Steve Jobs wouldn't approve!
This is a commonly used attack against Apple's recent lack of innovation. And Apple fans are sick of it. But is it an unfair statement to make?
There are, of course two sides to this. But one side is very much smaller in my opinion. So we'll start there. Let's not pretend that Jobs was a consistent unwavering man who made broad, specific, and violent declarations and stuck to them. He wasn't. Read his bio, follow the companies history. He was anything but consistent on those statements. So, the nay-sayers have one sort of feather in their cap. They could always argue it would be irrelevant even if he did say it.
I disagree with trying to swat away at the argument however. It is safe to say that Jobs was incredibly active and involved with what was released in his time as CEO at Apple. To a point which would probably be considered unacceptable in most companies. And, it was also very clearly under this regime that Apple garnered the bulk of its current fan base. So there is somewhat of a correlation between what Apple fans *should* like to see out of that company and what Steve Jobs would have approved of.
So, while the quality and innovation in the time since Jobs may be a topic for debate, the sentiment at least should be one that even Apple fans apply to new products.
And while Jobs might have said he would never do something and then turn around and release that very thing years later, he would usually say something like "I'll never build a 5 inch phone". But what he would really mean with those statements was generally closer to "If we did a 5 inch phone today, I wouldn't be satisfied with it". If you take his claims in that light, you would find that the man was actually VERY consistent.
I also think there are a number of tangible or otherwise measurable things you can look at in their products that would be defined as hallmarks of the products Steve was heavily associated with.
Firstly, portable devices always had non-replaceable but re-chargeable batteries and the battery life of the device always exceptional. The original iPad battery life made laptops a laughing stock. It was also a key element of the tablets success and one that took their competitors plenty of time to match. I would definitely say that battery life was one of those things Jobs was passionate about. He knew that people would grow frustrated with a device that was always being charged. And, if that couldn't be avoided, being markedly better than the competition was a good start.
Display size and quality would have to be #2. On device with a screen, Apple always had to have the best and by a wide margin. Again, they were nearly fanatical about this.
Aesthetic beauty over build quality. I read a lot of reviews that rave about Apple's build quality. But their devices are the most easily broken in almost every category and across virtually every competitor. There is nothing wrong with that. They cater to fashion before utility (they didn't ignore utility under Jobs, but it was definitely secondary). The device always look and feel solid however. But then, a luxury item needs to be perceived as being well built. It doesn't actually need to be as durable as it is perceived. Again, not saying their products are crap. But under Jobs beauty was clearly more important than durability.
Thinner and lighter aren't Apple product hallmarks in general. They were certainly goals that went with product refreshes, but didn't have much relevance to the release of new products.
Innovation or risks were actually quite few and far between. The original iPhone and the original smart covers are the only things I would lump in this category. So, hard to call them hallmarks either.
Lastly, in that list, I would have to add that Jobs had a knack for reading the market as well. Devices would be killed if he didn't think the market was there yet or that the technology wasn't there yet. This is the hardest element to pass a ruling on. But I think it is fair to say that this is where the company is most lacking these days. They generally nail all of the above well enough and now they are taking risks and putting out products which are hurting their image. Others have said it before; this is how Microsoft was acting before they started going downhill.
There are, of course two sides to this. But one side is very much smaller in my opinion. So we'll start there. Let's not pretend that Jobs was a consistent unwavering man who made broad, specific, and violent declarations and stuck to them. He wasn't. Read his bio, follow the companies history. He was anything but consistent on those statements. So, the nay-sayers have one sort of feather in their cap. They could always argue it would be irrelevant even if he did say it.
I disagree with trying to swat away at the argument however. It is safe to say that Jobs was incredibly active and involved with what was released in his time as CEO at Apple. To a point which would probably be considered unacceptable in most companies. And, it was also very clearly under this regime that Apple garnered the bulk of its current fan base. So there is somewhat of a correlation between what Apple fans *should* like to see out of that company and what Steve Jobs would have approved of.
So, while the quality and innovation in the time since Jobs may be a topic for debate, the sentiment at least should be one that even Apple fans apply to new products.
And while Jobs might have said he would never do something and then turn around and release that very thing years later, he would usually say something like "I'll never build a 5 inch phone". But what he would really mean with those statements was generally closer to "If we did a 5 inch phone today, I wouldn't be satisfied with it". If you take his claims in that light, you would find that the man was actually VERY consistent.
I also think there are a number of tangible or otherwise measurable things you can look at in their products that would be defined as hallmarks of the products Steve was heavily associated with.
Firstly, portable devices always had non-replaceable but re-chargeable batteries and the battery life of the device always exceptional. The original iPad battery life made laptops a laughing stock. It was also a key element of the tablets success and one that took their competitors plenty of time to match. I would definitely say that battery life was one of those things Jobs was passionate about. He knew that people would grow frustrated with a device that was always being charged. And, if that couldn't be avoided, being markedly better than the competition was a good start.
Display size and quality would have to be #2. On device with a screen, Apple always had to have the best and by a wide margin. Again, they were nearly fanatical about this.
Aesthetic beauty over build quality. I read a lot of reviews that rave about Apple's build quality. But their devices are the most easily broken in almost every category and across virtually every competitor. There is nothing wrong with that. They cater to fashion before utility (they didn't ignore utility under Jobs, but it was definitely secondary). The device always look and feel solid however. But then, a luxury item needs to be perceived as being well built. It doesn't actually need to be as durable as it is perceived. Again, not saying their products are crap. But under Jobs beauty was clearly more important than durability.
Thinner and lighter aren't Apple product hallmarks in general. They were certainly goals that went with product refreshes, but didn't have much relevance to the release of new products.
Innovation or risks were actually quite few and far between. The original iPhone and the original smart covers are the only things I would lump in this category. So, hard to call them hallmarks either.
Lastly, in that list, I would have to add that Jobs had a knack for reading the market as well. Devices would be killed if he didn't think the market was there yet or that the technology wasn't there yet. This is the hardest element to pass a ruling on. But I think it is fair to say that this is where the company is most lacking these days. They generally nail all of the above well enough and now they are taking risks and putting out products which are hurting their image. Others have said it before; this is how Microsoft was acting before they started going downhill.
Comments
Post a Comment