Steve Jobs Interview - 7/22/1991 - On 10 Years of the Personal Computer

Summary

スティーブン・ジョブズは、Appleの存在理由はより良い製品を考案し、他のPCでは開発できない新しいアプリケーションを開発できるようにすることだと語ります。彼は、Appleが将来のシステムソフトウェアを提供することで差別化を失うかもしれないと指摘し、90年代にMacintoshが80年代を駆動したように、どのような革新がAppleを推進するか疑問にしています。また、業界は携帯化とパワーの要求という2つの方向に分かれると予測し、高機能なネットワークカラーマシンがデスクトップマシンになると見ています。90年代の重要なブレイクスルートは、個人生産性だけでなく、グループ生産性と協調を向上させる人々のコンピューティングになると述べています。

Takeaways

• 🍏 スティーブン・ジョブズは、Appleの存在理由はより良い製品を考案し、第三者ソフトウェア開発者が他のPCでは作れない新しいアプリケーションを開発できるようにすることだと語りました。
• 🔍 ジョブズは、Appleが将来のシステムソフトウェアを提供することで市場に必要なdifferentiationを失うかもしれないと懸念しています。
• 💡 彼は、個人コンピュータ業界が2つの方向に分かれると見ています。一方は携帯可能で小型化する現在の製品で、もう一方はデスクトップマシンとしてより強力でネットワークに接続されたカラーマシンになります。
• 🚀 1990年代の真の競争優位は、個人の生産性を高めるのではなく、グループの生産性と協調を向上させることにあるとジョブズは考えています。
• 🤝 彼は、人間間の通信、協力、グループ生産性を革命化する人間のコンピューティングが、デスクトップコンピュータの第三の革命をもたらすと予測しています。
• 📈 NeXTは、Lotus Notesよりも3〜4年先行しているとジョブズは主張しており、NeXTの製品はその違いを買収する人々にとって非常に魅力的だと感じています。
• 📱 ジョブズは、1979年にはApple IIがIBMよりも多くのコンピュータを出荷していたと語り、PC市場の台頭が予想されるほどの影響を与えると認識していました。
• 🏁 5年後の産業の未来について、ジョブズは特にAppleやIBMから多くの進化を見ないと考えており、小さな進化的変化はあるが本質的な変化はないという見解を示しました。
• 🌐 ジョブズは、アメリカと日本の議題について、アメリカの産業が中核的な技術に依存していると指摘し、特にディスプレイやDRAM分野でアメリカにこれらの最も高価なコンポーネントを取り戻す努力が必要だと述べています。
• 🏭 アメリカの資本構造やウォール街の四半期ごとの見方による投資の制約は、日本の進歩ではなく、アメリカの産業の管理の不足によるものだとジョブズは考えています。
• 🛠️ アメリカの産業は、これらの基本技術の責任を他者に任せることはできず、単に最終的なパッケージ業者として存続するだけではならず、新しいプレイヤーやアプローチの機会がありますとジョブズは述べています。

Q & A

スティーブン・ジョブズは、アップルの存在理由は何だと述べていますか？

スティーブン・ジョブズは、アップルの存在理由はより良い製品を考案し、第三者ソフトウェア開発者が他のパーソナルコンピュータでは開発できない新しいエキサイティングで異なるアプリケーションを開発できるようにすることであると述べています。

ジョブズは、アップルがシステムソフトウェアを提供することでどのようなリスクを見ていますか？

ジョブズは、アップルがシステムソフトウェアを提供することで、その差別化が失われ、市場にアップルが必要かどうか疑問に思っていると述べています。

スティーブン・ジョブズは、1990年代にアップルを推進するためのイノベーションとは何だと考えていますか？

ジョブズは、1990年代にアップルを推進するためのイノベーションは、個人の生産性を向上させるだけでなく、グループの生産性と協調を改善することにあると考えています。

スティーブン・ジョブズは、個人コンピュータ業界の将来についてどう予想していますか？

ジョブズは、個人コンピュータ業界が二分岐に分かれると予想しています。一方は携帯可能で小型化される一方で、もう一方はより強力で高機能なデスクトップマシンになります。

スティーブン・ジョブズは、ロトスノートスについてどう思っていますか？

ジョブズは、ロトスノートスは良い製品であるが、PCをベースにしているため、ネクストのように高度な機能を持っているとは言えないと述べています。

スティーブン・ジョブズは、アップルIIが登場した時期に、個人コンピュータがコンピュータ業界全体にどのような影響を与えるか予想しましたか？

ジョブズは、アップルIIが登場した時期にはすでにアップルがIBMよりも多くのコンピュータを出荷していたため、個人コンピュータが業界全体に巨大な影響を与えると予想していました。

スティーブン・ジョブズは、今後5年でコンピュータ業界でどのような変化が起こると思いますか？

ジョブズは、今後5年でコンピュータ業界はより多くのステータス・クォが存在する一方で、真の進化は少ないと考えています。特にアップルやIBMから大きな変化は見られないと述べています。

スティーブン・ジョブズは、個人コンピュータが複合文書アーキテクチャに進化するのに必要な技術的課題とは何だと考えていますか？

ジョブズは、複合文書アーキテクチャに進化するためには、ユーザーインターフェースの課題が重要であり、さまざまなオブジェクト間のコンテキストスイッチの取り扱いが難しだと述べています。

スティーブン・ジョブズは、自分の人生がアップルIの考えが浮上した時からどれほど変わったと思いますか？

ジョブズは、自分の成人後の生活はすべてパーソナルコンピュータの開発に費やされたため、非常に大きな変化が生じたと述べています。

スティーブン・ジョブズは、アメリカと日本のコンピュータ業界の未来についてどう考えていますか？

ジョブズは、アメリカのコンピュータ業界がより多くの責任を負うべきであり、特にディスプレイやDRAMなどの高価なコンポーネントの開発に注力する必要があると述べています。

スティーブン・ジョブズは、アメリカの資本構造やウォール街の四半期ごとの見方が、アメリカの技術発展に与える影響についてどう考えていますか？

ジョブズは、アメリカの資本構造やウォール街の見方ではなく、産業の管理層の責任感のなさを問題としており、アメリカの産業が基本的な技術に依存していることを認識していないと述べています。

Outlines

00:00

🤔 苹果的未来与个人电脑的发展方向

在这段访谈中，史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）讨论了苹果公司的存在理由，即创造高度差异化的优质产品，并为第三方软件开发者提供开发新应用的平台。他质疑如果苹果放弃其系统软件的独特性，市场是否还需要苹果。乔布斯还预测了个人电脑行业的发展方向，认为行业将分化为便携式设备和强大的桌面机器。他强调了人际计算的重要性，并认为90年代的竞争优势将来自于提高团队生产力和协作。他还提到了对莲花笔记（Lotus Notes）的看法，认为NeXT在某些方面领先了三四年。

05:02

📅 个人电脑行业的历史与未来展望

乔布斯纠正了关于个人电脑（PC）周年纪念的误解，强调1977年苹果II的问世标志着现代PC的诞生。他回顾了苹果在1979年的出货量已经超越了IBM，并预见到PC将对计算机行业产生巨大影响。乔布斯讨论了行业标准与创新之间的张力，认为这是推动行业发展的健康动力。他批评了苹果和IBM在未来五年可能只是进行小步进化，而没有真正的创新。他认为真正的创新将来自像NeXT这样的公司。

10:03

🛠️ 复合文档架构与用户界面的挑战

乔布斯对Xerox Star系统的复合文档架构进行了讨论，指出Star并没有真正实现用户在一个文档中同时进行电子表格和图形操作的能力。他认为这是一个用户界面问题，需要解决不同应用程序之间的上下文切换。乔布斯强调了为第三方开发者提供这种能力的重要性，并暗示NeXT将在来年展示一些成果。

15:11

🌐 美国与日本的技术竞争及行业未来

乔布斯讨论了美国与日本在计算机组件技术方面的竞争，特别是显示器和动态随机存取存储器（DRAM）领域。他强调了将这些关键组件技术带回美国的重要性，并指出这需要巨大的投资和长期的努力。乔布斯批评了美国管理层对这些基础技术的忽视，并认为这比华尔街的短期视角更为关键。他还提到了美国公司需要对这些核心技术负责，而不是仅仅依赖最终的组装。

Keywords

💡Apple

Appleは、ビデオの中心となる企業の一つであり、スティーブン・ジョブズが創設したコンピュータ製造会社を指します。ビデオでは、Appleの存在理由や市場での差別化について語られており、特にスティーブン・ジョブズがAppleの将来性とそれに関連するソフトウェア開発の重要性を強調しています。

💡差別化

差別化とは、製品やサービスが他社と比べて特有の価値や特徴を持っている状態です。ビデオでは、スティーブン・ジョブズがAppleが提供する製品が市場で差別化され、他のパーソナルコンピュータでは実現できないアプリケーションを開発できると述べています。

💡ソフトウェア開発

ソフトウェア開発とは、新しいソフトウェアの設計、作成、テスト、デプロイメントを含めたプロセスです。ビデオでは、スティーブン・ジョブズがAppleが提供するプラットフォーム上で、第三者ソフトウェア開発者が新しいアプリケーションを開発できるという点に焦点を当てています。

💡個人コンピュータ

個人コンピュータは、個人が使用するためのコンピュータであり、ビデオではその進化と将来の可能性について議論されています。スティーブン・ジョブズは、現在の個人コンピュータが携帯型になる一方で、より強力なデスクトップマシンが求められると予想しています。

💡ネットワーク

ネットワークとは、コンピュータやデバイスが情報を共有できる仕組みです。ビデオでは、スティーブン・ジョブズが高速度ネットワークが個人コンピュータの進化において重要な役割を果たすと述べており、特にイーサネット速度のネットワークが求められると強調しています。

💡マルチメディア

マルチメディアは、音声、映像、テキスト、データなどを組み合わせた情報の形式です。ビデオでは、スティーブン・ジョブズがネットワーク上で豊富なマルチメディアを送受信できる機能が、次世代のデスクトップコンピュータに必要であると述べています。

💡グループ生産性

グループ生産性とは、グループ全体の生産性や協力を向上させることを指します。ビデオでは、スティーブン・ジョブズが1990年代に個人生産性だけでなく、グループ生産性の向上が競争優位を得る鍵になると語っています。

💡インターパーソナルコンピューティング

インターパーソナルコンピューティングは、人間の間のコミュニケーションや協力を支援するコンピュータ技術を指します。ビデオでは、スティーブン・ジョブズがデスクトップツールを通じて、人間関係の改善や集団の生産性を高める第三の革命を予測しています。

💡Lotus Notes

Lotus Notesは、グループウェアソフトウェアのひとつで、ビデオではスティーブン・ジョブズがそのようなソフトウェアの限界について触れています。ジョブズは、NeXTがLotus Notesよりも3〜4年先に進んでいると述べており、Lotus NotesはPCから始まり、その限界があると指摘しています。

💡標準化

標準化とは、製品やプロセスが一定の基準に従うことを意味します。ビデオでは、スティーブン・ジョブズが標準化と革新の間の緊張関係について語り、標準化が顧客に安定した基盤を提供する一方で、革新は新しい機会を創出する役割を果たすと述べています。

💡進化と革命

進化と革命は、ビデオの中で技術発展の二つの異なる形態として提唱されています。スティーブン・ジョブズは、進化は段階的な改善を意味する一方、革命は大きな一歩を意味し、業界を前進させるために重要な二つの要因であると語っています。

💡コンパウンド文書アーキテクチャ

コンパウンド文書アーキテクチャは、異なるタイプのコンテンツ（スプレッドシート、グラフィックなど）を一つの文書内に組み合わせる能力を指します。ビデオでは、スティーブン・ジョブズがこのアーキテクチャの実現がユーザーインターフェースの問題であり、実際には非常に難しいと述べています。

💡産業の空洞化

産業の空洞化とは、製造業の基礎となる部品や技術が外国に依存し、国内での製造が減少することを指します。ビデオでは、スティーブン・ジョブズがアメリカのコンピュータ産業が空洞化を避けるために、ディスプレイやDRAMなどの高価なコンポーネントの製造を国内に戻すことが重要であると強調しています。

💡カレンダー

ビデオの中でスティーブン・ジョブズは、カレンダーの進化について触れています。彼はApple IIが1977年に登場し、その後の10年間でIBMがPC市場に参入したと述べています。このカレンダーの進化は、業界の歴史を理解する上で重要なコンテキストを提供しています。

Highlights

Apple's existence is based on creating highly differentiated products that enable third-party developers to create unique applications.

Concern over Apple's differentiation and innovation if they give away their future system software.

Industry bifurcation into portable and powerful, highly networked desktop machines.

Demand for large color screens, motion video, and high-speed networking for rich media.

The next breakthrough in personal computing will be in improving group productivity and collaboration through interpersonal computing.

Lotus Notes and NeXT's capabilities in facilitating communication and collaboration.

Early recognition of the PC's impact on the computer industry structure in the late 1970s.

The 15th anniversary of the PC and the trajectory of innovation since the Apple II.

Tension between standards and innovation as a driving force in the tech industry.

The importance of companies taking responsibility for underlying component technologies.

The need for more innovation in the next five years rather than just evolutionary steps.

The challenge of compound document architecture and the user interface implications.

The personal impact of building personal computers throughout Steve Jobs' adult life.

Optimism for the future of the industry with opportunities for new players and innovation.

Concern over the 'hollowing out' of the US tech industry as component dollars flow overseas.

The role of management background in driving innovation and maintaining technological leadership.

The misconception that Wall Street's focus on quarterly results hinders long-term investment in technology.

Transcripts

Interviewer: Interesting. You mentioned  Dell, we're interviewing Michael tomorrow.  

One of my associates is down in Austin and I  mean, did you see the time (unintelligible)  

and into R&D driving up his costs, so he's going  to be, they're going to be nipping at his heels. 

All right. Steve Jobs (SJ): So tell  

me when you're ready and I can finish. Interviewer: Yeah, we're ready. 

SJ: Yeah. The whole premise for Apple's  existence is to come up with better products,  

highly differentiated better products, that then  the third party software developers can develop  

new and exciting and different applications  on, that they can't develop on other types of  

personal computers. And if Apple gives that away  by giving away their future system software, then  

I'm not sure that the market needs Apple. So  my whole question in this is, what is Apple's  

differentiation, if this is successful? And if  it's not successful, what is Apple's innovation,  

which is going to propel it through the nineties  like Macintosh did through the eighties.  

I'm not sure. I'm sure that they're a bunch of  bright people there and I'm sure they have some  

good ideas. They stopped sending me  their management reports awhile ago, so. 

Interviewer: We've already covered, some of  the things that we can do with PCs today that  

we didn't deal with. If we were to look ahead,  what do you think that we're going to be doing  

with personal computers? And I mean, from that,  you know, your machines here are somewhere between  

a workstation and a personal computer. What  do you think that we'll be able to do with  

this field called personal computing, where  you are in control, that we can't do today? 

SJ: What happening right now with  our industry is it's bifurcating.  

All current generation personal computers, all  IBM PCs, all - most of the current Macintoshes  

are all gonna go portable. They're all going to  be smaller, all portable, within two, three years,  

everything will be portable. And yet customers  are also demanding at the same time, more power. 

And more power falls into three or four areas.  People want large color screens that they can  

put photographs on. Ask anyone in the upper  part of desktop publishing, as an example.  

People want motion video. People want to be  networked with very high speed networking,  

at least ethernet speeds. And people want to be  sending all of this rich media around the network. 

Unfortunately, this second class of product  can not be made portable. So what I see is I  

see our industry bifurcating, where the current  generation of products are going to be portable,  

and the next generation of products, these  very powerful, highly networked color machines,  

are going to be desktop machines.  And that's where I think we're going. 

Now, what is going to be the new breakthrough that  causes the next spurt of growth in our industry,  

just like spreadsheets did in the early eighties,  desktop publishing did in the late eighties? And  

again, I come back to interpersonal computing.  I think personal computing, which we mastered  

in the eighties, its mission was to improve  individual productivity and at best creativity,  

and with over 50 million personal computer  shipped in the eighties, it worked!  

The next thing for the nineties though, needs  to be more. Improving individual productivity  

isn't enough anymore. The real competitive  advantage of the nineties is going to come from  

improving group productivity and collaboration.  Improving group productivity. And that is going  

to be achieved through interpersonal computing.  Using the same desktop tool that revolutionized  

analysis and planning with spreadsheets, that  revolutionized publishing with desktop publishing,  

using those same tools to revolutionize  human to human communication, collaboration,  

and group productivity. And I think that is  going to be the third revolution of the desktop  

computer in the first half of the nineties. Interviewer: You're a fan of Lotus Notes. 

SJ: I think we're about three or four years ahead  of that kind of thing with NeXT now. That's why  

a lot of people are buying our stuff. We have  something that's pretty remarkable. Yeah. So. 

Lotus Notes is okay, but  it starts off with a PC, so  

you have a lot of inherent limitations. Interviewer: Did you have any idea  

early on, say early seventies, even late, even  early - the late seventies, early eighties,  

that the PC was going to have  such a dramatic impact on the  

entire structure of the computer industry? SJ: Sure. Again, what's hard to remember is  

that by 1979, when we were at Apple, we were  already shipping more unit - more computers,  

measured in units, than IBM was. Remember,  IBM was only shipping big mainframes and a few  

attempts at many computers. We were already  shipping more computers and unit volume in  

1979 than IBM was. So the thought occurred to us  certainly by then, that this was going to have a  

staggering effect, because of the unit volume. Interviewer: If we're going to come back to  

you in five years, for the 15th anniversary of  the PC, how many, like what among the companies  

that are out there now, do you think may well go  away? And which amongst them that are, you know,  

somewhere in the also-ran pack, do you think  should be running up front? Well, besides NeXT. 

SJ: Let me correct I think a mistaken  impression that, that you articulated.  

I don't think this is the 10th anniversary of the  PC. I think it's the 15th anniversary of the PC,  

or maybe the 14th. Because the first modern  PC as we know, it appeared in 1977 and that  

was the Apple II. And the Apple II sold 5 or  6 million units, until it was retired. And,  

IBM entered the PC business with their products,  which turned out to have a very large effect,  

but nonetheless, there was, you know, the  course had already been plotted in 1981. So,  

I think it's the 10th anniversary of  IBM's entrance into the PC market. 

Five years from now,  

let me answer a broader question than  that. And I'll come back to that one. 

Interviewer: Okay. SJ: At the risk  

of wasting some of your video tape. Interviewer: That's alright, the tape is cheap. 

SJ: There is a constant tension in our  industry between standards and innovation.  

And I think it's a healthy tension. Standards are  very good, because they give everybody a baseline,  

they give everybody a low cost economic vehicle.  But, left to themselves, people that usually are  

the standard bearers don't have any incentive  to move forward, and ultimately customers lose.  

And that's the role of the  companies that innovate.  

Companies that innovate use as many of the  standards as they can, but then leap up from  

them and try to provide new opportunities  through innovation. With a certain amount  

of risk associated, because they're not part  of the standard. And some of them succeed very  

wildly. Macintosh as an example was a real step,  it was a real revolution versus just an evolution.  

As where most of the things in the PC  world have been evolutionary, the 286,  

the 386, the 486. (sneezes) Excuse me. And it's this tension between the evolution  

and the revolution that I think keeps  our industry moving forward. We've seen  

seven years after Macintosh, finally the IBM  world is getting some of the graphical user  

interface that was available in 1984 with the  Macintosh. So this evolution/revolution tension,  

I think is extremely important to keep on going in  the future. And the revolutionaries that managed  

to establish a critical mass, get up to a certain  size before the evolutionary people catch up,  

they survive and prosper. Those that don't  get absorbed into the evolutionary path.  

And with that perspective, when I look at what is  happening now, unfortunately, I see a lot more -  

a lot more status quo in the next  five years than I see real evolution.  

I don't see much coming from things  like the Apple-IBM relationship.  

I see more of the same coming from Apple over the  next five years. I see more of the same coming  

from IBM. In small evolutionary steps. 286s  to 386s to 486s to 586s, but nothing really  

different. Spreadsheets will run a little  faster, but nothing really different. I see,  

you know, System 7, System 8, System 9 coming from  Apple, but fundamentally nothing really different. 

And, I wish I saw more. But I think it's going  to be up to some of the other companies like  

NeXT and others, to provide that revolution  in the next five years, which, you know, five,  

six, seven years from now, the standard bearers  can catch up to, just like we saw the PC world  

catch up to Macintosh seven years later. Interviewer: Let me ask you something that 

SJ: I can say that more  articulately, if you want me to. 

Interviewer: No, I think that covers fairly  well. One of the questions I have, I saw,  

the Xerox Star system, over  a decade ago, I guess it was,  

you know, with document context architecture.  Why hasn't the personal computer  

developed along those lines until really  the Go operating system, where you can  

touch and essentially be doing the spreadsheet  in one document, touch, and then you're doing  

graphics in the same document, without  having to open new applications, and so on.  

I mean, I know that the power wasn't  there initially, but now it is. 

SJ: Well, I guess I take exceptions with a lot  of your contentions. The Star didn't actually  

do that. Quite. The Star actually opened separate  applications. The industry's wrestling right now  

with compound document architecture. And Go  made a sort of very simple attempt at it.  

But unfortunately, one that I think will not be  robust enough for real life use. And it's a very  

difficult problem. It's actually more of a user  interface problem, I think, than anything else.  

It's very difficult, because, as an example,  when you use a spreadsheet, there's a lot of  

paraphernalia that goes with a spreadsheet,  maybe a little bar, so you can type in things  

and a few buttons. And when you use a drawing  program, maybe there's a pallet of things, that  

sometimes is even glued right onto the document.  So how do you handle the context switches,  

from a user interface point of view, when you move  around through these various sort of objects in  

your document. Nobody's yet figured that out. The  tech, the underpinning technology, is very easy  

to hack up now and give a demo of, but to really  do it right, you'll see some things next year. 

So I think - and Star also, didn't really solve  the general problem. Remember that all the  

applications on Star were written by Xerox. Interviewer: Oh, I know. I mean, I didn't  

want to get into the whole question of,  you know, what they did wrong with that. 

SJ: The point I'm trying to make is, it's  very easy to do something when you write  

all the applications. Because then, every  application can know about every other one.  

And in general, the company churns out five or six  applications, and they all know about each other,  

and you can give a great demo with these apps. But the real key is to come up with an underlying  

structure that let third parties who  never talked to each other, have these  

capabilities within their apps. And no one's  yet done that. No one has yet done that well.  

And I think you'll see some of that next year. Interviewer:  

How much... One of the pieces that we're doing  is going to be about as much as we ever get into  

things like personalities. So let me just ask  you, looking back from the day that you guys  

came up with the notion for Apple I, how much  has your life changed and how has it changed? 

SJ: Well, for me, that's a really big subject  because my whole adult life has been spent  

building personal computers. We started Apple  when I was 20 years old. And, I'm now, an old  

man of the industry at 36. So I've been doing  this for about 16 years and it's been my whole  

adult life. So the history of my vocation and my  avocations and my growing up, are all the same.  

And it's very hard to separate one from the other. Interviewer: All right. 

SJ: You see what I'm getting? Interviewer: I see what you're getting at.  

Is there anything that we haven't touched on  in the course of running through all this stuff  

that you'd like to get to either in terms of  the narrow issues or the broad brush strokes? 

SJ: Well, I think there's two - two  interesting issues that you could touch upon. 

One is of course, you know, the American  versus Japanese issue. And, the second is  

that our industry, some people  think our industry is very immature,  

and they think there's going to be, you know,  rapid consolidation and very few companies left  

over, and it's pretty much very predictable  from here on out. Which is, that point of view  

I do not share at all. I think we're about  one inch down a road that's many miles long,  

and that every time there's major technological  innovation, there's a tremendous opportunity  

for new players, for a reorganization of the  industry, to occur. And, I think that, there  

is certainly as much opportunity for innovation in  the next five years as any five-year period I've  

ever seen in our industry. I think there's just as  much opportunity for new companies to come along,  

for new approaches to be taken, and for customers  to get much better computers five years from now  

than they have today. So I'm pretty optimistic.  And I think we all need to remember that we're  

just in the infancy of this revolution. And it  will continue to occur throughout our lifetimes.  

And I hope, and I work with a group of people  that all work very hard, to make sure that  

the rate of innovation doesn't slow down, and  that most of that innovation continues to come,  

out of the United States of America. Interviewer: Okay. All right. Do you have  

a take on the US Japanese thing? SJ: Well, yeah, I do. As we,  

as we look at the types of computers that we're  building today and project in the next few years,  

a disturbing fact is that even though most of the  computers are assembled here in the United States,  

a significantly large number of the dollars that  one pays for the components of those computers  

to build those computers flows overseas. The most  expensive part of many computers is the display,  

whether it be a color cathode ray tube, or  whether it be a flat panel display. And almost all  

of those dollars flow to Japan. One of the, the  second most expensive component in most computers  

is the dynamic memory. And again, most of those  dollars flow to Japan. The third most expensive  

component is the hard disk drives. And most of  those dollars flow to US companies, even though  

the disk drives are mostly built in Singapore. And one of the things I think we need to keep  

our eye on the ball of is, to manage those  most expensive components back to America.  

And I think that that's going to take some real  effort, especially in the display and the DRAM  

area. It's going to take some effort because those  are capital intensive products. The factories to  

build, the displays or DRAM are now costing a half  a billion dollars to a billion dollars a piece.  

And the engineering required is also  something that one doesn't build up overnight.  

But it's, I think essential that we don't  continue to be hollowed out as an industry,  

where even though the assembly of the final  products, the printing of the manuals, the bow on  

the shipping carton gets tied here in the US, most  of the dollars don't get sent across the shores. 

Interviewer: You're in a very fortunate the  position because you are privately held.  

And you don't have to worry about the quarter to  quarter problems that some of your publicly traded  

brethren have to worry about. SJ: Right. 

Interviewer: How much of what  you're talking about is a result,  

not so much of the advances being made  by the Japanese, but by the impediments  

that exist in the American capital structure, in  terms of investment disincentives for long-term  

capital holdings, in terms of the quarterly  outlook of the Wall Street analysts and so on. 

SJ: Well, I don't really buy  that argument and let me give you  

some reasons why. If I'm going to build a factory  and it's going to cost a hundred million dollars,  

that factory doesn't get written off the minute  I build it, that factory is an asset on my books,  

just like cash in the bank is. It gets depreciated  over many, many, many years. So that decision  

to build a factory doesn't really affect my  earnings statement. It affects my balance sheet,  

because I take a hundred million of cash and  put it into a hundred million dollar factory,  

but it doesn't affect my earnings and shouldn't  affect what Wall Street views as my prospects or  

my results. And I think that the real problem  has not been with Wall Street, it's been with the  

management of our industry. It's been with people  not being willing to take responsibility for the  

underlying component technologies, and thinking  that we could give that responsibility to others,  

and survive in just a successful of a fashion,  which is not true. Industry after industry  

has shown us that that's not true. So we have to  have more accountability for our raw technologies,  

and not just assume that we can be the final  packager at the end. Because ultimately the  

providers of those components don't need  the final packager at the end. Ultimately,  

they can go directly to the consumer. And they  have relationships with the consumer already,  

as Sony does, and others in Japan. Interviewer: You mean Sony, the builder of  

the next Apple portable? Next Mac Portable? SJ: Ask John Sculley. 

Interviewer: I'm going to. SJ: So, I don't really think - saying  

it's Wall Street is too easy. We've got, we've  got Apple, we've got IBM and many other computer  

companies with hundreds of millions, if not  billions of dollars in the bank in cash. The cash,  

raising the capital is not the problem, and Wall  Street is not the problem. The problem is that  

in many cases, the management of our companies,  

is not from an engineering or manufacturing  background anymore, and may not appreciate  

the dependence we have on these underlying  technologies. As where if you go to Japan,  

the people running these companies are engineers  or they're from the manufacturing backgrounds.  

And they very much appreciate. Interviewer: Is that why US Memories failed? 

SJ: I don't know. I don't  really think about US Memories. 

Interviewer: That was the... SJ: Yeah I know. 

Interviewer: Yeah. All right. I  think that pretty much covers the... 

SJ: Good. Interviewer: Thanks.