4 ms·

The thing that stands out here is the number of people who have to be on board before a product makes it to market, and how they focus group everything. Very Mi

• jkincaid 17y ago
  In-N-Out Burger might be a good fast-food equivalent to Apple. I have no idea if they focus test any of their food but they've had the same menu for ages. They do a few things very well, and there's also a mystique about the company.
  • Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
    I doubt In-N-Out focus-tests, as they never really change anything, but there are a number of other parallels to Apple. They have a near-religious focus on the customer experience, to the point where they pass up significant growth opportunities (like franchising) rather than put that experience at risk. Not to mention that the frenzy around the opening of a new In-N-Out makes an Apple Store opening look positively sleepy.
    • coderdude 17y ago
      Their focus on the customer experience may actually be religious. They discreetly print bible verses on food wrappers and cups. Maybe they couldn't trust normal people to uphold their Christian affiliation.
      • Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
        The bible verses were introduced in the mid-1980s when the then-president of the company went "born again" (as it was still a family-owned/family-run business at the time, this was easy to implement by fiat). I suspect their continuing presence has more to do with inertia than any evangelical bent at the corporate level; removing them would stir up negative PR with no real purpose.
    • cracell 17y ago
      The creepy thing about In-N-Out is that nearly every In-N-out store is exactly the same. Overall I've been in probably 20-30 that all use the same layout with very small differences (placement of the ketchup station, sometimes fake plants in dividers and a couple variations of placement of a few seats). As well as a few kitchen variations but I haven't noticed those anymore.
• camccann 17y ago
  Is there a fast-food equivalent to Apple? This is going to sound ridiculously clichéd, but could probably make a case for Starbucks. A lot their success came from having and marketing a consistent, stylized aesthetic, they got a lot of flack for being expensive, they unified and created a "standard" of sorts in a market that was fragmented and not seen as interesting (i.e., coffee shops vs. MP3 players and online music stores), their aesthetic choices tend to get adopted by competitors...
  • mynameishere 17y ago
    Coffee is one thing, but in my experience the food at Starbucks is worse than McDonalds.
  • philwelch 17y ago
    The essential ingredient to Apple isn't the consistent, stylized aesthetic, or the expense, or any of that. The essential ingredient is a charismatic dictator who says "this is what we're doing" and makes the company focus on it. It's usually a very bad business model, because dictatorship almost never works, but it does depend on the dictator. And there's also no good way of choosing a dictator--someone with Jobs' force of will either makes himself the dictator, or you have to use some sort of collaborative process. No one at Apple sat down and said "let's put Steve in charge again", Steve heard that they were shopping for an operating system, called them up, and spent the next year or two taking over the company. And if someone makes himself your dictator, he's not always very good at it. Jobs himself almost ran two companies into the ground before his business sense was properly calibrated. You don't just have to have a dictator, you have to have a dictator who knows what to do.
    • JanezStupar 17y ago
      Most of us agree that enlightened absolutism is the best form of government. However, so far nobody solved the problem of ensuring a steady supply of good kings. By the way - its not just apple. Any company is essentially a dictatorship. But most of dictators are scared or clueless so they rely on layers of committees upon layers of committees to do their work. What I took from the article is that getting a product to market at McDonalds is hard - because of logistics behind getting all the ingredients to the restaurants in time AND getting through all the layers of people who don't want to take (or cant) responsibility. Do I see an end for the McDonalds?
• weaksauce 17y ago
  I would say Chipotle is a fair equivalent. Still fast food but a more refined aesthetic inside, hipster music, more expensive food, though quite tasty for fast food, and only a few options on what you can order. Edit: They also have a "green" angle that they are selling.
  • shrike 17y ago
    That's a funny equivalent, MacDonalds was an initial investor and majority owner of Chipotle[1]. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipotle_Mexican_Grill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipotle_Mexican_Grill
    • ams6110 17y ago
      I believe they (McDonalds) are also the owner of Donatos pizza. At one point in the past they tried to start up a chain of restaurants modeled after Boston Chicken but it didn't last long.
      • ams6110 17y ago
        EDIT: It was called Hearth Express. I didn't realize they later bought (and then sold) Boston [Chicken|Market].
    • weaksauce 17y ago
      In a way though it was a smart move for McDonald's because of the brand segmentation. It's like honda is more economy versus Acura is a more expensive brand though they are owned by the same company. Another example of this is toyota versus lexus.
• jodrellblank 17y ago
  What about the alarmist content? Really, the fillet-o-fish is bad because it's made of ugly fish? Milkshakes used to be milk and icecream - and icecream has no ingredients, eh?Coffee syrup has coffee too low in the ingredients for your liking? You wouldn't expect to find water in chicken breast? Aren't there enough genuine weird things to pick on in fast food?
  • larrywright 17y ago
    The content was alarmist, but the title was worse. I think you overestimate how aware people are of what's in the food they eat though.
• riffic 17y ago
  >Is there a fast-food equivalent to Apple? I'd say Chipotle comes pretty close.