Because the technology crashed and burned at Xerox. [Why?] I learned more about that with John Sculley later on and I think I understand it now pretty well. What happens is—like with John Sculley—John came from Pepsico. And they—at most—would change their product once every 10 years. I mean, to them, a new product was a new sized bottle. So if you were a "product person", you couldn’t change the course of that company very much. So, who influences the success at Pepsico? The sales and marketing people. Therefore they were the ones that got promoted, and 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 that get monopolies. Like, oh, IBM and Xerox. If you were a "product person" at IBM or Xerox: so you make a better copier or 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 run out of the decision-making forums. And the companies forget what it means to make great products. Sort of the product sensibility and 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.