Hacker News Reader

Comment by raganwald | Hacker News Reader

Somewhat related: You know how we in the startup world are constantly chanting, "It's the execution that matters, not the idea?" Well, many of the discussions around Apple seem to boil down to one person saying that Apple copied/stole the idea, or the idea was inevitable, and the other person saying "Yeah, but Apple pulled off he execution."

To the extent that all of Apple's ideas in GUIs, mobile devices, music retailing, physical stores, and so on are all "obvious" or "inevitable," Apple's success has been in executing on those ideas with overwhelming competence.

It may sound banal to say that all Apple does is execute competently. But experience with startups shows that executing competently with new products and creating new markets is heinously difficult. And without that execution, progress happens glacially if at all.

View on HN

It's more subtle than that. Jobs had a preternatural ability to determine when a technology was sufficiently mature and when people were ready to accept a well-executed solution. Some would argue, for example, that Newton was executed well (but people weren't ready for it).

I would imagine a lot of startups find themselves in a situation where people simply aren't ready for the solution that is brought to the table.

I wouldn't call it preternatural - they've had a few flops which have seemingly been conveniently forgotten by people. Give the man his due, but let's not imply that he's some sort of force of nature.

Newton was not only premature, it didn't fit any useful form factor (too small for a tablet, too big for a pocket device) and it didn't do anything necessary. An iPod plays music and an iPhone is a phone.

Additionally, the state of Newton's handwriting recognition was immature.

And it likely still is immature for the mass market, all these years later.

Notice that handwriting recognition was not part of ipod/iphone/ipad/ios. Rather than continuing down that path, Apple went in a different direction altogether.

Or, he simply had enough money and influence to advertise and market his way to success, this time around.

I'd imagine the iPad got far, far more publicity than the Newton in its day.

The guy talking about how Apple copied/stole the idea is probably reacting negatively because while 'execution' is important, it's nice to see 'idea' too. It can rankle if someone else is successful purely on the taking of your ideas, without ever generating any truly new ideas of their own.

(which is not to say Apple has never had an original idea in their life)

Exactly. Apple's genius is in making technology usable, not just making technology.

usable for who? I cannot image something more usable than a simple e17 + xterm on a Debian to develop my Perl programs.. so I think your sentence must be refined, don't you?

C'mon now.

I think you are being intentionally dense. We all know what is meant by "making technology usable" is "making technology usable - for muggles" ;)

"Muggles"? Please. I've been using Unixes since I was ten years old, and I've steadily replaced all of my user-facing Linux machines with Macs (typing this from my Air, at the moment).

Apple's triumph has been in making technology less aggravating. And that's something that most people can readily appreciate.

You're right that the execution, which involves taking an idea thru the difficulty of solving all of its problems to fruition is what really matters.

However, the problem is that after Apple does this, and then everyone and their dog copies it, a few years later, people pretend like it wasn't Apple who actually had the idea, developed it, solved all the problems and then brought it to market!

Its as if, because there's an android phone on the shelf, there was nothing new in the iPhone.

This is some form of post hoc ergo proctor hoc history!

I agree that Apple develops and polishes ideas to an impeccable degree. But to say that Apple had original ideas is grossly overstating the truth.

Laptops existed before Powerbooks. MP3 players existed before the iPod. Smartphones (remember Handspring?) existed before the iPhone. In fact, one could argue that Apple is amongst the last into a market for a good reason: being last allows you to learn from the mistakes of others and see which approaches are dead-ends.

The early bird might get the worm, but its the second mouse that gets the cheese.

They exist in the same embrace-and-extend industry as every other technology company. It's just as irritating that so many people believe Apple invented the MP3 player.

No, most people don't even know what an MP3 player is. The only people I hear that from these days are nerds. Everyone else says iPod. The same way we say 'kleenex'.

Replace MP3 player with any of these: all modern desktop metaphors, the smartphone, the concept of an app store. I'm sure I'm missing some.

You could even go with the automobile, the assembly line, the light bulb, the telephone, and any number of frequently misattributed inventions and innovations if you need to move outside modern technology to see the point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com