1 year after he’s gone
Apple loses innovative gene, relies on patent trolling
By Kim Tae-gyu
At a glance, Apple appears to have fared well without its founder Steve Jobs. Since his untimely passing on October 5, 2011 the firm broke an all-time market capitalization record this summer, the kind of feat that not even Jobs could achieve.
Contrary to what the flowery headlines would want us to believe, its innovative capacity is seriously being questioned, especially without Job’s stewardship. It is believed that the critical point came last month when Jobs’ successor Tim Cook unveiled iPhone 5 as his first major product. While praising it as a good product, analysts still believe that it has failed to live up to its hype.
The newly-launched fancy handset is equipped with a 4-inch Retina display and 1,136x640 resolution, better than its previous version of the iPhone 4S with a 3.5-inch display and 960x640 resolution.
Despite receiving mixed reviews, its intelligent personal assistant and knowledge navigator named Siri is dubbed as a killer application of the future that is exclusive to the iPhone.
For instance, users can use voice commands for such things as setting reminders and sending messages.
The device also offers automatic answering to questions making recommendations and, above all, offering personalized services by adapting to user’s preferences.
All in all, iPhone 5 was good enough to attract 2 million pre-orders in just 24 hours, shattering the previous record of 1 million held by its immediate predecessor, iPhone 4S.
The new-fangled gadget is on pace to become the most successful mobile device in history but the problem is that its features are all quite predictable developments.
Even for ordinary people, the recent iPhone 5 lacks the distinct lure that is by itself excellent and disruptive enough to earn the moniker of an "insanely great product,’’ as Jobs committed himself to.
``With Jobs in charge, I used to be eager to see next versions of iPhone and iPod. I would line up all night long at the Apple Store ready to be surprised by their new designs or functionalities inspired by Jobs,’’ said Park Pil-soo, an office worker in Seoul in his early 30s.
``Yet, I am pretty sure that I will not be surprised much with iPhone 6 manufactured by Jobs-unglued Apple. It may come with bigger screens, higher resolution displays and less weight. Still, I will not definitely queue up overnight to become one of the first guys to see them in person.”
Is Cook “insanely great?”
Despite being arguably the best smartphone of our time, indeed with Apple’s archrival Samsung Electronics taking exceptions to this claim, Apple will still need to gird its loins.
It is even rumored that Jobs was involved in creating iPhone 5 along with iPhone 4S, which was unveiled last October just a day before Jobs’ death.
``With iPhone 4S and iPhone 5, Apple is on schedule. Even with Jobs, Apple would have released exactly the same product,’’ SK Securities researcher David Choi said.
``The general understanding is that Jobs infused his visions to the roadmap of Apple for the couple of years preceding his death. That means that his influence is still engraved inside Apple.’’ Granted these are to be believed, then there is reason to absolve Cook from the charge of failing to keep Apple’s corporate tradition of innovation aglow.
By giving Cook the benefit of the doubt, it is possibly expected that he will seize the opportunity that comes with unveiling the next generation iPhone to prove an important point _ does he indeed have what it takes to sustain the innovative DNA of Apple.
Yet, a closer scrutiny of the man Cook may suggest that the odds are starkly against him. First of all, his background as an expert in logistics and supply chain management does come to mind, at least according to Jobs’ apprehension when he once admitted to Walter Isaacson that “Tim is not a product guy.” A product guy, for Jobs, is the one who is keen on making “insanely great products.”
Even SK analyst Choi is skeptical about whether Jobs’ creative features were incorporated into Apple to become its corporate culture.
``After Jobs’ inputs fade away in a few years, Apple is not likely to continue Jobs-like innovations although Cook can still depend on folks like Jonathan Ive and a host of other creative minds inside Apple,’’ Choi said. Ive is the design genius who is responsible for unique outlooks of i-something products.
``Sticking to his own visions and principles, Jobs never compromised on the demands of the market or trend. But Apple appears to have already lost some steam, with the envisaged 7-inch tablet, iPad mini, coming to mind.’’
Choi further pointed out that one of Jobs’ ground rules was that Apple will never make a 7-inch product.
Innovator’s dilemma
In his 1997 best-selling book, the Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard’s Clayton Christensen delved into the reasons why great technology companies collapse.
His conclusion was theorized by the concept of the innovator’s dilemma: Large firms typically fail to respond to disruptive technology, which is ostensibly supposed to change the rule of the game.
In the said book, Christensen who spent two years in Korea as a missionary in the early 1970s, said that renowned high-tech firms were pushed out of business by disruptive technology traceable to their value chain.
As disruptive innovations are typically technologically straightforward and offer less profit margins in their early phases, coupled with concerns about market cannibalization on conventional products, big players keen on creating big margins rarely place them on the front burner.
Instead, minnow players clawing to create their own niches markets usually throw their hats into the ring to win out in disruptive technology without fear of sacrificing existing sales.
In other words, great technology companies fail since their CEOs generally have an avowed obsession to their bottom lines, which cannot be fattened with disruptive technology.
Interestingly, Apple has largely escaped the quagmire of the innovator’s dilemma thanks to its leader Steve Jobs, whose top priority had always been great products as opposed to short-term profitability.
Jobs once told Isaacson that he was “deeply influenced” by the Innovator’s Dilemma, which is widely revered inside Silicon Valley.
Mike Janes, who ran Apple’s online store in the early 2000s, confirmed that Apple did not have to contend with the innovator’s dilemma under Jobs.
``Dates are set well in advance. Things get accomplished. There are no questions. The innovator’s dilemma does not exist at Apple,’’ he said to Adam Lashinsky, the author of Inside Apple.
``There’s no dilemma. If you want to get something done, the meeting is this afternoon or tomorrow. You don’t wait to get something on the calendar.’’
In a nutshell, Jobs attempted to create the culture of maverick disregard for mainstream values such as profitability or customers’ voices, which explained why Apple was immune to innovator’s dilemma.
There are, however, signs this priceless tradition is beginning to wane as observed by Prof. Kang Young-kee at Yonsei University, who worked for Samsung Electronics for two decades before joining the ivory tower in 2010.
``Unlike Google or Microsoft where deep-rooted organizational cultures rule to generate innovations, Apple depended so much on the personal capability of Jobs. With him gone, many of the trademark strengths of Apple are feared to be gone too,’’ he said.
``Jobs is simply irreplaceable. Without Jobs, we are already seeing some symptoms of the innovator’s dilemma within Apple.’’
Does Apple join the Navy?
There are two strategies to which business bellwethers can resort in order to remain ahead of the pack. One is to preempt the competition with innovative products and the other is to deter runner-up groups with whatever measures available.
Jobs-the-visionary always banked on the former through creating a series of “insanely great products,” even beyond the expectations of customers, thanks to his unique blend of intuition, animal spirits and disregard for mainstream cultures.
His philosophies zero down to one phrase, ``It’s better to be a pirate than join the Navy.’’ Jobs simply forged ahead, guided by these convictions he so dearly espoused.
But some market observers now believe the post-Jobs era has seen Apple’s resort to the latter strategy of deterring rivals as seen in the recent catalogue of patent litigations against Samsung Electronics, with the widely publicized allegations that Samsung infringed on its patent designs like rounded-rectangular design and trade dresses, among many others
Apple’s aggressive litigation approach has left many convinced that it is simply choking innovations with lawsuits aimed at keeping its vested rights.
Such criticisms culminated last month in Apple taking on Polish online deli site A.pl, the title Apple argues is too reminiscent of the Cupertino-based tech giant. pl is Poland’s country domain just as kr represents Korea.
``Without Steve Jobs, I think that Apple lost confidence in its ability to make innovations. Worse, Samsung is quickly catching up with the company in the smartphone market,’’ Prof. Kang said. ``In this climate, restless Apple appears to opt for legal actions.’’
Others concur.
``I wonder whether Steve Jobs would have gone ahead with the litigations. Indeed, he often relied on litigations but he would not be happy to learn that a firm that he founded is busy filing lawsuits rather than making innovations,’’ said a Seoul marketing executive, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
``After Jobs is gone, Apple is seemingly metamorphosing from being a pirate to a Navy cadet.’’
He also took issue with another Jobsian maxim of “good artists copy and great artists steal,” which Jobs alluded to when he described how he copied the graphical user interface from Xerox to take advantage of it for its McIntosh models.
His rationale: How a company whose trademark was stolen from another firm can file a lawsuit on infringement on controversial patents?
``We are half-jokingly saying that Jobs-glued Apple and Cook-led Apple share merely one thing in common _ their CEOs are vegetarians. Insomuch, Apple seems to have faced negative changes from inside,’’
Future threats
Apple’s stock prices are soaring and its products sell like hot cakes. But Kang contends that the euphoria might not continue.
``As of now, Apple’s prospects are relatively good compared to other high-tech companies at a time of economic downturn. That’s why people snap up Apple’s stocks and its market capitalization surges,’’ Kang said. ``In consideration of its future challenges, however, Apple has to sweat.’’
He said that Apple will face triple tall tasks; it must compete in larger markets across the globe, in more mobile areas other than handsets and against rising numbers of smartphones from its rivals.
Asked if he would be willing to buy stocks of Apple, his answer was prompt and succinct. ``No way.’’