Skip to content →

Tag: Steve Jobs

Two More Things

stevejobs

A few weeks ago, I did a little farewell tribute to Apple CEO and tech visionary Steve Jobs after he left the CEO position at Apple. While most observers probably recognized that the cause for his departure was his poor health, few probably guessed that he would die so shortly after he left. The tech press has done a great job of covering his impressive legacy and the numerous anecdotes/lessons he imparted on the broader industry, but there are a few things which stand out to me which deserve a little additional coverage:

  • Much has been said about Jobs’s 2005 Stanford graduation speech: it was moving the first time I read it (back in 2005), and I could probably dedicate a number of blog posts to it, but one of the biggest things I took from it which I haven’t seen covered as much lately was the resilience in the face of setbacks. Despite losing his spot at the company he built, Jobs pushed on to create NeXT and Pixar. And, while we all know Pixar today as the powerhouse behind movies such as Toy Story and Ratatouille, and most Apple followers recognize Apple’s acquisition of NeXT as the integral part of bringing Jobs back into the Apple fold, what very few observers realize is that, for a long time, NeXT and Pixar were, by most objective measures, failures. Despite Steve Jobs’s impressive vision and NeXT’s role in pioneering new technologies, NeXT struggled and only made its first profit almost 10 years after its founding – and only a measly $1 million despite taking many tens of millions of dollars from investors! If Wikipedia is to be believed, NeXT’s “sister” Pixar was doing so poorly that Jobs even considered selling Pixar to – gasp – Microsoft as late as 1994, just one year before Toy Story would turn things around. The point of all of this is not to knock Jobs, but to point out that Jobs was pretty familiar with setbacks. Where he stands out, however, is in his ability and willingness to push onward. He didn’t just wallow in self-pity after getting fired at Apple, or after NeXT/Pixar were forced to give up their hardware businesses – he found a way forward, making tough calls which helped guide both companies to success. And that resilience, I think, is something which I truly hope to emulate.
  • One thing which has stuck with me was a quote from Jobs on why he was opening up to his biographer, Walter Isaacson, after so famously guarding his own privacy: “I wanted my kids to know me … I wasn’t always there for them, and I wanted them to know why and to understand what I did.” It strikes me that at the close of his life, Jobs, one of the most successful corporate executives in history, is preoccupied not with his personal privacy, his fortune, his company’s market share, or even how the world views him, but with how his kids perceive him. If there’s one thing that Steve Jobs can teach us all, its that no amount of success in one’s career can replace success in one’s personal life.

(Image credit)

2 Comments

Farewell, Mr. Jobs

imageGoogle acquiring Motorola and HP dropping its PC/tablet hardware businesses not enough news for you? Late last Thursday, another jawdropper hit the tech industry when Apple announced that visionary CEO Steve Jobs was stepping down.

The tech industry is now awash with commentary about Jobs’ legendary leadership which was not only instrumental in the creation of Apple as a company, but took it from a distant laggard in the computing space to pioneering technology powerhouse today. This is particularly impressive given the degree to which Apple’s leadership structure (warning: full article behind paywall, but well worth a read if you are interested in how corporate organizations work) concentrates authority in the hands of the CEO – meaning, yeah, Apple’s success really *is* because of Steve, whereas in a lot of other companies its only partially due to the CEO.

While I’ve definitely picked a side in the Google vs Apple war, even this “fandroid” has to admit a certain sadness that Jobs is leaving. A very small part of it comes from the fact that I’m an Apple shareholder and find it near impossible to find anyone that has the same vision and execution skills to replace him. A much larger part comes from the fact that Jobs played a huge role in shaping the technology industry for the better:

In any event, I salute you, Mr. Jobs for a remarkable career and an incredible legacy.

DISCLAIMER: I own Apple shares

(Image credit)

One Comment

Why I Favor Google over Apple

image Many of my good friends are big fans of Apple and its products. But not me. This good-natured difference in opinion leads us into never-ending mini-debates over Twitter or in real life over the relative merits of Apple’s products and those of its competitors.

I suspect many of them (respectfully) think I’m crazy. “Why would you want an inferior product?” “Why do you back a company that has all this information about you and follows you everywhere on the internet?”

I figured that one of these days, I should actually respond to them (fears of flamers/attacks on my judgment be damned!).

imageFirst thing’s first. I’ll concede that, at least for now, Apple tends to build better products. Apple has remarkable design and UI sense which I have yet to see matched by another company. Their hardware is of exceptionally high quality, and, as I mentioned before, they are masters at integrating their high-end hardware with their custom-built software to create a very solid user experience. They are also often pioneers in new hardware innovations (e.g., accelerometer, multitouch, “retina display”, etc.).

So, given this, why on earth would I call myself a Google Fanboi (and not an Apple one)? There are a couple of reasons for it, but most of them boil down basically to the nature of Google’s business model which is focused around monetizing use rather than selling a particular piece of content/software/hardware. Google’s dominant source of profit is internet advertising – and they are able to better serve ads (get higher revenue per ad) and able to serve more ads (higher number of ads) by getting more people to use the internet and to use it more. Contrast this with Apple who’s business model is (for the most part) around selling a particular piece of software or hardware – to them, increased use is the justification or rationale for creating (and charging more for) better products. The consequence of this is that the companies focus on different things:

  • image Cheap(er) cost of access – Although Apple technology and design is quite complicated, Apple’s product philosophy is very simple: build the best product “solution” and sell it at a premium. This makes sense given Apple’s business model focus on selling the highest-quality products. But it does not make sense for Google which just wants to see more internet usage. To achieve this, Google does two main things. First, Google offers many services and development platforms for little or no cost. Gmail, Google Reader, Google Docs, and Google Search: all free, to name a few. Second, Google actively attacks pockets of control or profitability in the technology space which could impede internet use. Bad browsers reducing the willingness of people to use the internet? Release the very fast Google Chrome browser. Lack of smartphones? Release the now-very-popular Android operating system. Not enough internet-connected TV solutions? Release Google TV. Not enough people on high-speed broadband? Consider building a pilot high-speed fiber optic network for a lucky community. All of these efforts encourage greater Web usage in two ways: (a) they give people more of a reason to use the Web more by providing high-value web services and “complements” to the web (like browsers and OS’s) at no or low cost and (b) forcing other businesses to lower their own prices and/or offer better services. Granted, these moves oftentimes serve other purposes (weakening competitive threats on the horizon and/or providing new sources of revenue) and aren’t always successes (think OpenSocial or Google Buzz), but I think the Google MO (make the web cheaper and better) is better for all end-users than Apple’s.
  • Choice at the expense of quality – Given Apple’s interest in building the best product and charging for it, they’ve tended to make tradeoffs in their design philosophy to improve performance and usability. This has proven to be very effective for them, but it has its drawbacks. If you have followed recent mobile tech news, you’ll know Apple’s policies on mobile application submissions and restrictions on device functionality have not met with universal applause. This isn’t to say that Apple doesn’t have the right to do this (clearly they do) or that the tradeoffs they’ve made are bad ones (the number  of iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch purchases clearly shows that many people are willing to “live with it”), but it is a philosophical choice. But, this has implications for the ecosystem around Apple versus Google (which favors a different tradeoff). Apple’s philosophy provides great “out of the box” performance, but at the expense of being slower or less able to adopt potential innovations or content due to their own restrictions. image Case in point: a startup called Swype has built a fascinating new way to use soft keyboards on touchscreens, but due to Apple’s App Store not allowing an application that makes such a low-level change, the software is only available on Android phones. Now, this doesn’t preclude Swype from being on the iPhone eventually, but it’s an example where Apple’s approach may impede innovation and consumer choice – something which a recent panel of major mobile game developers expressed concern about — and its my two cents worth that the Google way of doing things is better in the long run.
  • image Platforms vs solutions – Apple’s hallmark is the vertically integrated model, going so far as to have their own semiconductor solution and content store (iTunes). This not only lets them maximize the amount of cash they can pull in from a customer (I don’t just sell you a device, I get a cut of the applications and music you use on it), it also lets them build tightly integrated, high quality product “solution”. Google, however, is not in the business of selling devices and has no interest in one tightly integrated solution: they’d rather get as many people on the internet as possible. So, instead of pursuing the “Jesus phone” approach, they pursue the platform approach, releasing “horizontal” software and services platforms to encourage more companies and more innovators to work with it. With Apple, you only have one supplier and a few product variants. With Google, you enable many suppliers (Samsung, HTC, and Motorola for starters in the high-end Android device world, Sony and Logitech in Google TV) to compete with one another and offer their own variations on hardware, software, services, and silicon. This allows companies like Cisco to create a tablet focused on enterprise needs like the Cius using Android, something which the more restrictive nature of Apple’s development platform makes impossible (unless Apple creates its own), or researchers at the MIT Media lab to create an interesting telemedicine optometry solution. A fair response to this would be that this can lead to platform fragmentation, but whether or not there is a destructive amount of it is an open question. Given Apple’s track record the last time it went solo versus platform (something even Steve Jobs admits they didn’t do so well at), I feel this is a major strength for Google’s model in the long-run.
  • (More) open source/standards – Google is unique in the tech space for the extent of its support for open source and open standards. Now, how they’ve handled it isn’t perfect, but if you take a quick glance at their Google Code page, you can see an impressive number of code snippets and projects which they’ve open sourced and contributed to the community. They’ve even gone so far as to provide free project hosting for open source projects. But, even beyond just giving developers access to useful source code, Google has gone further than most companies in supporting open standards going so far as to provide open access to its WebM video codec which it purchased the rights to for ~$100M to provide a open HTML5 video standard and to make it easy to access your data from a Google service however you choose (i.e., IMAP access to Gmail, open API access to Google Calendar and Google Docs, etc.). This is in keeping with Google’s desire to enable more web development and web use, and is a direct consequence of it not relying on selling individual products. Contrast this with an Apple-like model – the services and software are designed to fuel additional sales. As a result, they are well-designed, high-performance, and neatly integrated with the rest of the package, but are much less likely to be open sourced (with a few notable exceptions) or support easy mobility to other devices/platforms. This doesn’t mean Apple’s business model is wrong, but it leads to a different conclusion, one which I don’t think is as good for the end-user in the long run.

These are, of course, broad sweeping generalizations (and don’t capture all the significant differences or the subtle ones between the two companies). Apple, for instance, is at the forefront of contributors to the open source Webkit project which powers many of the internet’s web browsers and is a pioneer behind the multicore processing standard OpenCL. On the flip side, Google’s openness and privacy policies are definitely far from perfect. But, I think those are exceptions to the “broad strokes” I laid out.

In this case, I believe that, while short-term design strength and solution quality may be the strengths of Apple’s current model, I believe in the long run, Google’s model is better for the end-customer because their model is centered around more usage.

(Image credit) (Image credit) (Image credit) (Image credit) (Image credit)

14 Comments

Slides done properly

After about a year of slide-umentation, it’s nice to finally see a business person use slides the way they were meant to be used. And, no, this wasn’t at my client, it was at this past week’s Apple WWDC. Take it away, Mr. Jobs (all pictures are from Engadget’s liveblogging):

image

Simple. Unwordy. Clear in meaning. What is he saying in this slide? He’s saying that Apple rests on 3 major product groups: the Mac (PC), Music (iPod/iTunes), and the iPhone. That’s all you need in a presentation, people!!

image

Bam! We know that the iPhone 3G has several enterprise features: Push Email, Push contacts, Push Calendar, Auto-Discovery, Global address lookup, and Remote Wipe. Notice how we can tell its about the 3G, because there’s a big picture of the 3G that takes up the left half of the slide. Notice how the right slide just has big text, not tiny text to describe what “Push Email” and “Push contacts” mean, or the little technical specifics on everything.

image

Now, for something “technical” — but, oh look — the slide makes it again very simple to understand without resorting to an insane mind-numbing wordwall or any overly sophisticated diagrams. It’s just, email pops up in server, is then pushed to the push notification service, and then pushed to the iPhone.

image

I mean, seriously, using words to describe this slide does injustice to the slide.

image

Frankly, Jobs could’ve done without the horizontal grid-lines, but again, very simple and elegant chart.

image

Somebody at a typical consulting firm/business would want to put on this slide the dimensions of the iPhone. Jobs knows, however, that all you need to do is show a picture — so the audience understands how thin it is. How many inches doesn’t stick in one’s head. This image, however, does.

As always, Mr. Jobs, well done. Now, can I please have a free iPhone?

Leave a Comment