“Around the Fool there’s been a lot of debate recently about Apple and its supposed need for innovation. Writer Chris Baines argued that Apple needs to constantly innovate to stay relevant, making the likes of Microsoft a comparatively much safer investment,” Bleeker writes. “Rule Breakers analyst and writer Tim Beyers says Apple’s need for innovation is exaggerated; product improvements have largely been incremental tweaks to existing product lines.”
Bleeker writes, “I tend to agree with Tim. For example, the iPad was little more than a larger iPhone upon its launch. Apple’s genius was that it was the first company to understand what customers wanted in the nascent tablet market. The company then delivered with an easy-to-grasp user interface at the right tablet size. Without any real “innovation,” Apple was able to expand its iOS operating system to a whole new growth avenue.”
Full article, in which Bleeker unfortunately equates total R&D expenditure with “innovation” (Microsoft vs. Apple) thereby proving he doesn’t understand innovation at all, here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Joe Architect” for the heads up.]
It only seems like incremental steps because Apple has been doing it so well for so long, each innovation builds on the success of the previous ones. If another company had released the iPad instead, it might not have had the same impact because it would not have the supporting structures around it (OSX, iOS, iTunes, etc…). It’s like a layered cake – sometimes Apple adds another layer of cake, sometimes frosting, sometimes some rum to spice up the cake, sometimes decorations on the side, sometimes it adds a new tier altogether. Folks on the outside just see a cake, and don’t realize that every level is tasty goodness. And like baking – Apple is part science, part art, part amazing… To really understand it, you have to consider Apple in a different way than any other company.
@Steve516
Excellent analogy
Apple can be equated to a good chocolate making company.
Whatever they make, you want it and you become addicted to it.
Apple launched iPod. Then it has iPhone. Then it has iPad. Behind the devices it has iTunes, AppStore and iBook. That’s pure innovation. If there’s anybody says otherwise, I reckon he doesn’t know innovation at all. Did Tim innovate anything at all??
I used to love the Fool sight over a decade ago (when they called AOL and several other companies under the radar as good investments), but now many of their “analysts” are just hacks going for page hits.
“The secret to Apple’s Success”? That question always cracks me up. The answer is so obvious that most everyone misses it: Know your customer and build products for them with no compromise on quality.
Ahhh, the Motley Fool…as good as their name…
The best inventions are simple and seem obvious in hindsight. This is where Apple shines.
One of the things that has really been irritating me with Apple is that the most basic needs are sometimes left out for the sake of simplicity.
In revision iOS 4x I still can’t copy a contact from my Address Book to the clipboard on my iPhone. WTF?
Another example, take Macwrite on a Mac Plus. It was 1000 times easier to use for the non-geek than TextEdit in OSX…. Why?
Why are all the common functions now hurried in submenus when we had them in plain sight before?
Cupertino… we have a PROBLEM!
The fact that he didn’t even mention OSX as the foundation for all of these products tells me that the folks at the Motley Fool still don’t understand the “Secret to Apples Success” even after all these years. I guess it’s natural in some regards to focus on the hardware you can actually hold in your hands but it still makes me want to pull my hair our and scream…, IT’S THE SOFTWARE STUPID!
I wonder if anyone knows whynRandom House et al.are still missing from the iBooks store. Sales would really pick up and would then allow iBooks tom really compete with Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble selection wise?
Is SJ so hard up that he feels that they are not needed, because to make an iBook store complete, Random House must be part of the mix.
They never talked about the Mac. OK is has been some what of a stepchild this year, but the little they did is more innovative than the MS or it’s OEM’s. The new Airs were a achievement. The solid state memory is not new, but they have found new ways to make it very useful. They have also spent capital on Lion, yes it won’t be out until next year but they are still keeping ahead of Windows. Mac is a big money generator and they have not abandoned it. To not bring it up in a dissicusion about how Apple stays competitive is redicules.
One reason they don’t spend as much on R&D is because they have cut out a lot of unproductive waste. They don’t spend time in focus groups or pay a million dollars to have someone tell them what color is going to be hot next year. When you stay ahead you don’t have to spend money trying to reverse enginer others.
@RLB
If Random House is not on iBooks, it is more likely because RH doesn’t think it needs Apple, rather than vice versa. There could be a number of pricing and contractual reasons why RH isn’t on iBooks yet, but Apple wouldn’t arbitrarily shun the RH catalog simply to stroke Jobs’ ego.
Surely Jobs and the top gun at RH can come to terms if Amazon and B&N can. Pricing is undoubtedly the issue, but let’s get along with it. Can’t buy a Grisham novel, for example, without RH.
Thanks for your comment.
I find most of teh Fool articles to contain very little useful information. They have a lot of articles referenced in Yahoo Finance. I never click on them.
@pjs_boston
Who said the genius is in the obvious?
Innovation can make complex things LOOK SIMPLE…
But, in fact, most innovative electronic “simple products” have one hell of a lot of disruptive, development of multitudes of unique design decisions and materials and software systems in them.
The iPhone was an evolution of the iPad, according to Steve Jobs, but there was far more to it than just a scaled down iPad.
You use a Phone differently than a tablet, so there was a lot of decision making in screen resolution, icons sizes, touch, ear placement sensing, cellular optimization, dev kit and such that the iPad didn’t have to concern itself with as much.
These guys are really confused or don’t just get it.
Apple does ALLOT of innovation.
Innovation does not have to be a totally new product from scratch. To say that iPad was not innovation is totally bogus.
@AI. I agree I am not sure why these articles are referenced, I stopped clicking on them about the time OSX came out.
The headline is for web hits, no information, well some but it seems wrong. MF makes it sound like anyone could have done an iPad, so what happened at MS? They had a 8year jump on this market.
Ayway I didn’t click on the link here, and unless I hear otherwise will continue to ignore the “advice” of these Fools.
Definitely agree that a lot of the previous innovation and supporting infrastructure of OS X, iPod, iTunes, Product Design, Stores, etc., has contributed greatly to the success of the iPhone and iPad. As Burrell points out, come out with the iPhone first, before releasing the iPad and iPod touch. That takes some vision and discipline.
Another area that Apple innovates is in finances. Their extreme fiscal discipline, cash flow management, targeted acquisitions, outsourcing deals, large scale component purchases, etc., has given Apple the opportunity to take risks and accumulate a huge cash war chest. Your traditional CEO/CFO doesn’t or can’t manage finances and costs the same way that Apple does.
One thing about Apple that has always struck me as brilliant is their foresight, and tied to that, the way they “set the stage” with hardware and software to realize that foresight. Two such examples:
Firewire. I remember getting my first G3, and having this firewire port on it. I also remember thinking “what do I need THIS for?” Then, of course, came the Digital Video Camera. How will you pull down the massive amounts of data from your newly acquired camera to your hard drive? Firewire, of course. Your computer already has it.
iTunes. When it came out, it allowed you to rip CDs, and create a digital library. Big deal? I can simply pop in a CD and listen to it. Then came the iPod. How will you manage the music for your shiny new toy? iTunes, of course. And not only do you already have it, you already know how to use it.
@Foresight
I agree. They seem ahead of the curve in preparing for the various changes in modern computing
Again these guys live up to their FOOL monikor. I understand Apple. How bizarro that they fly right over the heads of so many business ‘analysts’. Thus the ongoing financial decay of so many companies and investors who pay attention to these dimwits.
Because they follow the modus operandi of previous successful companies, especially mid Twentieth century America – the standard by which they (Apple) are being judged. The paradigm has shifted but most Americans still gauge business by the mid Twentieth century paradigm: “We want America to be like it was from 1939 to 1962.” However, American business would just as soon play the lottery to make money for the board and stockholders than manufacture anything (let alone something good). Eventually, Apple will succumb to the pressure of their business associates and they’ll be viewed as being just like everyone else – if that hasn’t started already.
@Ubermac,
Go into “Edit” mode in the contact list – you can copy anything then. Annoying, I know, but at least it works.