Innovation is a Fight
randsinrepose.com
randsinrepose.com
However, to me Steve Job's "visionary son" is not Forstall but Ive. Ive embodies the values that Jobs had regarding innovation (not surprisingly he was one of Jobs' best friends and spent the most time with him of all of Apple's executives).
Personally, I think it's possible Ive can be underrated. Sure, people value his hardware design. But can he design software interfaces? Most people would doubt he could. Yet this is the major task Ive is now entrusted with.
I'm not sure if Ive can do software design well, but I wouldn't be against him. I think he's got years of innovation experience and understanding the essence of simplicity and user experience.
I'm hoping Ive can surprise us all, and lead a resurgence in Apple with some killer new devices. I'd love to see him make a watch (or pendant) that connects with your phone but allows you to access key features. Of course there's also the TV we've been waiting for (and the backend services).
I also think Apple could get into household/home devices (ie., the Nest). It could be interesting if Apple bought Nest and expanded into the automated home.
Lastly, this is a far-fetched dream... I'd like Apple to buy Tesla. It would be pocket change for Apple ($3-4 billion market cap, but probably more to buy them). But could open up a decade of huge innovation that Apple pours into cars. Tesla has a great start, and Apple would just get behind them. Imagine iOS integrated in your car. That would be awesome.
I'm convinced that Tony Fadell is merely proving the automatic home market to Tim Cook, but wouldn't mind being back in the fold, maybe even replacing Scott Forstall.
With Apple, Steve Jobs has implemented a lot of policies that try and stave this off (a single P&L, cannabalization of their own products, etc.) but I'm concerned, as "Rands" is, that the ossification of upper management will reduce the agility.
See: IBM, Microsoft, Yahoo. It'll happen to Google, and it'll happen to Apple. It seems as certain as the laws of thermodynamics. As a company gets bigger and exists longer, the probability that someone is going to disrupt them approaches 1.
The Hudson's Bay company was incorporated in 1670, and has been in continuous operation since. It's one of the dominant big-box stores in Canada, moreso since Eatons closed down, and in the U.S. owns Zellers and Home Outfitters. The tech industry seems to have a very dark view of corporate lifespans because of the apparently quick cycle of birth and death, but it's not obvious that it has to be that way, even over centuries.
For Americans, the amount of land sold was larger than the Louisiana Purchase.
I think Jobs was one of those exceedingly rare individuals that could gracefully handle either situation. He was just as dangerous as a startup founder as he was the CEO of a huge corporation.
Forstall apparently was one of Jobs' key players, despite having a huge target on his back where other Apple managers were concerned. I bet that Jobs knew exactly what Forstall's strengths and weaknesses were, and he managed to use Forstall for his strengths while keeping his weaknesses contained. With Jobs' passing, Forstall lost his protection, and Apple lost the person that was effectively able to manage someone like Forstall.
iPod sold really well, but it peaked in 2008, it's unlikely to explode again. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ipod_sales_per_quarter.svg]
There is clearly strong competition for the iPhone with Android, with Nexus 4 (and others) coming at much cheaper price point it's not clear they can hold the margins they had.
The iPad seems to still be doing well and particularly the mini seems to be well received - but how long is that going to last with the Nexus 7 & Kindle Fire bringing the price expectations down.
Apple really needs another product category - something you can see that Steve Jobs with is background as a entrepreneur, particularly failing at NeXT while away from Apple - was a master of. It's not clear who will lead the new product category, neither Tim Cook or Johnathon Ive are entrepreneurs and it's not something they are likely to learn while at Apple.
Why can't I watch any movie ever made at the touch of a button/tablet?
Why can't I watch any series produced in the U.S. (or anywhere) as soon as it's available from U.K. (or any non-US country)?
Why do [in the UK] do Sky & Virgin control much of what you can watch?
Why do I have to manually choose what to watch, shouldn't the TV know what type of thing I like?
I've missed the 5 episodes of a series, why does the next episode only catch me up on one?
and so on.
Not sure about cameras, the main problem with discrete cameras is that it's too hard to upload the photos on the move, but that's changing quite quickly now with WiFi and/or Android cameras. Essentially Apple have a solution to that anyway, which is to just use your iPhone which many are happy with.
Can anyone imagine Jobs working under someone else in some multi-billion dollar corporation like Apple? I can't. Scott Forstall can -- take that for what you will.
Jobs founded Apple. No other person (besides Wozniak) has that kind of claim on Apple, or could run it the same way as Jobs did.
Looking for the next Steve Jobs at Apple is pointless: people like Elon Musk will found their own companies, just like Jobs did with Apple.
Employees famously hated even being on the elevator with Steve. What ever the employees made, it wasn't good enough. Even if it was. This turned mediocre, or even great, products into top products.
What does he mean by 'it'? Demise of Apple or being a stable company?
- focus on data, like google does, by massively investing in siri (they should make forstall in charge)
- focus on design, but expand out of consumer electronics (which will shrink) into cars and robots, like tesla and rethink robotics (tim cook and jony ive are the right people for that)
Their current niche, square screens and possibly google glass is a dead end