Apple’s leadership interlocked with Innovative technologies would be hereby analyzed, synthesized and possibly eviscerated for scholastic continuous learners. Apple inventively used technological situational happenstances (This) to risk sales of its existing line of products by introducing new innovative products to the market. These new innovative lines of products’ have disrupted the existing technology internally, externally and globally.
That, even if internally Apple was risking or surreptitiously losing paper money on its existing products, it was still to the many advantage. Externally, consumers or end-users have adapted and shifted to these new products. Globally, this tectonic shifts on the sand have benefited Apple as the disruptor. Apple’s method of shifting resources from the old line of production to creating new products was regarded as the creative destruction (Ante, 2011 In this write-up, there was enormous insatiable appetite for Apple history, internally about the founder, Steve Jobs, then finally about its’ products.
And of course, Apple’s current Chief Executive Officer, Timothy Cook along the future of Apple Innovative products ill be apocryphalness. The aforementioned shall be examined and discussed as well as the unquenchable appetite that consumers have for Apple products. Consumers or end-users were like monsters with whetting appetite that could not get enough of Apple latest products, informative narrative materials about the present or future line of interminable breakthrough in the company’s technological products.
Or, in totality the consumers were not getting enough of the existence of Apple in itself. And without any Jaundice, gauging and not over extrapolating from the past, present, Apple might continue to break and shatter the glass ceiling In technological products. Anecdotally, Apple had an unstoppable fountain of newbie or innovative products coming out from its golden chalice. Most recently, according Java (2013), was the introduction of phone AS and phone C to the market, then market again shifted to Apple’s favor.
Over nine million (9 million) of these Phones powered by SIS was sold In three days. Apple made over $5. 5 billion US dollars In three days compared to what the entire Blackberry company was sold for to Fairfax Holding for $4. 5 billion us dollars. Amazingly, this was substantially and an unprecedented amount of historical profit. Therefore, to the body of collegiate scholastic repositories of knowledge and to the future technologists, it would tantamount to a form of impiety or heresy not to prep and prop the role of its founder Steve Jobs while discussing Apple.
Steve Jobs finesse In technology was morphed Into the Infinite likeness of Shakespearean as well as Shakespeare In the world of technologists. The quintessential Steve Jobs in the field or minds of technologists was a creative, imaginary, visionary, and a disruptive idealistic innovator. Steve Jobs metaphorically planted a technological tree. Ominously, the root of the tree has now tapped deep into the underground water. A tree that remained unshakable, unmovable, and UN-portable even by the greatest tsunami. A tree that was now as huge as the Rook.
Rook trees are found In bucolic or prairie or In the deep forest of now feeds from its’ leaves. A tree that it leaves has become the benchmark for creative technology and creative destructiveness with the use of TTS. Portentously, it would be practically impossible for other disrupter to use deep capitalistic creative extraction mechanism to steal Apple’s thunder. And there were amplitude of reasons stated below why other competitors trying to steal Apple’s thunder could find it somewhat impossible with how Steve Job had revolutionized the technology industry.
Steve Jobs revolutionized six major high-tech industries: a) personal computers, b) animated movies, c) music, d) phones, e) the almighty deity profit making tablet computing, f) digital publishing Undo, 2011; Caisson, 2011). Presently, Apple seductive products included Apple TV, pad, phone, pod, Mac and other classy professional software applications. These applications were the SIS and SOX operational systems, App Store SMS, digital contents through tunes store, bookstore SMS, cloud, and Mac App Store.
Further, Apple had delivered other peripheral networking solutions and third-party digital content with applications. Inclusive among the many creations of Steve Jobs was the Apple Stores in the 20th century. Injected here quickly was that new ideas do matter and this maxim remained a truism (Caisson, 2011). Demonstratively, apart from Apple’s net worth of over $350 billion US dollars, it has had over $190 billion US dollars in excessive cash surplus hat surpassed major industrialized nation’s gross domestic or budget perennially.
Apple’s market capitalization was worth over $625 billion Undo, 2011). Apple today, embodied and imbued culture of creative genius that included collaboration and combination of engineering imaginations. Aptly, Apple has literally littered the field of technology with land mines of continuous disruptive technologies or creative destructions. “Creative destruction” was the ability of a company to effectively used business modular changes to radically change its platforms. Creative destruction was advocated by Joseph Schumacher in 1942.
An erudite and witty economic thinker, in his typology, he indicated that the semi perennial gale and objective of creative destructiveness was the idyllic purposed of scrapping off old or failing existing technological products and replacing them with newly creative ones (Garrison, Harvey and Napier, 2008; Greenshank, 2008; Smith, Ward and Schumacher, 1993). Centenarians scholars advocated that “creative destruction” and the historical nuances inculcated in the theory remained a pathway or trajectory to growth in capitalism (Sister, 2012; Perry-Smith, 2006).
According to Sister (2012), “creative extraction” have helped deft leaders to: a) filter through the overwhelming data generated by genomic sequencing and continuous sensors, (b) how to ensure equal access for all to use the available resources, (c) the potential of eugenics, (d) protection of genomic data from authorities and corporations, (e) how and when the exorbitant upfront cost would offset current fiscal inefficiency, and (f) preventing the formation of “cybernetics’s. ” There was a complementary or competing hypothesis to the Centenarians growth theory.
Some scholars advocated that creative destruction standalone significantly does not lead to the environmental (TTS) notations for creative innovations rather it was an outcome of the processes that have resulted to the creation of innovative Jobs (Action & Hewitt, 2009; Kola and Kola, 2005; Perry-Smith, 2006; Walls, 1926). Apple philosophy was however to “think differently’ (Caisson, 2011). Indeed, Apple people do somehow think differently. Using TTS, Apple rationally anticipated the insatiable needs and demands of its consumers. That was after carrying out and conducting its internal clinical research.
With a giant leap, it then created and disrupted any similar or existing technology using creative destruction entrenched in TTS. Apple was a company where architectural design and simplicity of its products were regarded as the ultimate sophistication in the 20th century. Truly and surely, the remarkable sophistication were displayed in Apple’s seductive friendly end-users products. The background of Apple will be analytically explained for technologists and for continuous learners. Background Like finding a slender reed in a vast wet swamp area, APPLE as the final selected name was debated and discussed extensively by the founders.
After brewing of ideas, the final selection of the proposed name now ubiquitously known as APPLE was add by no other person but by the zeitgeist and denizen-Steve Jobs. Simplicity and common sense led to the selection of the name APPLE after great strategic section of brain storming of other ideas and names. Steve Jobs wanted a name that would be ahead of Atari in the phone. Environmentally, phone books were used to locate addresses and used for classification in antiquated hierarchy of finding existing companies (Caisson, 2011).
A classical TTS in motion when discussing environments as it interfaced with technology (see the vignette 1 below). Finally, Apple was selected as the name of company. Vignette 1: Global impact of TTS Steve Jobs, Daniel Kettle and Stephen Woken founded the inchoate company legally and officially in 1976. Apple was registered in January 3, 1977 in California (Lashing’s, 2009). Ruefully, Daniel kettle dropped out to pursue other interest before seeing the newly embryonic company blossom to fruition. Unperturbed, Steve Jobs and Stephen Woken immersed themselves using TTS to build the first Apple 1 computer.
An edifice with an astonishing feat that was accomplished by these twofer thinkers and doers. Thus, it became fissures that eventually changed the global technology village. Diaphanously, Apple 1 was started in Steve Jobs’ parent garage. Seed money of $1300, US dollars was used to start Apple 11 by Steve Jobs and Woken. Fifty of the computers were sold to Byte Shop. By 2010, one the original Apple 1 computer was auctioned off and sold at Christie. At Christie auction, the bidding went competitively up and Apple 1 was sold for and unbelievable staggered amount of $213,000.
US dollars (Caisson, 2011). Enamored by the number of Apple 1 sold to Byte Shop, Apple 11 was architecturally system. At this Juncture, LISA computer was created and named after Steve Jobs’ daughter, then introduced to end-users. LISA was acrimoniously called Local Integrated System Architecture. A meaningless slogan concocted by the management to cover-up Steve Jobs’ initial denial of his daughter. Conscientious effort was made to suffuse the controversies surrounding the hotly debated paternity of Lisa who was born out of wedlock to Steve Jobs.
Compounding the uncomfortable situation was Steve Jobs’ initial denial and refusal to accept the responsibility as a father of the child. At the same time contradicting himself by naming an innovative machine to the child he was denying paternity. Stunning to Apple’s management they decided to come up with name called LISA computer that became a slogan under the Deeming citrine or philosophy (Walton, 1986). In another department, Woken the brain behind the engineering of Apple 1 was duplicitous redesigning, embedding new features on Apple 1 1 .
Using TTS, Apple 1 1 became one of the greatest edifice and feat of witty Stephen Woken. Here, Steve Jobs integrated the entire aesthetic seductive packages for Apple 1 1 computer. Astonishingly, over six million of Apple 11 computers were sold. Thus, marked Apple as a dominant indisputable technology established company. It catapulted Apple as one of the leading technology giant. Achieving this significant dominant role required Apple to become a closed system in its operative technologies. Closed vs. Open Systems have been debated extensively by technology scholars.
Closed vs. Open System also referred to as Integration vs. Fragmentation of the Systems. Markedly, it becomes a twofer divergent of scholarly discourse amongst distinguished technologists. An unconstitutionality of the Open vs. Closed technologists. Apple embraced the school of thought whose fundamental tenants seductively falls within the realm of Closed System (Allay, 2014; Lashing’s, 2009; Junco, 2011). Apple dogma, credo epitomized and internalized within the enclave cloistered of these ideological theologies. The Controlled or Closed vs. Open System will be discussed.
Controlled or Closed vs. Open Systems Simply put, about the controlled vs. open systems, defining and explaining the contra- positions by using TTS becomes imperative to learners. A gradual elucidation of the control and open systems between technologists who were traditionalists with those non-traditionalists would be narrated. Relatively, it would be paramount to differentiate these innovators. The latter were frontiers in innovative creative technology. Steve Jobs consciously and calculative fell interdenominational into these categories of Hess deft leaders who have the temerity to believe in the pathology of the controlled systems.
He strongly and unwaveringly believed in the control and the orbit of Apple’s prognosticate and hardware. He advocated that data, integration of liberal arts and technology needs to be in a closed plethora systems within Apple’s seductive products (Allay, 2009; Junco, 2011). Closed systems technically means the bundling of hardware, software, services, non- often called the unified utopia and magical impenetrable wall garden (Caisson, 2011; Encore, 2008). To theoretically surmise, a closed system allowed the disruptor, innovator or technologist to have practical vertical integrated controlled of the products uninhibited.
For example, the disruptor could use market penetration-?a marketing strategy to show the customers what they need and want as the case of pod. Then, the market would be shifted in favor the disruptor sensuously (Allay, 2010, AAA, and 2013). This was a total paradigm shifts in the marketing strategy of Apple. Technologists with this traditional fundamental or historical resonance have maintained on the contrary that closed systems were really not practically closed. Scholarship critics contra-posed and Juxtaposed these superposition’s.
They disrepute closed systems and gravitate towards open systems (Lashing’s, 2009; Junco, 2011). Open System Open system has a horizontal platform. Inventors and innovators could allow others to share and use their systems. Technologists with this mind set were confuted with the belief that patent rest not on proven needs but the uncertainty of the dramatic sea change. For instance, if proprietary rights were removed from the books that allow others to mutate the system, many readers would have unlimited access to the books. Publishers of the books might not have any royalty.
Glibly, the primary lever or open system advocate was the wariness of those who erred on the contrary. Explicitly, either they might be in total denial of the implication of the system. Echoed blandly amongst bailiwicks of the open system technologists was that closed system suffocates, stifles and impedes growth. Most significantly, it diminished the amplitude of the said innovative software. For example, in the sass Microsoft Company gain a dominant market share by inclosing its multi system software. Thus multiplied the number of software and hardware makers.
Markedly, the result was it literally killed Apple’s interfaced systems. To inject quickly, this same customer perception have since remained hard for company to shake off and it led to why Microsoft Surface flounders; the company’s CEO Steve Babbler was replaced. Another company that succinctly believed in the open system and that do not abnegated fragmentation was Yahoo. Yahoo concept or core philosophy was tailored along fragmentation and, or an open system (Allay, 2013). Open system could easily be licensed by other hardware and software makers.
These horizontal platforms were often used by innovators, imitation’s, colonists and others without sometimes granted permission from the originators. Proprietary permission could be completely lost in the open intermediation of the market system. Therefore, technologists who absolutely believed in the closed system repelled companies like Yahoo and Microsoft. Cited was Microsoft promiscuity with its windows’ open systems Undo, 2011). On the contrary, Apple controlled the total artistic experiences, excitements, human simulations, and sanguine satisfied consumers using its products.
In 2014, Apple concept of total vertical integrated system has been unprecedented in the annals of technology. Apple controlled all its peripheral products. Astonishingly, Apple products might had taken over 63% of the global market share comparable to from Apple. Fundamentally and most significantly, Apple End-to-End insistence on quid-quo-pro on end-to-end integration also led to its huge market capitalization of $650 billion dollars. The aforesaid amount had been reduced by competitors to $450. 00 billion US dollars. Apple shares and capitalization might still remain the largest the world (Ante, 2011; Schneider, 2012).
Legal Legally, Apple slough of attorneys, barristers, and international lawyers that metaphorically were like sharks if and when they smelled blood in the water that any f the company’s patents or proprietary designs were infringed upon; they would take immediate actions against violators. Success breeds imitation and imitation breeds mediocrity as the old saying goes. For example, see Vignette 1: Global impact of TTS. Samsung found out in a painful and hard-way when its touch screen interface became similar or was mutated to that of Apple’s pod.
Samsung had paid a hefted price for the imitation of Apple’s product. Anecdotally, Erich Schmidt discovered differently to state mildly when he was anecdotally sucked in an assumed football game. Schmidt was the former board member of Apple who later effected and decamped to Google. He later introduced Androids with a touch screen interfaced similar to pod. Google not only confronted a thermonuclear of war with Apple, it backdoor and Bowdon to the unfledged Apple (Caisson, 2011). Android interestingly had a different screen, size, version, and subsequently was completely fragmented.
Android had over hundred permutations but later might die a slow death if it refuses to use creative destruction mechanization. Companies trying to mutate Apple’s products were usually sent into Steve Jobs’ ossified legal Aeolian gulag of no returns. Using TTS, the intense competition, spirit, the finesse of Apple’s CEO and its leadership will be discussed. Disruptive situational leadership style In 1976 to 1977, the annuity dresser Steve Jobs was the leader of Apple during this embryonic stage. Steve Jobs’ had a complex disruptive situational leadership style (DSL).
A leader who preferred his suggestive ideas or concepts could be challenged unequivocally and unescorted. At the front end, he despised passive, subservient and wimpy employees. Using TTS, Steve Jobs held these maxims deep in his unorthodox, complex but creative leadership style (Encore, 2008). Steve Jobs’ deft dervish style was complex and complicated. In one spectrum, his complex leadership style encompassed all elements of transformation innovative styles (Allay, 2014; Burns, 2006). And on the back hand Steve Jobs was authoritative.
Steve Jobs also exhibited an authoritarian, collective, transactional, servant and institutionalized form of a deft leadership style. On the flip side, Steve Job’s leadership style was also polar extreme opposite of what scholar in the discipline of leadership would not theoretical defined, deciphered nor understood (Allay, 2014; Burns, 2006). Tolerated, his obscured leadership style was condescending, vindictive, tit undiplomatic velvet cyclical language such as “Bull Chit, Dog Chit and all Chits” possibly all imagined languages while delegating to subordinates (Kenney. 011). In another spectrum, he was effective, and efficient in delegating tasks to management learners will be how was leadership defined? Leadership was the capacity of the said leader to accomplish strategic visionary of set objectives through subordinates or managers. In the process of accomplishing the strategic set objective, embodied in theoretical phrases of the definition had included various pseudonyms-complexity, comeuppances, circumstances, and obscurity of the situation.
Leadership definition could be interlocked with the style of the strategists and visionary of the person delegating or leading subordinates (Allay, 2014; Bass, 1985; Burns, 2006). Reflected in Steve Jobs’ deft leadership style was his personality and finesse in creative innovation in technology. His personality was morphed into infinite analogical likeness of Shakespearean as well as Shakespeare in the global village of technologists, innovative technology creators and end-users. Equally reflected was Stave’s pride, mountain of ego, emotional, Joy, love of life, unpretentiousness, verge and revenge.
And not to mention, was Steve Jobs’ sadness, and above all his craftiness wove into a tapestry rooted from using TTS in relative to Apple products (Kenney, 2011). In researching, after distributing the Steve Jobs ten point leadership doctrines to the lifelong learners, each point analyzed and evaluated into an amplitude of scholarship case study, the result demonstratively revealed that Steve Jobs leadership style was incredibly and capriciously complex, cyclical and recursive. Glaring obvious was a convoluted mish-mashed hybrid of undefined exaggerators type of deft leadership style.
Contraries have had to shift from the norms and definitions of the traditional and transformational leadership styles into understanding Steve Jobs’ deft leadership styles (Allay, 2013 and 2014). Unforgettable, the element of various leadership styles were all ensconced in Apple’s form of 20th century systems. Remarkably, the annuity dresser-Steve Jobs was a visionary complex leader. His leadership was so effective and perfunctory despite his unhygienic nature, brusque platitude of non-velvet diplomacy’s. He was a man with a dripping salty tongue of communicating and delegating operations to managers.
His deft leadership style led o eviscerating and disrupting the existing technology industry (Allay and Caraway, Bibb). Stave’s leadership embraced vertical controlled system that eventually and tectonically clashed with the Open System. Markedly, Steve Jobs’ leadership style without hesitation was also paralyzing complex and at the same time could be susceptible to using TTS for innovative products. Steve Jobs was an inspirational and motivational leader who was albeit deficient in proper professional etiquette.
Steve Jobs was also a dreadful leader that used salty vulgarities, harassers with unpolished diplomacy’s toward management and suppliers when crossed. Or, some might rational deduced by saying that he had a tongue dripping sarcasm. Simply stated, internally and externally, it was an undefined type of benzene leadership style (Allay, 2010, 2013 and 2014; Lashing’s, 2009; Junco, 2011). With finesse, Steve Jobs’ leadership was capriciously also complex that it obliterated the traditional Open and Fragmented systems with his ecstatic vision of Closed or Controlled systems.
To surmise, he was congenially averse to the embellishments and flourishes, despite Steve Jobs’ lack of interpersonal skills, unhygienic attributes, the paramount synthesis on the contrary was that of a seminars, seamless creature of unprecedented futuristic innovative well-off architectural designed products. Now, Apple scientific products have been reflected on the architectural traffic patterns for the future with TTS pigmented and brood over them. Aptly, Steve Jobs was not an engineer by any stretch of imagination but a creative artist and a creative logical thinker with stated ten conjectural commandments.
Steve Jobs’ Ten Commandments Steve Jobs’ ten commandments all encompassing. His inserted and asserted commandments are as follows: a) Perfection and attention to details. For example, pod mini or phone or even pod deadpanned cannot be chicks. B) Employ or hire experts in different fields. Square pegs for square holes. He hired renowned designer (l. M. Peel) to design NeXT logo and also brought in on board the Mackey Dredger from Gap Store to held Apple retail chain. C) Be ruthless.
He killed products in its infancy. Atypically of killing of Palm Pilot clone that would have eclipse Pad’s. Indirectly and unknowingly using creative destruction-freeing engineers to use TTS to develop the Pod. D) No traditional clinical focus group to test or meta-test new ideas. As a disruptor he believed that customers’ do not know what they want until he product was finally shown to them. He held this maxim deep to his chest. E) Continuous learning, pathology of Deeming philosophy. He studied Sonny’s products.
Walked around Apple parking lot to study the perfection and aesthetic of Germany, Italian cars, and then transplanted the concept into Apple products. F) Simplicity- the iconic scroll wheel was developed by designers instead of the traditional push bottoms. G) Confidentiality and secrets; in today’s corporate espionage in research and development technology, secrecy, protectionism becomes paramount for successful designing and launching of Apple products according to Steve Jobs. ) He believes in small teams.
The original Macintosh team members were 100 people and no more or less. Steve Jobs used carrot (soft) and stick (hard) leadership style to motivate them. With his charismatic personality, he infused enthusiasm in the teams. And the Macintosh team worked 90-hour a week for three years. Incredibly, the Mac machine was fabulously and insanely great. I) Start all over again: Prototype-exhaustively as might be seen, he extinguished all prototypes, ordered engineers and designers to start all over again to meet his aesthetic perfectionist standards (Kenney, 2011; Schneider, 2012).
The obvious psychological question for learners would be how did Steve Jobs ten commandment reflected on Apple and its sustainability of new technologies? For now, lets’ discuss other leaders that have contributed to the success of Apple, and return to Steve Jobs pro anon. Stephen Weaken (Wok) Stephen Weaken (wok) was a California School of Technology graduate. He was the inchoate Apple, he created the Blue Box that circumvented long distance fees charged by the then telephone companies. Wok actually midwife and built Apple 1 computer.
Diminished or diminutive credit was given to Wok deft leadership style ND innovative creativity(Allay, 2014). Whenever Apple was mentioned due to Steve Jobs’ domineering personality, perfectionism, complex leadership style, and unyielding persona, Wok was often relegated to the back burner. Due to Steve Jobs uncompromising personality, Gill Amelia stepped in as the CEO. Gill Amelia, Mike Markup, Mike Scott and John Scullery In 1996, Gill Amelia who transitionally took the herm of affairs of Apple could not curtailed Steve Jobs’ disruptive complex form of leadership styles.
Raining in on Steve Jobs was the idea of Mike Markup. Markup invested the initial seed money of $250, 00 US dollars for Apple start-up. He also designed Apple original business plan. As Steve Jobs’ behavior gyrated and become uncontrollable, Markup could no longer tolerate Jobs’ undefined and cliff complex leadership style. Markup uninterested in the day-to-day (tactical operation) of Apple brought in Mike Scott. Scott was brought in after series of protocols and procedures in which Steve Jobs finally acquiesced.
Unbeknownst to Steve Jobs, Mike Scott as the new CEO in 1977 was to rain-in, control and reduce Steve Jobs disruptive situational leadership Style. So, Mike Scott ascendancy as the CEO of Apple punted Steve Jobs. Consequently, Steve Jobs lost control of the LISA division. A painful loss to Steve Jobs because LISA was the brain child of his innovative designed product named after his daughter (Caisson, 2011). Mike Coot’s leadership style was authoritative to the core. Theoretically, there was no room for soft policies but for hard crude and unrefined policies.
To his credit, he went after the gluttonous and wasteful side of Apple operations. But he was atypical, ruthless, heartless and logically unreasonable in laying employees off. His twisted actions were based on an irrational rationalism while dealing with employees. Subsumed and driven not by fidelity but by profit and self-interest. He contradicted Apple’s core philosophy as the leader in the field of cutting edge of innovative technologies. Inconsequentially, in Mike’s doctrine and dogma friendly consumer’s user products were not then integrated in his leadership style.
These products, however, were core to Apple business models that formed core competencies of the company (Dutchmen, 2011). John Scullery Markup in 1981 who was never interested in the leadership of Apple took over temporary from Mike Scott. Quickly, he relinquished and hand down the mantle of leadership in 1985 to John Scullery. With John Scullery as the new CEO, there was a titanic sea plate change or a seismic TTS shift. This change in leadership style resulted in the redirection of Apple road map and a new template change for Apple. Price war on Apple products soon eschewed.
Products were overly priced (Schneider, 2012). Incidentally, those whom the products were specifically designed for could no longer afford them. Particularly the middle income earners and the average Scullery unfortunately lost the strategic mission, vision on which Apple was founded by Steve Jobs and Stephen Woozier. Pertinently, the bottom-line, financially was that he higher the prize of Apple products, visa-Г-visa the Macintosh, the higher profit margin to the company, and subsequently, the higher bonus that goes to John Scullery, a higher triumvirate monetary effect.
It suffices to say that John Scullery might have been organically averse to the ethos and culture of Apple. He was rather interested in marketing or maximizing sales that equated to profit for Apple, a secondary by products to Apple. An unsanitary alliance between John Scullery and Apple came to collision. Because within the mix, Scullery had forgotten, rejected, neglected the core fundamental and significance of Apple session and vision. Scullery ignored the nucleus of Apple, which was using TTS to lead in the industry by creating innovative products that were consumer’s user friendly.
As a leader in a continuous disruptive innovative technology, Apple could not lose this fundamental equanimity that favors the company as the trailblazer, pioneer and innovator of new ideas in technology. Hate and nihilism, however, eschewed between John Scullery and Steve Jobs. Cantankerously and provocatively, the battle line was drawn. John Scullery ousted, punted and suicide Steve Jobs from the company he founded unfortunately. Steve Jobs was dispirited.
This was a major zinger, tremor, and the implosive fuselage that shredded Apple of its technological innovative and iconic leadership within the industry. Steve Jobs Ten Commandments were relegated to the once again to the back burner (Kenney, 2011). Apple was unable to navigate through the murky and muddy permanent white water of the sea change created by John Scullery (Veil, 1996). What a divergent polar ideological eruption from the Steve Jobs’ doctrine. Apple became diminutive with the avarice of competitive technological products. A genial and halcyon shifting period dissipated.
With John Scullery pugnaciously driven by profit, Apple had lost its luster, finesse, and superlative as it became piqued by customers’ inability to significantly relate to the product usefulness, friendliness and the unbelievable pricing to boot. Apple towering market share precipitously fell from 16% to 4% Undo, 2011). Analysis based on technologists, Apple’s shareholders, and management, John Scullery dogmatically detoured from the core fundamental doctrine in which the company was founded and he became a casualty (Ante, 2011; Lashing’s, 2009). Scullery became a casualty of his congenial and stochastic nature.
Laterally, a harbinger of the clandestine and tumultuous type of leadership style yet to come to Apple. Michael Spindled In 1996, the new CEO, Michael Spindled took over the leadership of Apple. Under his umbrella and purview, he unsuccessfully tried to sell Apple to Sun Systems, to IBM and to HP. It was a turbulent time for the inchoate Apple Company. Apple saw its market share sharply spiral downwards. To avoid the prescience of total collapse, in February 1996, Gill Amelia tentatively became the CEO (Dutchmen, 2011). Ninety ninety-six was a year Apple saw a sparser of its elliptical ride with deep vicissitude in
