The Jony Ive Freakout

For those of you who haven't heard, yesterday Jony Ive was promoted to Chief Design Officer at Apple.  While that may seem like a good thing, the Applesphere and Techsphere are freaking out.  There is a pending doom in the air, Jony Ive is leaving the company.  Hmmmm.  It looks as though he is being promoted, not leaving.

One of the biggest cries come in the title.  The one that is bantering around the most is his lack of ego and no need for a title.  While this may be true of himself, there are people under him that deserve a jump in title.  I believe this allows his lieutenants to get the title recognition they have deserved for quite awhile.

Jony has the same aura as Steve did.  There is this belief that Steve had his hands in every minute decision and he was the mastermind behind all the tech that Apple had created since his return.  That could not be further from the truth.  Steve was brilliant at getting teams to focus, make things simpler, which is a form of design.  Jony falls under the same category.  He does not design everything that comes out of Apple, he leads the team that does it.  While I am not trying to minimizing his role with that statement, I am trying to emphasize that his team designs and comes up with the concepts as well.  Jony has the final say, which nothing changes under the new arrangement.

Apple is a very large company with many brilliant people who dedicate an inordinate amount of effort to produce the products we love.  It is more than just 1 or 2 people that make Apple what it is.  There is an entire ecosystem of brilliance which is lead by very smart people.  Apple has always been about focus, which is how they also operate with public figures.  This is the coming out for 2 strong individuals at Apple.  

Even though I don't know them personally, Richard Howarth and Alan Dye deserve these positions, which I'm sure they have already been doing for quite some time.  The one thing you don't want as an Apple follower is for Jony to burn out, which it seems he was on his way to doing.  This allows Jony the freedom to take a break, and dare I say, travel and decompress a little more than he has been allowed to since Steve's passing. The day-to-day will be just fine without Jony there.  He will be there plenty to guide the teams, which is what a leader should be doing.  Everyone needs to chilax.

The App Store is in Trouble Without Paid Upgrades

I want to preface this by saying I am not an app developer, however I have watched the app store and Apple for a long time now.  I have also lead very successful digital marketing teams for billion dollar revenue companies, so I know a thing or two about marketing ad driving revenue for products and services.  

Ever since the app store was introduced in 2008 it has been a boon for many developers, but more and more I hear their revenues are down even though the app store as a whole is up.  I hear a lot of complaints about the app store is geared to only help the top grossing apps or the apps Apple wants to help.  All of this is true, it is hard to find the app you want in the app store and their curation definitely has some favoritism happening, but that's business.  These are problems that still need to be solved, but the biggest problem in my eyes is the lack of paid upgrades.

Being a consumer of apps I have enjoyed the lack of paid upgrades, it allows me to reap the benefits from the app for a long time.  However, I paid for Instapaper 6 years ago and I have not paid a dime since, this is not a good model for the app developers.  I am a loyal customer, but I don't need the upgrades that come with the monthly fee, which I think is spending too much for the extras.

Loyal customers are the best source of additional revenue

For any business to thrive, they have to be able to establish a base of business that provides the bulk of the revenue.  This is the loyal customer base that equates to 70-80% of the revenue, but accounts for only 30-50% of the investment in advertising and marketing.  These are the customers that love the products, tell all their friends about the products and buy new products when available.  This is why Apple is crushing their competition because they have a loyal base of customers that buy new products from Apple when available.

For app developers, without a model for paid upgrades, they are forced into a model of perpetually finding new customers or create a subscription type model.  For game developers this is fine, because they can create an experience that is easier and more enjoyable for the gamer when purchasing extra coins to make getting through levels faster.  People are willing to pay for these and that is great.  For the indie app developer making polished apps, this model does not work.  For that reason, they are constantly trying to find another customer who will buy their app for $2.99 and then forget about them.  This is not a sustainable business model.  Eventually there are not enough customers to buy the new app to make a living.  As more people buy the app, the less people there are to buy the app in the pool, so it is inevitable that revenues will not be maintained.

Beautiful apps will become fewer and far between

The Apple app store is filled with a lot of garbage, but it is also filled with amazing apps.  Apps that developers have put their heart and soul into.  Even back in the days of only the Mac, an application on that platform was much nicer than applications on the PC.  This is a trend that continued on iOS and continues to this day.  But that may all change soon.

A developer has to feel confident they will get a return on their investment for the time they put into an app.  There are never certainties in this business, but someone who takes pride in what they build will always take the time needed to make it beautiful, functional and have the best customer experience possible.  If there is not a business model that seems viable, the developer is then forced to create many apps or develop for multiple platforms to succeed.  This limits their time.  Limited time results in less polished, less amazing apps.  This hurts the app store.  This hurts Apples platform.

Paid Upgrades is a superior app business model

Paid upgrades give the app developer the opportunity to continue to work on their app while making money from current loyal customers and new customers alike.  This is a sustainable business model.  It is also a business model that will create and maintain amazing apps.  So many developers have created great apps and made very good money, only to see the app become less and less updated over time leaving the customer with the same experience they had 5 years ago. 

A paid upgrade model will allow developers to build apps that they want in their heart to build, continue to improve that app, while having a revenue stream that supports the added development work.  This will result in apps that have longer shelf lives.  Imagine if this model existed and Marco Arment was still toying with Instapaper because their was a revenue stream that could sustain the business?  Developers like him and many others would continually improve and push the envelope of what their apps can do.  All this would cost the customer $3.99 a year, or every other year, or whenever the developer decided the upgrades to the app warranted an upgrade?  And if the customer didn't want to upgrade, that's fine, they can stay with an older version.   

I would like to see Apple adopt this model.  I know app developers have been begging for years, but I am an app consumer that is now begging.  I don't want amazing, innovative apps to go away.  I want apps where developers spend many hours toying with the customer experience until it is just right.  Where they obsess over every little detail because they know their most loyal customers will remain loyal because of that obsession.  Where they create the next "pull to refresh" because they know there is a better way.  

I don't want to live within a platform where the developers don't improve upon their original design because it is not worth the effort from a revenue perspective.  Please Apple, just for us app consumers.

Busy is not a Strategy

One of my favorite people once taught me the mantra of "Busy is not a Strategy".  So many businesses use the wrong metrics or KPI’s when measuring success of the business.  For brick and mortar companies, their eyeballs tend to deceive them and they use that as their main metric (we were so busy).  For other industries it is market share.  How many widgets can we sell.  The problem can be using the wrong KPI’s along with having the wrong culture can lead to an unprofitable business.

I have implemented the “Busy is not a Strategy” with resounding success before.  We had a casino/hotel in a declining market that had 1,800 rooms.  They were moderately successful considering their location, but they were using the wrong metrics.  Their KPI’s were hotel occupancy and casino revenues.  Now anyone who knows the casino/hotel business is going to ask, what is wrong with those metrics?  They had good casino revenues for the market and an occupancy of 87%.  Most anyone would love these numbers.  Plus, they were really busy.

When we took over the business strategy of the property we saw to get these impressive numbers, there were a lot of giveaways and very low hotel room rates.  To drive the wrong metrics, they were servicing a large number of unprofitable guests.  The belief was if the hotel is full, more profits would eventually flow to the bottomline.  There was just one problem, the other centers of business were not large profit centers and the customers coming in at very low hotel rates did not gamble, because they didn’t have a lot of money.  

To increase profits, we decided we were not going to busy, we would focus our attention on the best customers and try to drive more frequency from these guests while sacrificing the low-end of the business.  This resulted in decreased occupancy and decreased casino revenues.  Uh oh.  Hotel occupancy went down to 44% and casino revenues were down 10%.  The operators were crying “the business is being ruined”.  Even competitors were coming over and asking the operators “are you going to be able to remain open until the end of the year”.  There was pure panic.  That was until the financials came out.  EBITDA was up 100% for the quarter.

By focusing on the best and most profitable customers, this property saw increases where it mattered most, the bottomline.  How did this happen?  The expenses to drive the KPI’s that were important to this property were astronomical.  They were essentially competing for market share instead of profit.  What happened through time, is the best customers started to come more often as that was the new focus of the property.  Casino revenues started to increase through time to levels much higher than before the strategy change, however occupancy remained at 44%.  They did this by focusing on:

• Increase frequency of their top tier from the players club
• Increase hotel room rate
• Target giveaways to the more profitable sector of the database
• Increase customer satisfaction of the best customers

This is very similar to what I see is happening in the phone industry.  There are many manufacturers and most of them are focusing on “Busy” as a strategy.  Now the metrics for busy in this industry are phones sold and market share.  Android accounts for approximately 80% of the worldwide market share for phones sold.  Yet when it comes to profit, that metric is almost reversed.  In fact it is a lot less than 20% in the last quarter.  So how can this be?

The phone manufacturers are selling basically the same thing.  They run Android software that they manipulate in small ways, but all the apps are compatible with their competitors.  This creates an experience that cannot be differentiated in any way but price.  This is the same thing that happened in the PC industry.  All manufacturers ran the same operating system, Windows, and they had to compete on price which forced them to make deals of adding bloatware onto their machines that destroyed the customer experience.  This is where the phone industry is heading.  When price is the main differentiator, businesses eventually will go out of business unless they can outlast the competition.  

So these OEM’s sell many millions of phones to increase market share which leads to…  To what?  I don’t know.  From what I have read these manufacturers have a decent amount of customers that are buying new phones, but they are buying them for the price.  So the manufacturer sold an unprofitable phone so they can gain a customer who will buy another unprofitable phone.  That doesn't sound like a sustainable strategy.  There is nothing that differentiates the experience of the customer enough to make that return customer more profitable.  It is a vicious cycle.  

The only company that is running a different strategy is Apple.  Apple is making almost all of the profit in the phone industry by having a differentiated product that is customer focused.  Apple is doing the same thing in the PC industry, their Macs account for about 10% of the market, but more than 50% of the profits.  Apple has been able to run the “Busy is not a Strategy” strategy to ultimate success.  Sure Apple sells a lot of phones and they would like to sell more, but these sales are the outcome of their strategy, not the focus.  Apple has a culture that is design focused which leads to a product that has a better customer experience.  

Apple is dominating the phone industry because they do not bow down to the marketshare gods.  They focus on the customer first through their design culture.  They make profitable, differentiated products which bring in the majority of the profits in the industry, which then allows them to spend more money on R&D to create more products and services to keep their customers in the ecosystem.  These customers buy new phones at a nice profit which creates a beautiful cycle.  All because Apple is NOT implementing “Busy as a Strategy” 

Customer Experience Focused Company? Focus on Design

I was just reading Ben Thompson's latest member post regarding Cyanogen in India.  On a side note, if you don't subscribe to the daily update, it is worth every penny, great insights.  Anyway, he mentions how Cyanogen is focused on engineering around Android so they don't have to be reliant on Google.  Thompson then went on to say the engineering solution is not focused on the customer experience, so it will have a hard time competing in the consumer market.

This got me thinking about the different kinds of companies there are and to dominate in the consumer space, what should a company be driven by to succeed.  I'm sure I'm missing different types of companies, so feel free to let me know if I missed any, but there are a few different types of companies that come to mind:

• Engineering driven companies
• Sales driven companies
• Marketing driven companies
• Financial driven companies
• Design driven companies

I contend the design driven company is the only company that can truly have long-term success in the consumer market.  The design driven company can beat low-cost competitors and drive sustainable profits.  This is the Apple story.

Engineering Driven Companies

These companies are engineer focused.  They look at the world through all the cool stuff they can build, whether it be technology or buildings, the engineer rules the roost in this company.  The problem with the engineering focused companies is they forget the customer experience and focus on the technology.  The need to create something cool outweighs the need to solve a problem.  Samsung fell into this trap with the Galaxy's, especially 4 and 5.  

By not first looking at the customer experience and then trying to solve the customers problems, a company will create cool technology and then try to fit a customer experience around the cool technology.  This will not have sustainability in the consumer space.  The mass consumer will be confused by the technology and get frustrated with the experience.  Eventually that consumer will choose to churn and choose another product that focuses more on their experiences rather than cool technology.

Sales Driven Companies

These companies are focused on making the next sale.  They look at the world through the need to solve the next customers problem, not the customer experience.  A sales driven organization tends to try to be everything to everyone, and we all know how that story ends.  The need to sell the most and constantly focusing on acquisition drives companies to lose focus on retaining customers.  Microsoft was led by a salesperson for many years and while they had success for many of those, they were disrupted many times over.    

By focusing on selling the most of something, the customer experience becomes muddled.  To serve many masters, a company must focus on creating many different experiences at many different price points for the customer.  This creates no expertise in one area and allows for disruption to come from all angles.  Focus is the key to customer experience and the sales driven company has a hard time selling when everyone is not their customer.  When the focus is on the customer experience, a company can acquire and retain at the same time

Marketing Driven Companies

These companies are focused on making the company well known.  They look at the world through their message.  They focus their time to try and get someone to buy a product or position themselves in the minds of the consumer through advertising and social media.  The infatuation with their own creativity and messaging tends to put the focus on the company, not on the customer experience.

By focusing on branding and messaging, the customer experience becomes secondary.  The metrics of this company is awareness and likes, instead of on customer satisfaction and experience.  The marketing company believes they can convince anyone to buy and the power of the brand will hide all sins.  Customers in the long run will not be loyal to the brand if the experience is not up to par.  They may want to stay with the brand, but they will churn for the fact that being cool and hip is not satisfying their ultimate need for the best experience.

Financial Driven Companies

These companies focus on making as much money for their shareholders as possible.  They look at the world through profits and cash flows, leaving the customer as a means to an end for those metrics.  The desire to make the most money trumps the customer experience in all cases, unless there is a clear-cut ROI for that experience.  These companies get uncomfortable with words like experience, because it can't necessarily be measured or used to create a proforma.  

By focusing on profits, the customer experience tends to fall off in favor of saving expenses.  This company will question R&D and figure out ways to save money now, while sacrificing the future of the company.  Wall Street may like the short term gains of focusing on profits, but when the customer experience erodes and the customers start to churn 3-5 years down the line, it then becomes a marketing or product issue.  These may be the least sustainable businesses in the long run.

Design Driven Companies

These companies focus on the design of what they are producing.  They look at the world through solving problems.  The desire to take a customer experience and make it better trumps profits and sales.  The belief in a design driven company is that if the customer experience is better than all others, the profits and sales will follow. Design is how it works, not just how it looks.  

I used to think that Apple was a marketing company.  Of course I did, I was a marketer and Steve Jobs would get up on stage and do great keynotes and their advertising was second to none.  They had to be a marketing company.  If they were just a marketing company, then they would have already been disrupted.  The iPhone would not be a dominate player and they would be a niche product company with nice profits.  

The fact Apple is a design company has kept them from being disrupted.  Their products are designed with the customer experience at the forefront.  Being able to pay for something without having to pull out your wallet with the touch of your finger is a simple solution.  That solution is not coming from a space of engineering, it is coming from a space of design.  Apple looked at the problem and designed a solution that was easy for the customer to use and that is why people use Apple Pay, otherwise Google would have already been the owner of the space because they were first.

When a company is design focused they don't have to be first.  These companies want to truly solve customer problems, not be fast to market.  If the design company can't solve a problem, they won't enter that market.  A design company will be long-lasting and survive into the future because they care about the people paying money to use their products and services.  Those products and services are designed for the customers they serve, not to take advantage of a need of the customer, but to truly solve their problems.  That is true design.   

Microsoft Is The New Google, Google Is The Old Microsoft

Very interesting article which has great points.  History has a funny way of repeating itself, even though companies made it to the top by being different from the competitors they dethroned.  How do companies become the very thing they more than likely mocked years before?  I think the pressures of Wall Street and investors drive conservatism.  Companies have to be true to themselves and keep that spunk as they become market leaders.  Apple seems to be one of the only companies that do this, however that was Steve Jobs, will Tim Cook be able to kill the iPhone when the time comes?   

For Google the good news is it still has plenty of time to wise up. Microsoft is fighting from a long way back and Search, Adsense, Android, Google Maps and Gmail market positions aren’t going to be troubled any time soon. But it does beg the bigger question: does Google in its arrogance even realise it has a problem? After all it took Microsoft a decade…

Twitter has a Growth Problem, or Not

Recently Twitter had their earnings call and the big story coming from the numbers was a slowing in the growth of Twitter's monthly active users (MAU).  There was plenty of commentary on the doom approaching for Twitter, as the MAU slow, so does the opportunities for Twitter.  

So I was looking at the number of MAU for Twitter.  That number has slowed to 288 million users. Let me say that again out loud, 288 million users.  These are mind boggling numbers.  Twitter made $479 million in revenue, which comes to a paltry $1.66 per MAU.  Now this number has doubled revenue, so that number seem to be growing.  

MAU is not the problem for Twitter.  If Twitter doubles the MAU, which is not going to happen, then revenue is still under $1 billion per quarter. The problem is the $1.66 per MAU.  This can also be attributed to Facebook having 7X the engagement over Twitter.  Twitters problem is their 288 million users do not spend enough time on the service.

Average time per MAU and revenue per MAU should be the main metrics for Twitter.  Twitter makes money on advertising.  Many say this is why MAU is the most important metric, I mean look at Facebook, they have 1.39 billion MAU and look at the money they make.  Twitter will never have the MAU of Facebook and it shouldn't worry about that number.  Twitter needs to have laser focus on making the Twitter experience the most engaging as possible.  288 million users is more than enough to have an amazing business.  I think 99.9% of the worlds businesses would kill for 288 million users.  

Recently Apple CEO Tim Cook made a comment that really resonated with me and I don't know if Twitter, or most companies for that matter, looks at their business in this way.  Tim Cook said "We're not focused on the numbers, we're focused on the things that produce the numbers."  Twitter needs to focus on what produces the numbers.  The product of Twitter.  The more their extremely large base of users engage with the platform, the more money Twitter makes.  It sounds so simple, but it isn't.  I feel Twitter doesn't spend enough time on making the platform the most engaging it can be.  

I don't have the answers on what will make Twitter more engaging.  I do believe that all of their focus should be on increasing the time each user spends on Twitter.  Make the platform more sticky.  If the focus is on the platform, then profits will follow.  Change the conversation to investors and make sure the organization is focused on the singular goal.  

I love Twitter.  I spend most of the time on my phone using Twitter, however I still find it hard to find new things to see.  I love using an app called Zite, that learns what I like by simple thumbs up and thumbs down and then shows me articles that I would like to read based on the input.  If Twitter could incorporate ease of use like Zite, I believe the platform would be so sticky.  Good luck Twitter and stay focused!   

The Real Leadership Lessons from Steve Jobs part 2

I decided to break up this post into 2 parts because there were so many lessons and I liked most of them.  So here are the remainder of the lessons from the Walter Isaacson HBR article.

Don’t Be a Slave To Focus Groups

When Jobs took his original Macintosh team on its first retreat, one member asked whether they should do some market research to see what customers wanted. “No,” Jobs replied, “because customers don’t know what they want until we’ve shown them.” He invoked Henry Ford’s line “If I’d asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, ‘A faster horse!’”

Caring deeply about what customers want is much different from continually asking them what they want; it requires intuition and instinct about desires that have not yet formed. “Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page,” Jobs explained. Instead of relying on market research, he honed his version of empathy—an intimate intuition about the desires of his customers. He developed his appreciation for intuition—feelings that are based on accumulated experiential wisdom—while he was studying Buddhism in India as a college dropout. “The people in the Indian countryside don’t use their intellect like we do; they use their intuition instead,” he recalled. “Intuition is a very powerful thing—more powerful than intellect, in my opinion.”

When I was a product manager for a software company that catered to database marketers and analysts, customers would always speak in terms of features.  "I want the product to do this" was a common request.  I quickly learned that putting features into the product just made the product more complex.  The true genius is in solving the problem the customer is having in the most elegant and simple way possible.  Customers mostly focus on what they can see and what they already know.  To be great you have to translate what your customer is asking for and then really solve their problem, because adding features can spaghetti your product before you know it.

Bend Reality

Jobs’s (in)famous ability to push people to do the impossible was dubbed by colleagues his Reality Distortion Field, after an episode of Star Trek in which aliens create a convincing alternative reality through sheer mental force. An early example was when Jobs was on the night shift at Atari and pushed Steve Wozniak to create a game called Breakout. Woz said it would take months, but Jobs stared at him and insisted he could do it in four days. Woz knew that was impossible, but he ended up doing it.

I believe that people want to be great at what they do, but when left to their own devices will let the fear of failure get in their way.  Failure is a much bigger enemy of greatness than the lack of talent for the individual.  The fear of failure gets in the way of taking risks and leapfrogging yourself.  If you can put your team in an environment where failure is viewed as a success or a learning opportunity on the way to greatness, your team will succeed in greatness.

Impute

Jobs’s early mentor Mike Markkula wrote him a memo in 1979 that urged three principles. The first two were “empathy” and “focus.” The third was an awkward word, “impute,” but it became one of Jobs’s key doctrines. He knew that people form an opinion about a product or a company on the basis of how it is presented and packaged. “Mike taught me that people dojudge a book by its cover,” he told me.

First impressions make all the difference.  The product, experience or the deliverable have to focus on delivering an experience worth returning to in order to succeed.

Push for Perfection

During the development of almost every product he ever created, Jobs at a certain point “hit the pause button” and went back to the drawing board because he felt it wasn’t perfect. That happened even with the movie Toy Story. After Jeff Katzenberg and the team at Disney, which had bought the rights to the movie, pushed the Pixar team to make it edgier and darker, Jobs and the director, John Lasseter, finally stopped production and rewrote the story to make it friendlier. When he was about to launch Apple Stores, he and his store guru, Ron Johnson, suddenly decided to delay everything a few months so that the stores’ layouts could be reorganized around activities and not just product categories.

In the world of database marketing there is always a push for perfection.  The mantra I use is "The campaigns are a living, breathing entity".  A good database marketer is always looking for ways to improve the performance of a campaign.  It is never complete, it will never be perfect, but one should always strive for perfection. 

Tolerate Only “A” Players

Jobs was famously impatient, petulant, and tough with the people around him. But his treatment of people, though not laudable, emanated from his passion for perfection and his desire to work with only the best. It was his way of preventing what he called “the bozo explosion,” in which managers are so polite that mediocre people feel comfortable sticking around. “I don’t think I run roughshod over people,” he said, “but if something sucks, I tell people to their face. It’s my job to be honest.” When I pressed him on whether he could have gotten the same results while being nicer, he said perhaps so. “But it’s not who I am,” he said. “Maybe there’s a better way—a gentlemen’s club where we all wear ties and speak in this Brahmin language and velvet code words—but I don’t know that way, because I am middle-class from California.”

It’s important to appreciate that Jobs’s rudeness and roughness were accompanied by an ability to be inspirational. He infused Apple employees with an abiding passion to create groundbreaking products and a belief that they could accomplish what seemed impossible. And we have to judge him by the outcome. Jobs had a close-knit family, and so it was at Apple: His top players tended to stick around longer and be more loyal than those at other companies, including ones led by bosses who were kinder and gentler. CEOs who study Jobs and decide to emulate his roughness without understanding his ability to generate loyalty make a dangerous mistake.

Find great people and then get our of their way.  Great "A" players will be great without you telling them what to do.  Set the expectations, guide them when needed and then be hard on their results.  If their results are subpar, let them know.  You don't have to go Steve Jobs on them, but an "A" player will be harder on themselves then you could ever be.

Engage Face-to-Face

Despite being a denizen of the digital world, or maybe because he knew all too well its potential to be isolating, Jobs was a strong believer in face-to-face meetings. “There’s a temptation in our networked age to think that ideas can be developed by e-mail and iChat,” he told me. “That’s crazy. Creativity comes from spontaneous meetings, from random discussions. You run into someone, you ask what they’re doing, you say ‘Wow,’ and soon you’re cooking up all sorts of ideas.”

Jobs hated formal presentations, but he loved freewheeling face-to-face meetings. He gathered his executive team every week to kick around ideas without a formal agenda, and he spent every Wednesday afternoon doing the same with his marketing and advertising team. Slide shows were banned. “I hate the way people use slide presentations instead of thinking,” Jobs recalled. “People would confront a problem by creating a presentation. I wanted them to engage, to hash things out at the table, rather than show a bunch of slides. People who know what they’re talking about don’t need PowerPoint.”

Greatness happens with spontaneous collaboration between individuals who trust each other.  Meetings with different groups who are not accustomed to working together and are forced to collaborate never work.  Grabbing a few individuals from their work space, bringing them into a meeting room, getting into the issues at hand can encourage an atmosphere where greatness can evolve.  Great ideas do not happen on a timetable.  They happen spur of the moment and they can be lost if left to fester.

Know Both the Big Picture and the Details

Jobs’s passion was applied to issues both large and minuscule. Some CEOs are great at vision; others are managers who know that God is in the details. Jobs was both. Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes says that one of Jobs’s salient traits was his ability and desire to envision overarching strategy while also focusing on the tiniest aspects of design.

Probably the biggest issue with leaders is they are one dimensional.  It's great to have a vision and be able to articulate that vision, but if the leader is so detached from the execution of the vision, they lose respect from the team.  Beyond just losing the respect, the team may build or execute on something that is in an entirely different direction once complete.  The leader needs to be involved with the team on the details to ensure the vision is executed to perfection.  Being both visionary and implementer is key.

Combine the Humanities with the Sciences 

He connected the humanities to the sciences, creativity to technology, arts to engineering. There were greater technologists (Wozniak, Gates), and certainly better designers and artists. But no one else in our era could better firewire together poetry and processors in a way that jolted innovation. And he did it with an intuitive feel for business strategy. At almost every product launch over the past decade, Jobs ended with a slide that showed a sign at the intersection of Liberal Arts and Technology Streets.

Combining two disparate disciplines into one creates bridges for teams to collaborate in one distinct language.  This ability os very rare in individuals.  The passion that an individual has usually overtakes one discipline for another.  When doing analytics, I often articulate to the team it is a combination of art and science.  The science part can give you an answer, but without the art side, the articulation and strategy coming from the data will get lost in interpretation.  The nuggets of information cannot be articulated in pure scientific form for a strategy to unveil itself to the business side.  

Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish

Steve Jobs was a product of the two great social movements that emanated from the San Francisco Bay Area in the late 1960s. The first was the counterculture of hippies and antiwar activists, which was marked by psychedelic drugs, rock music, and antiauthoritarianism. The second was the high-tech and hacker culture of Silicon Valley, filled with engineers, geeks, wireheads, phreakers, cyberpunks, hobbyists, and garage entrepreneurs. Overlying both were various paths to personal enlightenment—Zen and Hinduism, meditation and yoga, primal scream therapy and sensory deprivation, Esalen and est.

An admixture of these cultures was found in publications such as Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Catalog. On its first cover was the famous picture of Earth taken from space, and its subtitle was “access to tools.” The underlying philosophy was that technology could be our friend. Jobs—who became a hippie, a rebel, a spiritual seeker, a phone phreaker, and an electronic hobbyist all wrapped into one—was a fan. He was particularly taken by the final issue, which came out in 1971, when he was still in high school. He took it with him to college and then to the apple farm commune where he lived after dropping out. He later recalled: “On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: ‘Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.’” Jobs stayed hungry and foolish throughout his career by making sure that the business and engineering aspect of his personality was always complemented by a hippie nonconformist side from his days as an artistic, acid-dropping, enlightenment-seeking rebel. In every aspect of his life—the women he dated, the way he dealt with his cancer diagnosis, the way he ran his business—his behavior reflected the contradictions, confluence, and eventual synthesis of all these varying strands.

Even as Apple became corporate, Jobs asserted his rebel and counterculture streak in its ads, as if to proclaim that he was still a hacker and a hippie at heart. The famous “1984” ad showed a renegade woman outrunning the thought police to sling a sledgehammer at the screen of an Orwellian Big Brother. And when he returned to Apple, Jobs helped write the text for the “Think Different” ads: “Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes…” If there was any doubt that, consciously or not, he was describing himself, he dispelled it with the last lines: “While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.”

The world will miss out on all the great things Steve Jobs would have done over the years he lost.  

The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs

In the latest HBR article by Walter Isaacson, the author of the Steve Jobs biography, had more interesting things to say about the man who cofounded Apple and made it into the most valuable company in the world.  This article goes into the management style of Steve Jobs.  This article comes at a perfect time because I have been talking to my team and others about this very topic and how Jobs was portrayed outside of the company is probably too harsh compared to the reality of the day-to-day life at Apple.  My take on Steve Jobs is he demanded excellence, however if he was such a tyrant and maniac, he would never be able to keep "A" players.  

In the months since my biography of Jobs came out, countless commentators have tried to draw management lessons from it. Some of those readers have been insightful, but I think that many of them (especially those with no experience in entrepreneurship) fixate too much on the rough edges of his personality. The essence of Jobs, I think, is that his personality was integral to his way of doing business. He acted as if the normal rules didn’t apply to him, and the passion, intensity, and extreme emotionalism he brought to everyday life were things he also poured into the products he made. His petulance and impatience were part and parcel of his perfectionism.

Isaacson goes on to list many reasons why Steve Jobs was a great leader that are getting missed by most pundits and scholars.  These are the attributes that made Jobs a great leader.

Focus

When Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, it was producing a random array of computers and peripherals, including a dozen different versions of the Macintosh. After a few weeks of product review sessions, he’d finally had enough. “Stop!” he shouted. “This is crazy.” He grabbed a Magic Marker, padded in his bare feet to a whiteboard, and drew a two-by-two grid. “Here’s what we need,” he declared. Atop the two columns, he wrote “Consumer” and “Pro.” He labeled the two rows “Desktop” and “Portable.” Their job, he told his team members, was to focus on four great products, one for each quadrant. All other products should be canceled. There was a stunned silence. But by getting Apple to focus on making just four computers, he saved the company. “Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do,” he told me. “That’s true for companies, and it’s true for products.”

Focus is so important in an organization.  Without focus, organizations have individuals who determine what is important for themselves or their departments, even if it is not in the strategic direction of the company.  Many of these decisions might make a profit, but what all of these decisions will take is time.  Time is the most important asset of a company and if individuals are using their time to pursue endeavors that will not move the company forward in a focused direction, it is a massive opportunity wasted.  Focus comes from the top and Steve Jobs was more focused than any other CEO of such a large company.

Simplify

Jobs’s Zenlike ability to focus was accompanied by the related instinct to simplify things by zeroing in on their essence and eliminating unnecessary components. “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication,” declared Apple’s first marketing brochure. To see what that means, compare any Apple software with, say, Microsoft Word, which keeps getting uglier and more cluttered with nonintuitive navigational ribbons and intrusive features. It is a reminder of the glory of Apple’s quest for simplicity.

Simplification takes extreme time and effort.  Most organizations don't obsess over the details, they want to get the product to market, to be first.  Simplicity is what makes Apple successful.  I love reading tech pundits talk about Apple and they don't appreciate some of the simplicity that Apple sweats and what that means to a normal person using the product.  It's so easy to build products for yourself, it's very tough to build products for others.  Jobs had a knack at designing for others.

Take Responsibility End to End

Jobs knew that the best way to achieve simplicity was to make sure that hardware, software, and peripheral devices were seamlessly integrated.

Own the entire experience.  An organization cannot create the ultimate experience without ownership of all aspects from beginning to end.  This is what Tim Cook is talking about at the end of keynotes when he says only Apple can do this.  Others are trying to copy the model, but it's very hard.

When Behind, Leapfrog

The mark of an innovative company is not only that it comes up with new ideas first. It also knows how to leapfrog when it finds itself behind.

The obsession for great products or experiences allow for leapfrogging the competition.  So many times companies are content with catching up to the competition.  Always understand what the competition is doing, but focus on making the best product or experience. 

Put Products Before Profits

John Sculley, who ran Apple from 1983 to 1993, was a marketing and sales executive from Pepsi. He focused more on profit maximization than on product design after Jobs left, and Apple gradually declined. “I have my own theory about why decline happens at companies,” Jobs told me: They make some great products, but then the sales and marketing people take over the company, because they are the ones who can juice up profits. “When the sales guys run the company, the product guys don’t matter so much, and a lot of them just turn off. It happened at Apple when Sculley came in, which was my fault, and it happened when Ballmer took over at Microsoft.”

I worked for a company where the owner had the philosophy of "Get famous first, then the money will come".  That has stuck with me through my career.  Focus on making great products and experiences because that is what will make you famous.

Graphic: Android's split personality, 2014 edition

Interesting and true take.  Without that fragmentation, Android would never have the market share it currently has, however that fragmentation makes it very difficult for developers and smartphone manufacturers to thrive in the ecosystem.  

This is exactly what happened in the Windows vs MacOS past.  At the beginning of the "war" the Windows environment had a plethora of people making money.  Developers were making a fortune in software and manufacturers were making very good money in making computers.  Of course Microsoft was making the most money out of all of them.  

However, over time there becomes a race to the bottom.  In the Windows example the developers never felt the hurt as much as the manufacturers because Windows owned the enterprise.  The manufacturers however hardly make any profit.  

The interesting thing to watch in the Android vs iOS "war" will be the long term game.  The smartphone wars are very young and already all the manufacturers have gone straight to the bottom.  Since this "war" doesn't have high-end enterprise dominance, developers are not making more money on the marketshare winner, they are making more money on the profitshare winner.  

So even though the marketshare won the day in the previous "war", we are not seeing the same behavior in this war, so over time I believe the fragmentation will hurt Android.  That's why Google is going with the Android L philosophy moving forward, which I think is a necessity for long-term survival.  

The Strategic Mistake Almost Everybody Makes

Every business and business model has a finite life. Products come and go. Customer preferences change. As Rita Gunther McGrath notes, competitive advantage is increasingly a transient notion. The companies that last over long periods of time do so by creating new products, services, and business models to replace yesterday’s powerhouses.

Scott Anthony makes some great points in this piece.  I stated in a previous blog how much focus is put on "churn" percentages.  In most industries it is very important to watch churn, however to keep customers as a defensive move will always result in long-term demise.  

Your customers will churn, this is a proven fact.  At what rate and when is always the biggest question.  The key is to have customers churn to your next innovation.  Apple didn't try to prevent churn in their iPod line as a defensive move, they were always on the offense.  Creating new form factors, adding color and video.  At some point they were so much on the offense, they destroyed this business with the iPhone, but I would imagine the positive churn of Apple customers is many times greater than if they would have played defense with the iPod line.  Compare this to Microsoft which has been playing defense with Windows for many years.  They are starting to see that negative churn by only playing defense, which has put them at a distinct disadvantage in mobile.  They played defense so much, their mobile strategy is Windows.  

Portfolio theory has its naysayers, but few argue with the fundamental idea that diversification decreases risks and increases a portfolio’s potential. Do you remember the most efficient buggy whip manufacturer or the most profitable distributor of packaged ice? Of course not.

I don't fully agree with what Anthony has to say here.  Where I disagree is with the size of the portfolio of the business.  Diversification is good if it remains within the core competency of the business.  Too many times businesses diversify into areas where they have little expertise just to increase the portfolio, which causes a loss of focus on the strength of the business.  The best companies diversify within the core, like Apple.  I think the proper strategy is to be the company that causes your customers to churn, this way you keep the customers loyal to your brand and you are always trying to be the next product in your industry.

Microsoft's Bad Bet

Microsoft bet the company on an operating system that had a market share under 5%.  Why would they do such a thing?  Because the bloggers told them to.  But did they listen to what they wanted to hear or did they truly believe this was finally the time to change the paradigm of Windows that had been basically the same since 1995?

When Windows Phone 7 came out with the now defunct Metro monicker, the blogs went crazy.  "Microsoft has out designed Apple," they cried.  Microsoft was riding high in the blogs and with the tech pundits, probably a first for them.  So can you blame them for being so excited?  We are finally cooler than Apple, lets run with this!  Time to change Windows.

The blog was going crazy because it was different.  It had its own voice.  The tech pundits had been waiting for something new.  Android, WebOS and Blackberry OS's had done little but copy the spirit of iOS, yet here were these tiles that had live data, so different.

But there was just one problem.  Consumers weren't jumping to the new platform.  Even though Microsoft was spending millions of dollars to advertise the new platform, customers didn't have a connection with the platform.  They had a high defection rate compared with iOS and even Android and even though they dominated the enterprise, Windows Phone had little to no penetration in this cash cow segment.  

So it shouldn't be a surprise that Microsoft is now backpedalling on its Metro bet.  The next version of Windows is going to launch into the old desktop of Windows 7 by default, which relegates Metro as no more than the dashboards section of OSX.  So Microsoft will have to figure out their next steps.  Are they going to fork the OS's and create a true tablet OS (like they did with RT) or are they going to try and make their all in one solution with Windows 7 being the default?  I would say they need to brush off RT and make the phone and tablet more compatible, similar to iOS,    

Windows 8 and the Cost of Complexity

The WSJ – and prevailing wisdom – blames two factors for the decline of PCs: PCs have become “good enough,” lengthening the replacement cycle, and more and more time is being spent on tablets and other appliance-like devices.

However, I don’t think these factors are independent; it’s not just that tablets occupy more of a user’s time, but that by doing so they make any performance issues on one’s PC less pressing simply because you use it less. To put it another way, users are likely to have a higher standard for their primary computing device than they are a secondary one; as PCs become secondary devices for more and more people the standard for “good enough” becomes lower and lower.

Ben Thompson has been on a kick as of late talking about his Chromebook, but I believe he hits the nail on the head with the title of the article.  However I have to disagree with his statements above.  I don't believe it's that PC's are good enough because they are now secondary devices, I believe most people were using their computers to do things that are better served in the tablet form-factor.  

People have been using computers to do email, browse the web, go to Facebook.  Most people who owned computers were not using them up to their full capabilities and didn't need all the complexity that is inherent in a PC Operating System, Mac or Windows.  Most people just want to be able to do a few things on a computer and it has to be very easy.  While I am very computer literate, I love my iPad because it is totally simple.  I enjoy the simplicity because I just don't have the time to tinker.  So the iPad model solves problems for all levels of users.  

The downturn in the PC industry is simply because a technology (product) came out that made it easier to do what users wanted to do.  If the iPad was more complex (like Android or a Chromebook), we would not have seen this downturn in PC sales.  

The iPhone Keynote 7 Years Ago

I have been reading all of the annual anniversary articles about the iPhone keynote 7 years ago.  Every once in awhile I like to go back and watch the keynote over because I believe it was the best technology keynote ever delivered, Steve Jobs at his absolute best.  

One thing has always struck me when Steve goes into the three revolutionary products part of the presentation.  There was a widescreen iPod, a phone and a revolutionary internet communicator.  What strikes me is the audience reaction to all three.  The first two get very loud applause, while the third, the internet communicator, gets no applause, well a cursory clap I would say.  

Why this is interesting is that 7 years later, it is the internet communicator that has been the most important one of the three.  Very few people in the audience appreciated what was being introduced.  In 7 years the constant communication with the internet has been the killer app.  

It took the creation of the app store and third-party apps to really take full advantage of the internet communicator, but it has revolutionized our lives.  I cannot remember how bad phones were before the iPhone.  I had Palm Treo's, Windows Mobile and Blackberry's before I bought the first iPhone and they were all very limiting.  They all fetched email (the Blackberry pushed), made calls and were decent for SMS.  

There was something different when going to the internet with the iPhone.  It was night and day.  Also, the maps were incredible, they still are.  But behind all of the data on the maps were communication to the internet.  That app showed just what was possible when you could have a revolutionary internet communicator going along with a rich client application on a mobile device.  Most apps that have come since have used this same model to create amazing mobile applications that the web alone cannot replicate.  The brilliance of Steve Jobs was seeing the future and by announcing this functionality as he did, instead of something like an enhanced web experience, shows that he knew what the iPhone was all about.  Hats off Mr. Jobs.

Apple iPad: bashed by bloggers around the web

A very interesting look back about what everyone had to say about the iPad when it was revealed in early 2010.  Most were very negative, however it played out well for Apple.

I remember this reveal.  I was not going to buy one, I didn't really see the need.  But I took a risk on day 1 and I bought an iPad.  I will never forget the first time I held the device in my hand and played with it.  What an amazing device.  Was it a big iPod Touch?  Sure.  But what made it amazing is it was a big iPod Touch.  I used my iPad much more than I use my computer.  It is the device i have with me when I sit down at the end of the day.  It is the device I read at the beginning of the day.  It is the device that I take to meetings to take notes.  It is the best device I own.

The Fate of Apple in the Post-Jobsian Era

Apple has been an innovative company, but was Jobs the only man behind the magic?

Steve Jobs was an amazing innovator, but to say he was the only man behind the innovation is a crazy question.  Where I believe they will miss Steve the most is how dedicated he was to innovation.  Because he was in charge, innovation was the most important thing.  Does Tim Cook believe in innovation above all else?  Time will tell.

Apple has yet to release its latest new, breakthrough product. A careful observer would notice that about every three years Apple Inc. releases an entirely new product. In 1998 it released the iMac, in 2001, the iPod, in 2004 the Mac Mini, the iPhone in 2007, and the iPad in 2010. So 2013 should have been the year the world was to see Apple’s latest gadget.

What???  In 2004 the Mac Mini?  Now this is a stretch.  That's like saying the iPad mini was a breakthrough product.  What was so breakthrough about the Mac Mini?  I think the breakthrough was it was 3 years after the iPod, which made the math work.

I don't know if Apple will have another big breakthrough in a new market, but it wasn't a every 3 year magic as everyone likes to say.  The iPod wasn't the killer breakthrough as much as iTunes was the killer software that made buying music and syncing music very easy.  

Apple CEO Tim Cook might have been great as CFO, but he’s not the one who should lead Apple.

What??? CFO?  What is happening to CNN?  How does a major news outlet get something like this wrong?

Apple launched a “cheaper” iPhone, the iPhone 5c, made of plastic and cheaper quality than the premium iPhone 5s. Apple’s advertising places the iPhone 5c above the 5s, a move which suggests that it cares about the cheaper 5c more than the innovative 5s.

Another giant leap for techkind.  Because Apple is pushing for a higher margin phone to sell to the masses over the more expensive "S" series of phone, this means they are caring more about cheap products?  Not the innovative one?  Who edits this?  If Apple really cared about "cheap" over "innovation" they would have made the iPhone 5c much cheaper than they did and have the "true" low cost iPhone the analysts are all clamoring for.  The fact they built a mid-range phone shows they are interesting in protecting margins and staying away from the costly low-end.

Despite Jobs’ legacy as a great innovator, credit often falls short of the people who truly deserve it. Jony Ive, Apple’s legendary industrial designer, has played a key role throughout the years in designing iMacs, iPods, iPhones, and iPads. Apple Senior Vice President of Marketing Phil Schiller has also played an influential role at the company. Apple still retains many of the individuals who served under Jobs and helped to design some of Apple’s greatest hits. 

One cannot even count the legions of software developers and hardware engineers who have made these products possible. Apple today retains many of those same people who once served under Jobs, a good indication that the company has a strong future.

So Apple is not in trouble?  What is the point of this article?  

Apple also has over $110 Billion -- a number that’s not going anywhere in the next few years (if not increasing). With that much cash, it can easily stay afloat in the market.

Great reporting.  Any simple search would have let CNN know Apple has $147 Billion in cash.  The link baiting from the headline is the only reason this article made the web.  

Apple will be fine in the short run.  Tim Cook is making sure the next product is fully vetted, and why not?  If Apple would have put out a watch or TV this year and it would have turned out like Samsung's great watch debacle Apple would have been panned.  Can you imagine the articles about Tim Cook if that happened?  Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

The Macalope Weekly: Hard lessons to learn | Macworld

“Android tablet revenue surpasses iPad for the first time (but not the last)” (No link, but tip o’ the antlers to … well, John Koetsier!)

Profit is a trailing indicator. And in the big picture, the overwhelming tide is to Android, in device diversity, in device quantity, in usage, in sales volume, in revenue.

This is a very interesting take on profit, especially in the tech industry, especially in hardware.  The times where hardware vendors have had a dominant position in market share, they have all either gone out of business or the businesses have been destroyed.  

To say profit is a trailing indicator is an insane comment.  The only way to keep a competitive advantage in hardware is to make a profit.  To gain market share usually comes at the expense of profit and is short lived.  R&D, customer service and quality of product are all things that suffer under the weight of large market share.  The only sustainable business model is consistent profits.  Sounds a lot lille Apple. 

Apple and Samsung’s smartwatches are going to be way too cheap

In the $60 billion-a-year watch sector, most of the money flows to those who sell the most expensive devices: 0.6% of the watches shipped in 2012, with an average price of $4,285, were responsible for half the revenue of the entire industry.

That’s a big potential problem for aspiring smartwatch companies like Samsung, and eventually Apple. If they don’t tap into the ultra-luxury market, they’re going to miss out on most of the revenue and the healthiest profit margins of the industry that they’re invading.

There's one big fatal flaw with these comments.  Apple is more than likely isn't going to enter the watch market.  Back when they entered the phone market, they changed what a phone was.  The phone became a personal computer that could also make calls.  

Everyone is trying to determine if Apple can succeed in the watch sector.  It really doesn't matter what the watch industry looks like today, because they aren't entering that market. Now I don't pretend to know what Apple is planning to do in the sector, if anything, but I know their history of entering new markets.  They don't compete with current incumbents of the space, they create a whole new space which has similar functionality as the market they are entering.

“People buy watches for a variety of very complicated emotional reasons, of which telling time is often just a precept or an alibi,” says Bill Geiser, a former executive at Fossil and currently the CEO of smartwatch startup Metawatch. It’s a common refrain: watches are essentially fashion, a personal expression, and therefore useful as a mark of status or a gift.

To believe Apple is not going to make a watch that is a status symbol or a personal expression is shortsighted.  Of course Jony Ive is going to design something desirable.  

It’s hard to imagine Apple or Samsung selling a smartwatch for more than their “hero” smartphones—much less for $4,285. And if only 15% of the revenue generated from the global watch market comes from devices under $500, it’s a far smaller market than some analysts have argued.

One device has nothing to do with the other.  A smartphone and a "watch" are two different things and I don't think Apple is trying to price items based on the phone prices.  Also, going back to my argument before, the size of the current watch market does not necessarily translate to what Apple will do with their smart watch.

“The wrist is beachfront property,” says Geiser. “The watch market has been around for hundreds of years, and it’s going to be around for another 1,000. All we’re doing is taking this existing market and dragging it into the modern era… By and large a smart watch is still a watch.”

Of course this is what everyone said about the phone market when Apple entered into it.  The phone market had nowhere near the history of the watch industry, however the incumbents learned very quickly that Apple was out to change the market, not compete in the current one.  

Whatever Apple does I believe they will be trying to change what people think a watch is.  They will surely not be trying to compete with the current watches of today.

“It’s Just A Big iPod Touch”

I emailed my mother a series of questions about her usage of the iPad. Her response was illuminating:

So yes, I like the iPad, but I miss a keyboard. I don’t like this touchpad. But I use it now in place of my old computer. I go on Pinterest. But I am having a few issues (as usual). It just shuts down and the Apple appears on the black screen. Must be that I’m using it too much? I use it for email, Facebook, and checking things out. Love you. Xoxox

Sent from my iPad

I’m not 100 percent sure this is the perfect response from an “average” iPad user of a certain age, but I’d bet it’s pretty close. “Miss a keyboard.” “I go on Pinterest.” “Email.” “Facebook.” “Checking things out.”

Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

My main complaint with the Surface Pro is the incredibly lackluster battery life.

This is what happens when a company is more concerned with holding onto what they have instead of innovating forward.  Sure you will make people mad, but they will come with you if you lead the way.  Microsoft at this point is not innovating on their most important product, they are trying to maintain their market share.  There is 1 competitor.  They should have learned they got to where they were because Apple stood still and Microsoft passed them up. We are in the middle of seeing Microsoft standing still while Apple passes them back up.  Very interesting how organizations can't innovate when they have a big lead.

How long can Tim Cook avoid taking any risks at Apple?

Under his leadership, Apple hasn't entered any new markets. It's only done one radical overhaul of a product, the ultra-high-end Mac Pro, which represents only 4% of all Apple sales. The most aggressive new product features it has introduced—Siri, Apple Maps, and Touch ID—have had very mixed results.

Wow.  Just because they have not entered into markets that either are controlled by content creators (TV) or where the technology is not quite ready (smart watch).

To say Tim Cook hasn't taken any big swings, Jason Hiner hasn't been paying attention.  Apple just overhauled their mobile OS, called iOS 7, has he not heard?  iOS runs the hardware that is responsible for most of Apples profits.  It was very decisive.  If that wasn't aggressive, I don't know what is.  To aggressively move to 64-bit on hardware and software a year before anyone thought possible is very ballsy.  

The boldest thing Cook has done during his two-year tenure as CEO was to fire Scott Forstall, one of Apple's most talented executives. That's not a great sign. While Forstall was legendarily difficult to work with, he was also one of Apple's most creative and innovative leaders and had a lot to do with the success of the iPhone and iPad. He was rumored to be one of Apple's future CEO candidates, so his departure clearly smells like a battle for control and influence in the post-Jobs era.

These are not moves by someone that is holding innovation back at Apple.  Firing Scott Forstall, while seemingly a political move, is something that needed to be done.  Steve Jobs is a different type of leader.  He was the alpha dog and people like Forstall understood that.  Tim Cook has a more easy demeanor, he will never be Steve Jobs.  Under Tim the organization has to make up for what Steve brought to Apple, innovation.  To do that, there needs to be a cohesive team.  Sometimes in organizations there are leaders that drive an organization to do amazing things, but can't take it farther into greatness because to get to the place they are they had to ruin many relationships on the way.  That was Scott Forstall.  It was probably the best move for Apple.  Scott Forstall is great, but Craig Federighi will take them a lot farther now.