53 ms·

It staggers me that time and time again Apple lays out the reasons for it's unrivalled success for all to see, yet non of it's rivals seem interested in copying

It staggers me that time and time again Apple lays out the reasons for it's unrivalled success for all to see, yet non of it's rivals seem interested in copying their methods and opt for simply copying their products. Fortune favours the brave.

zipdog 15y ago
At its heart, design is a risk, because it looks to create what isn't. Most businesses are focussed on improving what is. The unknown is unquantifiable, and doesn't fit well into a spreadsheet
mattgreenrocks 15y ago
Probably because Apple's approach to design isn't what they teach in business school...which obviously means its an anomaly!
Cushman 15y ago
This applies to Silicon Valley in general, I think. We take risks, we bet on long shots, we try to serve markets with zero demand and squeeze blood from stones. We spend money like it was just paper, and when we don't have money we give our time away for free working on things we believe in. According to traditional business management practices, no startup should last more than a couple of months. And most don't. And yet, somehow, Silicon Valley as a cultural economy is the most innovative, successful, profitable(?) place in the world. What the MBAs don't get is that a rising tide lifts all boats. If my company creates a new market, can't meet demand, and goes under, I can easily find great work with the competitor that put me out of business. Or start a new business that serves their customers in a new market. Shoot, even if all I get out of it is that I can use their product, that's great. I'm still better off, even though I "lost". And as long as we have this understanding with each other, that failure won't be punished, but rewarded, not with a golden parachute, but with more chances to fail-- then we're not afraid to take risks. We're allowed to be crazy. We're allowed to innovate. Bet our future on an insanely great new project for which there's no demand, why not? We have nothing to lose. It's just a company, there will be more like it. We might not get rich, this time, but we'll know we made a dent. Steve Jobs might not have invented that idea, but he sure taught it to a whole bunch of us.
- gte910h 15y ago
  I've added this to my snippet's file. Very well written.
  - toot 15y ago
    Apologies for not adding to the discussion either, but I would love if gte910h would be willing to share this file on pastebin.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    I'm flattered. Feel free to redistribute it as much as you like; in a country that's struggling just to pay the bills, I feel like we should be talking about this a lot louder.
peterb 15y ago
Indeed. Industrial design is important and it needs to be given attention from the highest level of an organization. But this introduces a paradox. If the top levels of your organization do not understand design, then they cannot hire or promote the best designers.
Herring 15y ago
Process takes a long time to change because you have to overhaul the entire bureaucracy or get entirely new companies. They are trying. It might take them 10, 20 years.
- technoslut 15y ago
  I wonder if that is true. By the time Jobs came back in '97 he had recognized Ive's talent and they released the iMac in '98. It took Apple one year to make that adjustment. How long should it really take others to do the same?
  - kiiski 15y ago
    Which others are we talking about and how big are they compared to apple of '97 (in manpower, layers and departments)?
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Could you be more specific on what these reasons are? You seem to imply that it's easy or obvious but I think it's neither. Success is never easy. There is no magic bullet, there is no blueprint.
- tomelders 15y ago
  Design is King. There are queens and princes and other high ranking royal family memebers in this metaphor, such as marketing, sales and operations. But they all take their orders from the King. And Design is the King. Anyone who thinks that is "harder than it sounds" isn't thinking straight. It's hard producing, marketing and selling badly designed products. It's hard motivating a work force who aren't happy or proud in their work. It's hard trying to compete with a company that's better than you at designing products. It's hard whichever way you choose to go.
nobody31415 15y ago
Twas ever thus. Ben Rich was Kelly Johnson's assistant at the original Lockheed Skunkworks (creator of the U2, SR71, etc) - he was regularly approached to leave and create skunkworks for every other aerospace company. As soon as he talked to them they enthused about the Skunkworks setup and how their version would be better since it would be in the main plant, with it's own set of VPs to supervise it and be properly intergrated into the main business etc. ps. Read his biography http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003 http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/d... if you think any of this Silicon Valley stuff is new
chrislomax 15y ago
I personally think it's impossible to replicate what Apple have done. It's not just one thing that has caused a change but a series of changes starting when they introduced the iMac. Apple is more of a "love mark" than a technology company. Back in 95, Microsoft was a love mark, people loved it when a new version of windows came out, now people dread it. People started looking for an alternative and Apple was there, all different and shiny. It wasn't 1 year that turned them around, its the result of 12 hard years. Microsoft released a tablet back in 2000, did anyone care? Apple does it and millions rush to buy it, they have created a following, this is not easily replicated. They innovate, amaze and move onto the next thing. There is nothing simple about this process.
- nobody31415 15y ago
  You could take everything you just said and apply it to Sony in 1980. Then their founder, Akio Morita, retired with poor health and they diversified into lots of sensible business decisions about owning studios Then some little computer company in California moved in on their territory and began making beautiful, simple, well made upmarket products.
  - Newgy 15y ago
    By "sensible" you mean "disastrous." Owning Sony Pictures has been a consistent money loser, and the studio IP concerns at Sony Music and Pictures hamstrung their electronics arm from innovating in the face of the iPod threat.
    - nobody31415 15y ago
      It was a very 'sensible' decision if you are an MBA! If Sony had been a little more flexible and far sighted it could have worked. But as you say, it resulted in the DAT tape and minidisk being restricted to protect the studio. It's the same sensible that means Apple shouldn't have started iTunes (we aren't a record company) and Amazon shouldn't have done Kindle (we aren't a computer company) !
    - saturdaysaint 15y ago
jad 15y ago
A big reason for this is that what Apple does is very, very _hard_. It's really hard to build physical objects with design good enough to be featured in museums. It's really hard to build your own software ecosystem, from operating system to software distribution to entertainment services. It's hard enough just to do them; it's extremely hard to be great at them. Even if other companies _wanted_ to replicate Apple's way of doing business, it's like Paul Graham pointed out in his Great Hackers essay: you have to have great people at the top to know how to identify the great talent below that actually dooes the work. Excellence has to permeate the entire organization. Do you see that coming from Samsung, HTC, or Motorola? They clearly don't have the capability, so they get the software from somewhere else, and then make it worse by adding their own differentiating layers. Google or Microsoft can obviously make the software, but, unfortunately, they choose not to make the hardware, and in my opinion their products suffer for it.
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  >It's really hard to build physical objects with design good enough to be featured in museums. True, it's hard, but not that hard. These guys did it on a regular basis: http://www.lushpad.com/articles.php?id=16&pag=1 http://www.lushpad.com/articles.php?id=16&pag=1 The true reason as you point out is organizational and it is the same as that age-old killer of creativity: fear. The subordinates are afraid of doing something the boss does not want. The boss is not pushing ahead either because he/she is afraid of making decisions that may entail risk.
  - sbuk 15y ago
    The article you link to has a photo of arguably some of the greatest designers of the mid 20th century, and Ive and his team are perhaps as consistent as the Eames or Saarinen. Doing good design is easy, great design however is much, much harder.
vixen99 15y ago
Here are some method:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/21/tanya-gold-steve-jobs-deification-apple http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/21/tanya-go...

zipdog 15y ago

At its heart, design is a risk, because it looks to create what isn't. Most businesses are focussed on improving what is. The unknown is unquantifiable, and doesn't fit well into a spreadsheet

mattgreenrocks 15y ago

Probably because Apple's approach to design isn't what they teach in business school...which obviously means its an anomaly!

Cushman 15y ago

This applies to Silicon Valley in general, I think. We take risks, we bet on long shots, we try to serve markets with zero demand and squeeze blood from stones. We spend money like it was just paper, and when we don't have money we give our time away for free working on things we believe in. According to traditional business management practices, no startup should last more than a couple of months. And most don't. And yet, somehow, Silicon Valley as a cultural economy is the most innovative, successful, profitable(?) place in the world. What the MBAs don't get is that a rising tide lifts all boats. If my company creates a new market, can't meet demand, and goes under, I can easily find great work with the competitor that put me out of business. Or start a new business that serves their customers in a new market. Shoot, even if all I get out of it is that I can use their product, that's great. I'm still better off, even though I "lost". And as long as we have this understanding with each other, that failure won't be punished, but rewarded, not with a golden parachute, but with more chances to fail-- then we're not afraid to take risks. We're allowed to be crazy. We're allowed to innovate. Bet our future on an insanely great new project for which there's no demand, why not? We have nothing to lose. It's just a company, there will be more like it. We might not get rich, this time, but we'll know we made a dent. Steve Jobs might not have invented that idea, but he sure taught it to a whole bunch of us.

gte910h 15y ago
I've added this to my snippet's file. Very well written.
- toot 15y ago
  Apologies for not adding to the discussion either, but I would love if gte910h would be willing to share this file on pastebin.
- Cushman 15y ago
  I'm flattered. Feel free to redistribute it as much as you like; in a country that's struggling just to pay the bills, I feel like we should be talking about this a lot louder.

peterb 15y ago

Indeed. Industrial design is important and it needs to be given attention from the highest level of an organization. But this introduces a paradox. If the top levels of your organization do not understand design, then they cannot hire or promote the best designers.

Herring 15y ago

Process takes a long time to change because you have to overhaul the entire bureaucracy or get entirely new companies. They are trying. It might take them 10, 20 years.

technoslut 15y ago
I wonder if that is true. By the time Jobs came back in '97 he had recognized Ive's talent and they released the iMac in '98. It took Apple one year to make that adjustment. How long should it really take others to do the same?
- kiiski 15y ago
  Which others are we talking about and how big are they compared to apple of '97 (in manpower, layers and departments)?

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

Could you be more specific on what these reasons are? You seem to imply that it's easy or obvious but I think it's neither. Success is never easy. There is no magic bullet, there is no blueprint.

tomelders 15y ago
Design is King. There are queens and princes and other high ranking royal family memebers in this metaphor, such as marketing, sales and operations. But they all take their orders from the King. And Design is the King. Anyone who thinks that is "harder than it sounds" isn't thinking straight. It's hard producing, marketing and selling badly designed products. It's hard motivating a work force who aren't happy or proud in their work. It's hard trying to compete with a company that's better than you at designing products. It's hard whichever way you choose to go.

nobody31415 15y ago

Twas ever thus. Ben Rich was Kelly Johnson's assistant at the original Lockheed Skunkworks (creator of the U2, SR71, etc) - he was regularly approached to leave and create skunkworks for every other aerospace company. As soon as he talked to them they enthused about the Skunkworks setup and how their version would be better since it would be in the main plant, with it's own set of VPs to supervise it and be properly intergrated into the main business etc. ps. Read his biography http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003 http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/d... if you think any of this Silicon Valley stuff is new

chrislomax 15y ago

I personally think it's impossible to replicate what Apple have done. It's not just one thing that has caused a change but a series of changes starting when they introduced the iMac. Apple is more of a "love mark" than a technology company. Back in 95, Microsoft was a love mark, people loved it when a new version of windows came out, now people dread it. People started looking for an alternative and Apple was there, all different and shiny. It wasn't 1 year that turned them around, its the result of 12 hard years. Microsoft released a tablet back in 2000, did anyone care? Apple does it and millions rush to buy it, they have created a following, this is not easily replicated. They innovate, amaze and move onto the next thing. There is nothing simple about this process.

nobody31415 15y ago
You could take everything you just said and apply it to Sony in 1980. Then their founder, Akio Morita, retired with poor health and they diversified into lots of sensible business decisions about owning studios Then some little computer company in California moved in on their territory and began making beautiful, simple, well made upmarket products.
- Newgy 15y ago
  By "sensible" you mean "disastrous." Owning Sony Pictures has been a consistent money loser, and the studio IP concerns at Sony Music and Pictures hamstrung their electronics arm from innovating in the face of the iPod threat.
  - nobody31415 15y ago
    It was a very 'sensible' decision if you are an MBA! If Sony had been a little more flexible and far sighted it could have worked. But as you say, it resulted in the DAT tape and minidisk being restricted to protect the studio. It's the same sensible that means Apple shouldn't have started iTunes (we aren't a record company) and Amazon shouldn't have done Kindle (we aren't a computer company) !
  - saturdaysaint 15y ago

jad 15y ago

A big reason for this is that what Apple does is very, very _hard_. It's really hard to build physical objects with design good enough to be featured in museums. It's really hard to build your own software ecosystem, from operating system to software distribution to entertainment services. It's hard enough just to do them; it's extremely hard to be great at them. Even if other companies _wanted_ to replicate Apple's way of doing business, it's like Paul Graham pointed out in his Great Hackers essay: you have to have great people at the top to know how to identify the great talent below that actually dooes the work. Excellence has to permeate the entire organization. Do you see that coming from Samsung, HTC, or Motorola? They clearly don't have the capability, so they get the software from somewhere else, and then make it worse by adding their own differentiating layers. Google or Microsoft can obviously make the software, but, unfortunately, they choose not to make the hardware, and in my opinion their products suffer for it.

bluekeybox 15y ago
>It's really hard to build physical objects with design good enough to be featured in museums. True, it's hard, but not that hard. These guys did it on a regular basis: http://www.lushpad.com/articles.php?id=16&pag=1 http://www.lushpad.com/articles.php?id=16&pag=1 The true reason as you point out is organizational and it is the same as that age-old killer of creativity: fear. The subordinates are afraid of doing something the boss does not want. The boss is not pushing ahead either because he/she is afraid of making decisions that may entail risk.
- sbuk 15y ago
  The article you link to has a photo of arguably some of the greatest designers of the mid 20th century, and Ive and his team are perhaps as consistent as the Eames or Saarinen. Doing good design is easy, great design however is much, much harder.

vixen99 15y ago

Here are some method:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/21/tanya-gold-steve-jobs-deification-apple http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/21/tanya-go...