Apple Not Innovative? Are You Kidding?
Here and there, you'll run across someone steadfastly maintaining that Apple isn't really an innovative company. They'll point out that Apple didn't invent the GUI interface, didn't come up with the first touch screen phone and completely aped other companies in just about any area you care to name. They'll be right in a technical sense, but very wrong in a larger sense.
Before delving into the egregious errors of the innovation deniers we'll need to get a solid fix on just what constitutes innovation. A lot of people would slap a dictionary definition here and include the pronunciation key because they think it is cute and clever. The folks that read Apple Matters know that argumentation via dictionary is just a short cut to score points. Since this isn't about scoring points, we'll skip that dictionary definition and note that there is really more than one applicable definition when talking about tech companies and innovation.
Most folks think of innovation as something that has never been done before. Some bit of hardware or some software program that is so revolutionary you are astounded by newness. Examples of something might be, um, including Airport on Macs. Heck, I think Apple was the first company to realize you might like to browse from your couch even if it were on a pokey 56.6 connection. Another example is Google. Remember how Yahoo used to be the internet's default search engine even though it wasn't a search engine?
Those kinds of innovations, the astounding "Why didn't I think of that?" are the kind of stuff that fascinates people. Rags to riches, OMG why didn't I think of this kind of stuff. The truth is that those kinds of revelatory innovations are very rare.
Newton is deservedly lauded for deriving calculus in his spare time, which is fantastic, give most of us a free summer and we'll come up fifty pounds heavier and really skilled at Call of Duty. But Lebneiz came up with calculus about the same time and both Newton and Lebneiz used the innovations in mathematics that others came up with before them. One person, one company (the one that gets it right) tends to get all the credit even though competing individuals also had the same idea.
If you are surprised at this point, you shouldn't be. If you think about how you go about solving a problem you'll realize that you generally don't come up with a brilliant answer out of the blue. You think about the issue, discard some solutions, expand others and so forth. Then you stop when your answer is good enough.
With all that in mind it is easy to see that the idea of 'lightning bolt' innovation is generally fanciful. The leaps in hardware and software we see aren't revolutions but evolutions. And even when you see them as incremental steps forward they weren't steps taken in a vacuum, they were steps taken with the foreknowledge of where others were going and steps that took a lot of work to get right.
The second, less sexy type, of innovation is behind the scenes stuff. This type of innovation doesn't fill the imagination like the Shazam! type of innovation but it likely means just as much or more in the big scheme of things. Categorize this innovation as seeing a market or analyzing logistics in a more efficient manner. Sure, you're not doing anything anyone else hasn't done, but you are, if you are successful, doing it better.
A great example of this type of innovation is Windows. The original Windows should have been called Tiles both because the windows didn't overlap and Tiles rhymed with Piles which could be short for Piles of s.... and that is what the first version of Windows actually was. A lot of companies give up when a first attempt fails. Not Microsoft. Billy G and the crew just kept chugging along until they had a serviceable program. The innovative thing about the program? Nothing, the Mac could do more (at first), but Windows ran on generic PC hardware. Pretty innovative when you consider that every other company was trying to push hardware. Not sexy, but Microsoft did okay. And not only did Microsoft do okay there is a non-trivial argument to be made that Microsoft's innovation took computing to the masses.
This brings us back to the question whether or not Apple is truly innovative. You can exclude almost every single thing Apple has ever done from the revelatory form of innovation. There were mp3 players before the iPod, touch phones before the iPhone, movie editing programs before the iMovie. And sure Microsoft and RIMM have more marketshare so the temptation is to think Apple is just muddling along, not innovating, and making dough.
On the other hand, Apple charges a cool grand for a laptop that others charge $600 (or less) for. And people are happy to buy them. If having ten percent of the market and being able to charge extra for products everyone else sees as commodities isn't innovation it is hard to imagine what you would call it.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
This is a stupid argument which is designed to discount Apple for being a success. It defines an “innovator” as the person who first gets an idea, partly right, and neglects that Apple is the one who makes it work.
This is complicated, because Apple used to specialize in ideas which were way ahead of their time. The problem with that is that someone else does the hard work necessary to make them into a success. Sometimes, you can have a technical success, like the NeXTstep OS, and it is a commercial failure because you can’t get users and developers for it.
The best case for that is the Newton PDA. The Newton didn’t quite work for Apple; it was heavy and complicated. So, Palm came along and simplified the OS. Palm made its PDA smaller and it was a success.
Apple learned from the experience; it is, now, into the whole widget. It takes market failures, such as the MP3 player, rethinks and redesigns them to overcome its flaws and sells a ton of them. It is such a complete solution that no one else can compete.
The Jacquard loom in 1801 had 19 automatic looms ahead of it which didn’t quite work. Basile Bouchon (1725), Jean Falcon (1728) and Jacques Vaucanson (1740) were all innovators who couldn’t get their looms to work. Joseph Jacquard invented the last part which made it into a success. Should he be ignored, because he got the money?
I much prefer Apple to be imitative in taking what is good in the world. I’d rather it didn’t hold off from picking up new ideas. Apple is not in business to be techy. Apple is not Linux.
Steve Jobs thinks that Apple is in the business of changing the world. It doesn’t follow trends; it makes them. If Apple were merely a copy cat, then it would have a Net book. Instead, Apple will create a new product category which satisfies the needs of the NetBook users. Of course, someone will discount that by saying, “Oh! That’s not new.”
Meanwhile , Apple will be laughing all the way to the bank.
This is an article based on a ridiculous straw man. There is virtually no one arguing that Apple does not innovate at all.
I think there is probably some counter argument to the assertion from Apple fanboys that Apple invented EVERYTHING and is “the ONLY innovative technology company” (yes, an actual quote from someone on this very site). But that’s not the same as claiming that Apple doesn’t innovate.
One of the biggest problems that Apple had during the 1990s was that it had a “not invented here” bias. This kept it from responding to and accepting good ideas.
People often think of innovation in terms of devises and technologies, but it is just as innovative to develop new marketing strategies, methods and procedures. The iTunes Music store is what caused the iPod to take off. It was a convenient way of downloading music.
I’ll try to dig up the article that inspired this for you Beeb. It was an article wherein it was opined that Apple didn’t innovate at all, merely stole the ideas of others and went on to big success. The thing that struck me about the piece was the comments that sincerely agreed with the article.
I’m down with the idea that Apple gets too much credit for innovation, there are people who will tell you that, I dunno, multitasking didn’t exist until OS X or something, but the notion that Apple doesn’t innovate because Apple didn’t invent the concept of a touchscreen cell phone seems to be a bit labored to me.
Urban Bard’s example with the loom pretty much sums up my whole point in a few sentences. Which means Urban Bard’s comment was better than my whole article. Curse you Urban Bard!
Microsoft gets this criticism 365 days a year. Now here come the comments “yeah, well they DESERVE it! they DONT innovate!!!”
Well thats interesting. If Microsoft isnt innovative, then neither is Apple. If Apple is innovative, then so is Microsoft. For those who aren’t ignorant, it is COMPLETELY obvious that both companies can lay claim to the same “brand” of innovation.
It seems Apple fanatics are very quick to fly to the defense of Apple, but yet are more often than not guilty of the exact same specious arguments leveled against the “other guy”.
I consider myself completely platform agnostic and so find all of this really fascinating. End of the day, any tech corporation that is successful on some level is innovative on some level. If they werent they couldnt continue to exist. Only crazed fanboy insanity causes someone to think otherwise.
I think Microsoft was hugely innovative. In the days when everyone wanted to sell hardware Microsoft wanted to sell software. That was a heady idea back then. Microsoft has offered plenty of innovation over the years.
I am pretty certain I mentioned microsft’s innovation in the article…
“A great example of this type of innovation is Windows. The original Windows should have been called Tiles both because the windows didn’t overlap and Tiles rhymed with Piles which could be short for Piles of s…. and that is what the first version of Windows actually was. A lot of companies give up when a first attempt fails. Not Microsoft. Billy G and the crew just kept chugging along until they had a serviceable program. The innovative thing about the program? Nothing, the Mac could do more (at first), but Windows ran on generic PC hardware. Pretty innovative when you consider that every other company was trying to push hardware. Not sexy, but Microsoft did okay. And not only did Microsoft do okay there is a non-trivial argument to be made that Microsoft’s innovation took computing to the masses.”
Jesus, Chris,You have some strange ideas. Your facts are wrong. Nothing that Bill Gates did was to his credit. He got a monopoly through a series of events which bear him no honor. Apple and the other manufacturers made mistakes which Microsoft capitalized on. Bill Gates was the better hustler and conman, not innovator.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/3EC02E78-FD4D-4CDF-92A0-9C4CBDFAB3D2.html
Before we go further, I want you to define innovation. The problem is that people have very unrealistic expectations. Having half of an idea is often worthless. Getting something almost right earns you very little in this world.
I would prefer not to discuss Microsoft and innovation. It is not that Microsoft does not innovate. It is as Steve Jobs said about Microsoft, “That they create third rate products.” What is disheartening about this world is that excellence can often go ignored.
Microsoft’s motto ought to be “good enough software.”
Microsoft’s success is built upon the IBM compatible manufacturers like Compaq who needed Microsoft’s OS to rip off IBM. It was IBM’s mistake not to sign up Microsoft to an exclusive contract. If they had, then someone else would have become king of the hill. Bill Gate lucked out and then had the ruthlessness to capitalize on his monopoly. Bill’s behavior with OS/2 was dishonest and duplicitous, but this was another case of IBM trusting Bill Gates. Many people have learned that lesson to their dismay.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/4C5CEE4A-94F7-4DA2-A518-B29372AA0839.html
Not so fast there Urban. Where you say that everything was due to random chance and hucksterism while not realizing that a lot of innovation is exactly that.
I’m down with the notion that Microsoft has probably never been the best choice in OS hardware but when IBM and Steve Jobs were thinking “we’ll rule the world selling hardware” Bill G was thinking “I’ll rule with software”
Who turned out to be right? One of the big changes when Steve came back to Apple was a focus on the software instead of the hardware. If you get a moment with Steve he’ll likely tell you that the hardware part of the iPhone is less important (vastly) than the software part. It is odd that Microsoft doesn’t get that with Windows Mobile.
I suppose you’ll argue that it wasn’t an innovative idea to ask IBM to license instead of buy the software. I think that is fantastically innovative. For proof that it was innovation realize that IBM said sure. Why? IBM thought the profits were in hardware.
Microsoft won because it knew what people were buying. Apple lost the race because it was selling hardware.
I suggest that you read Edward N. Luttwak’s book, “Strategy - the logic of war and peace.” In armed conflict, the combatants are constantly trying new things and finding themselves countered by a series of new and neglected techniques. It’s a case of “Whatever works” and “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” There is constant action and reaction between combatants. It’s the combination which is innovative.
Similar, but less murderous, actions take place between commercial entities. Taking advantage of people’s mistakes is crucial on a tactical and strategic level. Sometimes, you luck out, but you can’t bet on that.
There is no point in us talking unless you will define innovation, first. I’ve counted you using it in three conflicting ways.
Are you talking about innovation in a technical sense, a tactical business sense or in strategic plans to position yourself in particular markets? These are related, but not identical. You need to establish their relevance.
You are not thinking clearly. Go back to using simple sentences. Complex sentences can string together valid positions which add up to an absurdity.
The rule is in debate is “If you can’t define a thing clearly, you don’t know what it is. In seeking to confuse, and win points over, others, you end up confusing yourself.”
You are making assumptions for which you have no proof. The statement below illustrates that.
“I suppose you’ll argue that it wasn’t an innovative idea to ask IBM to license instead of buy the software. I think that is fantastically innovative. For proof that it was innovation realize that IBM said sure. Why? IBM thought the profits were in hardware.”
Neither of us knows what went on back then. We don’t know if it was IBM’s mistake in not asking for an exclusive license, because they trusted too much in the BIOS being copy writable. You are assuming that Bill Gates had a grand diabolical, innovative, plan. That is, he negotiated his contract with IBM, in the midst of great positional weakness, so that five years later he could take advantage of IBM’s mistake regarding Compaq. This was an event which no one could imagine back then. You are applying hindsight to derive an absurd conclusion.
My guess is that IBM screwed up the contract in haste and later, when Compaq broke IBM’s code in the BIOS and the method withstood the courts, Bill Gates was approached to supply the DOS. Bill found a legal loophole in his contract that he could wiggle through. He, then, did everything he could to extend and control the situation. None of this was innovative since it was not preplanned. His tactics were little different from a Mafia leader. Bill Gates lucked out and ruthlessly capitalized on his competitor’s weakness and confusion.
He deluded everyone into wasting their energies on OS/2, so he could run away with the market using Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. Was that preplanning or expediency? I’m guessing the latter.
His control of DOS and then the Windows OS gave him a means of foisting Microsoft Office as the standard on businesses. He then used Microsoft Windows to subtly sabotage Lotus 123 and Wordperfect which were much better software. The problem, which Bill’s competitors had, was that the best software of the time did not work well together. The individual parts of Microsoft Office, Word and Excel, didn’t work well together either, but the assumption was that they would improve. Much of Microsoft’s marketing plan is to throw crap against the wall to see what sticks. This is not innovation.
Let us compare this to a true case of innovation at Apple. When Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1997, he took the technologies which Apple already owned and started to create more to position himself in markets, three to five years later.
Apple was already developing Quicktime. Quicktime was Apple’s Hypercard which had been updated for sound and movies during the time when Steve was off at NeXT and Pixar. Steve developed a business pattern of putting technologies into place, so that no one knew what Apple had planned.
When Apple started selling a digital music player, the iPod, the pundits agreed that Apple was too late to enter this market. But, Steve Jobs had a much greater vision than a mere piece of hardware. Steve developed a secure means of buying music on line— the Tunes Music store. The technology for this came from Next Corp’s WebObjects web authoring tool.
No single part of Apple’s innovation was responsible for the success which followed. Hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of technology and business practices had to be put into place. Some of those pieces had to be changed when the market proved them to be flawed.
The success of the iPod and the iTunes Music store took great effort and planning. A person could say that any part had been tried before, but that wasn’t the point. Apple put together a grand strategy of a marketing plan which no one had done before. It required great technical and commercial brilliance. It required Apple being able to see what everyone else was missing. It required Apple to invest millions of dollars and years of effort before a single piece of hardware was sold.
PS. Microsoft’s business methods are catching up with them. Its short term decisions have lead to strategic weakness; the Enterprise market’s refusal to accept Vista is proof of that. The Windows Seven OS has deep structural flaws, carried on from Windows NT, which are very difficult to overcome.
Meanwhile, Microsoft’s enemies are maneuvering on its flanks. Neither Apple, nor Google, have initiated direct assaults, because their forces are not yet positioned. It will be 9 to 12 months before major attacks will engage.
Some of this depends on how well the Windows XP market takes up Windows Seven. I suspect that at least half of the Windows XP market (35% of the world’s computers) is up for grabs over the next three to four years, but I won’t have confirmation of that for about six months.
If half of the XP market doesn’t upgrade in the next year or two, this means that between 300 and 500 million computers come into play. Linux is more likely to grab up most of that market, though.
Right now, this is mere speculation, until confirmed. But, it is interesting to think about.
“Neither of us knows what went on back then. We don’t know if it was IBM’s mistake in not asking for an exclusive license, because they trusted too much in the BIOS being copy writable. You are assuming that Bill Gates had a grand diabolical, innovative, plan. That is, he negotiated his contract with IBM, in the midst of great positional weakness, so that five years later he could take advantage of IBM’s mistake regarding Compaq. This was an event which no one could imagine back then. You are applying hindsight to derive an absurd conclusion.”
Actually it is pretty well known.
Here’s the quick run down of what happened:
IBM was looking for a system for it’s personal computer. Everyone in the know was sure it would be QDOS. Then there was some weirdness, when IBM went to talk to the folks about QDOS they refused to sign a confidentiality agreement.
IBM’s second choice was Microsoft. Problem was that Microsoft didn’t have what IBM was looking for. So Microsoft talked to the QDOS folks and reached an agreement. They had to change the product a bit.
Microsoft then had what it needed to sell to IBM. And here is where it is interesting. IBM asked Microsoft what the price was for the software. Microsoft said it would rather license than sell the software. IBM, perfectly willing to buy the software, was also perfectly willing to license the software. IBM’s position was that the profits were in the hardware.
So IBM went with the licensing scheme. It made a lot of sense at the time but Microsoft saw the future more clearly than IBM did.
Which is weird, I started out defending Apple as an innovative company and now I’m defending Microsoft.
BTW, the fate of OS/2 was likely sealed by Microsoft tactics. And don’t forget when everyone says Apple licensed too late, they are dead wrong. Apple licensed too cheap. The company traded a license to the look and feel of Mac OS for a promise to make Mac software. And Apple traded it to Microsoft.
“Actually it is pretty well known.”
I’ve heard it told very differently. You seem to be quoting from this web wiki:
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm
Reports which I have seen from the people who were there disagree with it on vital points. Mostly, it is too kind to Bill Gates.
The leading Disk Operating system at the time was Digital Research’s CP/M; The Quick and Dirty Operating System was a buggy knockoff of it.
IBM’s management had a problems with a hippy like Dr. Gary Kildall. He wouldn’t be properly obsequious; he wouldn’t show up for appointments; he wouldn’t dress in a suit. There were rumors that he was sleeping with an IBM executive’s wife. So, the IBM team turned to Microsoft who did a Basic language program.
Paul White, the co founder of Microsoft, later said that Bill Gates lied to IBM by saying that Microsoft was working on a DOS when Gates and Kildell had a verbal agreement to stay out of each other’s markets. Bill Gates and Paul White had no experience in writing a DOS, so they looked up the owners of QDOS and bought it very quickly.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/158E7FA2-7B50-45E0-BD80-BEBC7C5E8CA6.html
The IBM PC was a very sloppy copy of the Apple II; technically it was inferior—an Intel 8808 chip, for goodness sake. IBM clearly saw the PC as a reply to the Apple II, but never thought it would catch on. The technical sloppiness of the design team carried over into its contracts. Partly, it was because IBM corporate gave the production people very little time. When you are rushed; you make mistakes.
The problem here is not with licensing; that is nothing new. There was licensing of software in mainframes. MS-DOS was licensed to IBM, not the public. That was customary. You can have an exclusive license which forbids sales to competitors. IBM’s management goofed up; they never foresaw that Compaq would, though the courts, be legally able to compete with an IBM compatible computer that was better and cheaper than an IBM PC. Without the Wintel market which came from the IBM compatibles, we would have never heard of Bill Gates.
I believe that where we differ is in the timing of events and who caused them. IBM gave Bill Gates an opportunity and he grabbed it. He bought the rights from Seattle Computer Products for bogus software: QDOS. He knew it was a knockoff of CP/M. It’s legal status was questionable at the time; that had to be settled in the courts.
I’m sure Bill Gates thought he would be sued by Dr. Gary Kildell. If Bill Gates sold the DOS to IBM, rather than licensing it, he could be sued by both Digital Research and IBM. So, licensing the DOS was safer. As it turned out, Microsoft got away scot free.
What we disagree on is that you seem to think Bill Gates planned it that way from the beginning. I don’t. I believe he winged it and everyone else screwed up. Bill Gates is very smart and very ruthless. He will climb through any loophole he can. This is a pattern which Microsoft has repeated many times.
A bargain with Microsoft proves to be a bargain with the devil. Just look up the history of Spyglass Mosaic. Microsoft had a contract with them which included a small upfront payment and a portion of the sales price. Spyglass was screwed when Microsoft started giving away the browser with the Windows OS. It was legal, but unethical.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Microsoft hasn’t been innovative in other areas; they have plenty of smart engineers. Nor am I saying that it hasn’t served its Enterprise customers well. But mostly, Microsoft is reactive. It acts more like a marketing company than a technical company. Its pattern is to quickly produce a computer program as a place holder and fix it later. The problem with that is that early flaws become institutionalized.
“And don’t forget when everyone says Apple licensed too late, they are dead wrong. Apple licensed too cheap. The company traded a license to the look and feel of Mac OS for a promise to make Mac software. And Apple traded it to Microsoft.”
You are unclear. I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking about the mistakes of John Sculley? Why would you want to talk about him? What is the relevance?
You know, Chris, companies have a character which they borrow from their founders. That corporate character can change later, like it did with HP, but it’s always interesting to judge a company policy by seeing where they got their values from. There were three different cultures in early computing.
HP was the original family oriented company which took care of its employees. It trusted and empowered its engineers. The employees were loyal, worked very hard and were allowed to be creative. Most of HP’s inventions came from that employee empowerment. But, HP did not get into the consumer computer market until after Bill Hewlett and David Packard retired. HP was corrupted over the next 15 years and Hewlett and Packard had to come out of retirement to fix it with mixed success.
IBM was old style corporate fascism; it had a, top down, theory X, management style. They even had a dress code for their employees. IBM’s thing was in selling mainframes to businesses. They ignored Apple and the other computer start ups. Apple became a five billion dollar computer company almost over night, so IBM over reacted by producing a response which was not well thought out—the IBM PC. IBM was unprepared for the PC’s success and other people’s reaction to that. The IBM PC acquired a big target painted on its behind.
IBM had no experience in selling to consumers or hobbyists. They made plenty of mistakes which allowed their market to be stolen away from them. Since their greatest asset was their sales staff, IBM could plant seeds of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in their buyers.
What caught IBM off guard was the amoral attitudes coming out of the universities during the 1960s. There had been a spirited competition between Univac and IBM, but its sales staff were old style gentleman. The nihilist and anti business attitudes at the computer startups was quite distressing to IBM. The people at Compaq were hippies who thought that corporations were “ripping them off” so it was okay to rip them off first. It was class warfare.
Microsoft adopted many of the styles at both IBM and the start ups. Microsoft was competitively ruthless and thought that IBM’s FUD and whispering campaigns were acceptable against their competitors. So, were starting up partnerships, like it did with IBM to produce OS/2, and betraying those partners later. So, was creating poor software as a placeholder until they could later fix it. Microsoft is a very good marketer, but a poor technologist. Their deceptive and anti-competitive business practices invited a reaction—mostly from FOSS.
Apple was started by two technologists who wanted to produce the best. They found how difficult that was to do when their competition was producing over hyped junk and calling their products overpriced. The DOS, and later the Wintel, market was very strange. The competition was on the hardware side where the cheapest possible price was at a premium. Microsoft was a privileged partner of Wintel: everyone else took the risks and Microsoft made the money.
Wintel pundits produced a checklist of characteristics which included speed in megahertz, compatibility with PC’s and a low initial purchase price, but left off quality, durability, ease of use and good looks. Microsoft developed a propaganda machine and paid off pundits to promote their marketing points.
Apple fell back on the part of the computer market which needed their pursuit of excellence: graphics, design and education.
Meanwhile, Apple’s management, under John Sculley, was screwing up by trying to compete directly with Wintel. The clone era was a fiasco.
Before Steve Jobs came back, Apple was starting to work out its marketing problems with Wintel. When Apple bought NeXT, they gave up directly competing with Wintel. They have relied on the Wintel market shooting themselves in the foot and supplying to the computer market what Wintel could not. The “Mac vs PC” advertisements are a graphic illustration of this attitude.
Apple took that Wintel checklist and steadily removed issues off of it. Mac OSX removed the issues of protected memory and preemptive scheduling and added in a multi-user, object oriented, Operating System. Apple had to tease their existing market base and developers into using Mac OSX by creating the Carbon API’s.
Snow Leopard breaks with those interim methods. In moving to 64 bit code, by the middle of next year, Apple will start to leave behind the Carbon API’s.
That is when the “OS Wars” start in again. This time, Apple has a co-belligerent with Google. Google really wants to take over those parts of the market which Apple is uninterested in. The partners pretend a competition to throw off Microsoft and the US Government.
Apple has been very innovative to pursue this marketing plan, but it cannot tip off its enemies too soon. So, when the Microsoft FUD machine spreads lies that Apple isn’t innovative, or that Wintel is just as innovative, then Apple says nothing. Apple’s actions will speak louder than words.