A few weeks ago, John Kirk of TechPinions took apart an article by James B. Stewart of Common Sense. In that piece, Stewart attempted to delineate the reasons why Apple became the success that it has, from the perspective of Microsoft’s decline.
Kirk had several rebuttals to Stewart’s series of rather flawed comparisons, and I thought his comments boded well towards a more general take on Apple:
Suggesting that there are lessons to be learned from Apple’s unprecedented rise is obvious. However, suggesting that the Apple of today is in a similar position to the Microsoft of yesterday, simply because Apple is dependent upon a single product, is dubious. And suggesting that Apple needs to learn from Microsoft’s mistakes in order to avoid Microsoft’s fate is, frankly, ludicrous.
I suppose it’s natural to draw comparisons between Apple and what was once Apple’s most obvious rival. But at this stage, not only are those comparisons tired, they are not grounded in any reality I’m aware of.
He continues, with a correction of Stewart’s take on Microsoft’s then mission statement:
“A computer on every desk and in every home. ~ Bill Gates,1980”
This was one of the greatest corporate vision statements of all time. While it is true that Microsoft virtually achieved their audacious mission and has struggled to replace it with a worthy successor, I would suggest that it wasn’t the achievement of, but rather the corruption of, Microsoft’s mission statement that caused Microsoft to lose their way.
And what was that, exactly?
Microsoft missed mobile because mobile devices demanded a different user input (touch) and a different user operating system optimized for touch. If Microsoft had remained true to their original mission of computing everywhere, they might have created a mobile operating system to compete with their Windows desktop operating system. Instead, Microsoft tried to shoehorn Windows into every device — from watches to phones, to televisions and to “big ass” tables. Windows, not computing, became the cash cow that was worshiped at Microsoft and all other competing innovations were sacrificed upon its altar.
Microsoft cannot seem to shake their Windows dependency, still focused as they are on what is good for Microsoft instead of what is good for their customer.
And what of Apple?
Was [Apple’s] vision really ever “a computer in every pocket”? Hardly.
So what is Apple’s vision?
If Apple had a more radical vision than Microsoft, it was a vision to make the very best computing devices possible, cannibalization be damned.
Diversification is all well and good, but a laser focus is healthier and better. I would argue that Microsoft wasn’t diversifying so much as they were flailing around trying to discover what was next. During their heyday, Microsoft had too little competition, too much money, and too little idea of how to spend that money.
Apple seems to have a very clear idea of where they are going and they use their purchases to advance their purposes, whereas Microsoft […] sometimes [tries] to use their purchases to discover their purpose.
Later, on Apple’s future:
What Is There Left For Apple To Do?
[Every] year, Apple provides a resounding answer that exceeds all expectations. And every year, those self-same pundits use Apple’s success as a cudgel with which to beat down future expectations.
And finally, Kirk posits his great thesis in response to Stewart:
James B. Stewart devoted an entire article to explaining “How, and Why, Apple Overtook Microsoft” and yet it’s clear that he doesn’t, and many other pundits don’t, have a clue as to how Apple succeeded. And if we don’t understand how Apple succeeded, what right do we have to claim — and what excuse do we have for claiming — that we know the reasons why Apple will fail?
I notice a consistent pattern in Apple’s critics. Those that understand Apple the least, criticize Apple the most. If you want me to believe that you understand the reasons why Apple will fall, first demonstrate to me that you understand the reasons why Apple grew at all and grew so tall. Until then, I’ll remain skeptical of the doomsayers. For while I have great respect for the opinions of many Apple observers, I still believe that the secret to Apple’s success…remains a secret.
John Gruber recently retweeted a video in which a guy tirades for nearly twenty minutes on ‘everything that was wrong’ with Apple’s Spring Forward event last week.
I got through about five minutes of it before switching off. Before I did, I had this epiphany:
Apple naysayers and Wall Street Apple bears alike can’t be taken seriously because they continue to analyze Apple like they analyze every other company. Truthfully, at some point, Apple won’t be Apple. All great things come to an end. I get it. But I feel pretty confident in saying this: barring some astronomical catastrophe in the upper echelon of Apple’s executive team (leading to uncharacteristically bad management decisions), and barring a radical new way to experience the world around us (pioneered by an Apple competitor), that day—the end of the good times for Apple—is not going to be tomorrow, nor any time soon for that matter.
And now, almost eight years after the iPhone was released, with last quarter’s earnings as high as they were, there has never been a greater time in which the naysayer’s analysis of Apple could be more flawed.
So, you can add Stewart’s take to the never-ending pile of ‘well-meaning, but uninformed’ analysis of Apple.