Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Mar 2012 15:09 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless I'm currently reading Jerry Kaplan's excellent book "Startup: a Silicon Valley adventure". In this book, Kaplan, founder and CEO of GO Corp., details the founding, financing and eventual demise of his highly innovative company, including the development and workings of their product. What's so surprising about this book is just how timeless it really is - the names and products may have changed, but the business practices and company attitudes surely haven't.
Thread beginning with comment 511649
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Fri 23rd Mar 2012 18:43 UTC
Member since:

IBM especially in the 60s was a very different beast to Apple.

I have heard stories of people checking whether you socks were held up by garters under your trousers. IBM was very slow moving due to a lot of bureaucracy.

If I remember correctly the only reason IBM PC actually took off was because an outside somewhat radical department at IBM were tasked with it, because they said they could deliver in 1 year not 4 (which was the usual product lifecycle at the time).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by kwan_e on Fri 23rd Mar 2012 18:47 in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
kwan_e Member since:

What Kaplan, the article and others are saying, however, is not that IBM is like Apple, but that Apple is becoming IBM. You rightly mention all that stuff about the dress code and bureacracy. Apple's analog to that is the lock-in, the walled-garden. And every idea had to go through Jobs where people risked their careers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:

This is true.

However having to sell something to upper management is normal in most companies. If you can't convince them of the benefits you are unlikely to convince customers of it.

When you have a very specific product catalog like Apple, I am not surprised it had to go before the "big man" himself before it would be accepted.

Edited 2012-03-23 19:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by kristoph on Fri 23rd Mar 2012 19:47 in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
kristoph Member since:

The lifecycle of many Microsoft products is currently 4 years.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:

I don't doubt it, but at the time IBM were worried about the Apple II making them irrelevant.

Reply Parent Score: 1