Apple doesn't want to be a successful business?

|
Share

Very good post at Computerworld from Mike Elgan about Apple, though I'd venture that a lot of you already know this:

Tech watchers love the horse race aspect of technology industry competition. Apple competes with Microsoft. Apple competes with Google. Apple competes with companies like HP. But Apple doesn't see it that way.

Industry titans like Microsoft, Google and HP instinctively "fill out" their product lines to dominate huge areas of technology. Microsoft, for example, wants Microsoft software running on wristwatches, supercomputers and everything in between. Google wants to offer every conceivable service that can be squeezed through an internet connection. HP's massive product line runs the gamut from consumer digital cameras sold at Best Buy to entire data centers filled with enterprise systems.

Apple doesn't want to dominate like this. It has no interest in this kind of imperialist expansion. Apple is interested only in surgical strikes into this business or that product category, where they can solve design problems others have failed to solve.

Understanding this about Apple helps explain otherwise inexplicable decisions, such as why Apple got into the mobile phone handset business, and why the company is so ambivalent about business products.

To Apple, the mobile phone industry proved clueless at how to offer a compelling user experience with a phone, with its history of cramped buttons and claustrophobic user interfaces. They believed, correctly it turns out, that their designers could drop a game-changing phone into the market and "change the world" again. But when Apple casts its gaze at the enterprise space, it doesn't see sufficiently compelling design problems that will emotionally affect users. So why bother?

Apple's choices in markets it gets into make no sense, unless you understand that they don't want to dominate industries, or even maximize revenues. They just want to design and sell better products that will affect user experience in markets where that's an achievable goal.

Of course, business success is great. But Apple sees that as only a means to the end of shipping thrilling designs.

Steve Jobs was recently named CEO of the Decade by Fortune Magazine. I'm sure Jobs' ego was pleased by the designation. But ultimately, he doesn't care about this sort of thing as much as you might expect. Jobs doesn't want to be viewed by history as a Lee Iacocca or a Henry Ford. He wants posterity to look at him as a Mozart or a Da Vinci. He wants to be seen as a builder of beautiful things, not a builder of business empires.

Next time Apple does something that infuriates you, or makes you go "huh?" remember that Apple has its own unique world view. And only by understanding that perspective can you understand why Apple does what it does.

This is just the 4th part of the post, read the whole article here.

Comments (13)

Wow, that is a brilliant way to explain what Apple is all about. It's good to see someone getting it.

All of this is true and said before, perhaps not quite as well. However, equally in the mix for Apple's decision making on what market/product to get into next is the profit potential of said new business line. Only by keeping those astronomic gross margins can Apple not worry about its continuing unhindered ability to create beautiful, joyfully functional, and world changing products...... which is what really gets SJ off.

I disagree with this article though I think it raises an important issue.  The reason Apple behaves differently is that it is much more focused on protecting the value of its brand name than some of the other companies are. It's very selective, not because Jobs wants to be seen as Mozart, but a better comparison would be Disney and Spielberg - the names he mentioned in that Pixar memo.  People who created very strong brands that had an instant image in the public mind with a certain style and a certain level of quality.  You can't have that while still following the HP/MS/Dell style of squeezing out revenue from every possible corner of the market.

I agree with some of the points of this article, however, I have to wonder: if Apple is choosing not to get into the enterprise space, why even bother with an Xserver? I'm not being snarky, actually. I agree with all of your points. I'm seriously asking, if not for businesses, who are buying those Xservers? And are they even selling well?

I think you're hitting it right on the nose when you say Apple doesn't want to dominate the market the way Dell/Microsoft/et al do.

....because Apple needed servers in their server-farms...

I see it like this.  Steve Jobs is a perfectionist and extremely picky, and its almost like nothing is ever good enough for him.  He enters markets where he hates all the current products and nothing meets his standards, then has his teams create a product that does meet his insanely high standards while offering feedback on what he wants it to be.  He's said this about the iTunes music store, that nobody had a good online store to download legal music so they had to do it themselves.  He just chooses to enter markets where he feels that nobody else is doing it right and they see the opportunity to innovate and be the first ones to get it right.  Steve always says that they create the products that they themselves want to use, and we all know how high Steves standards are for everything he uses.

Apple as well as Steve. is also not about the bottom line. I'm sure if they really want to the could make a cheap Mac, But why would they want to? It would ruin there great image just to satisfy some customers who would have bought any brand PC anyway. Apple's bottom line is make a great products and offer a good user experience and this has made them so successful. you could say Apple has no bottom line, Only the top of the line will do!

what? this article is nonsense!

of course apple wants to dominate! their main interest is to create money for the shareholders, and the second interest is to gain market share. but apple has learned something others haven't:

a) a good product also has to look good (most pcs dont)

b) if something costs more, people also associate "value" to it

especially point b has a very good advantage for apple: the revenue is higher! especially with the iphone you can see how these two mechanisms work.

Jack of all trades - master of none!

iPhone and iPod not masters of their domain? I think not.

I agree with this article, which is why I know for a fact IMO that Apple fanboys' dreams of having the Apple computer dominating the market will never come to be. Apple's marketing is trying to compell users to switch from Windows with their little commercials, but the way Apple produces things will make it never happen.

 

You can agree with some or all or none of what I just said, but that's how I see it.

Umm, the purpose of Managers of a company is to act in the best interest of the owners. Jobs and Co have done a pretty good job at keeping the owners happy. This rant is pretty pointless

Apple is a business.  Like all businesses its main priority is to make money.  If Apple sees an opportunity to make money it will take it and do it the Apple way.  There's nothing wrong with making money and working hard to be the best... that's the capitalistic way.