iQuit - An Apple with Steve Jobs and an Apple without him

There aren't many times when we can look back at a CEO and say honestly that they changed the world. Sure, there are many CEOs who have changed their companies, improved operations and maybe even lead to some pretty successful product launches, but Steve Jobs I believe is the manifestation of true success. Not only did he revitalise Apple, but he managed to influence and even create several markets, when most leaders struggle to even touch one. 

Regretfully, due to poor health Steve Jobs has made the hard decision to resign as CEO of Apple. This very event has sparked a mass amount of praise and respect for Steve Jobs from people of all shapes and sizes, even from those who do not spend all their time reading technology blogs and playing with their Apple products. Strangely, it has even opened the hearts of some of the infamous Apple haters. But it has also sparked massive debates between pundits, analysts and the like regarding Apple's future. Is Apple capable of maintaining its success without Steve Jobs and sustaining the growth that it has experienced in the last decade? Can Apple still excite people and remain, well you know...cool? Or on the flip side, will Apple fall in the same fatal path subsequent to Jobs' initial departure?

Well, let me just say that the Apple that we see today will by and large be the same shining red Apple that we'll be seeing for at least the next 5 years. With products and strategies most likely laid out for the coming years, it's hard to imagine any plateauing in growth or anything that we wouldn't expect of the Steve Jobs Apple that we're well and truly accustomed to today. Tim Cook has assumed the role of CEO in the past during the events of Steve Jobs' health bouts, so it's safe to say that he's already well-versed in the operations and procedures of the captain's seat. Steve Jobs' resignation was simply reiterating in ink what was already written in pencil for Tim Cook. 

However, when the day comes that Steve Jobs actually isn't there, we definitely won't be speaking of Apple with this same assurance. It's not a bad time to start forecasting an Apple without Steve Jobs.

Allow me to just answer one budding question that has been foolishly debated - can Apple be the same without Steve Jobs? No. It is foolish to believe that Apple can remain the same without Steve, thus why the need for Steve? If his vision, his achievements, and his capabilities can and could have all been entirely replicated by someone else, Steve would have been a useless leader. Steve Jobs' became CEO of Apple because he had capabilities that no one else in the company had, thus his absence will leave a hole in the company's core. Steve Jobs leaves behind some enormous shoes that even a person of Tim Cook's calibre will have feet too small.

To me, Tim Cook has always felt like an emergency as opposed to a permanent solution. He would come in and keep the big boat afloat while Steve Jobs was away, and then Steve would come back and really propel the cruiser forward. The perceived permanence of this week's decision tells us that Steve probably won't be coming back to the helm, which only leaves me with an uneasy feeling regarding Apple's future under Tim Cook. There's just this little something that tells me that Cook is more of a numbers guy, a negotiator, or an operational guy as opposed to a creative and idea driven guy. Steve Jobs managed to create an unprecedented culture of innovation within his company, and if Cook is driven by entirely different motives it will only destroy the morale within Apple that has taken it to such peaks of success.

So how will Apple change? It's a big question with a big many answers. Perhaps it is only fitting to look back at the things that add up to what simply can't put any better than unprecedented genius.

This is quite a cliché statement but I'm going to repeat it because I believe it's one of the most monumental things that Steve Jobs will be taking away with him - his vision. I've always gone by one of my own sayings that vision is what separates those that make a profit from those that make an impact, and I can't think of a better illustration of this very idea than Steve Jobs. Sure, we can all be like Samsung and make multitudes of phones without thought and make a truck-load of money and earn market share, but will we look back on the age of smartphones and say that Samsung made a difference? I'll be damned. Steve Jobs didn't just sell his products, he sold his vision and that has made all the difference. 

Jobs has the uncanny ability to think ahead of the times and almost design the future like an architect, and then be willing to bet big on it. I'm sure we can all remember the semi-transparent iMac without the floppy drive which was insane at the time. In spite of that, this omission propelled Apple into the future of compact discs. More recently, the iPhone without a keyboard was laughed off by Steve Ballmer as being unsuitable for businessmen, it has proven a revelation. And the download-only Mac OS X Lion is only the very start of a rising era.  

Having said this, there's probably no greater exemplification of Steve Jobs' incredible forward thinking than the originality of the iPad. There are few people in this world who can look at people, live their lives and find the holes in which ideas and potential products could fit in. Whilst everyone else endlessly filled the vacancies with compromises, Jobs saw through this and without an inkling of market research he dreamt the iPad purely through the roots of his own creativity. Competitors are having a hard time fighting against the iPad because they're pursuing a vision that is not their own, but that of Steve Jobs, which is one they're not entirely sure of. If we look back in time at the most innovative and inspirational leaders and entrepreneurs, most did not believe in the 'effectiveness' of market research. Akio Morita, the co-founder of Sony Corp. famously said 'Carefully watch how people live, get an intuitive sense of what they might want and then go with it. Don't do market research.' The man created the Walkman which revolutionised our lifestyles and the music industry purely through intuition. Market research only tells us what people are buying, but not necessarily what they want, and Steve Jobs knew this. 

Oh yeah - did someone say Apple keynote without Steve? Not sure, because I can't imagine one. I simply can't imagine a keynote without Jobs up on stage in his trademark black turtleneck and junners with such subtle child-like excitement, love, and admiration for his own products. Who's going to be up there to say 'it's magical' or 'it's just fantastic' or 'one more thing'. Jobs' is a natural salesman. I could probably write a couple of thousand words on Steve Jobs' capabilities as a salesman, someone more intelligent could probably write a thesis, heck people have written books on how to be insanely great at speaking and persuading like Steve Jobs. Jobs' keynotes weren't him telling us features and specs that we could read ourselves, it wasn't him playing the commonplace PR game, nor was it him attempting to excite us over dreams he may or may not deliver. He spoke of the things that mattered to us at the most primal level - the magic of a product, how it changes 'everything' and he spoke about how things were beautiful and amazing without sounding like he fell out of a rainbow. We can only wait and see whether Tim Cook has charisma enough to get people waiting overnight in lines to get their hands on the next iPhone or the next iPad, or even the next Mac. 

So now what? What will happen to Apple? From where I stand, I have no doubt that Apple will continue to be successful for the next coming years, or even a few years after Steve Jobs takes the last step away from the company. But I hate to say that there will come a time when without a visionary like Steve Jobs at the helm or in the higher ranks, the company will stagnate when it comes that time for a revolutionary idea to keep the company in the limelight. That doesn't mean that the company will stop being successful, it simply means that the company will cease to become highly influential. 

Do all good things come to an end? Maybe. Unfortunately for Apple it seems that they've reached peaks so high that the only way for them to go is down. It's hard to imagine a visionary beyond Steve Jobs' calibre. With the culture that Apple have established within their company they're sure to find and attract talent but I doubt, I highly doubt we will find someone so talented in so many ways as Steve Jobs. Let me tell you now, Tim Cook is probably not going to cut it. It will be interesting to watch Apple's Steve-less evolution churn out. What's important for the people at Apple isn't to keep thinking 'what would Steve do?' Following a vision that is not your own is always, always second to following your own. In spite of everything I have confidence that Apple will be able to find someone who isn't quite Steve Jobs, but is just like him in a completely different way. 

HP's webOS riddles

Less than two years ago when HP acquired the fledgling Palm company, I was a half-hearted with the notion. HP, being a relatively professional and straight-edged company didn't quite seem to fit the Palm profile of curved and cute devices with a...well curved and cute OS. I expected, and in retrospect would have preferred the likes of Nokia or Sony to have acquired the innovative Palm. However my dreams were left unrealised and Nokia is now committed fully to Windows Phone and Sony are heading towards a deep investment in the Android ecosystem, its amazing how times change. Join me as I recount HP's problem leading up to the discontinuation of first party webOS devices.

The outcome of webOS under HP's tenure has been disappointing, even looking on the bright side it has drastically fallen below the excitement and hype that the initial announcement of the Touchpad and Pre 3 had warranted. When HP unveiled the Touchpad at their Think Beyond event in February, the prospects and the possibilities were incredible and seemingly prosperous. The Touchpad wasn't perfect though, page turning when reading eBooks was choppy and the user experience as a whole wasn't up to scratch. It didn't feel like a finished product. But we were all excited because we figured heck, the problems should all be ironed out prior to the launch in 7 months time, and perhaps the hardware upgraded to keep in close quarters with the fast progression of consumer technology. But it wasn't. Looking back at the bug-riddled launch of the Touchpad I simply can't help but wonder what the hell went on in that lengthy 7 months. 7 months is plenty of time to perfect bugs and polish a product that was definitely already in the later phases of semi-completion. Believe it or not, I even expected HP to launch the device early and surprise us.

It's odd, because this whole time I believed that the acquisition of Palm by HP was what would be instrumental in preventing a late and sorry launch. Palm, prior to HP simply didn't have the resources to go about it on their own, they didn't have the manufacturing scale that HP possessed, nor the cash to effectively market their products. More importantly they didn't have the human resources they needed to quicken general operations. HP had this, but taking 7 months to launch an imperfect product disappointingly shows that it did not translate for webOS. 

Looking from the outside, HP's webOS failure could be attributed partially to a lack of focus, a fatally distracted vision for webOS. By no means does a distracted vision necessarily have to be a poor vision, and this was exactly the case with HP webOS. HP were hoping to expand the platform across all their devices, including printers to share a common ecosystem amongst the products we use most. I'm not going to lie, it's a brilliant idea, but fantasising over unrealised dreams while delivering an incomplete foundation in the company's smartphones and tablets only spells trouble. Dreams are like anything, you have to keep feeding them to stay alive, and feeding them lackluster products with insufficient marketing doesn't assist in building a large enough consumer base to springboard other projects. We all know what happens if you start building the top of a skyscraper before the foundation is complete - it collapses. 

Which brings us to this morning's bombshell of an announcement, HP is stopping production of its webOS hardware altogether. You read right, it's just the hardware, which is not surprising given how out of touch the Touchpad's hardware is in comparison to the competition and the times. Despite only cancelling the hardware and almost certainly going ahead with the idea of licensing the OS, the whole ideal has just been one huge PR tragedy. Announcing the cancellation of hardware production for an operating system that only has one hardware vendor is the right way to give everybody a wrong impression. HP now run the risk of not being able to find a licensing partner within the timeline that they have set to officially cancel webOS device production. If this does end up being the case which lets face it, is entirely plausible, then it would be correct by definition to officially call webOS dead, after all, nobody's making any webOS devices. 

Let's get real, is there anyone who really wants to invest in webOS? Samsung and HTC are the two most likely vendors, doing anything and everything to expand their portfolios. Both are already heavily invested and clear leaders in the Android ecosystem, however with offerings in Windows Phone which will most likely be undermined by the looming release of the Nokia Windows Phones. So, webOS wouldn't be a terrible idea but then we must ask the question, why? Why would they bother supporting a dying ecosystem when they're already high and mighty in a thriving one? Sony Ericsson, LG and several others are also possible candidates, but I doubt that any of these companies have the resources to risk in investing in an ecosystem that has failed...twice - once under Palm and now under HP. 

Its sad, but ultimately true that HP have dug their own grave. Palm had built an image of freshness and innovation behind the Palm name, being one of the most advanced touch-screen smartphones of its time, whilst maintaining a highly approachable and friendly industrial design. I know friends who wanted a Palm prior to the HP days simply because of the curved design, and the invitingly simple look and feel of the OS. By ridding and replacing the Palm name with HP subsequent to the acquisition, HP threw away the oh so precious image and value of the Palm brand. Strategically, this move made sense in order to bring webOS both physically and symbolically closer to the HP family. However HP didn't have the confidence nor the skill to turn webOS into a game-changing product, and are now trying to license the operating system in a much less valuable incarnation than what they initially purchased it for. 

So can webOS be resurrected? I used to think so but in a connected world where growth grows upon growth, webOS is really struggling to just make the inaugural step. On the other end of the spectrum, Android and iOS are making exponential strides. In spite of this, there's a little bit inside all of us that knows webOS can still make it, and then there's a big part in all of us that really wants webOS to make it. The world doesn't need anymore Android slabs, but we could sure as hell do with a sweet OS like webOS. I think its clear that webOS's square peg doesn't belong in the circle of HP. So here's hoping that HP sells it off to a company that can treat it with the respect it deserves. Any takers?

Willy-nilly Walkman

A fortnight ago, Sony unveiled a selection of new Walkman MP3 players namely a new 'A series' touch screen Walkman, 'S series' compact Walkman, and 'E series' basic video Walkman. Walkman unveilings are always interesting particularly in analysing how Sony responds to not only the grave challenge of Apple's iPod and cheaper MP3 players, but also their attempt to maintain consumer relevance in the gradually dying market of dedicated music players. Sony's recent Walkmans have been ultimately a let down, hence the most recent one that evoked any hype was the X series in 2009 which is currently either dead or dormant. My loyal readers will know that I'm a Walkman fanboy at heart, forking out the same sum of money of an iPod Touch on an infinitely less capable Walkman X. Yet I stand by my Walkman devotion, because nothing beats out of the box noise cancellation and the raw beauty of Walkman sound quality.

From where I stand, there are many things that hamper the potential success of these current Walkmans. But ironically it has nothing to do with strong competition coming from Apple's ubiquitous iPod, Sony is shooting themselves in the foot. Purely from Sony's vantage, the Walkman works because the brand has been able to carve a niche for itself throughout its last decade in the digital MP3 market. Where the iPod has struggled to gain respect, the Walkman has been embraced with open arms. I'm referring to the audiophile community, the people who still carry around a dedicated music player because it provides marginally better audio fidelity than their phones, and the folks who will fork out more on headphones than on the actual player. This is the consumer demographic that appreciates Walkman for what it is, and this is what Sony's target market should be. 

Somehow, I don't get the feeling that Sony are fully catering to this market, and half wasting their time on the long lost game of the average consumer market. The new Walkmans, save for the E and W series all come equipped with Bluetooth technology. I understand that Bluetooth has many practicalities beyond unwired headphones, but unwired headphones, judging by marketing is Sony's primary offering with Bluetooth technology. Despite the general subjectivity on the scale in which Bluetooth degrades sound quality, it's simply not debatable that Bluetooth does pale in comparison to a direct 3.5mm stereo jack connection. Long story cut short, the Bluetooth transfer requires compression which by its very nature reduces sound quality. So why would an audiophile want this, when what an audiophile really wants is the best their money can buy? Sure, average consumers would enjoy the convenience, but average consumers would enjoy an iPod too. 

And then there's the larger problem at hand, and that's by and large the Walkman's inability to enjoy any consistency in its brand and lineup and its inability to integrate with similar Sony products and services. Like I said, the Walkman's relationship with audiophiles won't be going anywhere even in the face of major strategic blunders, because let's face it, the Walkman will always sound great. What concerns me is the inconsistency and dilution of Sony's use cases for the Walkman name. Currently, the Walkman monicker is present on Sony Ericsson Walkman phones and obviously Walkman MP3s. Yeah, it's only a couple I know but both these devices are acutely different, they are in two completely different universes, heck they're not even made by the same company. Sound quality on Sony Ericsson Walkmans fall tremendously short in comparison to the dedicated players. That doesn't help the brand in any way, a brand that sells itself on its sound quality. 

The Walkman will never shine with its old luster, but the least Sony could do is to try and leverage what they do have with the Walkman to boost other aspects of their business, or just as usefully, use current aspects of their business to boost the Walkman. What naturally pops into my mind first is Qriocity, the media streaming service by Sony that has gotten quite a bit of stick from journos regarding the hacking matter from months ago. Nevertheless, Qriocity is satanically not available on any Walkman. The matter is a loop-hole free no-brainer - a music streaming service for a music player. 3G is the issue here, but Sony need to find a way to get Qriocity onto Walkman devices because if there's one thing for certain it's that it's sure going to open more doors than it closes. Not only would this work to create a really solid offering that matches up against the times, but Qriocity users would then find it practical to use Qriocity on other supported devices to gain value for money thus indirectly forcing consumers to buy further into Sony's ecosystem. The Walkman as it stands is a lonely product.

My sentiments regarding the Walkman are iffy, I'll always be a Walkman consumer but not everyone will be and the path they're taking isn't going to take them to a handy destination. The Walkman brand could be likened to a headless chicken, alive simply for the continuity of an iconic brand, but with ultimately no foreseeable vision or trajectory ahead.