3 ms·

Those are nice and all, but i'm going with the primary factor being the vision of Steve Jobs. His character, his etiquette, his leadership, his mind and soul.

Those are nice and all, but i'm going with the primary factor being the vision of Steve Jobs. His character, his etiquette, his leadership, his mind and soul. The possibilities are endless when someone like him is paired with investor money and enough decision making power to create things. You will find a lot of similarities between Jobs and James Dyson. Both are obsessive, borderline compulsive personalities because they focus on one thing, and one thing only: building something that exceeds your expectation. Everything listed in the article is a by-product of that, not the reason for.

todayiamme 16y ago
Mr. Jobs' vision aside the biggest thing that they have going for them is that they don't try to succeed like someone else. Google has unique strengths and weaknesses inherent to its culture and leadership. Microsoft is exactly the same. So is any startup. However, for some reason people talk about success in a prescription sort of way. It is true that common strains will exist between companies who have achieved some measurable amount of success, but what works for one of them will not necessarily work for the other. The interesting thing about Microsoft is that they fail whenever they walk outside of their strengths. Moreover they loose resources, time and mind share each time they do something like that. Some may call it a lack of focus, but they seem to aim at mimicking other people's success, and the saddest bit is that they aren't alone. I read about people who want to be Steve Jobs and companies that want to be like Apple. I wish I could explain to them that you can't do that. You simply can't. Apple was unique. Steve Jobs is unique and so are you. So, why don't you focus on what makes you unique? People fall down more often when they are pretending to be someone else. I don't know why but in the lure of the siren of success they kill the very bits of them that ensure their success. What I am trying to say is that perhaps we spend too much time reading into other people's success than to see what is in ourselves. Perhaps that just sets us up for inevitable failure down the road. I can't base my life on the question; "what would Steve Jobs do?". I can't base a company on that either. P.S. - Awesome article.
demallien 16y ago
Yes, the soul of products made by Dyson definitely share that same sense of magic as those from Apple. The "fan" they put out a little while back is a perfect example - absolutely minimalist, not a single extraneous feature. But also like Apple, the products have an underlying technical prowess that just doesn't exist in their competitors. That fan - it's absolutely insane, there are no moving parts as seen from the exterior. It's like magic - does that remind you of another product? I think products like this can only be created when it's a product person that heads the company. It's only when the product is the CEO's baby that enough passion is put into the product to make that magic. Of course, it also needs a bunch of money behind the CEO, because it's only with money that you can make decisions without having to worry about the bottom line during the design phase. Apple couldn't have done what they did without first starting with the Apple I/II. Those weren't magical products, they were just "good enough" to permit the bootstrapping of the Mac.

todayiamme 16y ago

Mr. Jobs' vision aside the biggest thing that they have going for them is that they don't try to succeed like someone else. Google has unique strengths and weaknesses inherent to its culture and leadership. Microsoft is exactly the same. So is any startup. However, for some reason people talk about success in a prescription sort of way. It is true that common strains will exist between companies who have achieved some measurable amount of success, but what works for one of them will not necessarily work for the other. The interesting thing about Microsoft is that they fail whenever they walk outside of their strengths. Moreover they loose resources, time and mind share each time they do something like that. Some may call it a lack of focus, but they seem to aim at mimicking other people's success, and the saddest bit is that they aren't alone. I read about people who want to be Steve Jobs and companies that want to be like Apple. I wish I could explain to them that you can't do that. You simply can't. Apple was unique. Steve Jobs is unique and so are you. So, why don't you focus on what makes you unique? People fall down more often when they are pretending to be someone else. I don't know why but in the lure of the siren of success they kill the very bits of them that ensure their success. What I am trying to say is that perhaps we spend too much time reading into other people's success than to see what is in ourselves. Perhaps that just sets us up for inevitable failure down the road. I can't base my life on the question; "what would Steve Jobs do?". I can't base a company on that either. P.S. - Awesome article.

demallien 16y ago

Yes, the soul of products made by Dyson definitely share that same sense of magic as those from Apple. The "fan" they put out a little while back is a perfect example - absolutely minimalist, not a single extraneous feature. But also like Apple, the products have an underlying technical prowess that just doesn't exist in their competitors. That fan - it's absolutely insane, there are no moving parts as seen from the exterior. It's like magic - does that remind you of another product? I think products like this can only be created when it's a product person that heads the company. It's only when the product is the CEO's baby that enough passion is put into the product to make that magic. Of course, it also needs a bunch of money behind the CEO, because it's only with money that you can make decisions without having to worry about the bottom line during the design phase. Apple couldn't have done what they did without first starting with the Apple I/II. Those weren't magical products, they were just "good enough" to permit the bootstrapping of the Mac.