Very true...lost opportunity... But my point was that Xerox, although not as influential as days past, they are still a profitable company. They have survived...although not as big as before. A few years ago some industry analyst were predicting the doom of Xerox (just like Apple). They have restructured and become profitable. Did they make a big mistake (1970)? Sure. But just because a company made a blunder, shouldn't mean "instant" doom just because it happened. I mean, the past is past. It's a company. Not a video game (game over). Move on... I feel that Apple can be around for a long, long time, even as a niche player. I don't mind. As long as they keep make great products. And they will branch out. They've shown they can. Are you asking me, or is that a rhetorical question? Not sure what their break down is between printers, monitors, copiers and fax machines revenue is. But the computer industry has a direct tie to what Xerox produces. That's is major revenue stream. Similar to like HP's printer division (and Dell's monitor division). The "12 billion" was pointing out that they are *still* around and profitable. Not sure DoD knew that. Just making sure. Past mistakes or not.
David, I know the computer industry - I've followed it since my first Apple //e (Enhanced!). Thank you Mango for catching my point - you are correct. Let's go back in history - Xerox decided to throw some of their best developers and ideas into a little group that eventually became known as Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). These were some of the brightest minds in the world assembled under one roof. Their sole purpose? To innovate and build the future. One of my favorite quotes ever comes from one of the founding fathers of PARC - "The best way to predict the future is to invent it". Guess what Xerox PARC innovated and invented? 1) The first laser printer 2) Smalltalk (the first object-oriented programming language using a windowing IDE) 3) The basis for client/server architecture 4) The first WYSIWYG editor 5) Ethernet (Bob Metcalfe who went on to found 3Com and now the foundation of the Internet itself) 6) The first GUI using icons and pop-up menus (the forefather of everything that is a current Apple or Microsoft OS) 7) The first MUD (forerunner to online gaming today) 8) The Dynabook (forerunner to modern-day notebooks) 9) Among the first practical uses of Hypertext (forerunner to SGML/HTML - the "language of the Internet") 10) Interpress (forerunner to Postscript printing) 11) Liveboard (forerunner to electronic whiteboard collaboration) 12) The Star (desktop computer that Apple basically copied ideas from to create the Lisa and Macintosh. Legend reads that Steve Jobs toured PARC labs and re-reouted the design of Lisa after he saw Star) 13) The Alto (the first desktop computer with windows and a mouse - 10 years before Apple did it) This doesn't even go into non-computer-specific innovations that PARC was creating. These inventions and innovations were created 10, 20, and 30 years before they even became popular. The point is here we have a company that TRULY innovated. The list above is the very foundation of computing today. We're not talking about iPods and cool cases or operating systems that are nothing more than small evolutionary steps beyond previous OS's. This isn't about market capitalization. Xerox is now a printer and copier company - and that's about it. That is failure. That is my point. No one that looks at that list above and looks at Xerox now can honestly say Xerox didn't screw up. They were visionary once but have faltered miserably since. The iPod wasn't an innovation - mp3 players existed before the iPod - Apple just made it cooler and marketed better. The 64-bit computing platform existed long before the G5 - Apple just helped introduce it at roughly the same time as AMD to the common man. Xerox didn't just make a mistake - they floundered with mistake after mistake where they failed to capitalize, and it just started in 1970. That's why a company like Microsoft has a profit margin of over 20% and Xerox has a 5% profit margin in niches they don't dominate. By the way, last I looked Apple has a 2-3% net profit margin. The fact also isn't that they're "still around" as you put it - it's that they are no longer innovating and they are no longer a power player in the industry. They're just... a copier and printer company. The reference to "industry doormat" was that yes, they're still there, but everybody's trampled them on the way into the house. Yet there they still sit - dirtied, but still there. If you look at that list above and see how a company like that failed, then you should be able to see any company can fail. A company that created the stuff on that list shouldn't be worth a paltry $12 billion in market cap - they should be 100 times the size of a Microsoft (government-willing). Those are discoveries/inventions that truly were innovations. So when Microsoft and Apple throw the word "innovation" around as if they're really innovating anything, you'll have to pardon me if I laugh - because they're trying to BS me and I'm not buying it. So are you telling me if Apple in all its computing glory today 10 years from now is making printers and copiers all its supporters will somehow be vindicated? I don't think so. Apple branching out? If you want to see a company branching out - look at IBM. Their research division is the closest thing to Xerox PARC we have today. They are into everything from computers to software to artificial intelligence to teleportation (yes, like on Star Trek). They're in bioinformatics, supercomputing, nanotechnology, and autonomic computing. That is branching out. Man, this thread has gone off-topic!
This is a "have your cake and eat it, too" argument that I see used too often. Your statement that Dell is the ONLY PC maker that has really flourished... is a loaded statement. Dell helped wound the Gateways, the Compaqs, the HP's, etc. Dell's method of low-inventory = lower prices allowed them to react faster to market and pricing changes. This is what helped them destroy Compaq's grip on the top. It's not as if Apple killed of Compaq or the other manufacturers. The statement reminds me of how people used to say Apple is the 3rd or 4th largest manufacturer of personal computers back in the day. Well sure, but the rest of the manufacturers all manufacture PC's and collectively dwarf Apple's marketshare. But Apple defenders always decided to split "PCs" into "Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP", etc. as if they were all making separate platforms. Of course Apple survived - firstly they had no one else to compete against on their platform. Secondly, the government forced the one company that could kill them or buy them out to invest in them and continue making Microsoft Office for them. Thirdly, they luckily got a marketing wizard in Steve Jobs to come back and take over. Of those 3 things, the Steve Jobs hiring is abou the only thing I think they themselves did right to upright their otherwise sinking ship.
Yep. We're all over the place.... Wait a minute. You go on to list all the innovations that PARC created, then say they did not capitalize by bringing some to market. Yet you bash Apple for being able to capitalize on the iPod or bringing 64Bit to the "common man?" Talk about "having your cake an eating it." One sentence your saying that "marketing is good" then the next your saying "all they did was bring it to market." We can debate forever regarding what's an "innovation" and what is not (in today's standard). I don't work for Apple nor MS so I don't know about all their "innovations" they do behind the scenes. But you can define "innovations" by technologies patents and/or products that are designed and brought to market. And I doubt that Apple will be making just "printers and copiers" in ten years. And I don't care if you "vindicate" them or not. Use what you want. Buy what ever stock you want. Don't by Apple stock. Don't care. It's your choice. All I care is if they keep making great products (whether YOU think they are or not). Ah yes. IBM. Yes, they are the great innovators that have branched out. SO, you want Apple to become IBM? Hmmmm, do you have a recipe for that. Must be easy, huh? IBM is the model IT company of the whole industry. Very few companies can dream to become of that size. Yet, you expect Apple to snap their fingers and "presto!?" Apple like IBM? I wish that too. Becoming a company like Hitachi, Toshiba, Matsu****a, Philips, Sony, IBM, or Texas Instruments is a great goal.
OK now you guys are just ruining the fun of the thread... I didnt understand a word in the last 6 poststs.
Yeah, and? What? I didn't say that. You read that wrong. I was pointing out that a COMPANY EXIST today in the PC clone market can go out of business a lot easier than Apple. That COMPANY could be GATEWAY, for example. It's more likely that Gateway will go out of business before Apple. This is because Apple has a loyal users base (more important that you think) and is NOT homogenized (almost the same hardware, same OS) by the PC clone market. Do you understand that? This "Apple defender" can clump all the PC makers together if you like. Move that market share up to 90%. Whatever... I don't care how you slice it. We know that. But I was pointed out that a COMPANY that exist today, that being Gateway, would have a better chance of going out of business because GATEWAY get their sales stolen from Dell. That's all I was trying to point out. I mean, all you really are getting is a Dell/Intel/Microsoft PC (industry leaders). You really don't *need* Compaq or Gateway. Not much difference. They tried that. But what happened was that the Mac clone manufactures were gutting Apple's R&E cost (they were getting a free ride). And if the Mac clones makers were allowed to continue, they would have essentially put Apple's hardware sales out of market. The clone idea could have worked if Apple's business was built around software, not hardware, where you can make licensing sales (MS) on the OS and software. But Apple was never a strong software company (as a revenue stream). This is why the Mac clone market was killed by Jobs. Dell (and other PC clone makers) do not have to worry about this issue. None of PC hardware makers compete with a Microsoft branded PC. It doesn't exist. Government? No. That was a agreement between Jobs and Gates (before the anti-trust suit) on the fact that MS would agree to create Office for the Mac during a 5 year period. In exchange, MS would buy $150 Million in non-voting Apple stock (held for three years). Also, Apple promised that they would use Internet Explorer on the desktop for the same period (included updates) and drop a old law suit, regarding Quicktime, against MS. These were business moves on Jobs part in order to bring the iMac to market. It was a package deal. They needed a Office suite that could be sold to the "average user." And it paid off. Both companies made money. So, yes. Jobs coming back was the ticket that prevented Apple from sinking (or getting bough out). Yeah, and? Kinda hurts to give him credit, doesn't it? Awe...I mean, all you are saying is "the only reason that Apple was saved from going under, was because someone saved it from going under..." DUH! It was done. That's all that matters.
In response to the last sentence above....Sure, if you are an "arm chair CEO." What I think that you are doing is: hind-sight 20/20. That all that you really saying. Yes, all those technologies were great innovations. But as history has taught us, the first to invent is not necessarily the first to market (or even their goal). Xerox PARC was just that type of company. They just became sluggish. There's always that shrewd, nimble entrepreneur that comes a long and "steals" the idea and makes it better (or builds upon it). That's what Apple ("steal" ideas) did and that's what Microsoft did ("steal" and created commodities out of the PC/IBM clone). That's why it's easy for you to look back in some nostalgic-idealistic-opportunistic way, and say, "Oh, what could have been! Only if they would have done this or that....How stupid of them! They suck now!" There were a lot of smart engineers and inventors then. But not necessarily shrewd businessmen (Gates holds that title). Two different animals.
Wow, where do I begin? Or maybe I should just end it as you seem to be getting emotional. lol. Let me try to consolidate some of this before it gets into a line-by-line you said he said post. Re: the reference to the government forcing Microsoft to invest in Apple. Come on Dave, don't be naive, you're the industry follower. Microsoft could've let Apple die (and they were dying) at that point but they were getting assaulted by companies like Netscape, Apple, and others with anti-trust suits. The biggest joint monopoly at that time was Windows-Intel. Microsoft jumped into bed with Apple so they could tell the government, "hey look - we're investing in a competitor. We're in bed with someone other than Intel. We're keeping their boat afloat. How can you say we're trying to squash everyone?" The only thing Microsoft got out of it was that and maybe making IE the default browser on the Mac. Whoopty-doo. They were just trying to lessen the punishment they knew they may get when the dust settled from the anti-trust battles they were encountering at the time. Re: "they tried that"/no competition. Yes Dave, I know they did; I used to play games on a Franklin with my buddies. My point isn't whether they did or didn't try it - it's just that they didn't have competition. RE : "Wait a minute. You go on to list all the innovations that PARC created, then say they did not capitalize by bringing some to market. Yet you bash Apple for being able to capitalize on the iPod or bringing 64Bit to the "common man?" Talk about "having your cake an eating it." No, not quite Dave. I said repeatedly there was very little innovative about the iPod because mp3 players existed and better ones exist today (better for some anyway). This wasn't a new invention or some great innovation. The 64-bit computing angle isn't an innovation because 64-bit computing existed already in the form of DEC Alpha's and other chips. AMD had shown their 64-bit processor running apps before Apple brought out their G5. AMD had their 64-bit CPUs out weeks after Apple. These aren't innovations like the laser printer - which never existed before PARC. I never bashed Apple for capitalizing on anything - I bashed them like I bash Microsoft for saying they "Innovate". What they do is package and re-package just like Microsoft. Well no, I don't recall saying I want Apple to become an IBM. I think I simply stated IBM is an example of a company that does similar work to PARC and has also branched out into many areas. lol. Come on Dave, don't get mad. I own Apple stock. I bought it at $19 saw it sink to something like $14 I think and have ridden it back up to the $38 level it's at now. I don't plan on selling it anytime soon, either. Apple is marketing genius - my ownership of their stock and their computers is proof of that. And again - I never said that Apple would be making "printers and copiers". I said that's what Xerox is doing after starting out so well. No intent to "vindicate" either. I'm sure Steve doesn't care about my opinion.
First of all Xerox PARC wasn't really a company. There was no "sluggish" in them. Their sole purpose for existence was to "innovate". Xerox - the parent company failed to "execute" on the "innovations". As for it being hindsight - well of course it is; anything you look back upon is hindsight. But it proves my original point that seems to be lost way back when that no company is immune to obscurity, no matter how innovative they are. Xerox was once the most innovative org in the world, yet did not capitalize on that and now they're just known for their printers and copiers. Companies in the industry today aren't 1/10th as innovative as those guys were (with the exception of maybe an IBM). They can easily fall to a similar fate. That is the point.
And I'm glad they didn't. Because the alternative would be that we would have clones, and Apple would be a OS licensing company. Now, it's true that would have reduced cost and allowed the PC users to enter into the market; four or five clone makers (how's a $500 G5 sound?). Anways, I'm not sure that Apple is that type of company (OS licensing company). They still like to "innovate" on the consumer and industrial design; whatever that's worth to you. What they have improved on is compromise. They have learned marketing better. And not to be so "Mac centric." I'm sure that Jobs struggled with the idea that he should make iPods for the PC. That was a great move. But I'm sure he didn't want to, at first. As far as the future...they could they branch out to other sectors (like IBM). Sure, but as consumer company, I'm not sure that would be their focus. I'm not Jobs, so I don't know what he will do in the future. Yes, that was a "see we are being good" gesture by MS. But you made it seem as though it was the *government* that forced MS to settle or something (by legal action). I knew what MS was doing (most people did). It was all politics. But when you post here and say, "It was the government" you mislead. Say, what really happened. The idea that MS wasn't an MONOPOLY was a joke. Everyone knew it. MS just couldn't say it for legal reasons. Every now and again is see that other piece of disinformation that MS "owns" Apple based on that $150 non-voting stock. Sigh....silly. Some actually believe that. You know? That "perception vs reality" thing? Well, guess what? I was going to point out that "Apple is at $38.00" right now. But I didn't. Why? Because I thought that you would come back with, "$38.00! That's crap! It should be $86+ like IBM" or something like that.
I think you tried to tie Apple to Xerox...saying, "Look they are both failed companies." I mean, what? Does that make you the great IT analyst? No. You are merely pointing out the obvious about past Xerox or past Apple mistakes. Then using THAT to make a "point" that Apple (or Xerox) couda shoulda woulda today. I mean, don't you see how EASY this is to say? Today? This issue is how both Jobs and Gates differed. Jobs just didn't see the world the same way that Gates did. One was a visionary and the other a businessman. Today the landscape has changed from those pioneering days. There's less chances to truly innovate in computers (got quantum?). We are building on top of past ideas and technologies. It's very likely that the young inventors of today (true innovations) will have very little to do w/computers and more about nano-tech, or biotech, or robotics. Of course, those guys will have their ideas "stolen" from them and marketed better by some other company (or person). Thus, the "true" inventors wont get credit and can be criticized for not taking advantage of the opportunity. This the problem with our massive patent office. It gotten so difficult to really "invent" something that hasn't alredy been copyrighted or patented. Especially for a small company. Now, I don't mean that to sound like a "copout." But rather a observation of today's reality in corporate patent law.
I think you try to see what you want to see. That's a shame. You read into too much and come up with wild tangents that have nothing to do with what the original poster has to say. When did I say Apple was a failed company? At one point they were on the point of failure. I own their stock - sure, I think they'll fail. Of course it's hindsight - hello? That's how you learn from past mistakes. Xerox didn't learn. All those inventions weren't done in 1 day as 1 mistake. They never learned through a decade or two of mistakes. You really don't know the story behind this, do you? My only point in pointing out Xerox was using it as an example of how a company can fail. And why would you think that? Do you have voices in your head or something? You have a way of completely, and I do mean COMPLETELY missing the point of any debate/argument. And this is no exception. You're taking this way too personally. It's apparent you aren't as strong in your knowledge of this industry as you think you are because now you're getting defensive over trivial points that have nothing to do with the original points. Things I never even stated but somehow you inferred. Weird.
I know when a thread has completely gone off-topic and when it's time to say "let's end it". I think this thread has reached that point. So I'll leave pippendagimp with these words : Don't let anyone on either side say their platform is better because it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is which platform is best for your needs and which one provides the most advantages with the least disadvantages. If you have a lot of family or buddies or work that require a PC, then that's your best option. If you don't and want to experience something "different" from 95% of the rest of the world, then an Apple can more than suit your needs. If all you want to do is email, surf, simple things like that, either one is good. Take into account things like cost, performance, what you may need to upgrade to get that performance you want, etc. and make your choice. Good luck.
It was more about my "Apple will not die" comment. And then we went off on the Xerox/Apple comparison (you made a tie)...and so on and so forth. Thus "die = failed (as in, no longer in business/or struggling)" This is how I inferred. I think that's reasonable. And I know that anything is possible. I just don't see it happening to Apple anytime soon. Well, for one. I can't see or hear you. And I debate issues best in person. The only thing that text can give is the icons (sarcasm, happy, frown icons or not).
Do you have a link for this part? This was evident after the dot.com bust when hundreds of PC/server companies went out of business.
