“Apple is such a large company that it’s always working on multiple projects at the same time. Even more interesting is the synergy of those efforts,” John Martellaro writes for TheStreet. “In contrast to some companies, Apple’s coherent vision of where it wants to go means that it works on seemingly disparate projects that are nevertheless designed to eventually dovetail.”
“In the course of developing those projects, some are rolled out as standalone features that may seem questionable in isolation,” Martellaro writes. “That’s because some technologies must be stress tested before the final integration.”
Martellaro writes, “For example, what’s the relationship between Touch ID — Apple’s fingerprint recognition system on the new iPhone 5s — and iCloud? The connection doesn’t seem obvious until Apple adds iBeacon, a secure payment system with its AppleID and the iCloud keychain. The result is that, at some critical point, a complete architecture for mobile payments is suddenly, surprisingly in place.”
Read more in the full article here.
Short, sweet, and smart. The description of Apple is almost oracular in its connection of the giant dots.
When Wall Street looks at Apple, all it sees is a bunch of randomly scattered dots with no interconnections. Each dot is looked at separately and has little value because it doesn’t mean anything to investors. Actually a master plan of connect the dots has never been explained by anyone at Apple so shareholders can only guess at what shape the dots will actually form. Let’s just say it’s a vague shape of Apple’s future which is exactly what Wall Street sees.
That’s not true about keeping shareholders in the dark, or the Street for that matter. Steve Jobs attended shareholder meetings and often spoke at length about the future of Apple.
Go back a little further and you might recall how Apple introduced iTunes, which was little more than a music playing app for Macs. Then they introduced the original iPod, which was a FireWire device that was only of use on Macs, subsequently the USB version came along and was suitable for PCs too, accompanied by a Windows version of iTunes. Then they introduced the iTunes music store and suddenly they had established a triangular linkage, with each corner adding considerable value to the other two.
None of Apple’s rivals appeared to see any of this happening and even after all the bits were in place, many of those rivals still tried to release MP3 players without a corresponding music store and then wondered why their seemingly decent quality products failed.
This was the start of the ecosystem concept and it’s amazing how long it took for other companies to recognise what was going on and the importance of it. It’s always unfortunate to not think of a good idea first, but when Apple has already put the pieces in place and shown everybody how it’s done, it takes a special sort of loser to fail to understand that they will need to offer products, software and services each of a comparable standard and working seamlessly together.
It’s easy to understand why the iPod was the only player in town for many years, the opposition simply didn’t understand what was happening right in front of them.
I’ve heard this same storyline for thirty-years. The products change, but the vision and execution has been unwavering, as though following the North star in a tour bus driven by the ghost of Steve Jobs.
What the author really said is, if you have more than one Apple device or service, they should all work seamlessly together.
The same can be said of any company who is working towards a common goal. I believe the real distinction between Apple and its competitors, and a lesson for all business in general is, they keep reinventing themselves.
Although Apple’s core values are written in stone, their business model and its processes languished until 1997, when Steve Jobs restructured Apple’s chain of command; the chart itself is interesting in its similarity to Walt Disney’s, circular and insular and extremely effective in terms of planning and execution.
When Apple changes direction, its products do too, along with their competitors’ business models and products.