A close friend recently said something which mirrored a lot of what I have seen being banded about since the death of Steve Jobs. They said 'Apple is an innovation company'. I believe this perspective to be both narrow and destructive.
To portray Apple as an innovation company is wrong firstly because many of the 'innovations' that Apple have delivered are either not unique or have been developed separately. For example, the iPod was, technically, just another audio device; the iPhone wasn't the first candy bar touchscreen phone; and, of course, the first mouse UI was developed by Xerox. This is an argument a lot of 'fandroids' use to portray Apple in a negative light.
Secondly, and more positively, I believe Apple aren't an 'Innovation' company, because they are a 'Design' company. To illustrate this I will use Dieter Ram's 10 principles, cliche', but not on the ill-conceived view that Rams = Apple, but just as I believe the principles are a good way of illustrating the goals of 'Design with a capital D' in general.
Apple and Dieter Rams are seen as philosophically linked because their products seem to attempt to resolve the 10 Principles. Therefore, innovation can be shown to make up only 1/10 of Apple's intellectual groundwork. This is why I define Apple as a 'Design' company. A company which, basically, strives primarily to deliver the best product to consumers.
What then, is an 'Innovation' company? Something like either Dyson or Nintendo: Companies who aim to seperate themselves from the competition by using a tactic of consistent development and re-introduction of the core product. Dyson under James Dyson, and Nintendo under Shigeru Miyamoto, can be seen as companies led in their mission by prolific inventors. Steve Jobs and/or Jony Ive, figureheads of Apple, are not inventors, they are 'product people'. Apple have not relied on innovation, for example to keep their MacBook or iMac lines ahead of the competition, as besides obvious technical advancements, they have remained conceptually unchanged since the mid 2000's.
Sadly, markets currently are led by neither by Innovation nor Design companies. They are in general led by what I will define as 'Marketing' companies: Companies such as Proctor and Gamble, who rely not on good , or different, product, but on relentless use of marketing strategies. Products are re-vamped on the basis of sales or market research, and consumers are then convinced into buying product on the basis of marketing campaigns. No one can explain how Duracell batteries are better than any other comparable Alkaline battery, but they remain, inexplicably, the market leader.
Common symptoms of the marketing-led product lineup are: needless differentiation within the range, based on precisely targeting different types of consumer (maximising spread); needless, consistent and mainly visual, 'updates' to products on a predictable timeframe (pseudo-innovation); and tiered lineups, based mainly on adding useless features, and not improving core functionality (upselling). Shaving, Automobiles and Kitchen appliances are examples of markets almost totally consumed by these approaches.
Why is the perception that Apple is an Innovation company destructive? Firstly, competing companies, basing their strategy on 'innovation', probably not managed as well as at Apple, will take the market away from a product-first approach as companies rush to force out any appearance of progress, a net loss for consumers who were initially pleased to have been rescued from the 'feature phone' mess that was the market pre-iPhone.
Secondly, if Apple's success during the Steve Jobs period is misconstrued as success due to innovation, investor pressure could force Apple to rush to market with weak products. Steve Jobs' genius move was to filter down the product lineup and focus on quality. This was major, as it accelerated the halo effect, because the Apple lineup was prescriptive, that is, a consumer would see the whole line up and believe they needed all of it. A watered down lineup would give the recently-converted consumer a scary amount of choice.
In conclusion, I believe that 'Design' companies are best placed to deliver positive change to consumers. This is partly obvious, as the design process is completely about assessing the needs of consumers, not manipulating their desires, or forcing though technologies of dubious benefit. Examples of 'Design' companies would be Apple, Vitsoe and OXO, among others. Note, a 'Design' approach does not necessarily guarantee competence! (i'm still waiting for a LAMY that doesn't piss it's way though 2 cartridges a week).
To portray Apple as an innovation company is wrong firstly because many of the 'innovations' that Apple have delivered are either not unique or have been developed separately. For example, the iPod was, technically, just another audio device; the iPhone wasn't the first candy bar touchscreen phone; and, of course, the first mouse UI was developed by Xerox. This is an argument a lot of 'fandroids' use to portray Apple in a negative light.
Secondly, and more positively, I believe Apple aren't an 'Innovation' company, because they are a 'Design' company. To illustrate this I will use Dieter Ram's 10 principles, cliche', but not on the ill-conceived view that Rams = Apple, but just as I believe the principles are a good way of illustrating the goals of 'Design with a capital D' in general.
Apple and Dieter Rams are seen as philosophically linked because their products seem to attempt to resolve the 10 Principles. Therefore, innovation can be shown to make up only 1/10 of Apple's intellectual groundwork. This is why I define Apple as a 'Design' company. A company which, basically, strives primarily to deliver the best product to consumers.
What then, is an 'Innovation' company? Something like either Dyson or Nintendo: Companies who aim to seperate themselves from the competition by using a tactic of consistent development and re-introduction of the core product. Dyson under James Dyson, and Nintendo under Shigeru Miyamoto, can be seen as companies led in their mission by prolific inventors. Steve Jobs and/or Jony Ive, figureheads of Apple, are not inventors, they are 'product people'. Apple have not relied on innovation, for example to keep their MacBook or iMac lines ahead of the competition, as besides obvious technical advancements, they have remained conceptually unchanged since the mid 2000's.
Sadly, markets currently are led by neither by Innovation nor Design companies. They are in general led by what I will define as 'Marketing' companies: Companies such as Proctor and Gamble, who rely not on good , or different, product, but on relentless use of marketing strategies. Products are re-vamped on the basis of sales or market research, and consumers are then convinced into buying product on the basis of marketing campaigns. No one can explain how Duracell batteries are better than any other comparable Alkaline battery, but they remain, inexplicably, the market leader.
Common symptoms of the marketing-led product lineup are: needless differentiation within the range, based on precisely targeting different types of consumer (maximising spread); needless, consistent and mainly visual, 'updates' to products on a predictable timeframe (pseudo-innovation); and tiered lineups, based mainly on adding useless features, and not improving core functionality (upselling). Shaving, Automobiles and Kitchen appliances are examples of markets almost totally consumed by these approaches.
Why is the perception that Apple is an Innovation company destructive? Firstly, competing companies, basing their strategy on 'innovation', probably not managed as well as at Apple, will take the market away from a product-first approach as companies rush to force out any appearance of progress, a net loss for consumers who were initially pleased to have been rescued from the 'feature phone' mess that was the market pre-iPhone.
Secondly, if Apple's success during the Steve Jobs period is misconstrued as success due to innovation, investor pressure could force Apple to rush to market with weak products. Steve Jobs' genius move was to filter down the product lineup and focus on quality. This was major, as it accelerated the halo effect, because the Apple lineup was prescriptive, that is, a consumer would see the whole line up and believe they needed all of it. A watered down lineup would give the recently-converted consumer a scary amount of choice.
In conclusion, I believe that 'Design' companies are best placed to deliver positive change to consumers. This is partly obvious, as the design process is completely about assessing the needs of consumers, not manipulating their desires, or forcing though technologies of dubious benefit. Examples of 'Design' companies would be Apple, Vitsoe and OXO, among others. Note, a 'Design' approach does not necessarily guarantee competence! (i'm still waiting for a LAMY that doesn't piss it's way though 2 cartridges a week).
"Online classes offer convenience, but they can also be time-consuming. Delegate your coursework to our experts in 'Do my online classes for me for me,' and rediscover a stress-free learning experience."
ReplyDeleteTrust us to keep your personal information confidential when you request "Do my online classes for me," ensuring your privacy is respected. nursing dissertation writers
ReplyDelete