|
|
此文章由 garysu 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 garysu 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
原帖由 bulaohu 于 2011-8-26 11:27 发表 
童子鸡优势  说穿了，我觉得是创业者跟守成者的区别，在这种三国混战的时候更需要的是前者，后者跟前者过招往往会限于被动挨打的境地
果粉阵地cultofmac发了一个关于这问题的文章，里面关于企业内部民主与集权的看法，和西方大众媒体上不停叫嚷的政治观点相映成趣。
John Sculley曾经说过，Steve不相信customer调查，也不相信customer的偏好。Steve确信只有自己研究出来好的东西，才是对customer好的东西，不需要去理会customer自己空想些什么，至少这十年里他是对的。
“No, Apple Won’t Be the Same Without Steve Jobs”
But equally important: Nobody could over-rule Jobs. Not the owners of the company (the shareholders), not the board, not the desires of the users — literally nobody.
People outside the industry often fail to appreciate how powerful this is.
You will note, by the way, that all the most successful companies in technology are run by their visionary founders (Apple, Google, Oracle), and lose focus after those founders depart (Microsoft, HP).
The reason is that without the visionary despot, “groupthink” takes over. Everyone’s got their own agenda, and all these disparate visions tend to cancel each other out. Ultimately, the only criteria for deciding anything is either what’s best for shareholders (short-term thinking) or what users want (obsolete thinking).
At Apple, Jobs’ rule was so absolute that if Jobs wanted decision A, and most of the board, most of the executives, most of the user surveys and most of the shareholders wanted decision B, there was no question: We go with A.
http://www.cultofmac.com/no-appl ... t-steve-jobs/110518 |
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
【原创-梁杰夫专栏】澳洲买房，别骗我 (2016-8-1) jefflang 
发表于 2011-8-26 00:26
