
Apple and I.B.M. Aren’t All That Different - J3L2404
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/business/07unboxed.html?src=twr
======
mustpax
This reads like something written word for word by IBM PR. It is also woefully
misinformed. For instance:

 _The goal . . . was to build a profitable business with a lot of recurring
revenue, based on service contracts and software licenses. . . . Over the last
10 years, Apple has embraced much of the same strategy — in broad strokes._

Even in broad strokes Apple's strategy is completely different. Apple makes
money in selling vertically integrated products directly to consumers. The
vast majority of Apple's income comes from when someone pays for the gadget
(hardware) at purchase time. IBM relies heavily on support contracts and
consulting work continued income, or as this journalist puts it, "recurring
revenue."

 _At I.B.M., the inspiration engine is more subtle and conceptual. In late
2008, Mr. Palmisano and his team settled on a theme: the deployment of
scientific research and technology to tackle big challenges for business and
society . . . . And the company has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on
its “Smarter Planet” advertising campaign._

A marketing campaign is a sign of IBMs "subtle and conceptual" inspiration
engine? To me IBM's campaign represents the worst of contentless corporate
advertising. No actual products named, no concrete facts, just feel-good
"we're smart and serious" messaging. A lot like those wonderful full page ads
in magazines by Shell or BP saying "don't worry, we really love renewable
energy." Apple's advertising campaigns always center around actual products,
what they do, what they stand for, why you want them. Once again, a far cry
from "a series of conversations for a smarter planet."

------
sudont
_Apple, by contrast, focuses only on product innovation, not scientific
invention._

I would have to say that this is because the rate of innovation is so
terrific, anything 5 years behind the innovation curve is only just beginning
to become stable enough for mass production. A good example is the unibody
process Apple rolled out. Sure, it's not exactly the newest technique to build
something, but it was pretty new to use it to build consumer laptops.

~~~
kenjackson
Also I think that Apple's focus is really just the smarter thing to do. Basic
R&D rarely ever seems to benefit those doing the research.

And as you note, in the computer industry cutting edge products are
effectively cutting edge research projects. This isn't like the hammer
industry where you can ship a 20 year old hammer design. And this shows at
academic conferences where industry presentations on shipping products are
often the best attended talks.

~~~
_delirium
It depends on how basic you mean, but Intel has arguably made a successful
career out of doing basic R&D. They invent new fab processes and so on, rather
than just building chips out of off-the-shelf technology, which is one of
their main competitive edges.

~~~
kenjackson
But fab processes are just about their core business. You can't build chips
out of OTS technology. And the only way to do 22nm chips requires research to
do it. But it is focused research, in the same way Apple focuses.

Unfocused research is like the stuff IBM does for teleportation. Very cool,
but will not make them any money. And frankly is probably better suited to be
done in academia or by the gov't.

------
padmanabhan01
They can't be more different. IBM products suck (especially their software).
Apple's don't.

------
known
IBM employs more Attorneys than Engineers.

~~~
ajb
Really? Citation?

~~~
known
I read it in <http://isbn.nu/9780375503665>

