
Why Doesn't Apple Face The Innovator's Dilemma? - raganwald
http://globelogger.com/2008/05/why-doesnt-appl.html
======
andrewparker
Don't underestimate the power of good brand marketing. The author of this post
caulks up Apple's success to good design. I think design is important, but the
Apple brand is more important. Apple has created this club-like feel to their
products... if you own a Mac or an iPhone, you're in the in-crowd, and they
have spent ungodly sums of money on star-powered commercials to create a brand
with that "in-crowd" effect.

~~~
unalone
You have a point, but at the same time: Apple is only able to get away with
their particular brand of marketing because their products work in ways
similar to the manner broadcasted.

Case in point: the iPhone commercials, which were extremely minimalist and
made out to promote the iPhone as this ultrasmooth, ultraenjoyable product.
That commercial line made the iPhone as popular as it has become. But it
wouldn't have worked that way if the iPhone hadn't had such perfect design.
Imagine a commercial for the Voyager attempting the same types of ads. It
plain wouldn't work. Not because the Voyager is a poor phone per se, but
because it's so deeply flawed in its design.

~~~
misterbwong
Product design is as much a part of their marketing as their
commercials/advertisement. The strength of Apple is that they convey a single
message to the world. It extends to advertising, product design, store
design...all the to the way steve jobs carries himself in his keynotes.
Everything that they do says "minimalistic design with focused functionality."

~~~
unalone
That's an interesting concept, treating product design as part of the
marketing. It's a type of marketing that's actually useful to the end user.

~~~
Hexstream
I find it really sad that marketing is so pervasively backwards that marketing
that's useful to the user can be considered an _interesting_ concept... it
should be the norm!

If a product or service is so great and amazing, it seems to me that simply
describing it, without the usual bullshit hype and borderline (or outright)
lies that usually accompany the description, should be enough for people to
try it, love it, then tell everyone they know how great it is.

As an example of what I'd call " _real_ marketing", for my upcoming niche
fansite about some MMORPG, I want to give maximum information to potential
users about what my site does and how, before they even sign up. And I'm
working hard to structure the site properly and have usable navigation, and
eventually I want tutorials integrated all throughout the site and such. In
fact, I'll let users try a limited version of the site just by providing a
username and password, no email required. The idea is to make barrier to
adoption almost impossibly low.

And I do want to produce marketing material, though I'll let my users
distribute it. First, the marketing stuff will be segregated in one section of
the site, so that people can go look it up only if they actually want to, I
don't want to use the braindead "opt-out" approach that seems so popular where
you spread your bullshit hype everywhere and your customers have to ignore it
if they happen not to want to hear it (which most of them don't). I'll produce
a couple versions of my marketing material, targeted to specific kinds of
users. So if for example some alliance member wants to convince his leader to
adopt my service for the whole alliance, he'll show him the leader-targetted
page. So, make a great product that people WANT to talk about and then make it
EASY to do so, provide a lot of "meat" so they have lots to talk about. I'm
lucky because my site is so focused on a tight audience that I just need to
tell a few people directly about it to bootstrap adoption.

------
wave
To summarize the article "By choosing to compete on design instead of
technology alone, Apple seems to have found a loophole in the Innovator's
Dilemma."

Can we apply the same type of concept to Internet based company and be
successful? Does 37signals use this concept?

------
vlad
Apple designs a single, specific product with no more than two or three
distinct configurations that looks good, functions well, and is sold at a
premium, first and foremost. Then, they collect feedback from users, and make
a change in one of their next patches or product releases.

I really believe Apple has user feedback as part of their entire strategy, but
not necessarily before a product's release. They release something simple
first, and then improve it continuously based on user feedback and sales
numbers.

Other computer and electronics companies try to flood the market with as many
products as possible, and seeing what sticks. The designs suck, software is
rushed (if not still in beta) when the products are released, and lack an
overall theme or brand among all products the company has, unlike Apple.

------
Tichy
"No one’s going to beat Apple by being "good enough". The only way to beat the
iPhone is by creating something better."

Uh, beat in what way? He can't be talking about selling more units. Seems to
me Nokia et al are still winning by being "good enough".

------
redorb
I think apple has a great lead and will for sometime because the same reason
Google does.

\- they were first to market with an "ah-ha" Idea; when google search worked
it was an "ah-ha" for many people and most stuck around - today you see google
as a "verb"

\- when I first saw the Ipod it was an "ah-ha" moment with the wheel and the
way to legally get music built in. Although I have come to realize that their
weak point is their proprietary format.

\- what I'm trying to say is they both have something that others can't easily
replicate, its not a feature or killer product (Although it started that way)
its now a "Brand" and a huge chunk of users that adore them.

------
pchristensen
Because they read the Innovator's Solution. There's a chart in there (can't
find it in Google Books) that has the hierarchy of what customers value - it's
something like 1) possibility 2) cost 3) ease of use. Ah, I'm not doing it
justice, I've got to go get the book now.

