Is the Business of Apple Actually Jobs?

Apple’s history as a company resembles a scalloped fence running downhill, sure things go up with the occasional success but the trend line is one of decidedly negative slope. Of course that is the scene if you take the most expansive view, if you look at the forest and not the trees so to speak. Closer inspection reveals a much different picture: Most of the smashing successes are associated with Steve Jobs, the years when things slip away are generally coincident with others piloting the ship.

The easiest reason to give for the trend is that Apple failed to innovate while Steve was otherwise occupied. That position is mendacious, there was no sudden dearth of innovation during S. Jobs’ extended hiatus. A momentary reflection of the Steve free years (1985-1998) probably won’t leave you saying “Oh yeah!” so a few examples might be instructive. The most obvious example is, of course, the Newton. The travails of the Newton are well documented but long story short: it failed (though it does, much like circus peanuts, remain popular in some circles for reasons unfathomable). The Newton is only the most obvious example, there are abundant instances of non-Jobs inspired Apple innovation.

Further illustrations abound though none of the subsequent examples are as well known as the oft-lamented Newton. Yet the following represent a fairly nifty amount of innovation. Our first example is the Apple QuickTake Digital Camera. This was an early digital camera offered by Apple in the mid 90’s. Sure there were other digital cameras on the market at the time but the QuickTake had features that other cameras simply lacked.  The hole you scratched in your head at the first mention of the camera reveals just what kind of impact the QuickTake imparted to the burgeoning world of digital photography. Lesser known still, but possibly more innovative, was the QuickTime Conferencing Video Camera 100. This was a pretty revolutionary idea, Father of the iSight if you will. As ahead of it’s time as it may have been the poorly named QTCVC 100 was only produced for a year before it joined the QuickTake as yet another bad product implementation. Computer and software innovations are far too numerous to list so let it be sufficient to note that Apple generated a plethora of far-reaching and truly innovative achievements during Steve Jobs’ time away from home.

Contrast those examples with the offerings from Apple when Steve Jobs is in a position of power. You’ve got the original iMac, sure it seems like a quaint old-timey computer today but the thing is it will still run the latest operating system and, if you only require a computer to surf the net and type email (welcome 90% of computer users), it is a fine machine. More revolutionary than the iMac was, of course, the original Mac. How far reaching was the original Mac? Just about everyone uses an interface derived from the one that shipped with the first Mac. Those are just two examples, the list is long and includes all the iLife Apps, iPods, the Apple I, the Apple II, etc. You get the picture, basically success after success after success. Not that Steve bats a thousand, the failures were equally breathtaking (Apple III, Lisa) but the hits are more numerous than the misses with his Jobsness at the plate.

We are left examining the dichotomy between a Steve jobs run Apple and all other Apple honchos and wondering just where the difference is. As we have seen great products come out of infinite loop with a laudable amount of regularity but it seems as though the only products that end up revolutionizing the computing world pour forth during periods when the nameplate “Steve Jobs” resides on the CEO’s desk. Can it be nothing more than serendipity that the most influential products arrive while the Steveness is in charge? Appealing though that argument may be to the fortunate few who have the Powerball Jackpot multiple times it is simply not a defensible conclusion. The most obvious hypothesis is the turtle necked bedecked is doing something others either cannot or will not (let the rumor end here once and for all: Steve Jobs did not leave the Gap board because they refused to declare it the year of the turtleneck).

So what is the jet owning maestro doing that others refuse to do? Not being privy to Apple’s cofounders innermost thoughts it is necessary to utilize a little bit of after the fact hindsight by contrasting two conceivably revolutionary products. This exercise will hopefully provide a meager amount of enlightenment. The majority people would agree, much to Kodak’s chagrin, that digital cameras have attained market saturation. For most consumers traditional film cameras and the associated recurring expenses have been rendered obsolete (sure there are fine artists with a death grip on their film loaded Hassleblads, avoid these people). Apple had every opportunity to be at the forefront of the digital camera revolution with the aforementioned QuickTake and associated software. While others were already making digital cameras Apple was in a unique position to leverage the Mac name and legendary image processing abilities and make the digital camera their personal fiefdom but the opportunity was squandered. The camera was just not compelling enough despite the advantages in software. It looked like any other camera so there was no reason to think there was anything inherently better about the QuickTake. Contrast this with the iPod. Again the iPod was not the first hard drive digital music player on the market but where the QuickTake wasted the rub from being Apple branded the iPod excelled. While the QuickTake strongly resembled a rebranded Kodak the iPod looked markedly different from the competition. While the QuickTake sported superior software the iPod sported both a superior interface and superior software. The enumeration of differences could continue until readers everywhere wonder if actually working wouldn’t be little more entertaining than reading this particular column but the point remains unchanged: Both were instances where Apple had a legitimate chance to own the market. The QuickTake was less than compelling while the iPod is a runaway success. The difference is Steve Jobs.

With that, admittedly extreme, example fresh in mind perhaps the magic of Steve Jobs becomes less ethereal and more solidified. Many technical types expect cold numbers and marginally better performance to differentiate one product from another. This line of reasoning appeals to engineers and overly technical types but Steve Jobs realizes that most consumers aren’t engineers. The majority of the populace demands something more than mere specs to base a purchase decision and these are the people pandered to by Steve Jobs. The real difference isn’t that the iPod was anymore revolutionary than the QuickTake in concept, it was that Steve Jobs waited to release it until it was a revolutionary product. In essence Steve Jobs is cherry picking the best innovations Apple can produce and instead of rushing them to the consumer in hopes that the marginal improvements over competing products is enough to produce a tidy profit he waits until the product is truly revolutionary. All this gives one pause: Is anyone really a fan of Apple Computer or all we just fans of Steve Jobs?