Salutations,
> ------------------
>> Nope, I don't have the balance sheet. But I don't need it. Simple logic =
> is all that is needed.
>
> Then Gil A. was stupid for spinning off Newton Inc.? Where's the logic in =
> that?
What logic? I don't know and I don't care why Gil was going to spin it
off. But that wasn't the statement. The original statement was that the
Newton was losing money and Apple couldn't afford to keep it. Products are
cancelled for one reason only. They do not make enough profit. No business
has ever said 'Well, our widget is doing wonderfully. Profits are through
the roof and we can't make enough of them. Let's drop it'.
> ------------------
>> ONCE AGAIN, Apple was losing hundreds of millions of dollars a quarter.
>
> ONCE AGAIN, Apple was losing 'sales'.
Ummmm sales = dollars. Not sure if you have studied economics or not,
but they are equal. I really can't see the CFO of Compaq talking to
shareholders and saying 'Well, we have good news and bad news. The bad news
is that we lost 500 million dollars last quarter. The good news is that we
lost sales so that really isn't money and it really doesn't count.
Rejoice.'
Doesn't make much sense, does it?
> ------------------
>> Steve came in and cut every project except for the 10% gems he saw. He =
> kept the projects that had an instant future.
>
> Gil A. did most of the 'cutting'.
> Wow, I gotta get 'SJ's Crystal Ball'(or is that a _Cube_) :-o
> Sorry but hindsight is after the fact.
Gil did start the cutting, but he didn't go far enough. He does say that
Apple followed his business plan even today, but I doubt that. As for
Steve's crystal ball, I'd say it works well. He cut the fat from Apple,
reduced their desktops to one line, their laptops to one line (then two),
and started a mini-revolution with the iMac.
Oh, and brought the world OS X.
I think he knows what he is doing.
> ------------------
>> And I don't care how much Steve hated the Newton, IF IT WAS MAKING APPLE =
> MONEY HE WOULD HAVE KEPT IT! If if would of been profitable in the near =
> future, HE WOULD HAVE KEPT IT!
>
> Why didn't Gil A. 'cut' Newton before $J?
Why didn't Gil bring profitability to Apple save that one quarter by
selling a plant? Why does anyone failure at leadership before another
succeeds? Because they didn't do the right things.
> ------------------
>> Think about it. If some company was going to buy a thousand of them, =
> that
>> would have been several million dollars of profit. No businessman turns
>> down profit when they are losing money year after year. Hell, Steve would
>> have kept the Newton alive at least until all of those 'thousands of =
> orders'
>> had been filled.
>
> Nah, screw them later with large license fees for the main OS.
Yeah, nice reply. Off-topic also.
> ------------------
>> Apple would not have killed the Newton if it was profitable. And while =
> people continually spout anecdotal evidence about how some company was =
> going to but thousands of them or how some country was going to =
> standardize on them, the bottom line is that if it was going to
>> make Apple money, Steve would have kept them.
>
> So where's the evidence that Newton was not profitable?
Umm, it was cut? I'm sorry I have to be the one to break it to you, but
the Newton _failed_. Ultimately. Completely. Totally.
I don't care if you take that personally or professionally.
Sculley screwed it up. Completely screwed it up.
And Steve was the last CEO to handle the Newton. If sales had taken off
during Sculley, Spindler, or Amelio then the Newton would have been kept.
the Newton had _years_ before Steve to gain profitability. And it didn't.
As much as people want to blame Steve, he isn't stupid. If the Newton was
selling briskly and bringing in a profit he would have kept it.
The Newton was a business flop. Anyone here can write 5 pages on how good
it is, how much of a technological marvel it is, how there are no peers even
today, and how much more productive they are with it.
But even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Sure, the Newton has
found it's niche. But that niche was too small to maintain the product
line.
You can argue how I am wrong, but you can't argue with the market.
> ------------------
>> Ahhh. I see. You are so clever. You took my statements from before,
>> change them a little, and spouted them back. How clever. How subtle.
>>
>> NOT!
>
> Spouted???
> You believed what was told, not released, big difference.
I have no idea what this was about and right now I really don't care.
> ------------------
>> There was NO bait and switch.
>
> Read the retail box.
I don't need to read the box. I don't need to read the box to know that
murder had nothing to do with iTools changing to .Mac. I don't need to read
the box to know that insider trading had nothing to do with iTools changing
to .Mac.
The bottom line is that 'bait-and-switch' has nothing to do with .Mac.
That is unless your idea of 'bait-and-switch' differs from every other
person's (including the legal) definition.
> ------------------
>> Yes, bait and switch is illegal. But so is jaywalking. And neither =
> offense applies here.
>
> The SFPD would say otherwise.
Well do something then instead of wasting time with me. Write your
congressman. Write the SFPD a letter. Call your Attorney General. Do
something other than complain.
> ------------------
>> I didn't say _others_ are pleased. I said I was. Personally, I =
> couldn't
>> care less if others are pleased.
>
> I care if others are pleased or not.
> $.J. would love you.
Are you really? Really? Do you really care if others are pleased? What
do you do if they are not? Do you plan on upgrading theirs machines for
them? Do you plan on working on OS X to make sure it is fast enough?
Are you going to do _ANYTHING_ about it then? Or are you just gonna say
that you care and do nothing?
> ------------------
>> Just show me where iTools is part of the OS license. iTools is a =
> separate
>> service. It seems obvious to me.
>
> $.J. would love you.
I hope so. I do care what he thinks.
> ------------------
>> Well, yes, it costs more for ms and intel. But my point is that it =
> still costs a fortune to run Apple. It costs a fortune to run GE. But =
> that doesn't change the fact that it costs a fortune to run Apple.
>
> What's Apple's costs to run? You said it costs a fortune.
OK, thread is pretty much officially over. When you make such a stupid
comment that tells me that you are no longer interested in debating and only
interested in arguing for the sake of arguing.
Apple does cost a fortune to run. I would wager in the well into the
billions.
> ------------------
>> It wasn't a stupid business decision. Do you just not understand the
>> economies of scale? Do you not understand that it is prohibitively
>> expensive after over 2 million people use it? And ONCE AGAIN THERE IS NO
>> BAIT AND SWITCH. See example above.
>
> So it was stupid to assume only a small number of people would begin and =
> continue to use it?
> '2 million people' is again hindsight. See example above.
I'm sure they didn't assume anything. What exactly is wrong with offering
a free service for as long as a company can afford it?
So if any company offers a service for free, then they are obligated to
always offer that service for free? No matter how many people use it or how
much it costs?
Instead of looking at it as Apple is now charging money for .Mac, look at
it as Apple giving away free email, Internet storage space, and other
services for free as long as they could afford it.
You are such the Negative Nancy.
> ------------------
>> Sure. Send me your address and I will mail you a penny.
>
> One Infinite Loop
> Cupertino, CA 9xxxx
> =2E..attention to $.J., my last cent to current Apple(btw, I want the jet =
> back).
I'm serious. Send me your address and I'll send you a penny. You wanted
a penny and I'll send you one.
Cheers,
David
-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 06:03:24 EDT