跳至主要内容

Apple's One-Dollar-a-Year Man, By Steve Jobs, 2000

(FORTUNE Magazine) – Now that Steve Jobs has showed his hand on Apple's Internet and system software strategies and dropped the "interim" from his title, other questions loom. He's always denied it, but isn't it true that his old company, Next, did wind up taking over Apple? Will there ever be an encore to the 15-year-old Macintosh? Short of that, does Apple have any plans to jump into the "Internet appliance" fray? Will Apple ever build computers for business people again? And what, pray tell, does Steve think of all these young Internet zillionaires? Let's ask.

Practically every technology that your old company, Next, possessed when Apple acquired it in 1997 is now being used by Apple in some strategic way. This must seem like sweet vindication. 

The thing about Next was that we produced something that was truly brilliant for an audience that our heart really wasn't into selling to--namely, the enterprise.

I suppose if you were writing a book, this would be a great plot line, because the whole thing circles back. All of a sudden, it's coming out for the market that we would've liked to create it for in the first place--i.e., consumers. So it's a good ending.

So now you're at the beginning of something else. How did Apple's Internet services come together? It seems like it happened quickly.

We entered 1999 with a feeling of having had tremendous success in 1998, what with the introduction of the iMac and all. And I was getting suggestions from people inside and outside Apple that we needed to think about starting an ISP [Internet service provider] business, just like Compaq and Gateway and Dell.

I was dragging my feet because it just didn't feel right. The more I thought about it, the more I saw that you can separate services from Internet access, and use those unique services to create incredible competitive differentiation, regardless of who provides the access. We didn't have to be an access provider ourselves to get most of the benefits.

Remember, we have a lot of market power in that we own an extremely popular Internet-access device. If you look at most ISPs, their No. 1 expense by a mile is customer acquisition. Well, we're acquiring new customers all the time; one third of all iMac customers are first-time computer owners. We can help those hundreds of thousands of newbies--who also happen to have incredible demographics--find an ISP. So we've made Earthlink our exclusive ISP; we'll get paid a bounty and they'll get new customers.

I'd say the big light bulb on services came on about nine months ago. The big light bulb being: "Wait a minute. We own a major operating system. Why don't we build some services that work uniquely with it to give us unfair competitive advantage?" Everything fell into place this fall. Our secret weapon to be able to build these services so quickly is OS X and the set of programmers' development tools that goes with it, WebObjects. We really do eat our own dog food around here.

Given that you're emphasizing Mac OS X and iTools, and not even introducing new hardware at a time of year when you customarily do, should Apple's new slogan be something like "It's the software, stupid"?

We're still heavily into the box. We love the box. We have amazing computers today, and amazing hardware in the pipeline. I still spend a lot of my time working on new computers, and it will always be a primal thing for Apple. But the user experience is what we care about most, and we're expanding that experience beyond the box by making better use of the Internet. The user experience now entails four things: the hardware, the operating system, the applications, and the Net. We want to do all four uniquely well for our customers.

You seem more focused than ever on the consumer market. Why do you think it holds so much promise?

A lot of people can't get past the fact that we're not going after the enterprise market. But that's like saying, "How can the Gap be successful not making suits?" Well, we don't make wingtips here either.

Then again, big companies are beginning to buy a lot from us simply because they like our jellybeans. If you want to have your employee up and on your intranet in seven minutes and if you want to have lower maintenance costs than you would running Windows, iMacs are great. But we make zero effort to sell to big companies.

We think that a lot more big businesses will eventually come back to us, because FORTUNE 500 companies use a lot of consumer products. If you want a minivan for your corporation, you don't have one custom made; you go to the Chrysler dealer and buy one. They make great minivans, even though they don't make them for Corporate America. Even so, a lot of big companies--including ours--buy them.

It's really hard to serve multiple masters--different sets of customers with completely different points of view, requirements, and ways of approaching computing. I think Microsoft is experiencing this.

I've always believed that the biggest market for PCs is consumers. The Mac was originally intended to be a consumer PC. One of the big arguments I had with [former Apple CEO] John Sculley was that the Mac was designed to sell for $1,000. Yes, we overshot a little and it cost too much to make to sell for that, but even so, I thought it should have sold for between $1,500 and $1,799. John wanted to bump it up to $2,499. His vision was to keep on going all the way up and have Macs selling for $5,000 or $10,000. After I left, that's exactly what Apple did.

By some measures, it worked. Apple made a fortune, although not as much as we're making today. What they didn't understand was that they had thrown away one of the greatest chances they'd ever get to win market share. They went for $1 billion in extra profits over four or five years when what they really should have done was tell everybody they would make 'normal' profits and go for market share.

Just about every other computer maker is exploring new digital devices that can tap into the Internet, but you're still focused on personal computers. Why?

Everyone's talking about "information appliances" and other "post-PC" devices. So far, there have only been two or three that have succeeded--the Palm and game machines like the Sony PlayStation and possibly the cell phone. None of the others have succeeded. Why is that?

Well, if you look at the Internet, you can see it is absolutely optimized for PCs. All the pages are laid out to be viewed on a PC. That's one reason WebTV--a device that displays Websites on a normal TV--has failed. Beyond that, the Web is rich with things like Java and QuickTime and RealPlayer and MP3 sound files. By the time you build a device that [can handle those things], you've got something that is like a PC without the disk drives and is only about $50 cheaper than a PC or an iMac.

Then you ask your user if they care about storing anything. Do you care about storing MP3 files, or would you rather wait a few minutes to download them every time you want to hear them? Do you care about storing the photos you take with your digital camera? The answer is almost always yes. It's not that expensive to add a disk drive to let you do these things, and once you do, you're back to a PC. The only way to make it any cheaper is to start giving up things.

Apple is very much weighted toward the consumer-electronics space right now, because we're selling to a lot of consumers and we want to help them get more benefits from hooking up various things to computers and to each other. The perfect example is the digital camcorder and the iMac. It's amazing what you can do when you plug these things together--we call it iMovies.

I won't lie, we're working on other digital devices like everybody else. But I'm not convinced that customers won't pay a little bit more for a device that's not going to be obsolete in a year and that's going to give them the full Internet experience, not an "Internet Jr." experience.

What has always distinguished the products of the companies you've led is the design aesthetic. Is your obsession with design an inborn instinct or what?

We don't have good language to talk about this kind of thing. In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer. It's interior decorating. It's the fabric of the curtains and the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a man-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service. The iMac is not just the color or translucence or the shape of the shell. The essence of the iMac is to be the finest possible consumer computer in which each element plays together.

On our latest iMac, I was adamant that we get rid of the fan, because it is much more pleasant to work on a computer that doesn't drone all the time. That was not just "Steve's decision" to pull out the fan; it required an enormous engineering effort to figure out how to manage power better and do a better job of thermal conduction through the machine. That is the furthest thing from veneer. It was at the core of the product the day we started.

This is what customers pay us for--to sweat all these details so it's easy and pleasant for them to use our computers. We're supposed to be really good at this. That doesn't mean we don't listen to customers, but it's hard for them to tell you what they want when they've never seen anything remotely like it. Take desktop video editing. I never got one request from someone who wanted to edit movies on his computer. Yet now that people see it, they say, "Oh my God, that's great!"

I don't see enough innovation like that in our industry. My position coming back to Apple was that our industry was in a coma. It reminded me of Detroit in the '70s, when American cars were boats on wheels. That's why we have a really good chance to be a serious player again.

You and Apple have been responsible for popularizing the personal computer. What will be the next big breakthrough?

People are always asking, "What will be the next Macintosh?" My answer still is "I don't know and I don't care." Everybody at Apple has been working really hard the last two and a half years to reinvent this company. We've made tremendous progress. My goal has been to get Apple healthy enough so that if we do figure out the next big thing, we can seize the moment. Getting a company healthy doesn't happen overnight. You have to rebuild some organizations, clean up others that don't make sense, and build up new engineering capabilities.

Another priority was to make Apple more entrepreneurial and startup-like. So we immediately reorganized, drastically narrowed the product line, and changed compensation for senior managers so they get a lot of stock but no cash bonuses. The upshot is that the place feels more like a young company.

We're trying to use the swiftness and creativity in a younger-style company, and yet bring to bear the tremendous resources of a company the size of Apple to do large projects that you could never handle at a startup. A startup could never do the new iMac. Literally 2,000 people worked on it. A startup could never do Mac OS X. It's not easy at a big company either, but Apple now has the management and systems in place to get things like that done. I can't emphasize how rare that is. That's what makes Sony and Disney so special.

Now when we see new things or opportunities, we can seize them. In fact, we have already seized a few, like desktop movies, wireless networking, and iTools. A creative period like this lasts only maybe a decade, but it can be a golden decade if we manage it properly.

You've finally done away with the word "interim" in your title. But you still only let Apple pay you $1 a year. Why don't you take any salary or stock yet?

The board has made several incredibly generous offers. I have turned them all down for a few reasons. For the first year I did not want the shareholders and employees of Pixar to think their CEO was going on a camping trip over to Apple never to return. After two and a half years, I think that the management teams at Pixar and at Apple have demonstrated that we can handle this situation. That's why I dropped the "interim" from my title. I'm still called iCEO, though, because I think it's cool.

Bottom line is, I didn't return to Apple to make a fortune. I've been very lucky in my life and already have one. When I was 25, my net worth was $100 million or so. I decided then that I wasn't going to let it ruin my life. There's no way you could ever spend it all, and I don't view wealth as something that validates my intelligence. I just wanted to see if we could work together to turn this thing around when the company was literally on the verge of bankruptcy. The decision to go without pay has served me well.

Do you ever look around and think that a younger generation is driving this industry now?

I had dinner in Seattle at Bill Gates' house a couple of weeks ago. We were both remarking how at one time we were the youngest guys in this business, and now we're the graybeards.

When I got started I was 20 or 21, and my role models were the semiconductor guys like Robert Noyce and Andy Grove of Intel, and of course Bill Hewlett and David Packard. They were out not so much to make money as to change the world and to build companies that could keep growing and changing. They left incredible legacies.

It's hard to tell with these Internet startups if they're really interested in building companies or if they're just interested in the money. I can tell you, though: If they don't really want to build a company, they won't luck into it. That's because it's so hard that if you don't have a passion, you'll give up. There were times in the first two years when we could have given up and sold Apple, and it probably would've died.

But then, the rewarding thing isn't merely to start a company or to take it public. It's like when you're a parent. Although the birth experience is a miracle, what's truly rewarding is living with your child and helping him grow up.

The problem with the Internet startup craze isn't that too many people are starting companies; it's that too many people aren't sticking with it. That's somewhat understandable, because there are many moments that are filled with despair and agony, when you have to fire people and cancel things and deal with very difficult situations. That's when you find out who you are and what your values are.

So when these people sell out, even though they get fabulously rich, they're gypping themselves out of one of the potentially most rewarding experiences of their unfolding lives. Without it, they may never know their values or how to keep their newfound wealth in perspective.

 

 

 

Popular posts from 产品随想的博客

产品爱好者周刊 第16期:OSINT

 Products Mayku Multiplier:  https://multiplier.mayku.me/pre-order 民用桌面级的注塑机,比3D打印更快速,适合设计工作室 CopyQ: https://github.com/hluk/CopyQ 粘贴板历史管理工具 Carnac: https://github.com/Code52/carnac 键盘按钮记录 A collection of several hundred online tools for OSINT:  https://github.com/cipher387/osint_stuff_tool_collection ZSpotify: A Spotify downloader needing only a python interpreter and ffmpeg. https://github.com/Footsiefat/zspotify CLI gallery-dl: a command-line program to download image galleries and collections from several image hosting sites https://github.com/mikf/gallery-dl 支持Windows, Linux LeoCAD:A CAD application for creating virtual LEGO models https://github.com/leozide/leocad 支持Windows,Linux,macOS Howdy:Windows Hello™ style facial authentication for Linux https://github.com/boltgolt/howdy yabai: A tiling window manager for macOS based on binary space partitioning macOS屏幕窗口管理器 Business & Market data 山姆会员商店,中国会员400W+ MIUI全球月活:5亿 Words 消费电子产业的一条铁律:终端对上游产业链拥有绝对的话语权

Tencent Q4 2022 Earnings Call Transcript

In addition, we're gaining user mind share in live events. For example, over 190 million viewers watched the 2023 CCTV Spring Festival Gala, via live streaming on Video Accounts. ──用户心智这么强,万万没想到 To conclude the strategy section, I would like to share with you our perspective on artificial intelligence, specifically the implications of foundation models for Tencent. The most important takeaway is that we expect AI to be a growth multiplier for us going forward. We have a long-standing experience in developing and adopting AI technologies, which has already benefited many of our businesses such as advertising games, short-form videos and cloud computing. ──AI作为收入倍增器,这一点上的思路,倒是和微软一致的 We experienced substantial demand for Video Accounts ads promising us to release more inventory and Video Accounts in-feed ads exceeded RMB1 billion in quarterly revenue. ──视频号信息流广告收入-单季度10亿 Within Business Services, we're actively helping automobile manufacturers such as NIO, BMW and GAC Motor, enhan...

产品随想 | 周刊 第128期:将时间转化为知识和体验

自行车棚效应:我们为什么在小事上纠结,却对大事视而不见?   https://limboy.me/posts/bike-shedding Benz-Patent   https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/innovation/milestones/benz-patent-motor-car/ 豐田博物館   https://toyota-automobile-museum.jp/tw/ 值得一去的汽车博物馆 一人公司   https://github.com/cyfyifanchen/one-person-company one-person-company, 一人公司 AI 工具系列 wujiaxian   https://wujiaxian.com/ 可能吧创始人的个人Blog,介绍自己的方式,很值得学习 日本京都10大設計熱點!「建築大師貝聿銘操刀美術館,皆川明設計旅館、選物店,還有全球最美的藍瓶咖啡店舖!」   https://www.elle.com/tw/life/style/g33846398/2020-kyoto-10-hotspots/ 京都真是非常美 Henry L. Stimson   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_L._Stimson?useskin=vector While Kyoto may have satisfied the military criteria for a useful target, Stimson objected, declaring in a meeting if the Interim Committee on June 1, 1945, "...there was one city that they must not bomb without my permission and that was Kyoto." 人性的努力保护了京都 Brooke Astor, 105, Aristocrat of the People, Dies   https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/obituaries/14astor.html 值得尊敬...

初识PAM

Pluggable Authentication Modules for Linux 可插拨认证模块 用户访问服务器,服务程序将请求发送至PAM模块

Interview with Steve Jobs, WGBH, 1990

Interviewer: what is it about this machine? Why is this machine so interesting? Why has it been so influential? Jobs: Ah ahm, I'll give you my point of view on it. I remember reading a magazine article a long time ago ah when I was ah twelve years ago maybe, in I think it was Scientific American . I'm not sure. And the article ahm proposed to measure the efficiency of locomotion for ah lots of species on planet earth to see which species was the most efficient at getting from point A to point B. Ah and they measured the kilocalories that each one expended. So ah they ranked them all and I remember that ahm...ah the Condor, Condor was the most efficient at [CLEARS THROAT] getting from point A to point B. And humankind, the crown of creation came in with a rather unimpressive showing about a third of the way down...

The Little MongoDB Book

The Little MongoDB Book 基础 在一个MongoDB实例中可以有若干数据库或一个都没有,不过这里的数据库都是高层次容器,用来储存其他的所有数据 一个数据库可以有若干集合或者一个都没有, 集合由若干文档组成,也可以为空 文档由一个或更多的域组成 索引的意义 游标和以上概念不同,很重要但是常常被忽略,有一点很重要,每当向MongoDB索要数据时,总是返回一个游标 小结一下,MongoDB由数据库组成,数据库由集合组成,集合由文档组成。域组成了文档,集合可以被索引,从而提高了查找和排序的性能。最后,从MongoDB读取数据的时候是通过游标进行的,除非需要,游标不会真正去作读的操作 读到后面觉得实战意义不是很大,就跳过了

产品随想 | 周刊 第126期:Think of your life as a rainbow arcing across the horizon of this world

FolderPaint   https://github.com/MichaelTr7/FolderPaint Folder colour changing application for macOS. 乔布斯说:“对于我和苹果公司的许多人来说,索尼的盛田昭夫是最大的灵感来源之一。我希望我们今天的所想所为能让他会心一笑。” 乔布斯甚至从索尼挖走了一位顶级设计师。哈特穆特·艾斯林格被苹果挖走前,已在 100 多种索尼产品的创造中发挥了重要作用。 供职于索尼时,艾斯林格所在的设计工作室与管理办公室和工厂车间享有同等地位。他说,这样有助于促进公司生产和设计团队之间在一定程度上达成团结,这正是乔布斯试图重建的团结。 艾斯林格指出:“乔布斯有能力洞察事物的好坏,却不知道如何实现以及如何通过组织去构建。因此,我们向苹果提出的第一个建议是,赋予设计师一定的话语权。” 斯卡利表示,乔布斯和盛田之间的深厚友谊和相互敬重可以归结为对于设计的共同热忱。 “他们以非常积极的方式产生了共鸣”,斯卡利说,“两位来自不同文化背景的创始人共聚一堂,这是非常难能可贵的。他们讨论设计原则,却从不谈及商业模式。” “Think of your life as a rainbow arcing across the horizon of this world. You appear, have a chance to blaze in the sky, then you disappear.” City Lights Bookstore   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Lights_Bookstore?useskin=vector 旧金山的城市之光独立书店 Vesuvio Cafe   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesuvio_Cafe?useskin=vector 好奇怪,这家Cafe居然没有太多的介绍 “One of the things that I was fortunate of was to see and understand the context of San Francisco through the eyes of Steve Jobs,” Mr. Ive said. “He kn...

罗伯特·艾格 创始人肖像计划 <​Ep.2>

Link 罗伯特·艾格 创始人肖像计划 <​Ep.2>   https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/127042313 Note 这个男人,过去十五年时间,几乎不接受采访,只是静悄悄的,花掉了1000亿美金。 ——这个男人,太厉害了...... 艾格跳槽去了ABC,从最底层的小导播做起,一辈子46年职业生涯,再也没有跳过槽。这46年里的最后15年,他升任CEO,做出了惊天动地的大事情。 今年,艾格退休写了自传,起名字叫《The Ride of a Lifetime》,我想了半天,这书名有点拽,只能翻译成《一辈子就要干一票大的》,笔者一介俗人,但愿艾总不要介意,哈哈。 ——《一辈子的旅途》,感觉会更契合些?哈哈哈 在艾总的这本《干一票》里,我读来读去,总是找不到他是怎么升到副总裁的——升到副总裁之后的一步步到CEO倒是写的很细致,看来大佬写自传也为自己讳,不愿意提太多当年勇。 ——Interesting 地表最强二人组(Tom Murphy和Dan Burke)最牛逼的成就就是不出让股权(Equity)的资本并购。一路用自由现金流加发行债券来进行收购,85年的时候举债30亿,配合巴菲特的5亿美金,小鱼吞大鱼,一把吃掉了当时比自己体量大得多的ABC电视台。他们俩的管理特点是极端节俭,冷血砍成本(不禁让人想到贝索斯),收购完成后,直接开掉1500员工、干掉高管电梯、高管餐厅、全员改坐经济舱,甚至于把曼哈顿总部的办公室卖了,换来1.75亿美金。三年多就把当时举的债还完。 作为巴菲特一辈子最推崇的企业家组合,Tom和Dan还有一个特点:放权。他们俩极为谨慎用人,但是一旦选中,就破格提拔,尚方宝剑交出,让牛人干大事。没干多久,俩人就接二连三的退休了,艾格你年轻,你来当总裁! 艾格原话是这么写的:“我心里也有预期,感觉最后总裁的位置是我的,但是确实没想到来的那么快”。按照网友的话就是“一脸懵逼”。 艾格有个特点,他性格是标准的外柔内刚,外圆内方。他不强势,不豪夺,永远不是人群中最聒噪的那位。他能等,在大都会(CapCities)花六年时间做三把手,等到二把手退休,再等好几年到一把手退休,最终上位 ——耐得住寂寞,受得住繁华 21世纪出头即提出战略: 第一句:我们只做高质量品牌视频 第二句:全力拥抱技术而不是对抗 第三句:全球化 大佬的出手案例...