Polished Apple

posted by Rob on April 9, 2010 09:26 AM

WhiteAppleLogo.jpg

I want to say something about iPhones, but before you start thinking that this is a technology blog, I'm only bringing it up to talk about corporate attitudes rather than about bits and bytes. The more I look at what Apple are doing at the moment, the more it seems like they're working hard to take over the world. And I don't mean that in a bad way. They really seem like they're trying hard and doing a more grown-up job of joining the dots than any of their competitors.

Apple have just announced a new update to the iPhone's operating system. OS updates sound like dull things, but in these days of clever software, changing the OS changes the phone. 90% of the things that made the iPhone revolutionary are in the software. If the iPhone had merely been a phone - a piece of hardware - and it had run, say, Microsoft's mobile phone OS, no one would even remember it by now. And the thing is, the OS update Apple have just announced contains a lot of features that people were half-expecting to see three years ago when the phone first came out. But Apple weren't ready then. They knew if they added those features in the wrong way, it would compromise the phone's appeal and usefulness, so they waited. They looked at how everyone else did it and what worked. They looked at what sorts of features actually conferred useful benefits and which were just marketing glitter. They looked at the privacy and security considerations and three years down the line they came up with their own approach. And now, to recycle a cliche, the best will be even better. And my point is, I don't think I've ever worked in a big company that would be capable of acting that way with that level of both perfectionism and restraint. But that's what you need if you want take over the world.

Perhaps my experiences aren't all that representative, but I've been part of a few corporate teams developing new products or processes or 'channels'. And in every single case, they sounded more like a pilot for a satirical sit-com than a basis for successful innovation. The person in charge would have been selected as part of their career grooming, or because no one good was available. Important projects need managers senior enough to push through what needs doing - often chosen regardless of relevant expertise or interest. Other team members from other departments would be selected to avoid ruffling feathers or to help achieve 'buy in' back in their own teams. And very rarely did these projects involve seconding anyone away from their day-jobs: changing the world had to be accomplished on top of a very full day-job. And if the manager was on secondment, it often meant they were being eased out of the business - a period spent working on 'special projects' being a way of separating them from their normal responsibilities while giving them plenty of time to ring round looking for 'opportunities' elsewhere.

I suppose I've been particularly unlucky because clearly not all design teams are like that, otherwise nothing would ever get built, but I struggle to think of any organisation that could match Apple in placing such a premium on technical know-how and then marry it with mature design. Or the will to override marketing considerations by withholding features for years if needs be - but then, when they were ready, putting marketing firmly in the driving seat to produce a product launch the whole computing world would be talking about.

And bewitched as I am by it all, I'm still trying to put my finger on exactly what Apple are doing differently that's allowing them to eat Microsoft's lunch - not to mention Nokia's and HP's and Dell's - more or less at will. Perfectionism is part of it - a very big part. Restraint is another: excelling at something or leaving it to others - not dabbling, not dipping toes in the water, not 'playing catch-up'. Apple don't even seem to be competing with anyone. They plough their own furrow and they do it in a way that ignores everyone's idea of what the rules are - which in effect re-writes them. And I suspect there must be some other 'value' in there which places design ahead of technical capability or marketability. They strive to make their devices beautifully designed to do what they do and everything else is in service to that goal. And by doing so, they can stake out the most profitable part of the market and hold it (so far) against all-comers. They are definitely not perfect, but just at this second in time, I think Apple are a company almost all of us could learn something from.

spacer

Comments: 5


' ... to produce a product launch the whole computing world would be talking about.'

Agree absolutely - But, think what is also interesting is how they seem to manage to even transcend the computing world. I remember being in America at iPhone launch time and it was on the front of USA Today. How does it get to the point where someone's auntie knows and is excited by a new Apple product even if they aren't even entirely sure why they may need it or even quite what it is - Genius.


As you say, it's not so much their genius with hardware, but their selectiveness with software that is the key to their success. Don't put everything in. Don't put things in that people ask for even, because they probably don't need them or could do them another way. Apple are superb at holding their nerve, ignoring people shouting at them and only releasing the function when they have perfected it. The touchscreen is their crowning glory. Not the hardware, but the gesture-based interface. They must have spent years on it to get it to that level of intuition (it's not like it was the first, touchscreens have been around for ~20 years). It requires real vision at the top of the company to give people that much time. I'm pretty sure thats what Steve Jobs gives them. The confidence to follow an idea through until its perfected, not rush it out before its done.


I'd like to take a moment and point out the Newton. (The Wikipedia article there paints Newton as a success, but I strongly remember the device itself being a dud.) That was an example of Apple attempting to innovate and push a product whose time had not yet come. Not only was this a type of device that the world really wasn't ready to accept, but the technology was not good enough for what its features were supposed to be. I think they learned from that mistake and moved forward with, as you say, restraint.

I think another one of their key company principles is a refusal to compromise price, linked with a refusal to compromise quality. I dig those principles and how they go together, so I'm willing to pay more for their products. (Pixar seems to utilize a similar relationship between time and quality; they only release a movie once every two or three years, but they wow everybody.)


Rob

You write "And I suspect there must be some other 'value' in there which places design ahead of technical capability or marketability." I'm not sure it is a 'value' but there is definitely something of a 'cult' about Apple that leads people to say things like "Not that any of that [iPad problems] puts me off. I'll still get one."


Matthew, I've built dozens of Windows-based machines, and I'd never used a Mac before 2007, so I don't think it's a cult thing. But I use my iPhone all day, not so much as a phone, but as a very cramped iPad. I feel like I'm now being offered 'the real thing'.

spacer

Post a comment

We love hearing from our readers, but please stay relevant and pleasant. The comments are for responding to the specific blog post above. If you have any other queries, please contact Snowbooks via email. Off-topic or offensive comments will be removed without notice.

To screen out automated spam, please answer the following very easy question:

What colour is nice, new snow?

(please use all lower-case characters for your answer; no capitals)


Back to the blog »