak into it and it might speak back. It would be wireless, cheap and have different forms in the house.”  Some early forms of an “I-pad” are Apple Computer Inc.’s Newton, Motorola Inc.’s Envoy and IBM’s
Simon devices, which have both computing and communication features.
“You will see all kinds of combinations be possible,” said Safi Qureshey, chief executive of AST Research
Inc. in Irvine. “We want to provide the glue so the user can go in between all of these different access mechanisms.”

The concept of a computer network in the home is rooted in the workplace. Portable computers, for instance, linked to the main one in an office are allowing more people to work at home or on the road. “The same technologies are going to be used in the home environment,” said Alan Soucy, vice president of mobile computers at Zenith Data Systems. “They’re going to be repackaged, more specific, more like an appliance.”
The vision isn’t just Intel’s or the computer industry’s. At a cable TV trade show last month, General Instrument Corp., the leading maker of set-top channel controls, described a plan for “component” TVs built around a computer-like box. The monitor–which in time will be a flat panel screen–and game player, video recorder or telephone would all be separate pieces.
“Exactly how much it all gets centralized in one place, I’m a little hard pressed to predict right now,” said Jeff Roman, vice president of technology and new business development for General Instrument.
The first personal computer sold to the general public, the Altair 8800, appeared in Popular Electronics magazine in December, 1974. It was a box of circuits and lights that cost about $250 but had no software
or screen and required 50 commands, executed by flipping switches, just to get started. Today, the most popular PCs take just a few minutes to set up, have dozens of megabytes of software
already installed, and can link through a phone line to millions of others worldwide.

Very few people anticipated the computers of today in 1974. Even fewer know what to expect in another
two decades. Something as futuristic as an information furnace, while still vague, is probably only a decade away. There is certainty in the industry only about the next year or two.
“It’s not possible to conceive 20 years from now,” said Intel’s Miller. “The computers of 20 years from now will probably be 10,000 times more powerful than they are today”

These are the good old days for Apple and not just because Jobs has passed

November 27, 2011

Companies like products, have life cycles.  Apple is very unusual because it was able to reinvent itself.    In particular, Apple went from being a niche  PC player with a relatively small market share to the leader in revolutionizing music (iPod), the cell phone (iPhone) and creating and leading the tablet market (iPad).    But each of these product categories has its life cycle.  We can see that now with the decline of iPod sales.  The iPhone is on its 4th generation (the iPhone 4S is  just a mid life kicker for the iPhone 4).  We expect  to see an iPhone 5 sometime next year.  How will this product be different?  It can’t really change much in size so it can’t change much in terms of the display now that we have a so called retina display (where individual pixels can not be seen).  The camera can get better but how much better?  Siri can get better but it does its processing in the cloud so it has not much to do with the phone.  Of course, we can get 4G but is that really so important on a phone?  Anyway, I suspect  that the iPhone 5 will be a great success?  But then what?  Eventually there is not that much to add that is meaningful.  So  you either have to reduce price to expand the market our you just have a replacement market. I left out adding more memory?  I am a pretty heavy user of technology.  I have a 64gig iPad but I only really use 32gigs.  I have a 64gig iPhone but I use even less on my iPhone because I do not watch movies on my phone (much).  4G would be helpful to those that us the cellular system for the their iPads.  But most people only us  Wifi on the iPad.  I think the iPad has one or two major product cycles and then what.  Back to cutting prices or having just a replacement market.  And what of the Mac’s.  Apple is doing a good job of increasing the MAC share of desktops and notebooks with innovative and well designed products like the Macbook Air.  There is more head room in traditional personal computers.  But we are still up against limitations.  I have a 27 inch screen that I am looking at right now.  I would not want the screen to be much bigger.  I will of course want more computer memory in the future (I use SSD) and because I am part of the Apple Eco System, I will keep buying macs ever few years.  So here is my point.  Apple became the most valuable company in the world (or close to it) because of the iPod, iPhone and iPad.  I believe that these products  will reach limits that will either force price cuts to explained their markets or slower or declining unit growth.

The guys at Apple are pretty smart and certainly Jobs was.  So what are they thinking?  Well they want to go after the TV industry.  Obviously, home audio visual equipment and the way that media has been delivered by the cable and satiliet companies can be greatly improved on.  But there are many vested interests in particular with respect to the delivery of content.  I don’t see how Apple will be successful in this space but I guess we will have a chance to find out next year.   If they do succeed they will have to do this at a pace that will allow growth even with the decline in the i devices that I predict.  And that means they would have to accomplish this on a world wide basis.

So lets end by looking at a different company and device: The Amazon Kindle Fire.   It is a two hundred  dollar product that  does not compare favorably with the iPad but is a lot cheaper.  It does a great job on books, is ok on video and email etc.  But there is nothing stopping Amazon from staying at the 200 dollar spot and adding functionality and capabilities as the cost of technology declines.  Their plan is to make money on the content.  They have to lock their customers into their own eco system.  It will be harder for them but they have a lot going for them including relationships with so many potential customers for the Fire.

Steve Jobs and me

October 7, 2011

This is not so much about Steve Jobs but about how Steve effected me.

Like so many, the death of Steve Jobs has played a  big role in my thinking since hearing the news on Wednesday.    Steve played an important role in my life although he hardly knew me.  The first time I met Steve was at the PC Forum in 1982 which was started by Ben Rosen and later taken over by Ester Dyson.  There are some great photos of the PC Forum over the years,  but unfortunately, they start at 1984. I remember setting next to  Steve in the audience  and having some discussion. He was 26 years old and I was 36 years old.  I wish I could remember what we discussed.  At that time Apple was selling the  Apple II.  I had come to announce the Pro 300 series (I was responsible for that product line at Digital Equipment Company which was the number two computer company in the world  then).  It is probably hard for those that know me now to imagine that  I was probably as passionate tabout product design then as Steve was to become later.  Here is the Pro 350:

Here is the Apple II

I will come back to this a bit later because it really  has the most to do with what I am trying to express in this blog.  It is easy to imagine  during my  conversation with  Steve that he could have asked me to join Apple Maybe I would have but probably not.  I doubt that could have seen myself working for someone so much younger than me (ego) and I probably would not have been willing to take the financial  risk.  At that point, my career at Digital was ascending.  I had the strong sponsorship of the CEO (Ken Olsen) and I really thought my efforts with the Pro would change the world of computing.  I could hardly have guess that just two years later, I would be the president of an Apple II Clone company, Franklin Computer, and locked in a legal battle with Apple and Steve Jobs.

The evening before the forum,  I attended the speakers dinner. It was an amazing dinner and really my first real introduction to the world of PC entrepreneurs.  Amongst the attendees were Steve Jobs, Bill Gates (also 26), Don Estridge who lead the development of the IBM PC,   and Adam Osborne.  Adam I recall said the key to wining in the personal computer market place was building and adequate but low cost product (similar to the net book argument). Steve eventually took the opposite approach.  Of these, only Bill is still alive and is no longer active in the computer industry.   Don died a few years later at the age of 48.  Adam died in 2003 at the age of 64. Steve died just now at the age of 56.  These and some of the others attending were really the founders of the PC era.   My own contribution(not to be compared to Bill and Steve of course)  to creating the computer industry we now know would have to wait a decade more,  when I as Vice President of Corp Development at Intel, drove much of the early development of today’s residential broadband networks.

I left Digital Equipment in early in 1983.  It was clear to me that my work there was not going to be successful.  The Professional 300 series computer that I had developed with so much love and passion was incomplete and two expensive albeit way ahead of their time with the first 5 inch winchester disk, bit map graphics and Ethernet connectivity (all this in 1983).   Digital did not have the desire or ability to really market in the developing PC world.  So for a while, I considered leaving with a few of my most talented staff and to start a local area networking company (by that time I was in love with networking technology).   However, I was too scared to do a start up and when I got the offer to join Franklin Computer, I took it.  You can read a pretty funny article about me and Franklin here. Franklin had a clone of the Apple II just as Compaq had  clone of the IBM PC.  But there were lots of legal differences and Apple sued Franklin in a landmark case.  Apple never actually won but the destroyed Franklin’s ability to raise capital.   We were growing very quickly and approaching 100 million dollars in sales in a first full year of operations.  But without the ability to raise additional cash and with our bank canceling our line of credit the company was headed for disaster.  I had joined  Franklin to use its  momentum  and the money we expected to raise in an IPO (were in registration when the appeal court decided to re hear the case)  to build a real computer company to fully compete in the market.  We tried to work things out with Apple.  We offered to pay them a big licensing fee and help develop the market.    John Sculley who was then CEO of Apple seemed interested in some possible arrangement and settlement but evidently Steve Jobs would hear nothing of it and wanted us dead.  He got his wish.  I left  a few months before Franklin went into bankruptcy for a brief period in order to wipe out the common shareholders.

A few months later, I joined Intel in 1984.   About ten years later, Andy Grove asked me and Les Vadasz  to join him  and visit Pixar with Steve Job.  We went to Steve’s house in Palo Alto. The same house where he died.  We sat in the kitchen with Steve and talked for a while.  His wife Laurene was there and maybe one or two of the kids I seem to remember.  Steve then drove us to Pixar and introduced us to John Lasseter. We learned about the computer automation process they were using.  The purpose of the visit was to expose Intel to the high end needs of graphic rendering and the idea of using multiple PCs to do it.  I was a bit nervous that Steve would remember me and my role at Franklin.  Either he did not remember or he did not care because he was very  civil to me.  That was probably the last time I actually interacted with Steve.  And while that meeting was a good experience, I was no fan of Steve Jobs at the time.  And later when he rejoined Apple,   I felt his closed business strategy was mistake and I was a strong proponent of the Microsoft/Intel approach which was a very open architecture (as long as it was based on Intel and Microsoft).

The amazing transformation of Apple in the last ten years has been and will  continue to be discussed  by so many.  Frankly, I still do not understand  how it could have happened. The combination of insight, marketing and execution under Jobs leadership was exceptional.    About three years ago, I became a convert to all things Apple.  I am writing this post on a Macbook Air.  I read about Steve’s death on my iPhone and later in more detail on my iPad.  My email is housed at www.me.com.  I can’t wait for iCloud.

I am left feeling sad for his death, admiration for his accomplishment and frankly, disappointment that I was no Steve Jobs. And grateful  that I am still alive to love my wife, children and friends.

Steve contributions will stay with us but  his greatest gift  may yet  to come; the book he allowed and helped Water Isaacson to write,”Steve Jobs”.  Maybe, we will finally understand.  We need to understand.

 

Sony and Apple

February 2, 2011

There was an interesting article comparing Sony and Apple. I saw the relationship here especially during the time of Akio Morita (who also had to step down because of illness although he was much older than Jobs). Then came Idei whom I actually knew (I meet him several times when he was head of marketing and  later when we was CEO). He was a marketing guy without much vision or ability to focus the company. And now we have Howard Stringer who is trying but does not have the capacity. I believe that Sony should broken up.  At one time, I  had suggested that Apple consider buying the company and breaking it up.  This was before their major successful with the iPhone and iPad and when Sony’s brand was stronger than Apples. In retrospect, it was a dumb idea since it would have been a major distraction.
The interesting thing here is what will happen when, Job’s leadership is no longer. Sadly, we will probably not have to wait very long to find out.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers