This headline makes for a misleading soundbite. The context is that Sculley is saying that Apple's biggest mistake was making Sculley CEO instead of Steve. The board "wasn’t prepared to make [Jobs] CEO when he was 25, 26 years old."
Thankfully that kind of thinking has changed in today's tech world.
That's an interesting point, and my question is why is there a distinction to be made between a hardware company and a software company in terms of management? I think that for various reasons related to barriers to entry and maturity of market, young people aren't founding hardware companies today like they were in the 80s, it may be difficult to compare. However it's pretty clear that young entrepreneurs command much more respect today from investors and boards than they did even a decade ago.
In addition to worrying about software, Apple had to worry about supply chain, inventory, logistics, etc. And, unlike the Compaqs and Dells of the world, Apple was not in the business of making commodity hardware.
In any case, I think Steve was too busy in those days being a micromanager for the Macintosh team to even think about running the company. Don't forget he spent a lot of time alienating the Apple ][ team, who was responsible for most of the company's revenue at the time.
Getting fired, running a relatively unsuccessful company (NeXT) and nurturing a company into massive success (Pixar) probably gave him more valuable experience than if he had somehow managed to stay at Apple in the first place. And for all we know, the world would have never had the opportunity to see Toy Story or the Incredibles. Clearly, I see Job's firing from Apple as a win for the world. ;)
Also keep in mind that while at NeXT, they switched from a hardware and software company to a software company (and so did Be, which was the other company Apple considered buying).
This is a good summary, and I agree that NeXT contributed a lot to what Apple is today.
I don't understand your final sentence though... To whom are you referring when you say "They switched from being a H/w S/w company to a S/w company" ?
I thought that both NeXT and Apple continued to produce their own machines and software.
I don't believe the distinction is necessarily along the lines of software / hardware. It's more likely along the lines of "founding and running a new, small company" vs. "operating and growing a large, profitable company."
I think there are some things about dealing with tangible products that make businesses harder.
Look back at the dot-com bust. There were a lot of businesses that started and failed because they didn't have experience in the distribution of physical product, etc. (Peapod and Pets.com come to mind.)
If you're making stuff, then you've potentially got more fixed costs than you do than if you're running a software business. Those fixed costs alone can put you under.
Thankfully that kind of thinking has changed in today's tech world.