Jobs Traces Xerox Collapse to Marketers Replacing Product Innovators

Steve Jobs

Tech monopolies rot when market dominance elevates sales and marketing executives over engineers, leaving corporate leadership unable to recognize revolutionary products.

AI-assisted summary of Steve jobs on why xerox failed — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2017-03-14

Key ideas

Steve Jobs attributes the failure of tech monopolies like Xerox and IBM to a structural shift that replaces product innovators with sales and marketing executives. (0:00)
Once a company establishes a monopoly, making a better product no longer moves the needle, leading corporations to reward marketing professionals and sideline product creators. (0:00)
Xerox PARC engineers referred to corporate executives as 'toner heads' because the leadership could only understand copier consumables, failing to grasp revolutionary computing paradigms. (1:45)
Jobs estimates that Xerox had the foundational technology to become ten times its size and dominate personal computing, effectively becoming what Microsoft became in the 1990s. (1:45)

Detailed notes

## Background This video was published on YouTube by the channel Steve Jobs on March 14, 2017. No accompanying show notes or description were provided on the source page.

## TL;DR Steve Jobs examines how Xerox squandered the groundbreaking technological innovations developed at Xerox PARC, ultimately snatching defeat from the greatest victory in computing. He explains that once technology companies establish a monopoly, incremental product improvements cease to drive growth, shifting institutional power to sales and marketing executives who lack any genuine product sensibility. Because Xerox's corporate leaders—derisively dubbed 'toner heads'—failed to comprehend computing paradigms, they forfeited the opportunity to dominate personal computing and grow into an enterprise ten times its size.

## Atmosphere & style Steve Jobs delivers his critique with sharp, incisive candor and trademark intellectual clarity, dissecting corporate decay with palpable conviction. The discussion shifts seamlessly between serious business diagnosis and wry, irreverent humor, punctuated by his casual explanation of 'toner heads' and his offhand dismissal of the tragedy as ancient history. Watching the interview feels unvarnished and revealing, giving the impression of an insider recounting a colossal industrial blunder with cool detachment.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) Steve Jobs attributes the failure of tech monopolies like Xerox and IBM to a structural shift that replaces product innovators with sales and marketing executives. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) Once a company establishes a monopoly, making a better product no longer moves the needle, leading corporations to reward marketing professionals and sideline product creators. - [01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=105s) Xerox PARC engineers referred to corporate executives as 'toner heads' because the leadership could only understand copier consumables, failing to grasp revolutionary computing paradigms. - [01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=105s) Jobs estimates that Xerox had the foundational technology to become ten times its size and dominate personal computing, effectively becoming what Microsoft became in the 1990s.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) The groundbreaking technology demonstrated by engineers at Xerox PARC ended up failing and burning internally inside Xerox itself. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) Working with John Sculley provided Jobs with insight into how companies with static products, like PepsiCo, operate. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) At consumer goods companies where products rarely change, product creators have little leverage, elevating sales and marketing staff into executive leadership. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) Tech monopolies suffer from the same dynamic: when market dominance is achieved, incremental product improvements no longer drive corporate growth. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) Sales and marketing staff eventually take control of tech monopolies, completely driving out product sensibility and craftsmanship. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) Executives without product understanding lack any conception of good versus bad products or the craftsmanship required to bring ideas to market. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) Monopoly leadership teams often lack a genuine, heartfelt desire to help their customers. - [01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=105s) Xerox PARC scientists derisively labeled Stamford corporate leadership 'toner heads' due to their narrow focus on copier supplies. - [01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=105s) Xerox executives visited PARC but possessed no conceptual framework to understand the revolutionary computing work they observed. - [01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=105s) By failing to understand computing, Xerox snatched defeat from what should have been the greatest victory in the computer industry. - [01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=105s) Xerox possessed the technology to own the entire computer industry and grow ten times larger, rivaling IBM or 1990s Microsoft.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) The Monopoly Trap and the Rise of Sales and Marketing

Steve Jobs reflects on Apple's historic visit to Xerox PARC, noting that while the engineers there were extraordinarily skillful and demonstrated their groundbreaking work, it was ultimately fortunate that Apple saw it because the technology ended up crashing and burning inside Xerox itself. When asked why that happened, Jobs explains that he has spent a great deal of time analyzing the phenomenon, gaining deeper clarity on it later through his experience working with John Sculley. Sculley had come from PepsiCo, an environment where the core product might change at most once every ten years—where a significant product innovation amounted to nothing more than introducing a new bottle size. In a business like that, a product person had very little leverage to alter the trajectory of the enterprise. The individuals who genuinely moved the needle on success were the sales and marketing professionals. Because they drove the company's growth, they were the ones who earned promotions and eventually took over the executive suite.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Product Rot Cycle in Tech Monopolies accDescr: Flowchart illustrating how product innovation builds a monopoly, shifts power to sales and marketing, and ultimately erodes product quality. subgraph Growth ["Phase 1: Innovation"] A["Product Genius & Craftsmanship"] --> B["Monopoly Market Share"] end subgraph Stagnation ["Phase 2: Shift in Power"] B --> C["Better Products No Longer Drive Growth"] C --> D["Sales & Marketing Drive Success"] D --> E["Sales & Marketing Run the Company"] end subgraph Decline ["Phase 3: Institutional Decay"] E --> F["Product People Driven Out"] F --> G["Loss of Craftsmanship & Customer Care"] G --> H["Defeat from the Jaws of Victory"] end ```

Jobs points out that while relying entirely on marketing may work well enough for a consumer beverage giant like PepsiCo, the exact same structural decay takes hold inside technology companies once they achieve a monopoly, citing IBM and Xerox as prime examples. When an enterprise secures a monopolistic grip on the market, an engineer building a marginally better copier or a better computer does not make the company appreciably more successful. As a result, the sales and marketing apparatus becomes the sole perceived engine of additional revenue, elevating marketers into executive leadership while pushing dedicated product people completely out of decision-making forums. Over time, the institutional memory of what constitutes a great product vanishes. As Jobs sharply observes: “It’s sort of the product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies who have no conception of a good product versus a bad product.” These executives lack any comprehension of the meticulous craftsmanship needed to turn an initial idea into a finished product, and they lack any heartfelt desire to genuinely help the customer.

[01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=105s) The "Toner Heads" and Xerox's Lost Empire

This deep disconnect played out with devastating clarity between the researchers at Xerox PARC and the corporate leadership in Stamford. Jobs recalls that the researchers at PARC had a derisive nickname for the executives running the parent company, routinely referring to them as "toner heads." When asked to clarify the term for the audience, Jobs explains simply that toner is "the black stuff" added to industrial copiers. The leaders steering Xerox were fundamentally copier salesmen and administrators who possessed no conceptual understanding of what a computer was or what it had the potential to achieve. Whenever these executives traveled out to inspect Xerox PARC, they looked directly at revolutionary computing paradigms and had absolutely no clue what they were seeing.

By failing to comprehend the magnitude of their own laboratory's inventions, corporate leadership squandered what should have been an unprecedented technological triumph. As Jobs puts it: “And so they just grabbed defeat from the greatest victory in the computer industry.” He emphasizes that Xerox possessed the foundational technology to own the entire computer industry, easily becoming an enterprise ten times its eventual size—effectively occupying the dominant position that IBM held or becoming the Microsoft of the 1990s. Yet after detailing this colossal missed opportunity, Jobs pauses, shrugs off the magnitude of the blunder, and dismisses the tragedy with casual finality: “But anyway, that's all ancient history. It doesn't really matter anymore.”

- **The PepsiCo analogy**: At consumer goods companies, products barely evolve over decades, making sales and marketing the sole driver of upward corporate mobility. - **The monopoly penalty**: In tech monopolies like IBM and Xerox, incremental product superiority fails to change market share, leading companies to marginalize engineers and elevate marketers. - **The "toner head" divide**: Xerox PARC scientists coined the label "toner heads" for corporate executives who only understood copier consumables rather than software and computing. - **Lost potential**: Jobs estimates Xerox could have expanded to ten times its size and dominated personal computing in place of 1990s IBM or Microsoft.

## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) It’s sort of the product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies who have no conception of a good product versus a bad product. — Steve Jobs

## Mentioned Apple, IBM, John Sculley, Microsoft, PepsiCo, Steve Jobs, Xerox, Xerox PARC

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM)

中文简报

乔布斯指施乐衰落根源在于营销人员取代产品创新者当科技垄断企业因市场主导地位而将销售和营销高管置于工程师之上时，就会走向腐烂，导致公司领导层无法识别革命性产品。史蒂夫·乔布斯剖析了施乐如何挥霍其帕洛阿尔托研究中心（Xerox PARC）开创的突破性技术创新，最终在计算机历史上本可取得的最伟大胜利中反遭惨败。他解释道，科技公司一旦确立垄断地位，微小的产品改进便不再能够推动增长，公司的核心权力随之转移至毫无真正产品敏锐度的销售和营销高管手中。由于施乐的管理者——被讽刺为“墨粉脑瓜”——无法理解计算范式的变革，他们错失了主导个人电脑领域并成为如今规模十倍的庞大企业的良机。史蒂夫·乔布斯将施乐和IBM等科技垄断企业的衰败归因于结构性转变，即销售与营销高管取代了产品创新者。 (0:00) 一家公司一旦建立垄断，制造更好的产品便不再对业绩产生决定性影响，从而促使企业奖励营销专业人员，并边缘化产品研发者。 (0:00) 施乐帕洛阿尔托研究中心（PARC）的工程师将公司高管称为“墨粉脑瓜”，因为管理层只能看懂复印机耗材，无法理解革命性的计算范式。 (1:45) 乔布斯估计，施乐本拥有足够的基础技术发展到自身规模的十倍并主导个人计算领域，真正成为微软在20世纪90年代所成为的巨头。 (1:45)

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道“Steve Jobs”于 2017 年 3 月 14 日发布，时长约为 2 分 54 秒。原始页面未提供具体的文字简介，其内容记录了史蒂夫·乔布斯在一场访谈中探讨施乐（Xerox）为何错失计算机革命历史机遇的精彩片段。 ## TL;DR 史蒂夫·乔布斯深入剖析了施乐手握图形用户界面等划时代技术却最终“机毁人亡”的深层体制根源。他以百事可乐为例指出，当科技公司建立垄断地位后，边际产品改进难以拉动增长，导致销售与营销人员掌控公司大权，而产品研发人员则被彻底排挤出决策层。由于决策者丧失了对优秀产品的敏锐度，施乐总部的“墨粉脑袋”管理层对 PARC 的革命性技术视而不见，硬生生在一场原本注定属于自己的历史性大捷面前拱手认输，错失了成为 90 年代主宰计算机行业的巨头机会。 ## Atmosphere & style 整段访谈呈现出一种言辞犀利、洞察深刻而又带着冷峻讽刺的叙事张力。乔布斯的语调从容自如却句句见血，用“换个瓶子尺寸”与“墨粉脑袋”等生动嘲讽精准剖析了大企业的官僚病态。在痛惜施乐“在最伟大的胜利面前硬生生抓住失败”后，他以一句云淡风轻的“这都是陈年往事了”淡然收尾，给观者带来极强的思想冲击力与历史宿命感。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) 史蒂夫·乔布斯指出，科技垄断企业衰败的根源在于产品改进对边际收益影响减弱后，销售与营销人员接管了公司决策权，而产品研发人员被彻底边缘化。 - [01:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=108s) 施乐管理层因缺乏计算机认知被 PARC 研发人员蔑称为“墨粉脑袋”，完全无法理解图形用户界面等划时代技术的潜能，亲手葬送了历史机遇。 - [01:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=108s) 乔布斯评估，若施乐具备基本的产品远见并成功商业化 PARC 的技术，其规模足以扩大十倍，成为 90 年代统治计算机产业的 IBM 或微软。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) 施乐 PARC 拥有极为精湛的研究团队并开创了图形用户界面，但该技术在施乐内部最终以“机毁人亡”告终。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) 在百事可乐等快消品行业中，产品本身十年微调一次，企业成败由销售和营销驱动，由营销人员掌控公司符合其商业逻辑。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) 当科技公司建立市场垄断地位后，做出更出色的产品无法显著扩大市场份额，导致营销人员顺理成章地登上权力顶峰。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) 决策权向销售营销倾斜后，懂技术和体验的产品人员被排挤出决策论坛，导致企业丧失了最初的核心产品敏感度。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) 当权的外行管理者既无法分辨产品好坏，也不理解将创意打磨成卓越产品所需的工匠精神，更缺乏帮助客户的热忱。 - [01:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=108s) 施乐 PARC 研发人员私下称总部高管为“墨粉脑袋”，讽刺他们本质上是一群只关心复印机耗材、对计算机一窍不通的商人。 - [01:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=108s) 视察 PARC 技术的施乐管理层大脑一片空白，完全看不懂图形界面与鼠标背后所蕴含的巨大产业未来。 - [01:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=108s) 施乐管理层在计算机行业最伟大的一场胜利面前硬生生抓住了失败，将本属于自己的产业主导权拱手让人。 - [01:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=108s) 如果施乐能有效转化这些革命性突破，完全有可能达到原有体量的十倍，成为 1990 年代统治计算领域的行业霸主。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) 垄断与营销主导：施乐与百事可乐的组织陷阱史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）回忆起当年参观施乐帕洛阿尔托研究中心（Xerox PARC）的经历。他坦言，施乐的研究人员技术极为精湛，也慷慨地向苹果展示了图形用户界面等开创性成果；但令人唏嘘的是，这项技术在施乐内部最终落得“机毁人亡”（crashed and burned）的结局。当采访者问及为何拥有如此划时代技术的施乐会彻底搞砸时，乔布斯解释称，自己后来与约翰·斯卡利（John Sculley）共事期间深入思考并观察了这一现象，如今已经彻底参透了其中的根源。乔布斯以百事可乐（PepsiCo）为例剖析了这种组织异化的机理。约翰·斯卡利出身百事可乐，而在一家成熟的软饮料巨头中，产品本身最多每十年才会发生微小的调整——在他们看来，所谓“新产品”无非就是换一个不同容量的瓶子而已。在这种商业模式下，产品研发人员根本无法左右公司的航向；真正驱动百事可乐业绩增长、决定企业成败的是销售与营销人员。顺理成章地，掌握增长密码的营销团队不断获得提拔，最终全面接管了整家公司。对于百事可乐这种快消品企业而言，由销售和营销人员掌舵或许行得通，但乔布斯强调，当同样的情况发生在科技企业身上时，灾难便降临了。当 IBM 或施乐这样的科技巨头凭借早期的技术突破确立了垄断地位后，技术和产品人员即使造出一台更出色的复印机或更优秀的计算机，也无法再对公司的市场份额产生决定性影响。由于垄断地位已经锁定，能让公司财务报表在短期内变得更加好看的只剩下销售和营销手段。于是，营销人员顺理成章地爬上权力顶峰，而真正懂技术、懂体验的产品人员则被彻底排挤出核心决策层。随着决策权的转移，企业开始丧失对“优秀产品”的感知力。乔布斯指出，最初将公司推上垄断王座的“产品敏感度”（product sensibility）与产品天赋被这群继任者彻底腐蚀。当权者不仅无法区分产品的好坏，也根本不理解把一个好创意打磨成真正卓越产品背后所需的精湛工艺，更不会在内心里真正渴望去帮助和成就客户。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 科技垄断企业的衰败闭环 accDescr: 展示技术创新型企业获得市场垄断后，管理权向营销人员倾斜，导致产品基因丧失的恶性循环过程。 subgraph 垄断形成与权力更迭 A["早期产品创新与天才设计"] --> B["获取绝对垄断市场份额"] B --> C["产品改进对边际收益影响减弱"] C --> D["销售与营销人员掌控公司大权"] end subgraph 产品力退化与衰竭 D --> E["产品人员被逐出核心决策层"] E --> F["失去对产品好坏与工艺的认知"] F --> G["技术优势瓦解，错失颠覆性浪潮"] end ``` 史蒂夫·乔布斯在谈到这种结构性问题时犀利地总结道：“So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies, and the product people get driven out of the decision making forums.”（因此，能让公司变得更成功的人变成了销售与营销人员，最终由他们来掌管公司，而产品研发人员则被逐出了决策论坛。） - 斯卡利在百事可乐的背景凸显出传统消费品公司的特征：产品本身十年几乎不更新，所谓推新往往只是更换瓶子尺寸。 - 在拥有垄断地位的科技公司中，更好的产品无法直接带来跨越式增长，促使组织机制倾向于奖励销售与公关人才。 - 产品人被边缘化后，公司逐渐遗忘何为“伟大产品”，失去了将雏形创意转化为落地体验的工艺与匠心。 --- ### [01:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=108s) “墨粉脑袋”与错失整个计算机时代的统治地位这种由外行营销人员主导科技公司的悲剧在施乐身上展现得淋漓尽致。乔布斯提到，当时施乐 PARC 实验室里的技术先驱们私下管施乐总部的高管叫作“墨粉脑袋”（toner heads）。当被问及墨粉究竟是指什么时，乔布斯解释道，墨粉就是往工业复印机里面添加的那种黑色粉末。在施乐总部的管理层眼里，公司的核心资产永远是那一台台吐出复印纸的机器，整个核心领导层本质上就是一群对现代计算技术毫无概念的“复印机贩子”。当这些坐镇总部的“墨粉脑袋”来到帕洛阿尔托视察施乐 PARC 时，面对眼前的图形界面、鼠标和面向对象编程等划时代突破，他们的大脑一片空白，根本看不懂自己眼前呈现的究竟是怎样一番景象，更无法想象计算机未来的潜能。乔布斯扼腕叹息道，施乐的管理层就这样在一场原本属于计算机行业最伟大的胜利面前，硬生生拱手交出了胜利果实，把一场注定的历史性大捷亲手变成了惨败。他断言，如果当时施乐的高管具备基本的产品远见，施乐完全能够统治整个计算机行业，其商业体量足以达到当下的十倍之巨，甚至施乐本可以成为 1990 年代的 IBM，或是 1990 年代的微软。说到最后，乔布斯语气平静下来，耸了耸肩表示：“But anyway, that's all ancient history. It doesn't really matter anymore.”（不过不管怎样，这都已是陈年往事了，现在也不再重要了。）史蒂夫·乔布斯对施乐白白葬送历史机遇的讽刺尤为直截了当：“And so they just grabbed... grab defeat from the greatest victory in the computer industry.”（于是，他们就这样在计算机行业最伟大的一场胜利面前，硬生生抓住了失败。） - 施乐 PARC 的研究人员蔑称母公司高管为“墨粉脑袋”，形容这群人只懂得往复印机里加黑粉，对计算机的本质一无所知。 - 施乐管理层的盲视使其未能商业化 PARC 的图形用户界面技术，反倒让苹果与后来的微软从中吸收了养分。 - 乔布斯评估，施乐若能理解并兑现该技术的价值，其规模将是后来的十倍，完全有能力成为 90 年代计算机行业绝对的统治巨头。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&t=0s) So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies, and the product people get driven out of the decision making forums. — 史蒂夫·乔布斯 ## Mentioned 史蒂夫·乔布斯, 施乐, 施乐帕洛阿尔托研究中心 (Xerox PARC), 约翰·斯卡利, 百事可乐, 苹果, IBM, 微软 [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM)

Source quotes

[0:00] 史蒂夫·乔布斯: So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies, and the product people get driven out of the decision making forums.

Source quotes

[0:00] Steve Jobs: It’s sort of the product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies who have no conception of a good product versus a bad product.

Original transcript

[0:00] So they were very skillful. Yeah. But they did show us. Yeah. so um... And it's good that they showed us because the technology crashed and burned at Xerox. They used to call the... What's that? No, I was just... Why? Yeah, why? Oh, I actually thought a lot about that, and I learned more about that with John Scully later on, and I think I understand it now pretty well. What happens is, Like with John Scully, um... John came from PepsiCo and They at most would change their product once every 10 years. I mean, to them a new product was like a new size bottle, right? So if you were a product person, you couldn't change the course of that company very much. So who influenced the success of PepsiCo? The sales and marketing people. Therefore, they were the ones that got promoted and therefore they were the ones that ran the company. Well... For PepsiCo, that might have been okay. But... It turns out the same thing can happen in technology companies They get monopolies. Like... Oh, IBM and Xerox. If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, So you make a better copy or a better computer. So what? When you have a monopoly market share, The company's not any more successful. So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people. and they end up running the companies. and the product people get driven out of the decision making forums. and the companies forget what it means to make great products. It's sort of the product sensibility. and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies who have no conception of a good product versus a bad product. They have no conception of the craftsmanship that's required to take a good idea and turn it into a good product. And they really have no feeling in their hearts usually about wanting to really help the customers. So that's what happened at Xerox. The people at Xerox Park used to call the people that ran Xerox "toner heads." And these toner heads would come out to Xerox Park and they just had no clue about what they were seeing. And for our audience, toner is what? Oh, toner, toner is what you put into a copier. Yeah, the toner that you add. To an industrial copier? The black stuff. The black stuff, yes. So basically they were copier hands that just had no clue about a computer or what it could do. And so they just grabbed... grab defeat from the greatest victory in the computer industry. Xerox could have owned the entire computer industry today. Um, It could have been a company 10 times its size. Could have been IBM. Could have been the IBM in the 90s. Could have been the Microsoft in the 90s. so But anyway, that's all ancient history. It doesn't really matter anymore. Sure.