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.

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.

Why Apple is Growing Its Bank Account

Samsung has a nearly limitless bank account. Samsung, like LG, is backed by their nation state of South Korea. After I made this point, Benedict added that so is Huawei, and of course several other Chinese ODMs, who are also backed by their nation state. When there is a guarantee of a cash trove behind you, it is possible to make business decisions that perhaps other companies without such a wealthy backer would make. In essence the rules for spending may simply be different for a company like Samsung and other Asian OEMs / ODMs who have nation state backing.1

This is an interesting take.  I'm sure this is not the sole reason for the large treasure trove, however US companies are at a disadvantage in the marketplace if the competitors have a limitless budget.  I was wondering how Samsung could afford all that advertising.  When there is no downside, why not spend it? 

Long Term Strategies vs. Short Term Market Share

Android users are not as active and engaged with online activities as iOS users are. And when companies from start-ups to established players decide which platforms to target with their apps, their web services, and their marketing campaigns, they’re going to go where the eyeballs are. If you follow where the money should be going, it should be focused on Apple.

Which creates a virtuous circle of engagement. People develop their tools for iOS because iOS users are more engaged and easier to monetise.

There is definitely a difference between Android and iOS users.  This brings up interesting points when talking about different business strategies.  When having products, engagement and return loyalty are things that create a sustainable business.  Samsung is selling a plethora of products and in volume, however if the customers are not engaging in the platform and are purchasing items through the Google Play store, Samsung has nothing to hold onto customers when their contracts come up.

This is similar to what we saw with the PC industry.  Because the platform was owned by Microsoft and all the programs and files could easily be switched from machine to machine, the manufacturers had nothing to compete with.  So when there is no differentiation, businesses compete on price and volume.  When that happens everyone loses except the consumer.  However, the consumers gain is only short lived because the products they are buying are becoming cheaper and cheaper and over time they last a lot shorter than the products they purchased before.  

I believe this is what we will see pan out in the cell phone space outside of the US.  Also, you have already seen this in the tablet space.  Because no one can compete with the iPad on a product and experience level, the market has already taken a nose-dive in pricing to gain market share.  The problem with this is the experience delivered to the customer.  These companies are taking a short term gain and will be losing these customers when they are ready to buy again because their experience is subpar.  

This will be fun to watch.  Hopefully we will see much more innovation in the years to come, instead of just relying on Android as a competing platform and everyone racing to the bottom on price. 

Capturing the Innovation Mindset at Bally Technologies

As a former customer of Bally Technologies I have to say I didn't see any of this.  They remind me of Samsung.  Samsung is a first to copy, instead of a first to market.  They are quicker than their competition to copy what is innovative and do it good.  Where Samsung innovates tend to be on features and technology they just don't know what to do with.  For instance, video that pauses when your eyes stop looking at the screen.  Great piece of engineering, terrible implementation of such a technology.  Works in very few use cases.  

Bally's is Samsung, which isn't bad, just not innovative.  

Will Apple Repeat The Most Dangerous Strategic Mistake Leaders of Fast Growing Corporation Can Make? - Forbes

It amazes me how many companies, even Forbes, use Apple to grab headlines.  This article is about nothing.  The two arguments being used are litigation and switching maps?  Let me elaborate for a minute on each:​

The litigation against Samsung are a necessary evil.  Nowhere does the article mention that Apple was asking Samsung for license agreements pretrial.  ​Apple should defend their innovation, else we will get the refrigerator market, where every piece looks exactly the same and does the same thing.  This is good for consumers because manufacturers only compete on price, however in the long run it is terrible for consumers because innovation is non-existent.

The maps debate is getting old.  Apple had to make a move away from Google because of turn-by-turn navigation.  It was an easy talking point for Apple competitors.  Apple will now be allowed to innovate in the maps arena which should allow for greater maps from Apple and Google in the future.  This will be so much better for the consumer.  ​

In both these cases Apple is not making the mistake of these other companies.  Apple is looking out for the customer by allowing innovation and making it expensive to copy instead of innovate.  Both will lead to better customer experiences as time passes.​

Will Apple’s Patent Victory Create A Usability Hell? →

Pinching to zoom on touch-screen devices is such a common gesture today that it’s hard to believe Steve Jobs wowed audience members (who actually cheered and applauded for close to 20 seconds) when he first stretched his fingers against the iPhone’s glass face.

"With regard to gestures, I think it will be hard to change the status quo because they’ve already gained such widespread acceptance," says one top interaction designer at HP.

It has such widespread acceptance because everyone copied it.  So the argument is because we've all copied "pinch-to-zoom" and our customers are now used to ​it, Apple shouldn't be able to force you to do something else?  

Hmmm...strange argument.  So if you own something and I steal it and later on you want it back, I can just say, "Well I've gotten used to using this, so you are out of luck."  Interesting.

With The Apple V. Samsung Verdict, Innovation Wins →

...the more important point is that both parties are now incentivized to behave differently. One can even argue that they're now predisposed to innovate like they've never done before.

​I agree completely.  It would be a shame if the smartphone race turned into the refrigerator, or dare I say television industry, when you go into a store and every television and refrigerator look exactly the same.  Smartphones should all be distinct, at least in the operating system.  This way we don't end up with 2 choices where 1 dominates, like Windows vs Mac.   

Apple--which isn't evil no matter how some may think--may press on with its smartphone and tablet UI innovation in an effort to truly distinguish the look and feel of its products in an ever-busier market, conscious that Samsung is nipping at its heels. iOS is getting a little long in the tooth, and now may be the perfect time to spend company time transforming it into the next generation of smartphone OS's.

I sure hope this happens.  If the verdict changes the copying behavior of its competitors, Apple is in a great position to reinvent the greatest invention of our time.  Here's to innovation.

​