5 ms·

The iPad sales are just staggering. Moving that many units of a product that didn't even exist a year ago, in a category that was long thought dead, is incredib

The iPad sales are just staggering. Moving that many units of a product that didn't even exist a year ago, in a category that was long thought dead, is incredible. Identify an optimal user experience, polish the hell out of it, then perform an airtight integration of every single component, from end-to-end. The software and hardware, the content ecosystem, the physical distribution, all of it fits together perfectly. When you look at it closely, Apple, as a portfolio of talent, technologies and interacting businesses, resembles the sort of microorganism that Intelligent Design proponents advance as evidence of a god. Everything cooperates in such a concerted, integrated way it's almost impossible to imagine developing any of it in simpler phases. In a world filled with corporations whose in-fighting and conflicting agendas make them look like mosh pits, Apple has the tightest marching band in history. edit: Also, anyone notice how often Apple reports their "best quarter ever?"

jw84 16y ago
Apple wasn't always like that. Took a long time for that maturity and took a lot of centralizing power before everything came into being.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  It took Steve Jobs returning and demanding extraordinary focus. It started with Apple's now famous matrix of consumer and pro for mobile and desktop. New products were added only after judicious consideration of both the user experience and business cases. As new parts of the business emerged, they were tightly integrated with existing products (iTunes + iPod, OS X + iPhone, etc) edit: It's also worth mentioning that he cleared out all the dead wood, in terms of leadership, fired the board and re-organized Apple around people whose talent and passion positioned the company well for the future. Most famously, Jonathan Ive was on his way out. Steve discovered him languishing in Apple's Industrial Design labs, creatively wilting, dying to be set loose on something daring. Jobs let him have his way, he built the first iMac and now he's a VP. The most interesting thing about Apple, from my perspective and theirs, is how often they say no to new opportunities. Focus is the sword they used to cut through bullshit before the turnaround and the sword they use now to plow through a field of opportunities, executing on only the best of the best. Apple of the early-to-mid-90's was just like any other company. Management fiefdoms, conflicting product strategies, and a sea of impossible to understand variations on the same products. Nothing got done. It survived on the fumes that came from the power of the original Mac, and the DNA that was baked into the company: computers should be made to empower everyone.
  - kabdib 16y ago
    I remember leaving Apple in the 90s, then visiting for meetings (because our start-up had a business relationship with Apple). The contrast between our small (six person) company and the entrenched folks at Apple was amazing, especially since I had been one of them just a month or two earlier. Us: Let's get this done. We're three months to financial destruction, let's move. Apple: (totally not getting it) ... add to this people who stuck their heads in our meetings, saying "Sorry, I'm triple-booked, hi, see you next week." I can't say I'm sorry to see the old Apple go. (I'm sorry that the Newton was never properly followed-through on, but that's another story).
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  And a lot of experience, with Macs, with the iPod, with the iPhone, etc.
apike 16y ago
When you look at it closely, Apple, as a portfolio of talent, technologies and interacting businesses, resembles the sort of microorganism that Intelligent Design proponents advance as evidence of a god. Having been an Apple employee, it's funny to me when people describe Apple this way. If you think of their operations as perfect, godlike, or seamless, you have no chance of really understanding them or replicating the good parts yourself. At Apple there are indeed conflicting agendas, moments of doubt, in-fights, technical debts, and lame-duck products. There might be less of these things than other big companies, but it's still just a group of thousands of individuals trying to make great stuff.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  > Having been an Apple employee, it's funny to me when people describe Apple this way. If you think of their operations as perfect, godlike, or seamless, you have no chance of really understanding them or replicating the good parts yourself. A completely agree, so I think you may have missed my point. It's worth noting that I think Intelligent Design is horseshit, so god leaps neither from that argument nor from Apple for me. For reference, here's the background: Flagellar motor (real): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Evolution_of_flagella_and_debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Evolution_of_flagella... Irreducible complexity (horseshit): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity Apple, of course, did evolve from a much less complex organism than it is now, but the overall harmony of its successful products is impressive and demonstrably difficult to replicate. The easy route is to ascribe supernatural powers to Apple's success, but of course the history demonstrates methodical system planning, keen insight, hard work, a bit of fanaticism, and some good timing. The difference between Apple and other organizations is that while in-fighting and conflicting agendas may exist (as in any human system) this doesn't seem to get in the way of a coherent user product. Compare that with Sony, which can't muster a coherent consumer strategy to save its life. (Well, absent saddling every last product with the proprietary storage device du jour.) Apple may itself not be seamless but the overall experience for users of Apple products is shockingly so, especially when compared to competing gear. What internal back biting can you share from your tenure at Apple, though? It would be interesting to learn just how aggressively leadership must filter and otherwise confine these impulses to end up with the focus, profits and product mix we see today.
eru 16y ago
> edit: Also, anyone notice how often Apple reports their "best quarter ever?" It would be slighty more meaningful if you took inflation into account. (Though they are growing way faster than inflation.)

jw84 16y ago

Apple wasn't always like that. Took a long time for that maturity and took a lot of centralizing power before everything came into being.

danilocampos 16y ago
It took Steve Jobs returning and demanding extraordinary focus. It started with Apple's now famous matrix of consumer and pro for mobile and desktop. New products were added only after judicious consideration of both the user experience and business cases. As new parts of the business emerged, they were tightly integrated with existing products (iTunes + iPod, OS X + iPhone, etc) edit: It's also worth mentioning that he cleared out all the dead wood, in terms of leadership, fired the board and re-organized Apple around people whose talent and passion positioned the company well for the future. Most famously, Jonathan Ive was on his way out. Steve discovered him languishing in Apple's Industrial Design labs, creatively wilting, dying to be set loose on something daring. Jobs let him have his way, he built the first iMac and now he's a VP. The most interesting thing about Apple, from my perspective and theirs, is how often they say no to new opportunities. Focus is the sword they used to cut through bullshit before the turnaround and the sword they use now to plow through a field of opportunities, executing on only the best of the best. Apple of the early-to-mid-90's was just like any other company. Management fiefdoms, conflicting product strategies, and a sea of impossible to understand variations on the same products. Nothing got done. It survived on the fumes that came from the power of the original Mac, and the DNA that was baked into the company: computers should be made to empower everyone.
- kabdib 16y ago
  I remember leaving Apple in the 90s, then visiting for meetings (because our start-up had a business relationship with Apple). The contrast between our small (six person) company and the entrenched folks at Apple was amazing, especially since I had been one of them just a month or two earlier. Us: Let's get this done. We're three months to financial destruction, let's move. Apple: (totally not getting it) ... add to this people who stuck their heads in our meetings, saying "Sorry, I'm triple-booked, hi, see you next week." I can't say I'm sorry to see the old Apple go. (I'm sorry that the Newton was never properly followed-through on, but that's another story).
InclinedPlane 16y ago
And a lot of experience, with Macs, with the iPod, with the iPhone, etc.

apike 16y ago

When you look at it closely, Apple, as a portfolio of talent, technologies and interacting businesses, resembles the sort of microorganism that Intelligent Design proponents advance as evidence of a god. Having been an Apple employee, it's funny to me when people describe Apple this way. If you think of their operations as perfect, godlike, or seamless, you have no chance of really understanding them or replicating the good parts yourself. At Apple there are indeed conflicting agendas, moments of doubt, in-fights, technical debts, and lame-duck products. There might be less of these things than other big companies, but it's still just a group of thousands of individuals trying to make great stuff.

danilocampos 16y ago
> Having been an Apple employee, it's funny to me when people describe Apple this way. If you think of their operations as perfect, godlike, or seamless, you have no chance of really understanding them or replicating the good parts yourself. A completely agree, so I think you may have missed my point. It's worth noting that I think Intelligent Design is horseshit, so god leaps neither from that argument nor from Apple for me. For reference, here's the background: Flagellar motor (real): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Evolution_of_flagella_and_debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Evolution_of_flagella... Irreducible complexity (horseshit): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity Apple, of course, did evolve from a much less complex organism than it is now, but the overall harmony of its successful products is impressive and demonstrably difficult to replicate. The easy route is to ascribe supernatural powers to Apple's success, but of course the history demonstrates methodical system planning, keen insight, hard work, a bit of fanaticism, and some good timing. The difference between Apple and other organizations is that while in-fighting and conflicting agendas may exist (as in any human system) this doesn't seem to get in the way of a coherent user product. Compare that with Sony, which can't muster a coherent consumer strategy to save its life. (Well, absent saddling every last product with the proprietary storage device du jour.) Apple may itself not be seamless but the overall experience for users of Apple products is shockingly so, especially when compared to competing gear. What internal back biting can you share from your tenure at Apple, though? It would be interesting to learn just how aggressively leadership must filter and otherwise confine these impulses to end up with the focus, profits and product mix we see today.

eru 16y ago

> edit: Also, anyone notice how often Apple reports their "best quarter ever?" It would be slighty more meaningful if you took inflation into account. (Though they are growing way faster than inflation.)