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.

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 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.

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.  

Redesigning the Look of iOS Is Jony Ive's First Step Towards CEO

I don't believe that Jony Ive is being groomed for the CEO role.  In my opinion, what Tim Cook is doing is defining his #2.  I have believed for some time that your #2 should be your opposite.  Jony Ive is a true product guy, an innovator.  Tim Cook is an operations guy, a brilliant logistical tactician.     

When your #2 is your opposite, it allows you to focus on what you are passionate about, your expertise.  Let your #2 focus on the things you don't have passion for.  A trusted #2 that is your opposite will make your team more effective because the team gets the best of you.