Why Every Company Needs to be More Like IBM and Less Like Apple

[Craig Shields]

I would agree with that as it relates to their software like FCP. We are seeing some big names leaving the software because of it. I would disagree as it relates to their other technology. It’s really hard to say with the numbers they put up every quarter that they are doing something wrong. As it’s been said on this forum a number of times “if it ain’t broke…”.

[Alexander Higgins]

Having close friends who have worked at IBM over the years, all they could say was that IBM is structural and socially identical to the armed services. There is a very rigid chain of command and if you don’t know your place you will end up in the BRIG. It works, look how dominant our armed services are.

Anyway, that is what APPLE and GOOGLE for that matter where trying to change. My friend said if you aren’t willing to say “YES SIR,” “NO SIR” and be, as he quoted, “AN OLD SONNA A B#TCH” IBM isn’t the place for you.

For what its worth, its just a different kind of tech company, IMHO totally different than APPLE, GOOGLE and the rest of the consumer based tech companies. IBM is more like GE than Apple.

[Craig Shields]

Also, should we continue to hold Apple to that 1984 ad? Company’s change and their philosophies. Look at what Volkswagen used to say about their cars.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Where to start with this … I’m no business or marketing student but I think I’ve read a few things recently that are germane – though this might not be as coherent as it could be.

I think it’s important to note that Apple seems to have approached both FCP and FCPX in terms of cost – they offer them as cheap alternatives to what is out there. Is it an accepted given that “Apple doesn’t compete on features” or do I need to find a cite … someone help me out here.

There was an interesting article about Google Plus a while back – talking about features vs. products. It seems to me that apple’s strategy (again, in a consumer market) is to shift video editing more to a feature of their platform, less a product on its own. As has been repeated many times here, Apple is a hardware company (and a media distribution company but that’s another topic).

https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222547/Why_Google_will_become_Google_s_only_product

But the root of the discussion is really about innovation – whether FCPX is an as-of-yet unrecognized innovation (some would say “revolution”) or a failure. I’m thinking about this article from a “Shake Insider” who was reflecting on FCPX by looking back on the way the Shake acquisition was handled. He recounts how:

“… Steve told everybody point-blank that we/Apple were going to focus on giving them powerful tools that were far more cost-effective than what they were accustomed to… but that the relationship between them and Apple wasn’t going to be something where they’d be driving product direction anymore.”

https://digitalcomposting.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/x-vs-pro/

I’ve been bothered by the much referenced Gretzky quote that Steve Jobs apparently used (cite, anyone?) about “skating to where the puck will be, not where it is”. It is, of course, a variation on the Henry Ford quote. It’s bothered me because I’ve seen Apple’s last 10 years as a slow transformation into what they really aspired to be: the American Sony. The quote that Jobs was really echoing was Akio Morita, Sony’s founder.

In his 1986 book “Made In Japan” (in discussing the Sony Walkman, I believe – but it may have just been a general idea) he said:

“There was no need for market research. The public does not know what is possible. We do.”

(As an aside, I think the a more extensive comparison of Apple and Sony is probably quite interesting as they have a professional video division and are also involved in media distribution – but that is for another day …)

However, I’ve posted all of this just to introduce the article that I thought was relevant to the discussion. That article is here:

https://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2011/03/16/innovation-matching-needs-and-solutions/

Ralph Ohr is speaking to the cliché I’ve talked about above (He is actually quoting a marketing article by Lance A. Bettencourt)

“The myth that customers cannot articulate their needs is perpetuated by innovation success stories such as the microwave, the Sony Walkman and (more recently) the Apple iPod and iPhone. The story goes something like this: “If you had asked customers, they couldn’t have told you they needed the iPhone. Therefore, it must be true that customers cannot articulate what they need.” But there’s the rub: However brilliant it may be, the iPhone is not a customer need. The iPhone – like the microwave and Walkman before it – is a solution to a customer need. When companies get solutions and customer needs confused, it confuses the role of the customer and the company in the innovation process. Customers articulate their needs; it is up to the company to create a solution. … When customer needs are defined in a manner that distinguishes them from solutions, not only can customers articulate their needs, but those needs become the valued foundation of the innovation process requires.”

One of the things that I like about this is that it is clear about how to judge innovation. Something is not innovative simply because it is new or different. To call something “innovative” is to judge – to assess how it addresses problems and needs.

Franz.

[Steve Connor]

Problem is the argument falls down when you consider iOS Apps which certainly “foster innovation through co-creation” If you consider App Developers to be business partners then Apple probably have as many as IBM. Despite the App store being a “walled garden” there is still plenty of room for innovation there.

“FCPX Agitator”

[Bill Davis]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “One of the things that I like about this is that it is clear about how to judge innovation. Something is not innovative simply because it is new or different. To call something “innovative” is to judge – to assess how it addresses problems and needs.
“

Still kinda roped schedule-wise, so I’m skipping the above threads (as much as I yearn to weigh in!) and just taking a second to recount an experience from earlier today.

I’m showing a client a piece of simple animation I created in Motion in order to explain a company process for them. It has a logo buried in the animations. The client immediately says “how many days will it take and how much will it cost us to revise the animation with different company logos each time, because we have probably 50 clients I like to pitch this to and I’d love to brand it for each one.”

The point is that without my having forced myself to spend my own uncompensated time understanding the nature of the tool, I wouldn’t have a way to even judge the question properly. In the old “agency” model, I would have called the sales manager or the creative director to quote it out.

Now those people aren’t involved. On the plus side, they’re not sucking up my dollars when times are slow, but it also means I have to be conversant with rigging motion graphics in order to satisfy my client’s desire for a realistic number.

I’m reminded of that because In the posted article, as interesting as I found it – I kept seeing it as the writer having a single construct of what “the customer” is.

It’s a cohesive entity that will have a consensus answer to those kinds of questions.

That works great in a shop where you clients are, in fact, cohesive.

What I’m finding on the ground, however, is that today’s customers are ANYTHING but cohesive. The modern customer is frighteningly diverse as to their wants, needs, and expectations.

At least yesterday’s customer was somewhat “trained” on their place in the creating order. When they came into the TV studio, they knew they were reliant on the pros. Today, not so much. (IN their own minds at least.) They’ve likely edited stuff at home themselves, so they know the buzzwords and since they WATCH so much cpmtemt, they believe that they understand how i works!

Today’s customer sees something cool on TV, or in the Movies, or on the Web, or on a friends Facebook Page, or at the mall kiosk, or in an email attachment, and they have NO problem saying “I want something ilke that for my project.”

That could mean video, or stills, or sounds, or kinetic text, or amorphous clouds of particle bees that swarm/morph into ice cream cones.

They don’t know or care how simple, or complicated, or even possible it is. They saw it, so they think they want it. And don’t understand why it might be difficult or expensive to provide it.

Period.

That’s the world we’re in right now.

I’m pleased to see that IBM is in the ascendence again. I hope they do really well.

But when I hit the chart, the only thing I could think of was reading Tufte. (Huh, why did they start it in 2009. What would it have looked like if they published one that started the Axis in 2000? Or 1970?)

In other words, the article was written to persuade. Not illuminate.

And that means it’s opinion (like all of what I write here) – and can therefore be totally wrong.

(back to the salt mine, grateful to be in an “up” salt market for a while at least)

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Walter Soyka]

[Steve Connor] “Problem is the argument falls down when you consider iOS Apps which certainly “foster innovation through co-creation” If you consider App Developers to be business partners then Apple probably have as many as IBM. Despite the App store being a “walled garden” there is still plenty of room for innovation there.”

I don’t agree with the article in its entirety myself, so I have no stake in trying to defend it, but I do think anyone who has ever jailbroken their phone or had their app rejected from the store might not see this the same way that you do.

The part of this piece that really resonated with me was the idea that Apple is no longer the scrappy underdog or subversive force, fighting against an externally imposed homogeneous world view; they are now the Big Brother character, imposing a homogeneous world view on their customers. It may be a nice world view, and it may even be better than what we had before, but it’s still very much top-down.

I haven’t figured out who the hammer-thrower is yet.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

[Walter Soyka]

[Craig Shields] “Also, should we continue to hold Apple to that 1984 ad? Company’s change and their philosophies. Look at what Volkswagen used to say about their cars.”

Volkswagen never thought that their cars were ugly, nor that their cars were lemons.

Bill Bernbach’s iconic VW ads of the the 1960s were intentionally ironic. The campaign was meant to draw attention to the advertising itself, using the public’s disdain for consumerism and mistrust of car ads to call attention to VW.

And this actually sold cars!

I don’t imagine Apple sees themselves as Big Brother — but they might see all of us wearing the same orange shorts now.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Bill Davis] ” I kept seeing it as the writer having a single construct of what “the customer” is.”

Bill,

I’m not sure at all the thoughts in the article require this. I think the writer claims that people can be articulate about their needs – I don’t really see any claim that those needs are going to be unified or consistent it any way; that sort of assessment is left for the problem-solving end of it.

Franz.

[Walter Soyka]

[Craig Shields] “I would agree with that as it relates to their software like FCP. We are seeing some big names leaving the software because of it. I would disagree as it relates to their other technology. It’s really hard to say with the numbers they put up every quarter that they are doing something wrong. As it’s been said on this forum a number of times “if it ain’t broke…”.”

I absolutely agree with this — but I think it highlights one of the differences between marketing a product to professionals (who rely on the product class to produce their work and earn a living) and consumers or non-professionals (who may use the product in their work, but whose work does not depend on it).

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events