Apple's $1 Trillion and Who Deserves What
Recently, the Apple corporation made news by reaching a company financial value of $1 trillion. This reminded me of Apple as an example of business and the premises on which businesses are generally viewed and treated.
Back in the 1970's, Apple began as a small company founded by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. I put those two names in that order because the name Steve Jobs will be more familiar to a lot of people. And that's because of the relationship between business and our current society. Steve Jobs was the founder who was more like a businessman. Steve Wozniak was "only" the engineer who designed the first Apple computer and was involved in the technical work for following Apple computer models.
We'll never know whether the early Apple computers would have been commercially successful if it had to depend on Wozniak's business skills. However, especially in the context of competing in an environment of corporate marketplaces, it's likely Apple would not have done as well. As true as that may be, we can be more certain that Steve Jobs could not have designed a computer or even a food processor if his life depended on it. Steve Jobs' business skills, if applied to a laundry detergent company, might have resulted in that company getting a larger market share. But what's really more important - Wozniak's ability to design the first commercial home computer, or Jobs' ability to manage a company to be more commercially successful after someone else provides an innovative produce for the company to sell?
Wozniak's contribution was crucial for Apple to become what it is today. The IBM compatible PC's only came later. And it was only with the IBM PC's that Microsoft had its chance to grow. Microsoft only entered the big time when IBM gave it the contract for writing the operating system for the first IBM PC. But Microsoft, itself, did not succeed in creating it - Microsoft had to buy it. Wikipedia says:
"MS-DOS was a renamed form of 86-DOS – owned by Seattle Computer Products, written by Tim Paterson. Development of 86-DOS took only six weeks... Microsoft, which needed an operating system for the IBM Personal Computer hired Tim Paterson in May 1981 and bought 86-DOS 1.10 for $75,000 in July of the same year."
If only IBM management had known, perhaps Microsoft would be unknown today, and the world famous names would be Seattle Computer Products and Tim Paterson. If Wozniak had simply been Jobs' employee, Wozniak might have ended up with $75,000 or less for his invention. Because Wozniak was a founder of the company, he did get more money if not public recognition. It's not the inventing that "counts" in our business world.
Microsoft, in a way, did provide an operating system for the IBM PC, but it gets credit for and benefits from something someone else could do in 6 weeks, but Microsoft was only capable of buying. With that foot in the door, Microsoft was in a strategic position in the PC market. It used that position to stifle competition in areas where its talents were not as strong as others.
Microsoft had initially failed to make a better word processor or spreadsheet program than other companies. However, after the first two versions of Microsoft Windows went nowhere, management at the dominant word processor and spreadsheet companies did not choose to develop versions for Windows 3.0. That was how Microsoft was able to get into the game.
Those other companies had been able to find technical professionals who could make better spreadsheets and word processors. There's no reason Microsoft management could not have found people to make better Microsoft software. Management on each side made important mistakes.
Wozniak's computer was the foot in the door gave Apple the potential to be what it is today. But, unlike Microsoft, Wozniak actually designed the first Apple.
I've been trying to avoid implying that Steve Jobs and managers have nothing to contribute on the office side. It's just that management without a product can't do much. (Scammers may not need a real product, but let's talk about being useful to society.) A product without management faces challenges, but it is possible. An inventor may not have the funds to make and market his product, and therefore may seek assistance from a business. But a pile of money doesn't make the invention. The inventor is the indispensable one.
Management can coordinate operations and decide which of a few possible directions to move in. Sometime they make good decisions, sometimes bad ones.
Apple had a good start with its first computers, but at a certain point a very different model of computer, the Mac, became central to their computer products. The idea for the Mac did not originate either with Apple's managers or engineers. Apple got the idea from a prototype that Xerox displayed at some computer shows. Xerox management had made a large research and development department, but then dropped some of the developed products including this computer prototype. Xerox management may have been right to conclude that when the prototype was displayed the time wasn't yet ripe for that kind of computer. However, they didn't prepare to keep the computr ready for later marketing.
Apple took the idea and management had the idea used to make a computer designed for the business office. This was a shift from Apple's previous sales which were generally not for office use. This Apple computer was named the Lisa. If the name means nothing to you, it's because the Lisa was a total flop. Later, Apple made another computer based on the Xerox idea, but this time designed more for home or school use. That was the Mac.
Management doesn't get the lion's share of the attention and money because they always make the right decisions. They don't get the attention and money because they're more indispensable than inventors and designers. They get the attention and money because their job addresses itself to the enrichment of the owners in a sense that the owners are more focused on. If one company employee develops a cure for cancer which for some reason would only provide the company with a 1% return on investment, and another employee develops a cure for bad breath that will have a 5% return on investment, many owners will want management to at least consider putting the money into the bad breath cure. Even if a cure for cancer was actually an exception to this general rule, owners generally don't conceive of their businesses as a way to help society as a whole (and, secondly, hopefully themselves as one of the many members of society.) They may tell themselves that what is good for the owner is good for society, but they don't tell their employees, "Always do what's the greatest good for the most members of society. Oh, yeah - I almost forgot. If it could also benefit me, that would be nice, too."
Yes, technological advances sold by businesses have raised the average wealth of the human race. But that's not distinctly a matter of business or management. Humans have been increasing their technology for hundreds of thousands of years. The vast majority of that time there were no managers. Over time, the pace of technological advancement has increased. In each era, there are more past discoveries to help make new ones. And as there is more technology, they build resources that can be invested in research. At the core, this is science and technology. As I said above, that's not to say that management can't assist in certain ways.
If there had been no technological advancement in the last 100 years, management might find ways to make interactions between sections of an adding machine company more efficient. But isn't it better that we have people who invent computers?
Our society's priorities are misplaced because it's an elite minority that makes the decisions.
Back in the 1970's, Apple began as a small company founded by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. I put those two names in that order because the name Steve Jobs will be more familiar to a lot of people. And that's because of the relationship between business and our current society. Steve Jobs was the founder who was more like a businessman. Steve Wozniak was "only" the engineer who designed the first Apple computer and was involved in the technical work for following Apple computer models.
We'll never know whether the early Apple computers would have been commercially successful if it had to depend on Wozniak's business skills. However, especially in the context of competing in an environment of corporate marketplaces, it's likely Apple would not have done as well. As true as that may be, we can be more certain that Steve Jobs could not have designed a computer or even a food processor if his life depended on it. Steve Jobs' business skills, if applied to a laundry detergent company, might have resulted in that company getting a larger market share. But what's really more important - Wozniak's ability to design the first commercial home computer, or Jobs' ability to manage a company to be more commercially successful after someone else provides an innovative produce for the company to sell?
Wozniak's contribution was crucial for Apple to become what it is today. The IBM compatible PC's only came later. And it was only with the IBM PC's that Microsoft had its chance to grow. Microsoft only entered the big time when IBM gave it the contract for writing the operating system for the first IBM PC. But Microsoft, itself, did not succeed in creating it - Microsoft had to buy it. Wikipedia says:
"MS-DOS was a renamed form of 86-DOS – owned by Seattle Computer Products, written by Tim Paterson. Development of 86-DOS took only six weeks... Microsoft, which needed an operating system for the IBM Personal Computer hired Tim Paterson in May 1981 and bought 86-DOS 1.10 for $75,000 in July of the same year."
If only IBM management had known, perhaps Microsoft would be unknown today, and the world famous names would be Seattle Computer Products and Tim Paterson. If Wozniak had simply been Jobs' employee, Wozniak might have ended up with $75,000 or less for his invention. Because Wozniak was a founder of the company, he did get more money if not public recognition. It's not the inventing that "counts" in our business world.
Microsoft, in a way, did provide an operating system for the IBM PC, but it gets credit for and benefits from something someone else could do in 6 weeks, but Microsoft was only capable of buying. With that foot in the door, Microsoft was in a strategic position in the PC market. It used that position to stifle competition in areas where its talents were not as strong as others.
Microsoft had initially failed to make a better word processor or spreadsheet program than other companies. However, after the first two versions of Microsoft Windows went nowhere, management at the dominant word processor and spreadsheet companies did not choose to develop versions for Windows 3.0. That was how Microsoft was able to get into the game.
Those other companies had been able to find technical professionals who could make better spreadsheets and word processors. There's no reason Microsoft management could not have found people to make better Microsoft software. Management on each side made important mistakes.
Wozniak's computer was the foot in the door gave Apple the potential to be what it is today. But, unlike Microsoft, Wozniak actually designed the first Apple.
I've been trying to avoid implying that Steve Jobs and managers have nothing to contribute on the office side. It's just that management without a product can't do much. (Scammers may not need a real product, but let's talk about being useful to society.) A product without management faces challenges, but it is possible. An inventor may not have the funds to make and market his product, and therefore may seek assistance from a business. But a pile of money doesn't make the invention. The inventor is the indispensable one.
Management can coordinate operations and decide which of a few possible directions to move in. Sometime they make good decisions, sometimes bad ones.
Apple had a good start with its first computers, but at a certain point a very different model of computer, the Mac, became central to their computer products. The idea for the Mac did not originate either with Apple's managers or engineers. Apple got the idea from a prototype that Xerox displayed at some computer shows. Xerox management had made a large research and development department, but then dropped some of the developed products including this computer prototype. Xerox management may have been right to conclude that when the prototype was displayed the time wasn't yet ripe for that kind of computer. However, they didn't prepare to keep the computr ready for later marketing.
Apple took the idea and management had the idea used to make a computer designed for the business office. This was a shift from Apple's previous sales which were generally not for office use. This Apple computer was named the Lisa. If the name means nothing to you, it's because the Lisa was a total flop. Later, Apple made another computer based on the Xerox idea, but this time designed more for home or school use. That was the Mac.
Management doesn't get the lion's share of the attention and money because they always make the right decisions. They don't get the attention and money because they're more indispensable than inventors and designers. They get the attention and money because their job addresses itself to the enrichment of the owners in a sense that the owners are more focused on. If one company employee develops a cure for cancer which for some reason would only provide the company with a 1% return on investment, and another employee develops a cure for bad breath that will have a 5% return on investment, many owners will want management to at least consider putting the money into the bad breath cure. Even if a cure for cancer was actually an exception to this general rule, owners generally don't conceive of their businesses as a way to help society as a whole (and, secondly, hopefully themselves as one of the many members of society.) They may tell themselves that what is good for the owner is good for society, but they don't tell their employees, "Always do what's the greatest good for the most members of society. Oh, yeah - I almost forgot. If it could also benefit me, that would be nice, too."
Yes, technological advances sold by businesses have raised the average wealth of the human race. But that's not distinctly a matter of business or management. Humans have been increasing their technology for hundreds of thousands of years. The vast majority of that time there were no managers. Over time, the pace of technological advancement has increased. In each era, there are more past discoveries to help make new ones. And as there is more technology, they build resources that can be invested in research. At the core, this is science and technology. As I said above, that's not to say that management can't assist in certain ways.
If there had been no technological advancement in the last 100 years, management might find ways to make interactions between sections of an adding machine company more efficient. But isn't it better that we have people who invent computers?
Our society's priorities are misplaced because it's an elite minority that makes the decisions.
Comments
Post a Comment