It seems to me that the closest version to the events was that of Schuley. Jobs is obviously telling the story in such a way that is not only non-specific, but also judgemental. He wants to impose his feelings on the events, rather than give his version. When you account his mood-swings and narcicistic tendencies, it becomes almost impossible not to take Schuley's account as factual truth.

You can see how much hurt Steve still had all those years later. Sad story, regardless of who was right/wrong.

I felt that Sculley was fundamentally much more objective and pragmatic in his analysis of the entire situation. I read his 1986 or 1987 book Odyssey that detailed his evolution from PepsiCo to Apple and I felt it was a very fair and balanced account. Jobs was always overly eccentric and emotional. Absolutely brilliant, no doubt. And I think it's pretty well documented that when he came back to Apple 11 years later that he had matured greatly into a much more stable manager and executive. But in 1985, he was an immature kid: 29, 30 years of age and like it or not good or bad, I feel that John Sculley kept Apple afloat for a good six, seven out of the eight or nine years he was there. I don't think that Apple would have survived if jobs had stayed in 1985 as he was. I also think that Jobs was prone to historical revision of the truth to make himself look good and thus gloss over the straight up facts. However, one thing that John Sculley was not, IMO was a true visionary. He wasn't on the same level as Jobs in that way.

Spiteful Steve

Sound like a money back but the best thing happened to Steve was that he was fired

In hindsight I guess Steve Jobs was right. Corporate pinheads are not dreamers or visionaries.

I came here to look up the situation after watching the Michael Fassbender "Steve Jobs" movie. The John Scully middle act is my favorite part of the film. Here I don't know what to think, I'd probably side with Scully because he seems so matter of fact with his account of the situation. But Jobs seems like he's trying to make up how he was victimized.

@ifragisk

6 жыл бұрын

I agree. John is very matter of fact. Steve seems like he doesn't want to lay it all out.

@ryswick1064

6 жыл бұрын

I feel like they're both right in their own way. Scully wants to keep the company afloat at all costs, and Jobs wants to innovate and evolve at all costs. Both needed to happen, but I think Jobs wanted to sacrifice everything, and a passionate man may be able to do that, but a business man cannot. The board was full of business men. I really think it's Job's fault for not coming to a compromise. He pushed Scully and the board to the edge with his recklessness.

@justgaming4fun82

4 жыл бұрын

You should read or listen to the audio book of Steve Jobs biography. Goes into real detail,about every in his life including what happened between him and scully at Apple. Very good book

Industry was not in recession Only Apple was in rexession IBM sales took over Apple sales..

@tc3383

2 жыл бұрын

Sure buddy and how did that work out IBM now is basically nonexistent buying red hat to try and remain relevant Apple now has the largest market share of any company on the planet.

@blastofo

2 жыл бұрын

In the corporate market, yes, because offices always needed new computers. In the home consumer market where PC's weren't as vital and necessary, no.

I feel Steve pain of hiring the wrong man very much ......... he went through so much emotional pain ..... the stress of all of its consequences might have contributed to his cancer!!! I wish he was alive such a shame ....