“If you’re wondering what’s behind Apple’s success, and why does it have so many die hard fans I would point to something they themselves said in an advertising campaign ran between 1997 and 2002: ‘Think Different,'” Daniel Memenode writes for Tech-FAQ.
“The campaign featured a famous commercial known as the ‘Crazy Ones,’ which celebrated people who ‘see things differently,’ and contains such quotable gems as this: ‘Those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.’ It is no surprise that this video is still often referred to among great motivational material for people who want to make something out of themselves and succeed in life.”
Memenode writes, “The ‘Think Different’ campaign may be history, but the message it espouses is still deeply embedded in Apple’s mentality and culture. The obvious differences in how their products look and feel, and how they are marketed, is a surface reflection of how their makers think.”
Memenode writes, “There are multiple ways in which we can identify Apple’s different way of thinking.”
How Apple Thinks Different:
1. Form vs. Function: Both Matter
2. Software as the soul of hardware
3. Holistic thinking
4. Investing in early access to new technology
“My intent isn’t to say that Apple is superior to everyone else, as that would be pretty pointless and indeed quite fanboy-ish. Besides, thinking differently isn’t necessarily thinking better,” Memenode writes. “Instead, my intent is to point to Apple’s success and to the ways in which they think differently that may have been largely responsible for their success, and suggest that other businesses try to learn from this. I think we could use more companies with this kind of mentality.”
Read more in the full article here.
Classic!
Think outside the bucks.
Apple puts its customers’ experience before all other concerns. Most other companies, once they go public (so Wall Street can sink its hooks into them and start analyzing and telling them what they should be doing), are more concerned about their shareholders, bond holders, Wall Street analysts, etc. than customer experience.
If any CEO would be able to take another company, say a major bank or retail chain or whatever, and turn its corporate culture 180º, while letting its talent find solutions to problems (rather than products for markets), then companies would really flourish and prosper.
Then everyone wins – customers, shareholders, and Wall Street.
There is another — a Bank no less. It is called USAA. Another fine example of extremely profitable organization that puts customers first.
My response is clearly too late to be read on this thread, but I have to add it anyway. USAA is indeed a good organization. Not simply the bank, though. Its insurance is likely the best in the country. Customers actually like and defend USAA. Rather than try to take advantage of them, most customers are on their side to help control costs. Those who don’t, don’t understand USAA.
Trying to please Wall Street is one of the worst things a company can do to their corporate structure. Short-term it might be good for shareholders, but long-term it could prove disastrous when the company loses favor from the Wall Street high-fliers and by then the company will have a tough time changing course. Apple stock may be vulnerable to Wall Street’s dislike of how the company is run, but the company itself just keeps gathering steam, revenue and cash reserve.
I consider Wall Street and those institutional and hedge funds destroyers of companies by forcing them into the wrong direction in order to get immediate returns in share price. It’s still hard for me to swallow that Wall Street is capable of sitting on Apple and trying to punish the company for their own short-term gains. Fund managers say that Apple has limited growth and has topped out. They’re either liars, fools or both.
I remember all those analysts telling Apple they should get into the netbook market, license OSX to companies and lower the prices of Apple products. Apple didn’t budge and now the company is absolutely huge with relatively small market share.
Surely Apple knows what it’s doing better than any number of Wall Street analysts and their set formula answers for success.
Putting the customer first ends up benefiting the bottom line in the long term. That is a lesson that most companies need to learn and implement.
The truth is that all large companies, at at least one point in their history, had to think different. They thought different, and it led to success.
Where Apple is different is that, despite how big it is, it continues to think different when most other companies dig in and try to survive on their past success(es).
“My intent isn’t to say that Apple is superior to everyone else, as that would be pretty pointless and indeed quite fanboy-ish.”
Name the company, in Apple’s fields of expertise, that is superior to Apple. Nothing fan-boyish about telling the truth.
Not that Apple doesn’t think differently; they do. But the slogan of the campaign had suggested that Apple: Think (of it as something) Different. This was mainly in contrast to the IBM campaign of “Think”.
A subtle difference, important yet lost upon many. Many people tend to look at the slogan as: Think different(ly) with the adverb mistakenly lacking an ‘ly’ or intentionally misspelt to be hip and memorable.
Misunderstanding Apple’s ad is common, i.e. the later campaign of Mac vs PC; where many mistook the characters to be representative of the users as opposed to the platforms/devices.
All these years I’ve missed your IBM reference.
Brilliant! Thank you!
Well… not exactly. “Think different” was intended to be colloquial English, working like the everyday phrase “think big.” Think big doesn’t mean to “think bigly,” nor does it mean “think of it as something big.” It simply suggests that you think on a bigger scale. Similarly, “think different” was meant to suggest that you not think the same old way. The commercial brought this to life by celebrating those people who changed the world by taking their own unique approach.
There was an awareness of the contrast to IBM’s old “Think” motto, but that was not a consideration in choosing the line.
You can believe me because I never lie — plus, I was one of the writers of this spot.
Dear Mr. Segall:
Thank you for correcting my mistakes. I enjoy learning, and I appreciated your responding directly.
Following the Wikipedia link you’ve pasted in a response to another comment in this thread (http://tinyurl.com/5rz5wzw), I’ve noted that you and Mr. Rob Siltanen are the authors of the ‘Think Different’ text. I’m sure many of us would be very curious about a bit of background behind this work. I realise that you may not be at liberty to tell us much under NDA, and I can’t ask you for that. However, I was under the impression that Mr. Jobs played an early role (other than merely approving the ad), on the theme and the tone of the ad. Can you kindly confirm or dismiss that claim?
Once again, thank you much for responding.
Yes, Steve was very involved in the development of this campaign. Remember, all of this happened when Steve had just returned to Apple, the company was near death and his first mission was to breathe some life into the body again. The campaign was born directly from Steve’s initial briefing. After that, it was the agency’s job to create a campaign, and it was Steve’s job to interact with us along the way.
Having worked with other iconic technology companies, I can testify that it’s unusual for a CEO to be this involved. Most just stick their head in at the end of the process. Steve cares as much about the marketing as he does his products — which is why it all seems to fit together so well.
If you’re interested, I get into some of this “origin” stuff on my website (kensegall.com) and occasionally dredge up an old story on my blog (kensegall.com/blog).
Hope this satisfies your lust for more information.
I had a chance to look up your site, found it to be wonderfully clutter free. I also appreciated the nudge towards the blog section (I would have missed it without the hint), where you offer original insights and analysis.
I like that you are a fan of Apple while coming across as an informed admirer. I have bookmarked your site and shall visit there frequently.
There’s one thing that Apple understands more than most, and that’s delving into the mind of the consumer. Notice I didn’t say corporate IT drone. The consumer is a strange beast – it wants what satisfies it and it doesn’t care about complying with some notional idea of IT conformity that is designed to meet an IT manager’s conception of IT security. The consumer values above all else a user interface that suits his pattern of use and not be confounded by a myriad of problems that require him to modify his behaviour such that it suits the machine rather than the other way round.
When you think of it this way – putting the consumer first – then all else will follow. Thinking different is the manifestation of an idea that the destruction of the corporate drone, the very idiot courted by Microsoft, HP, RIM, Dell and a whole host of mediocre companies, serves no purpose other than subsuming your interest to that of the IT department.
For this alone Steve Jobs stands on the summit of Everest while the rest of the competitors are scrabbling about on the foothills pushing out plastic crap that are ultimately landfill fodder.
The most profound comment I’ve seen in a long time:
“When you think of it this way – putting the consumer first – then all else will follow. … For this alone Steve Jobs stands on the summit of Everest while the rest of the competitors are scrabbling about on the foothills pushing out plastic crap that are ultimately landfill fodder”
Think Different is also about taking big risks, if they are logical and part of a plan. That’s why smaller companies are more likely to “think different,” but if they become successful and larger, they become more resistant to taking big risks. There is more at stake.
Apple still takes risks, but they are so large now, with many lines of business, that taking a risk in one area is not as much of a threat to the overall enterprise. All that cash in the bank helps too… It’s like self-insurance for Apple, the risk taker.
It’s been said before. Using a Mac is like working in a studio. Using Windows is like working in a factory. I am sure that somewhere there is a very pleasant factory, but I haven’t seen it or heard of it. I have however, seen many delightful studios that encourage creation – not conformity.
Yawn. How many times is a journalist going to write a link bait article on this commercial? Having read the tech news for years, the same stories roll out every 6 months.
Yes, yes, the Think Different commercial. We know! We know about Apple thinking differently. The misfits. The crazy ones. The fact that this script is embedded on the TextEdit application icon… etc.
Whats the point in “think different”, if you steal an idea; “cloud sync”(and logo), Notification Center,and the “Photo Plus volume rocker” situation? Listen I like apple hands down, but recently they have not been living up to their motto. Can anybody agree?
Nope sorry I can’t. They have been forging ahead and taking risks. ie. Thunderbolt, removing Rosetta (PPC Emulator for 10.5 and 10.6)
As powerful as Apple’s Intel machines are now, it’s time for those older users to move past Rosetta or continue using older versions of OSX along with their older computers to suit their needs. I don’t see why Apple should slow down just for those Rosetta users as more consumers are buying new Apple products. If my Rosetta apps no longer work, then goodbye. No point in crying about it. It’s history. Apple doesn’t really need to concern itself with legacy applications like Microsoft does. As the hardware improves, move on to newer software.
I don’t really think you can steal an idea (and am not for this reason a big fan of patent lawsuits, whether by Apple or others), but in all honesty I think there is value in Apple copying the good ideas that crop up out there which actually fit Apple’s way of thinking (since even those who don’t typically think like Apple, sometimes get some things right).
It’s the context that matters. Someone might come up with a great feature, but otherwise not provide an overall experience that matches Apple’s, whereas Apple has the context I like, but might occasionally miss some great features of others. If they can bring those features in, while making it fit their overall user experience, I don’t mind that. :p
They can’t be first in *everything* after all, but I think they’re doing extremely well regardless! 🙂
It is a common misperception that patents are on ideas. They are not.
Patents are inventions. Ideas are cheap and easy. Genuine, non-obvious inventions are very difficult, very hard and rather rare.
Considering how commonly trivial a lot of patents today tend to be it seems that distinction is lost on many.
Indeed, especially the patent office issuing those said patents.
If the patent industry was as vigorous during the formation of the Internet (or if Cerf, Kahn etc. had patented packet switching, HTTP etc.) then we would not have such a thing.
For those who believe competition and the dollar will eventually cure all ills then patents are probably fine as they can be traded after all. To the rest of us the monetization of everything will only end in tears. Apple’s tears included because (mark my words) the shareholders will eventually tire and wish to “cash up”.
The idea that Apple– the most innovative company in america, and seemingly the only computer company that gives a damn enough to actually invent things– is “stealing” is absurd. Plus that you put the emphasis on ideas shows you don’t have the first clue about where the real work is in innovation.
The idea of the cloud is irrelevant. Touch interface is an idea that has existed for several decades… yet Apple’s multi-touch UI is a brand new thing.
I’m glad you love apple, I do to, but you have to open up your eyes to the real world man. Apple totally took the idea of the auto-sync. It even has the Cydia app icon! They have not been thinking differently these past months…
One of the observations that most people miss is the identification of the customer. Most companies cater to their customers, but it is often unclear who are their customers. In Apple’s case it is quite clear that they identify the users of their systems as their customers. Most of their actions make sense in terms of returning control and utility to their users and often to the apparent detriment of others (look at the current Final Cut Pro X controversy for an example).
OTOH, Microsoft appears to consider the OEMs that use their software to sell systems as their customers. Whereas the manufacturers of cell phones appear to consider the carriers as their customers. Thus these companies often do things that appear to be contrary to the needs of their “users.”
This dichotomy is in large part why Apple’s actions often appear to be strange or “different” to those who have difficulty thinking “outside of the box.”
“Here’s to the Crazy Ones”, written by a Chiat/Day copywriter, Craig Tanimoto.
Long Version
Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.
The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them.
About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They invent. They imagine. They heal. They explore. They create. They inspire. They push the human race forward.
Maybe they have to be crazy.
How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art? Or sit in silence and hear a song that’s never been written? Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?
We make tools for these kinds of people.
While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
Craig Tanimoto was an art director at Chiat/Day who out-did the writers by coming up with the words “Think different.” Talented as he is, he did not write the commercial. Credits can be found at http://bit.ly/Lsgas.
Memenode writes, “…The obvious differences in how their products look and feel, and how they are marketed, is a surface reflection of how their makers think.”
The only surface reflection I can see is in Apple’s crappy gloss screens. Back in 2002 of course, the company thought differently enough to boast about its matte screens for designers.
The difference in Apple these days is the dollar signs lit up at the thought of all those consumers sales.
Spell differently.
I called Adobe yesterday. What a horrible experience. Indian under payed tech support is NOT the way to support your customers. I tried there chat line until the guy suggested that my problem would be easily solved by upgrading to the CS 5.5. I said, who’s problem, your companies or mine?
In stark contrast, I called Nintendo yesterday, they have the best tech support I have seen, rivaling even Apple’s, as far as phone support.
Delight your customers and you will be successful. Adobe is going down. The only thing needed to take them down is a competing company that cares for there customers.
I heartily agree with the Adobe comment. I recently upgraded to CS5 (to keep my home machine compatible with work, etc), and what a horrid experience. Their website failed to negotiate my purchase (twice) and it took nearly a week of wrangling with tech support and the sales department (I work during their business hours, so I had to deal with Adobe on my day(s) off) to actually manage to purchase CS5! It was a horrid experience all around, and I also echo the “Mumbai Tech Support” meme – having script kiddies in India as your primary tech support doesn’t cut it – I learned more from the American-based sales rep than the “Technical Support Specialist.”
You are right. Once there are credible alternatives to Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign, then hordes are going to jump ship, but there just aren’t any products that cut it. Pixelmator is nice, but it doesn’t do CMYK, making it useless in print production. It’s the only example of anything that even approaches the utility of the Adobe software. I rue the day that Adobe bought Macromedia, killing Freehand, et al.