“In a recent NY Times article, titled ‘The Auteur Vs. the Committee,’ Randall Stross stokes a debate that rages in world of innovation: Is it better to rely a single genius or group collaboration? Stross centers his analysis on the contrast between Apple, where ‘one is the magic number’ (and we all know who the ‘one’ is), and Google, which ‘has followed the conventional approach, with lots of people playing a role,'” Chunka Mui writes for Forbes.
“Here’s where I come out on this debate: The Apple innovation model is better, as long as you have Steve Jobs,” Mui writes. “Everybody else had better stick to the Google model.”
Mui writes, “Unfortunately (and I say this with all due respect), you’re no Steve Jobs. There are no Steve Jobs in your organization. As Adam Hartung wrote recently, in ‘Why Steve Jobs Couldn’t Find a Job Today,’ you wouldn’t hire Steve Jobs (or his clone) if he applied for a job. And, to put a point on it, Steve Jobs (or his clone) would never apply for a job you have to offer (or perhaps any job at all).”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Don’t underestimate Tim Cook, Jonathan Ive, Scott Forstall, and the rest of the team Steve Jobs has put in place at Apple. We have a hunch that the “Apple innovation model” will work quite well as long as Cook and Ive work together.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “krquet” for the heads up.]
Related article:
Isaacson: Jony Ive + Tim Cook = Steve Jobs – November 10, 2011
Be yourself and learn from the best people you can that fit the tasks you have to meet at the moment.
Emulation is only good in a movie.
Each product is different than the ones Jobs worked on at Apple, because those products have already been made improving on the prior products in the market.
Never, ever stop learning & exploring new edges in creating better product.
MDN take: eh.
No approach is inherently better. Better is better. It’s about whatever works. Collaborating can create crap, or beauty. It’s about the collaborators. It’s not like Steve was always right anyway. By his own admission, he collaborated and he also had smart and strong enough people around him who could stand up when necessary.
Certainly collaboration can be brilliant. A movie with a great ensemble cast comes to mind, or a band that’s better than any of the sum of the solo careers of its members. Hell, the Beatles were a collaboration of that sort – they all had some good things individually later, but nothing they did individually ever approached what they did together. Think about it – even though Ringo wasn’t writing the great Beatles songs, imagine if their drummer was 6’4″ and blond, and had no sense of humor. It wouldn’t have been the same.
You can have The One, or The Four, or The Whatever. Better is better, indeed.
Hate to say, but I think Jon Ive will leave after a decent amount of time has passed. He said last year he wants to leave and go back to England. He may have stayed to see things through Jobs’ passing. With that personal relationship gone, there’s even less reason to remain at Apple.
You don’t think Apple would set up a shop for him in England?
I’m bettin’ they would.
Who are you to say I’m no Steve Jobs?
Not that I want to be. I’m perfectly happy being the best me I can be. But I can create; I can accomplish; I can succeed. It is all within my grasp.
And yours.
Be yourself. That’s been the real philosophy behind Apple from way back – before being Insanely Great was the thing, there was Think Different. Both are still valid, even with the black mock turtleneck now being empty.
“Mui writes, ‘Unfortunately (and I say this with all due respect), you’re no Steve Jobs.'”
Wrong! But thanks for playing. According to the Myers-Briggs test, Steve was an ENTP (I know because I’m one too):
“ENTPs are as innovative and ingenious at problem-solving as they are at verbal gymnastics; on occasion, however, they manage to outsmart themselves. ENTPs can be prone to “sharp practice” – especially cutting corners without regard to the rules if it’s expedient – or, their juggling acts may simply be so over-ambitious they collapse.
Both at work and at home, ENTPs are very fond of “toys” — physical or intellectual, the more sophisticated the better. Once these have been “solved” or become too familiar, however, they’ll be replaced with new ones.
ENTPs are basically optimists, but in spite of this (perhaps because of it?), they can become petulant about small setbacks and inconveniences. (Major setbacks they regard as challenges, and tackle with determination.) ENTPs have little patience with those they consider wrongheaded or unintelligent, and show little restraint in demonstrating this. In general, however, they are genial, even charming, when not being harassed by life.” (From: http://typelogic.com/entp.html)
ENTPs make up about 3-7% of the male population. They work best with INTPs (about 4-7% of the male population – Jonny Ive) and INFJs (about 1-2% of the male population – Tim Cook).
Years ago in business school, we studied an ATT case.
Through trial and error, ATT determined that when they had a big project with a lot of people working on it, they would create a small competing group to work the same problem.
The small group almost always found the AH HA solutions.
They took this a step farther and seeded startup companies to address tough technical/people/whatever problems outside of the ATT bureaucracy. In return for the startup money, ATT would retain the right to purchase the new company for a substantial sum so that the staff in the startup would be richly rewarded for their successes.
Products don’t materialize instantly like Minerva from the head of Zeus. They take time. When product 1 is released, product 2 is under development and product 3 is on the drawing board.
Steve jobs was deeply involved in the Apple products that are coming out in 2012 and 2013, and had influence over future plans. In the worst case, if Apple strays, Steve Jobs’ influence will go through the next ten years. In a sense, Steve Jobs will be working at Apple through 2021. Nothing to worry about!
Use all the brains you have plus all you can borrow.
Apple is in good hands.
This is such bullshit. How is this writer in the least bit qualified to say who is or is not a genius, especially if he’s never met them? I don’t know why MDN keeps reposting these vacuously inflammatory pieces, they do nothing but insult the reader and attack everyone’s self-esteem. For what?? Steve was great, but fuck this guy.
“Stross centers his analysis on the contrast between Apple, where ‘one is the magic number’ (and we all know who the ‘one’ is), and Google, which ‘has followed the conventional approach, with lots of people playing a role,’” Chunka Mui writes for Forbes.
“Here’s where I come out on this debate: The Apple innovation model is better, as long as you have Steve Jobs,” Mui writes. “Everybody else had better stick to the Google model.””
Ah, yes, as long as the dictator is a benevolent one then a leadership of one is preferable. Of course, benevolent dictators are rare so we have a form of gov’t, with checks and balances, that leads to guaranteed mediocrity. A government of the lowest common denominator.
“Mui writes, “Unfortunately (and I say this with all due respect), you’re no Steve Jobs”
Actually that doesn’t really matter. Steve was there are the beggining of the PC industry. The world isn’t so black and white as Bozos v Geniuses and Success v Failure. Hence the word ‘aspire’. There’s plenty we can learn from Steve on integrity, rule breaking, and design. The NY Times goes for another attention-getting but overly simplistic headline. Hm, a newspaper company. How adorable.
I think that the article is basically correct in stating that although most companies envy the advantages of the type of innovation seen with Steve Jobs, few if any other companies are set up in a way that could allow that to happen.
I’ve attended countless business conferences in all sorts of business sectors where speakers have pointed to Apple as the ideal company to copy in terms of innovation. They seem to overlook the fact that you can’t copy a way of innovating and they also overlook the fact that their particular company is hamstrung with committees and procedures that would completely stifle any attempt at true innovation.