Endless breakthroughs Steve Jobs - a myth

Even a cursory look at the history of Apple becomes clear: the majority of the company's products are developed by continuously rising - surges, or so-called revolution of Apple, always happens quite rarely. And you know, there's nothing wrong with that.

As you know, for the first weekend, the company has sold more than 9 million new iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c, than beat last year's record of five million iPhone 5. For Apple and ayfon it seems to be good news, there is no reason to worry. However, not all are optimistic. For example, Sandy Kennold from ABC News, on the contrary, believes that such a jump in sales - a harbinger of even more drastic fall:

At least from my point of view, all these unnecessary fanfare and a record start the weekend are a cause for concern. While Apple fans are not tied me to a pillar of shame, saying that I do not understand what I say, listen to me. I fully admit that Apple will earn on the sale of new devices next billions of dollars, and that the company is no longer threatens the fate of becoming another BlackBerry or Nokia. But the reason for my question is that Apple's, it seems, is trying to squeeze the maximum profit drop of aging, so to speak, Ai-stone.

instagram viewer

This is not Apple's Steve Jobs - Apple, which every two years, the market has exploded as consumer electronics product innovation that the world has changed forever. So Jobs did with music, smart phones, computers - the list goes on and on. It is sad to realize, but it seems that with his departure the era of innovation has given way to an era of gradual improvements. I firmly believe that Jobs would not like to engage in only those that fill the pockets of billions earned sales only slightly improved products.

Here you have a problem: under the leadership of Steve Jobs Apple released a landmark products every two years, and with Tim Cook, the company can only boring evolutionary business strategies that Kennold named "Incrementalism".

That's just ...

Golden Apple era, about which so Kennold moans, never was. Steve Jobs did not change the world every two years as scheduled. And just on the part of inkremetalizma he was a past master.

Here count how many times Steve Jobs has exploded the market of consumer electronics as an innovative product that changed the world forever? For the first nine years of its history, from 1976 to 1985, Apple created just two such products: Apple II and Macintosh. Well, maybe three if we take into account the laser printer LaserWriter.

But to simplify matters, let's assume since July 9, 1997, when Gil Amelio left the scene as Apple CEO, and full control over the company is back in the hands of Steve Jobs; and ending August 25, 2011, when the chair left gendira Jobs himself has essentially handed over the reins to Tim Cook. Jobs at the helm of the company he busy day of 5161.

Pointless to argue with the fact that the iPod (2001), the iPhone (2007) and the iPad (2010) changed the face of their industries forever (if you have objections - set out in the comments). The mite introduced the original iMac (1998); although one could argue that it was more a triumph of design and marketing rather than technology, but the impact of this event on the world is felt to this day.

Historic proportions influenced and two Internet Service Apple - iTunes Music Store (2003) and the App Store (2008). They also add to the list, thereby completely covering all the "earthquake" that Apple went through the IT-industry. Such events during Tim Cook's leadership has not yet happened.

A total of six iconic products that - if we consider the arithmetic mean - be published once in 860 days. Although, of course, the real gaps between them were significantly longer. In any case, the pace was taken incredible, but it is not a revolution every two years. But Tim Cook stands at the helm of Apple just over two years, so for serious concern that he had nothing edakogo is not presented, the causes have not yet appeared.

Of course, skeptics do not wait for Cook dosidev chair Director General at least to the current term, - immediately started to bomb his accusations of incrementalism. A cloud of midges swarmed around claims of each fresh product, since the iPhone 4S, which was released in October of 2011. Already since formed a certain circle of guys who claimed that Cook was unable to keep the bar Jobs.

Yes, Cook really took the place of the most outstanding person in the history of the industry; and neither Cook nor anyone else is not endowed with all the qualities of Jobs that Apple co-founder was given by nature.

But optimists believe that the Cook era will be to evaluate only at the moment when Apple under his leadership will create an entirely new product category. Someday it will happen, and will be another brilliant victory for the company or, on the contrary, a complete failure. And maybe get something in between, like some products Jobs (the most striking example - "hobby", called Apple TV). But Cooke left quite a bit of time before he objectively lost momentum Jobs. According to rough estimates, it will happen at the end of 2014 - that's when it will be possible to join the chorus of dissatisfied itchy.

But back to incrementalism. It is unclear why Sandy Kennold - and not just him - believes that this concept does not apply to the legacy of Steve Jobs. Every great leap forward is achieved - at least to the same extent - because of the small decisions, which made Apple products easier, faster, thinner, lighter, more pleasant to look at and useful work. Perhaps the key products of the company and change the "rules", but the best Apple products have always been those who have appeared thanks to competent evolutionary improvements. And while Jobs is never ashamed of profits derived from the sales of such products.

You need to remember once and for all: even the Jobs Experts blamed for products, in the production of which, in their opinion, there was no point. And if Steve Jobs is not fully consistent with "steve-dzhobsnosti" easy to guess how much invented standard corresponds with reality? And if so, it not foolish to argue that Tim Cook did not keep this level?

— Harry McCracken, Technologizer.