
You Can't Innovate Like Apple - davidedicillo
http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/publications/magazine/6/4/you_cant_innovate_like_apple
======
thought_alarm
I'm reminded of the story of NUMMI [1], the American automobile plant that was
a 1980s joint venture between GM and Toyota. (It was covered in an episode of
This American Life).

In a nutshell, the story of NUMMI involves American GM workers building
Toyota-designed/GM-branded vehicles using Toyota's radically different
manufacturing processes. The plant itself was a smashing success for GM; the
plant achieved much higher quality and productivity than any of GMs
traditional plants, and it gave GM valuable insight into their rival's
manufacturing and design processes.

But this insight into Toyota's processes failed to transform GM because the GM
corporate culture was so entrenched. It took the company the better part of 20
years to really adopt these changes they learned in 1984, as they continued to
bleed market share to the Japanese.

The point of that story is that I believe the corporate culture of any large
tech company is equally entrenched, and in my experience it's this corporate
culture that utterly determines how a company's products are designed and
produced.

So it really doesn't matter _how_ Apple does things, it only matters that
they're different and successful; their competitors will be completely unable
to react or change. Every company is full of powerful employees who have
worked their entire careers to get where they are, and they will fight tooth
and nail to prevent losing their position over anything else. Do you think all
those PMs at Microsoft are going anywhere?

So companies like Microsoft, Motorola, HP, Acer, Nokia, Sony, and Nintendo can
only do what they've always done. And if you look at their products, that's
exactly what they continue to do in the face of a radically changing
landscape. That's why a Toyota or an Apple or a Google is so truly threatening
to their entrenched competitors. They achieve dramatically better results by
doing things differently.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI>

~~~
masklinn
> So companies like Microsoft, Motorola, HP, Acer, Nokia, Sony, and Nintendo
> can only do what they've always done.

I'm not sure Nintendo fits well in this list. They have seemed pretty willing
to "take risks" (in a controlled way) and do things differently in recent
years (since 2002~2003 and the start of the DS project, though they weren't
initially as bold with it as they could have been, calling it a "third pillar"
alongside the GBA and the GC, which we now know was utter bullshit)

~~~
thought_alarm

        > I'm not sure Nintendo fits well in this list. 
    

I think Nintendo is a great example.

The GameCube was clobbered by the PS2. How did Nintendo respond? Not by trying
to be more like Sony but by being more like Nintendo. The point is that it's
very difficult change corporate culture, for better or worse.

~~~
masklinn
> How did Nintendo respond? Not by trying to be more like Sony but by being
> more like Nintendo.

Erm… how? Since the NES and the GB, Nintendo had been following a pretty
"normal" path of giving more power each time. You could argue that they always
had something of an interesting approach to controllers (see N64 and GC
controllers), but they'd never entirely opted out of the current/existing
performance races and picked "wacko" control schemes before the DS.

~~~
recoil
Neither the DS nor the Wii is really an exception to the "more power" rule,
though the difference between a GC and a Wii is obviously minimal.

The N64 controller was a much "wackier" step than you imply too, in my
opinion. Nobody else had the idea of sticking an analogue stick on the
controller for a 3D-oriented console. Nintendo did it, and now everybody else
has copied.

The Virtual Boy is another contradictory example, though a failed one.

------
extension
I think there are plenty of companies that innovate like Apple, but none of
them make hardware.

You can make a great piece of software with just a few programmers. But making
a great gadget requires so many different specialized services and such a
large scale operation that it's impossible to get everyone drinking the same
kool-aid.

If DIY manufacturing ever takes off, that's when you will see Apple caliber
products coming from other people (but you'll have to print them yourself).

~~~
mechanical_fish
This is a fascinating hypothesis but I predict a big caveat: Much of Apple's
quality derives from _standardization_. Everyone with an iPhone 4 has the same
iPhone 4. You can design a case, a bicycle mount, a Twitter client or a learn-
to-juggle app for the iPhone 4 and know that everyone will have the same
experience.

Consider the world of free software, for example, where we have DIY
manufacturing. Everyone can write their own Drupal, Wordpress, or Rails. But
the market is not moving toward such bespoke products. Quite the opposite:
customers want something that is based on customizations -- as minor as
possible -- of a standard product.

Part of the problem, actually, is that you underestimate the effort of design.
When you can turn a blueprint into hardware overnight, you'll still have to
sweat over every line of that blueprint, and document it, and support it.

~~~
extension
A standard design can be done by one person and printed by millions. That's
the theory anyway.

Perhaps a more realistic scenario is that cheap manufacturing tech reduces the
barrier to entry enough that small startups can mass produce affordable
gadgets, without contracting everything out.

------
cletus
To me, the most important part of this (great) post was that _Apple doesn't do
market research_. It reminds me of a recent episode of Mad Men ("The
Rejected", season 4, episode 4).

In this episode, the agency explores the idea of a cream being part of a
beauty ritual rather than the traditional approach of linking beauty to
matrimony. Near the end there was this exchange:

> Dr Miller: Well, turns out the hypothesis was rejected. I'd recommend a
> strategy that linked Ponds cold cream to matrimony... a veiled promise.

> Don Draper: A la 1925. I'm not going to do that. So... what are we going to
> tell the client?

> Dr Miller: I can't change the truth.

> Don Draper: How do you know that's the truth? A new idea is something they
> don't know yet so of course it's not going to come up as an option. Put my
> campaign on TV for a year then hold your group again. Maybe it'll show up.

To me this so succinctly sums up the disconnect between market research and
the best products.

Take the iPad: I don't know why they decided to do a 10" tablet but I would
bet money that they came up with several form factors then Steve Jobs walked
into a room, picked one and said that's the one they're doing. This may be an
oversimplification but I'm sure it's not far from the truth.

~~~
kenjackson
Market research is generally extremely difficult to do well. And for consumer
products its less clear how useful it is. Most people use consuer products and
Apple engineers/designers are probably fairly close to their target market,
which are early adopters (others fall in line after early adopters).

And we should also be clear, Apple has tons of market data. These Apple stores
I'm sure supply them tons of data, as an example. While they may not do
targeted focus groups, I'm certain that they go into meetings where they say
things like, "Verizon would expand our user base by x%, but likely add these
additional costs".

~~~
cletus
The Verizon iPhone story is both my favourite and most hated tech story.

It's my most hated because I'm sick of hearing it. Every month it pops up.

It's my favourite because it's a classic example of rumourmongering becoming
"news" perpetuated by people who don't really understand Apple at all.

See, it doesn't matter what % increase in revenue or market size Verizon would
deliver to Apple, there is still one huge problem: CDMA technically doesn't
support simultaneous voice and data. There is no getting around that (beyond
the inevitable transition to LTE).

Anyone who thinks that Apple will release a CDMA version of the phone and then
try to explain to consumers that version A can do this but version B can't is,
well, off their rocker.

A CDMA iPad however is a completely different matter, but I digress...

Just like Apple could make more money--at least in the _short term_ \--by
releasing a new phone more often than every year. The fact is though that
people don't like the instant obsolescence of tech products. You buy an iPhone
4 today and you know it's as good as an iPhone will get til mid next year.

Compare that to the anarchic shotgun world of Android handsets.

Apple is driven by product and user experience not market research ("market
data" isn't quite the same thing).

~~~
kenjackson
"Anyone who thinks that Apple will release a CDMA version of the phone and
then try to explain to consumers that version A can do this but version B
can't is, well, off their rocker."

Apple does this with every product they ship. And in some cases they have even
more extreme cases.

For example, upgrade to the latest iPod Nano and whoa, no camera. So wait, if
I get the old version I get a camera and now I completely lose it. But if I go
up to the iPod touch I get the camera, but the classic line never had one?

I seriously doubt Apple is not moving to CDMA because of the issue you site.
If anything its because CDMAs life is a relatively short one now. Further, my
point wasn't that they go to CDMA, it was that I suspect that they have
analyzed that market up and down. I bet they've gotten data from ATT to know
what percent of their users use voice/data concurrently. I think Apple knows
more about the market then they let on.

~~~
extension
_For example, upgrade to the latest iPod Nano and whoa, no camera. So wait, if
I get the old version I get a camera and now I completely lose it. But if I go
up to the iPod touch I get the camera, but the classic line never had one?_

But this is a deliberate choice by Apple, not one forced on them by
technology. And users understand that this year's iPod Nano is a different
product from last year's, with different features. iPhone CDMA vs iPhone GSM
is gibberish to them.

~~~
kenjackson
I'm not sure if customers care about the distinction of confusion caused at
the initiative of Apple versus that caused at the initiative of the
"technology".

Regarding GSM vs CDMA specifically, there is hardly been any type of outcry
regarding voice/data on CDMA, even amongst people who move from GSM to CDMA.
In fact, I've never herad anyone complain about it. The only real complaint
I've heard about CDMA is that you can't use it anywere, except the USA and
like three other countries. But no one says, "I can't use voice and data on my
phone".

In any case I think we're bickering about a meta issue. I really couldn't care
less if Apple goes to Verizon or not. I'm not on Vertizon and I don't want an
iPhone. What I do believe is that Apple has a very good understanding of what
it means to go to Verizon.

~~~
cletus
It doesn't come up because the US mobile phone market is almost completely
balkanized: how many handsets are released in GSM and CDMA versions (or even
that do both GSM and CDMA)? Hardly any.

Buying a cell phone in the US basically means picking a carrier and then
picking a handset. In almost every other country--and certainly those that are
GSM based (including all of Europe and Australia)--have handsets that are
interchangeable on networks.

Why there aren't cross-technology phones (barring some minor exceptions) is
exactly why Apple won't do it either. Particularly because CDMA is a dying
technology anyway (at least in the developed world).

~~~
kenjackson
But people change carriers a fair bit. Churn is huge in the US. And yet almost
no one picks one carrier over another due to this feature. The big CDMA
carrier is bigger than the big GSM carrier. And the little CDMA carrier
(Sprint) is bigger than the little GSM carrier (TMo). It's really a non-issue.

And even the Samsung Galaxy S phones... read the reviews. While people talk
about some differences on the phones, I haven't seen a single review mention
the voice/data issue. And they just announced selling 5 million units in just
a few months -- so its not exactly a niche phone.

And a quick search brings up a ton of "Android Fragmentation" issues. They
talk about everything from 1.4 vs 2.2. of Android to screen resolutions to
keyboard/no keyboard to camera support, etc... I haven't found a mention of
voice/data fragmentation.

So if this is a problem that Apple would have it would be one that no one else
in the industry has had to explain. I fully expect Apple's magic would make
this the same non-issue it is for everyone else.

~~~
cletus
Apple isn't "most companies". That's kinda the point.

~~~
kenjackson
My point is that I don't think the following conversation happened:

CFO: "Hmm... we get an extra $30B in profit if we support Verizon, and
effectively end Androids short run and block WP7 from ever breathing.."

Jobs: "Screw it. This will mean that some customers will have voice/data and
some won't. And while our current users can't touch their phone and make a
call at the same time, and the fact that we're selling a neutered product in
AppleTV, this is where I draw the line. Even if it means that we completely
dominate the mobile space for here to eternity. I draw the line here."

I just don't think it happened at Apple or at "most companies".

------
danielnicollet
Before starting my company, I worked as a product manager for a good 10 years
and few other things after that. Truths like the Henry Ford quote: "If I’d
have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me ‘A faster
horse.’" are good and true but as this article points out, there is only room
for one Apple and one Ford at any one time or any one industry. The rest of us
have to be pragmatic and consider product innovation as something that's very
central and very interdependent with all other aspects of a company's strategy
and tactics (people, technology, customers, capital, competition, etc.).

~~~
ladon86
Can you elaborate further on why there is only room for one company of this
type in any one industry? I am struggling to see why that would be the case.

~~~
yardie
I've actually heard the same for fashion. There is usually one fashion house
that basically dictates style for a few years. All other highend designers are
basically lockstep behind this and then it trickles down through ready to
wear, and finally consumer brands (like H&M).

You also see this in consumer electronics where bezels alternate between
glossy black, flat black, silver, gold, white. If you go back further you'll
find woodgrain, yellows, greens, etc. But it would never be one manufacturer.
They all did it around the same time.

Today, Apple has decided a keyboard isn't necessary on a smartphone. 3 years
ago that wasn't that case. Nintendo has decided that motion was how to play
games. 3 years ago that wasn't the case. Ford decided that 4 wheels on a
chassis is what makes a car. Why not 3 wheels, 5 wheels, or 6 wheels?

The market likes to be given new options, but not too many options. People are
willing to take a chance but they won't accomadate everything. For now motion
controllers are where it's at. Nintendo decided it, MS and Sony have to follow
suit. In a few years it might be brainwave controllers. While those
controllers exist they aren't marketable. The public isn't ready for it, yet.

------
manish
This was there on HN 6 months back. More discussion here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1280304>.

------
danfitch
If this is true then how did ping and the new iTunes icon make it past the
10-3-1. I am joking but not everything is perfect. Just not sure how those two
slipped through.

~~~
CamperBob
Exactly. He says, "Quick, identify 10 different pieces of technology that
truly meet your needs and that don’t bug you due to a major flaw you either
have to live with or compensate for in some fashion. Could you come up with
more than five? I didn’t think so," as if Apple's strategy is to land on that
list.

I use and enjoy my share of Apple's wares, but even if I _could_ come up with
10 different pieces of technology that never piss me off, none of them would
be from Apple. Has this guy ever used iTunes, or dealt with the App Store?

~~~
bad_user
I am not enthusiastic about the App Store as a developer, but as a user I'm
pretty happy as it is the best app store I've seen judging by the quality and
number of the apps available.

Surely I'm seeing Android taking over just because it will sell more devices,
but the Android Marketplace is really shitty ... I can't even sell or buy apps
for Christ's sake, as my country is not on their list (I can do both from the
App Store).

And you would think Google has experience in building web services.

So the iTunes App Store may be painful with lots of restrictions and cursed
with an awful workflow for publishing apps, but at least it works.

~~~
notahacker
From the consumer point of view, the App Store could be _much_ better at
finding relevant apps and the iTunes integration is pretty irritating

~~~
yardie
I'm of the mind that Apple is like most companies that is has a runaway
product, they know what the defects are yet are reluctant to fix them. The App
Store is exactly this. They could do a lot of things to improve but because
their nearest competitor is so far behind they don't feel the need to right
now.

Hopefully the coming amazon app store lights a fire under the ass of Google
and Apple to get their shit together.

------
brown9-2
One interesting thing about the idea that most companies can't be like Apple
because their super-focused design attitude is risky and costly is: how did
Apple get here? If it's so hard for a company to bootstrap themselves into
this philosophy (and get large while doing it), how did Apple pull it off?

If my understanding of history is correct, it took a few failures and a dark
period of non-success. Perhaps there is an additional lesson in there about
recovering from failure and turning unsuccessful enterprises around.

On a related note, can anyone recommend a good book about Apple's history and
particularily the story of how Steve Jobs turned the ship around when he
returned? I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of interesting stories in that
history which probably haven't been widely disclosed.

~~~
kenjackson
Absolutely. The biggest factor in Apple's current success is their past
failure. Apple's willingness to completely redo their OS is a result of their
OS struggling, both in the market and technologically.

The other thing that their failure also helped solidify is their base. Being
the perpetual underdog they had a very strong enthusiastic core fan base. This
allows them to get decent sales on even their worst sellings products. And for
products with public displays (think iPod and iPhone) it helps them create
early viral marketing. This base is much less effective for non-publicly
displayed items (think their new touchpad or AppleTV).

I think these two things have allowed Apple to do bolder moves, yet actually
have less risk associated with it.

The only other tech company I could think of that would have been able to do
something similar was Commodore. But they self-imploded before publicly
displayed technology devices were very viable.

------
gmlk
It reminded me of something Knuth once wrote: "Judge an artist not by the
quality of what is hanging on the walls, but by the quality of what's in the
wastebasket"

------
ritusjain
The reason Apple was successful at coming back from the dark period is because
of Steve Jobs. Here is my question. Is it more important to have a CEO that
has an innovative vision or is it more important to have a employee base thats
is innovative?

And I would argue that the former is the crucial sauce for success... which
makes it hard to be sustainable...

------
aditya
"Apple wraps great ideas inside great ideas", reminds me of JJ Abrams Mystery
Box idea at TED:

<http://www.ted.com/talks/j_j_abrams_mystery_box.html>

------
secretasiandan
While their culture might be necessary, its not sufficient.

You also need the high end of the market with its fat profit margins to
support the cost of maintaining that culture.

------
robgoodlatte
Never tell me what I can't do.

------
skeletonjelly
Lorem Ipsum is Greek huh? How can I read the rest of the article without
vexation knowing that the writer can't identify a simple foreign language and
a prolific tool of design?

~~~
msbarnett
"Greek" is the correct design term for any dummy text in a mock-up.

See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeking>

~~~
skeletonjelly
No way. I would have called it Latining! Don't I feel like an idiot.

------
ody
"Apple designs for #2. No other mass-consumer products company puts as much
attention to detail into the fit and finish of the box—let alone the out-of-
box experience."

I'm sorry but no they do not put as much attention to detail into their
products as you would think. They didn't even have multitasking in the iPhone
until recently! And what was the antenna problems all about?

All I see is just enough attention to detail to make people go "wow, shiney."
and that's it.

~~~
steveklabnik
I'd actually argue the opposite; Apple pays so much attention to detail that
they figured out that multitasking isn't really important, so they could just
do it later. Copy and paste is awkward, it isn't absolutely necessary, they
could just do it later.

Even the antenna thing: only the tech press knows anything about this. Apple
said that just under 2% of people returned an iPhone 4. During that whole
scandal, I asked my friends that haven't ever heard of HN, "What do you think
about the iPhone 4 antenna problems?" and they had no idea what I was talking
about. Even among those of my friends that have iPhone 4s, only 2 out of 5
even had the issue at all, and lately, my Nexus One's antenna has been acting
up...

Apple is good at making MVPs, and then improving upon them. Eventually.

~~~
ody
Being a curious one, I had a look round your site as listed in your profile.
You say have a Nexus One, yet your personal site, Watch.Steve, releases the
tutorials in "iPhone + Apple TV" format and the filenames have iphone in
there.

Just an observation ;-) Prompted mainly by the strange pointless dig at the
Nexus One which had no relevance to the conversation or OP.

~~~
steveklabnik
Yep. The site was originally a copy of the code for Railscasts, which does the
same thing. I'm a life-long Mac user, but I do own a Nexus One, because I
absolutely refuse to do business with AT&T.

I don't think the dig was pointless. I'm not an EE kind of guy, but from my
understanding, basically all modern cell phones can have their antennas
interfered with through touching the bottom of your phone. But the way that
the iPhone 4's case was designed increased the severity of the interference...
my Nexus One does the same sort of thing. Just yesterday, I was talking on the
phone, and when I tried to hold it with my shoulder rather than with my hands,
I was told that I "sounded like I was underwater." This is almost 100%
reproducible.

~~~
ody
Interesting about the Nexus One. I've got the Desire which, when I get out of
my reception-less flat, I'll test for that problem.

I think the first time I tried holding it on my shoulder I dropped it so never
held it like that again :-D

