Design Sojourn | Strategic Industrial Design Blog

Your points concerning innovation as being lost are all very interesting. I would have to agree that you are absolutely correct in that Apple has primarily re-packaged existing technologies. This has been true since its beginging with the Apple I. However, their true innovations have been in packaging those technologies in functional ways that other tech firms hadn’t.
All of the technologies you speak of existed before Apple re-packaged them. This indicates that other firms have always had the same opportunities to package them in innovative ways.
Apple has often had the vision to package them in ways that consumers want to use them. Not in the ways that engineers imagine using them. They’ve also done this packaging in ways that average people would likely use them.
Apple has created some technologies. That’s not where they developed an innovative reputation.
When the GUI was released on the Mac, Many a tech head referred to it as a toy. That’s because programmers saw what they did with command lines and coding as special and unique. All of their experience gave them a rite of passage to make use of these technologies.
Apple has alway made strode to bring these complex technologies to the masses. And as we all know,(despite what you may believe about the average consumer being tech savvy) consumer want things to be simple to use.
That has always been Apples goal. Steve Jobs has always said so. Apples marketing has always suggested so.
Furthermore, where would the use of these technologies be if the vision of their uses were left solely to those that create them.
I don’t know about you but, I for one am very happy that I don’t have to write code in order to upload a photograph or listen to music on my PC.
It takes vision to move technology to the next level. This is where Apples innovations exist.

“consumers with the help of the internet are just too clever and tech savvy for companies to try to get away by rehashing used technology to feed consumerism by generating useless wants and not solving needs.”

This sounds like a case of viewing consumers through the filter of the community you know personally. Try a retirement community; a blue-collar community; a rural community; a low-income community; or dozens of other non-hip, non-elite, non-technological aggregations of consumers.

What differentiates Apple products is that, compared to the competition, they Just Work.

In a country where X-Boxes and Playstations fly off the shelves, in which people get tooth grilles, in which the Clapper and the Chia Pet makes a killing every Christmas, it’s entirely fatuous to complain about companies who court success and generate huge revenues by “generating useless wants and not solving needs.”

Hi Darryl,

Thanks for stopping by and leaving your insightful comments.

I agree with your argument of the application of technologies is innovation in itself, and Apple’s GUI and Newton interfaces were way ahead of their time. However my argument here is perhaps Apple has peaked and has started a slow decline. Let me explain.

But before I do, let me qualify myself, I know its easy to critique Apple hindsight 20/20, and I know my sight may not be open to all Apple’s strategies as I’m not an employee, but I do have extensive strategic product development experience. Granted compared to Steve Jobs, who I respect and has 1000X more wealth than I; what I like to do here is just putting up a few points for us to speculate.

Now since Jobs rejoined Apple, he has been very clever in adopting this re-packaging strategy. Why? He knew the R&D development costs for the GUI and Macs are very high, and I speculate, perhaps one of the main reasons why Apple almost went bankrupt. This is a common story, as many Japanese electronics companies went the same way. He knew that too much money was being spent in R&D and he had to turn it around. Thus what can he do? Leverage on existing technology. Hence Intel chips, Microsoft office for Mac, iPod vs. Creative etc. In other words adopt the strategy that you don’t have to re-invent everything. Clever man.

However Apple does retain some of the control of the development and injects some of their magic into it. At the end of the day the discussion here is how you would define innovation? I would list it as:
1) Something made different
2) Use of technology
3) A cultural and behavioral change to view/use/do things
4) Doing business differently

Apple cleverly uses 1 and 3 and maybe 4 (if you consider iTunes). This is because Point 2 is the most difficult, expensive and risky.

My argument is compared to the Newton, Mac GUI and Apple IIe to today’s iPod and Apple Phone, the missing ingredient is this technology factor. I don’t blame them because the tech factor is expensive. Hence my conclusion that the new tech savvy pro-sumer will start to get tired and will start to see thru the facade. Sure it’s a damn nice facade, but without a visionary technology (software or hardware) it may be a slow but sure slide downhill.

Hi Henry,

Thanks for your comments and stopping by to visit.

You have made extremely valid points, the blue collar, rural, the BOP and even the elderly are very difficult markets to design for. However I need to stop you there, because this is not Apple’s target market.

I don’t quite see how this is a relevant comparison and comment? Of cause there are exceptions to the rule as I seen hip grand dads watching movies with their grand kids on the G5s.

Sure there is nothing stopping many of these individuals aspiring for Apple products, however if you look at their high pricing, branding and advertising strategies you would see that on the contrary Apple targets the technology savvy market that can afford their product.

So I cannot see how your comment on a low-income and BOP community is valid? Do you think they could easily get a broadband connection and happily download music from the iTunes store? Hey the iPod wont even work without a computer! I believe they would be too busy worrying about food on the table and roof over their heads. So do you think they need an iPod or just want one?

Let me give you some statistics to back Apples strategy more (oh the irony!), it’s a little old (2005) but still interesting. Here are the ones more relevant to your argument.

In a country like the US “26% of Americans age 65 and older go online, compared with 67% of those age 50-64, 80% of those age 30-49, and 84% of those age 18-29.

“By the end of 2005, 24% of adult rural Americans went online at home with high-speed internet connections compared with 39% of adults in urban and suburban areas.”

“29% of those who have not graduated from high school have access, compared with 61% of high school graduates and 89% of college graduates.”

Source: http://www.pewinternet.org

Did you know that the MP3 player market is much bigger than what people think of Apple? Did you know the best selling MP3 player is the USB flash memory kind, Shuffle included? Oh you may argue that Apple has the majority market share in the MP3 market. Yes they do, but only if you classify the market in terms of brands. You don’t see the USB MP3 players much as there are many companies and brands that make such products.

Let me give you another example. In my recent trip back from the UK, I set next to a very pretty English finger printing technician. Yes she works for the police force, and she was using a USB flash drive and visiting Australia. So out of curiosity I asked her why not an Apple iPod? She told me she loves the design very much but cannot see her self buying one at that price. She finds the USB flash player more economical and much easier to drag and drop music into the device.

So if you ask me I think my filter is pretty broad?

What differentiates Apple products is that, compared to the competition, they Just Work.

Sure I agree they work and work well, but only if you play by their rules. Which is to buy a new iPod every year (cos your battery dies), only use iTunes and resign to leaving your music you bought online on only one computer?

Design Translator,
It seems that your rationale stems from your extensive knowledge but doesn’t take into consideration the knowledge of those targeted to create mass appeal.
Henry’s commits, feisty as they come off, makes a very fine point.
Apple has always positioned itself as a consumer conscious company, thus the tag line “computer for the rest of us”.
These repackaging of existing technologies almost immediately get re-repacking, by others in the industry, that didn’t have the foresight to combine the technologies the way that Apple thought to. Windows, and the Palm Pilot are great examples.
Apple mistake has often been believing that their forward thinking bundling of technologies could not be duplicated in a manner better than their own.
In many cases they’ve been right. But in every case the duplication hasn’t needed to be better but merely good enough.
This is what makes Henry’s argument valid.
Other manufacturers duplicate the technology packaging ideas that Apple has “innovated” and present it cheaper running on a cheaper Windows box and suddenly Apple appear to have nothing but a flashier more expensive device that does the same thing the cheaper gizmos.(whew, that was a mouthful!)In the case of Windows, this scenario nearly put Apple out of business.
They’ve been able to avoid this same scenario with the iPod\iTunes ecosystem because they’ve maintained their unique position as both a hardware and software developer. This has made it difficult for others to emulate Apples model. It hasn’t been for a lack of trying though.
Where I think your argument breaks down a bit is, you appear to assume that the average consumer is perhaps half as knowledgeable as you are in the matters technology.The reality though is, we’re a sub-set of the culture. Only those of us that take the time to respond to post on a blog or spend time gaming or tinkering with their boxes know that a lot of the technology being repackaged has been around for a while. We tend to know things like multi-touch screen technology has been in development for quite sometime. But can you imagine the response when the average consumer will have when they get this in their hands. And once again Apple will the first to have brought it to the masses. Apple will be seen as the great innovator. And for doing those things, it is great as a company.
I wish other companies had such foresight. I would like to what Apple could come up with if other companies really got out of their boxes and pushed them instead coming behind and creating cheaper “good enough” products.

You Said

“Sure I agree they work and work well, but only if you play by their rules. Which is to buy a new iPod every year (cos your battery dies), only use iTunes and resign to leaving your music you bought online on only one computer?”

I have been able to use my iTunes collection on 5 computers and countless iPods. As well as use other music store tunes on both devices. Apple DRM scheme allows up to five computers to have the same iTunes library. Also, iPod battery replacement is and has been a very common practice for a couple of year now.

Hi Darryl,

Once again thanks for taking the time to pen down your comments. First off, I like to say this is a great discussion with your very well supported and logical arguments and counter arguments. Thank you!

Actually on the contrary, I believe that the masses are cleverer and more tech savvy than Apple makes them out to be! Therefore what I’m proposing is the “let me tell you what you should do and think” may not work anymore.

In other words what I’m trying to say is since the development of computers and the internet quite a few (15-20?) years ago, people have become more used to technology. I’m saying times have changed. The consumer is more demanding simply because they know more and have grown up surrounded by it.

Hence my relating of my discussion I had with the lady on the plane. She knows enough to put in a USB drive and drag and drop songs from the computer!

Also I see Henry’s point but I disagree, I believe we are mistaken to think that Apple’s iPod and Phone is targeted to the:

retirement community; a blue-collar community; a rural community; a low-income community; or dozens of other non-hip, non-elite, non-technological aggregations of consumers.

Basically the price Apple sells their products isolates the majority of this group! You could find better value products at even the cost of the Shuffle. I believe Apple’s target market is the middle class, middle income earners (btw makes up the bulk of ANY population) urban dwellers that owns computers and have access to the internet.

Don’t get me wrong, I totally agree with all your examples “computer for the rest of us”, beating Windows and Palm, innovating their Mac OS, however if you been reading Apple has also dropped the “Computer” from their name.

What I’m saying is this obvious change in strategy and the way of building products may not be the right way for them. Look at it this way, if you do a search for iPhone on Google, you would find many people with a lukewarm reception to the product. A vast contrast to the iPod when it was first launched.

Only those of us that take the time to respond to post on a blog or spend time gaming or tinkering with their boxes know that a lot of the technology being repackaged has been around for a while. We tend to know things like multi-touch screen technology has been in development for quite sometime. But can you imagine the response when the average consumer will have when they get this in their hands.

I totally agree with you on that, but empirical evidence from out market research has shown trends towards a more informed consumer that sees thru it all. So what I’m saying from my post is consumers are getting too smart these days thanks to the internet. (For example thanks to engadget, everyone knows the Zune is a re-hashed Toshiba) And my proposal is really for designers to think ahead and be prepared for consumers and customers that know more then they did in the past. Re-packaging was a great idea, but soon to be obsolete.

Well fair enough, it’s good to know that Apple had relaxed their DRM requirements. I stand corrected. Thanks.

PS: You might be interested in more comments here. He does a good job describing the phones potential problems.

Design Translator,
Agreed, I love a healthy debate. And appreciate having a mature debate which has proven difficult when discussing Apple related issues in the blogosphere. Thank You!!
I agree with your statements that Apples pricing structure tends isolates its’ market to the middle and upper class. This is a common phenomenon though. With most technologies, its first available to those that can afford it.(One doesn’t go to the BMW dealer expecting to pay Yugo prices.)
But, those same technologies
are inevitably duplicated, and eventually commoditized. Making them available to the masses.
The repackaging model will continue to have a place in the industry regardless of how savvy the consumer becomes, because that vision of building a better mouse trap doesn’t exist in every company.
On the other hand, new technologies that aren’t created by large tech firms will not have the R&D resources to envision many of the possibilities. You yourself pointed out the cost of R&D.
I believe that its a cyclical problem. Many larger companies become constrained by their own bloat that it doesn’t allow them out of their boxes. Many smaller firms lack the financial resources to bring their dreams to the masses. They often wind up approaching a larger manufacturer to get the resources and is absorbed. Once again, technology is repackaged and the cycle begins again.
I will concede though, through this debate, that the consumer is more savvy having become more familiar with the use of these technologies. There is however, a large group of people out there that aren’t familiar. Of course, those under the age of 25 have never known a time without PC or the internet available.
With the last paragraph of your last post, I see where you are coming from. And hopefully designers are listening. Nothing would please a geek like me more than to see something truly new and innovative come along. It would give us more opportunities for healthy debate.

Hi Darryl,

Thanks and please do keep in touch!