And the buying of new machinery meant not only the possibility of production, but even the new technology, 'cos as I mentioned before, we were back of seven, eight years.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In the Machine Age, the company itself became a machine - a machine for making money.
All the technology of our production was still pre-War. They were sort of '38, '39 and the War had been stable and so we were infinitely behind whatever had been going on in the United States for instance.
The economy of human time is the next advantage of machinery in manufactures.
We've been working now with computers and education for 30 years, computers in developing countries for 20 years, and trying to make low-cost machines for 10 years. This is not a sudden turn down the road.
The problem is that there are very few technologies that essentially haven't changed for 60, 70 years.
I think the dot-com boom and bust represented the end of the beginning. The industry is more mature today.
I predicted in 1950 that in five years, manufacturers the world over would be screaming for protection. It took only four years.
You can always think that we're old and not innovative, but there is no company that can limp on for 139 years without being creative and having the genes to change.
And the reason for focusing on that time frame is that it's going to take us a considerable period of time to develop the new capabilities, processes and organizations that will be needed.
It took us three years to build the NeXT computer. If we'd given customers what they said they wanted, we'd have built a computer they'd have been happy with a year after we spoke to them - not something they'd want now.
No opposing quotes found.