[okie01]

As you noted, IBMs innovation is behind it. It passed from the hands of the founding entrepreneurs and original engineers into the hands of the financial managers.

Apple is still led by its founders -- and thus retains its innovativeness.

Corporations have a life cycle. And the more mature they become, the more likely they are to be led by the finance department or the legal department than they are by the engineering, operations or sales departments.

At that point, they usually become more concerned with maintaining their share of market and maximizing profits -- including acquisitions and mergers -- than they are with building share and internal product innovation.

The exceptions are, as I said, those companies with a vested interest in research -- which would include petrochemicals as well as pharmaceuticals.

A good example of what I'm talking about is the railroad business. By the late fifties, virtually every President or Chairman in the industry had come out of the Legal Department. And they were dying...

[Cringing Negativism Network]

IBM sold it’s personal computer business lock stock and barrel to China, which now not only makes them as “Lenovo” but also owns that business.

Apples are made there.

Neither is helping American jobs.

[truthguy]

A good example of what I'm talking about is the railroad business. By the late fifties, virtually every President or Chairman in the industry had come out of the Legal Department. And they were dying...

Yes and perhaps that because of government regulation, lawsuits and the like, this gives and advantage to those who have a legal background as opposed to those who understand the technology. I'm just guessing. This is a very complicated subject and every time I see a trend, I see some type of exception.