Steve jobs on why xerox failed

What people said

narfman0 · 2024-09 · Recommendation

Steve Jobs articulated xerox's failure well, which I think applies mostly to kodak, some to intel, and I've no clue about VW. tldr: Sales and marketing were the main groups who could impact the company's bottom line. So those were the folks that got promoted and pushed to the top. When they lead the company, they don't focus on products+innovation. Because they failed to innovate (or capitalize on their innovation - e.g. their gui) competitors did (e.g. apple). They fail to make great products. See [VIDEO] (I recommend watching this, its short!)

Read the original HN comment ↗

jmyeet · 2026-08 · Reference

Two thoughts on this. First, it is incredibly difficult to pivot a large organization because there are too many competing interests, too many fiefdoms people have built and too much organizational inertia. A new company has the advantage of a singularity of purpose. Google has to compete with internal interests about AI disrupting search, ad revenue and so on. This can slow you down and limit the resources you get. It's why companies get disrupted, particularly when they reach monopoly status. Steve jobs said it best [1]. Second, Gogole's path here (IMHO) is to make their own hardware. They've already done this with their TPUs but need to be able to compete with NVidia offerings. NVidia controlling the price, features and, most importantly, who gets to buy them is bad for Google. This is what Google should be pouring billions into. The beauty of this is that success is easily measurable against metrics like price-per-petaflops, performance-per-Watt and so on. Throw money at some key Nvidia engineers and have them design silicon for you for TSMC to fab. I still believe that Google is positioned to survive the (IMHO) inevitable AI bubble popping. [1]: [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

cletus · 2024-07 · Reference

In the future two companies will be heavily studied in business school for how badly they blew their technical lead and proficiency to the point that it may be the daeth of them. Those companies are Boeing and Intel. I would posit in both cases the problem is extreme financialization. Both companies had such a large market share (and even a monopoly in certain segments) that the much-quoted but apropos Steve Jobs quote [1] applies. All these modern CEOs seem capable of doing is stock buybacks, cutting costs and raising prices where they can. In the 2000s, Intel faced a serious challenge from AMD with the Athlon/Opteron architecture. Intel's failures were a continuation of their Pentium 4 architecture and the company was only saved by the Pentium 3, which became the Pentium-M and the Centrino platform then the Core Duo and the modern CPUs we have now. They're all Pentium 3 descendants. What we've seen over the last decade is most people have enough CPU power so the move has been towards smaller, cheaper and more energy-efficient CPUs. We've seen this in phones and then tablets and now CPUs. Apple's move to ARM was really the nail in the coffin for Intel as it culminated a decade of not being able to respond to the market. Intel is seemingly unable to respond to this trend. All Intel CPUs still have super-high TDPs and haven't adopted any silicon to boost AI performance, which is increasingly going to matter. I fully expect this to be further integrated into the M4 and later CP

Read the original HN comment ↗