Jason Hiner
Jason Perlow
Opening Statements
Yes. Apple will stay on track
Jason Hiner: Irreplaceable as Steve Jobs is, Apple has three factors that will keep the company on the right track.
First, Apple is in great shape in the smartphone and tablet markets, both of which are poised for explosive growth. Apple simply needs to iterate wisely, even conservatively to continue its success. It's safe to assume that Jobs himself has helped set the direction and strategy of these two product lines for the next several iterations.
Second, Apple and Steve Jobs have been preparing for this for a long time. Jobs put the right people in key positions to keep Apple moving and innovating in the ways he preferred. As long as his hand-picked leaders stick around, Apple will be fine. The real test will come in several years when the hand-off is made from Steve's leaders to the next generation.
Third, the myth of Jobs is going to sustain the company for a while. The principles he used in building products, organizing the company, marketing, hiring, are ones the company will use for years to guide decision-making.
No. Can't continue on great toys alone
Jason Perlow: For the past 15 years, Apple has been a consumer product-oriented company and reflected the vision of a single iconic leader -- Steve Jobs, its dreamer and Walt Disney-like figure who created its current success formula.
The company needs to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up. Yes, consumer products should continue to be an important focus area, but Apple cannot continue on great toys alone.
Apple's revenue is highly based on an annuity or semi-annuity model of repeat customers. Repeat customers are bread and butter, but they do not represent growth.
Post-Jobs, Apple must exist in a world of constantly improving commoditized technology being created by its competitors, as well as enterprises seeking next-generation, integrated solutions that it is not currently offering. Ones which are arguably more open and can more easily attract the partners needed to create solutions.
Anything other than moving on to the next Insanely Great thing should be considered an unnecessary distraction.
The Rebuttal
Closing Statements
Only imbeciles could derail Apple
Jason Hiner
While Apple will never be the same without Steve Jobs, the company has so much forward momentum that it would have to be run by a bunch of complete imbeciles to derail its progress over the next 2-3 years. Fortunately for Apple, it’s going to be run by Jobs’ hand-picked product leaders. As long as they stick around, Apple is likely to stay the course.
One of the things we’ve learned from Walter Isaacson’s biography is that over the past decade Steve Jobs wasn’t just trying to build great products, he was trying to build an innovation machine that would continue to create products at the intersection of technology and liberal arts for long after he bowed out of the company. If he did half as good of a job with the company-building as he did with the products, then Apple will be in good shape.
Apple must return from Neverland
Jason Perlow
Steve Jobs was the computer industry's embodiment of Peter Pan. He never wanted Apple to grow up. And that is what made him and his company special. "Stay Hungry and Stay Foolish" was a Jobsian-centric philosophy that worked well while he alone stayed at the center of the company's universe. But Steve Jobs is no longer with us.
Apple's management and engineering bench could always rely on Steve to bless every product release or major business decision. Now they will have to make the important decisions completely on their own.
The company must return from Neverland, without its Peter, and face the culture shock of leaving their traditional consumer-only comfort zone and entering new markets such as the enterprise in order to sustain growth.
Tim Cook may never be Steve Jobs. But he's a sharp businessman who plays well with others -- a requirement for building the framework of a harmonious Apple corporate culture that will last another three decades and beyond.
Perlow by a nose
Lawrence Dignan
This debate was tough for one reason---time frame. Depending on what time frame you consider, either Jason could be right. In a one to two year time frame, Hiner is probably correct and Apple will stay the course, thrive financially, deliver an iPad 3, iPhone 5 and a kick-butt TV.
In the long run, I'm with Perlow. Apple will have to change/adapt and be increasingly threatened. However, Apple could milk the enterprise and probably add another $50 billion in annual revenue in five years. I don't have a crystal ball for either time frame so I merely have to judge this debate. As far as illustrating his points and making the case, I'll give Perlow the win by a slim margin.
In partnership with Ricoh Doc's final thoughts
DocFirst of all, Doc is very confused because both sides of the debate are Jasons this round. Give an old guy a break. Couldn’t one of you just be Tony for the week?
To Jason H, you’re only partly right (or is it partly wrong?). Apple will, most likely, be fine for the foreseeable future. But don’t be so sure about the long-term prospects for the company. We’ve seen massive company failures plenty of times before in all kinds of markets. Today’s Apple is tomorrow’s Krispy Kreme, if you catch my drift.
And to Jason P, you’re wrong too (though you’re also right a little). Apple, can, indeed, continue on great toys alone. What’s wrong with great toys? Especially when they appeal to all generations and to a global market. I’d love to have my share of the electronic toy market. And Apple defines the space.
But I agree with you that Steve is an undeniable influence on the company. This will make it really tough for current leadership as everyone in the company will be asking the question “what would Steve do?” Well, at some point it can’t be about Steve anymore and will become about the new guy, who won’t be new by then.
Great companies are almost always about great leadership. We still have to see about the current crop of Apple executives – good odds, but still unproven in a post-Jobs environment. Good luck to them all. We need you.
More from "The Great Debate"
@grhaigh - I doubt SJ left them hanging and has mapped out several plans and devices/upgrades for the future.
There are however a couple of things I see that can derail any prelaid plans from SJ.
1. Steve had believability with the Apple Board and Stockholders. If he said "wait!" they would. I am not sure if Tim and crew have the same level with this group. We will find out when the first negative blip impacts Apple.
2. However great the path forward is, it has a lot of difficulty dealing with the unknown. The collective OEM engineering pool is rapidly outdoing Apple. As they continue to move ahead (it's a numbers game folks), new hardware and functionality will come to the forefront that is not in SJ's current mapped plan. As time goes, it will become harder and harder for Apple to stick with the original mapped game plan.
I wish them luck.
One other aspect I thought about afterward: Apple management is ripe for shopping. These folks are considered as some of the top minds and it would really surprise me if other companies did not take advantage of SJ's passing and look to hire away one or more.
There are some really deep pockets out there.
Jobs, Cook and (I forget the one's name who starts with an 'S) all have similar personalities to each other. Each of them has (or had) a very abrasive style that could drive away lesser people. In many cases those who would have left already have. Interestingly, in one case, the man in charge of creating the first iPods, now has his own company and has created a very Apple-like home thermostat. The implication here is that if someone is going to leave Apple, it's either to go independent or he's not the kind of employee you'd really want if you're trying to make yourself a 'copy' of Apple.
We can only hope that those who follow in his footsteps at Apple will have learned from Jobs the innovation it takes to keep the lead on the markets. With the brilliant minds at Apple and its leaders, I am only hoping that they learned plenty enough from Jobs to improve on the legacy of success Jobs provided Apple.
In fact so much so, I can only believe your either joking, a shill for some other company or you just want to kick up some gorilla dust here to get a reaction.
I agree that Apple makes great consumer products. I just don't see them as major player in the business market. It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
The last two large corporate companies I worked for are now allowing iOS (iPad for one company and both the iPad and iPhone) on their network. Neither WinMo/WP7 nor Android are allowed.
RIM or iOS. Both of these are companies with between 150,000 to 200,000 employees.
My current company is allowing iPhone now and iPad and Android in 2012 but it is webbapp access, not full system server access.
The company I work for ran a couple of test with the Xoom and iPad2. These test were about equipping entire sites with one or the other.
After a lengthy test, they shelved the Xoom and limited he iPad2 to Sales and Marketing and corporate webbapp email access.
That kind of says it.......
For smart people like Steve Jobs, the fight has never been "Apple vs Microsoft" or "iOS vs Android".
The fight for a smart company is always "good product vs bad product".
Wonder, why "Must grow up" is the default choice, hm?
Thanks for your response. It's comforting to know that not all companies are "running with scissors".
They are and have been. I've used Apple products in the "corporate world" for year without any problems. The application developers out there have stopped being lazy and started producing more productivity software for Apple.
Two items outside of productivity software for corporate use that I'd like to see as a consumer is Flash integration and more mainstream games. Moving forward on Flash is a decision that Apple would need to make to for their iPhone and iPad markets. Mainstream games is an area where I'd like to see Apple grow, but that is a gaming industry decision (yes there are mainstream games converted for Apple, but I for one do not want to wait 2 years before a commercially available game for Windows/XBox/PS2 hits the Apple list).
Some of the most dynamic and active sites I see today have almost totally abandoned flash for anything more than displaying animated video of one sort or another--what Flash was originally created to do and did well. Flash as navigation or productivity? You're only killing yourself.
Someone has to make consumer products, don't you think?
A company, not touching the "Enterprise" does not make that company unsuccessful.
I don't believe the way the company is run will change simply because it's not being run by 'idol worshipers' but rather people who already know how to get things done and done right. You can't say that "Stay the Course" is "idol worship" when they should be able to continue along the same path without him. What we really need to see is if the current team equates to the same level of Leadership that Jobs provided.
What you need to remember is that Apple currently has three product lines that are continually growing, not just two. Then again, we already suspect that a fourth product line will emerge from 'hobby' state to a viable product state. However, in my own estimation somewhere down the line we're going to see all of these product lines merge into one fully-integrated product package that consists of phones, pads, computers and televisions. From there, it will become a matter of scale.
Come on, do you believe in "No Bill Gates = No Microsoft"?
Once they abandon that, they are doomed.
One major point that is missed here is that of content. Apple has been positioning itself as a content company. I see the gadgets as a window into their online store / service presence. Gadgets will inevitably lose margin over time. Hopefully Apple can grow its cloud and content model to continue to profit even when the access devices are either given away, or (SJ will turn in his grave) built by the comeptition.
Far from being a challenge, it represents their greatest opportunity.
...aaaaand I stopped reading after that. Contrary to the miserable homespun common folk crap shoved down USAnians throats, buying premium products from a premium manufacturer isn't "elitist" anymore than having an education makes you a snob.
That is the basis of Jason's entire view and his primary data point is 100% based on fiction.
Agreed. "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" was really juvenile, and turned me off big time. I was going to purchase a Mac after Jobs converted it over to a modern BSD Unix OS underneath - ala NeXT because I had always badly wanted a NeXT PC, but those ads filled with half truths and lies just did away with all the goodwill I had towards them. I'm not technologically religious (I'm Windows AND Linux), but those attack ads made me vehemently anti-Apple, and so I remain until they do something to convince me they've grown up.
I am not religious but I go to church and believe what they tell me anyway?
I don't get it.
Sorry dude but you lost me with that rebuttal.
On the other hand I was able to follow admiraljkb even if I don't have the same belief system.
I'm a tech user. I don't care who makes it as long as it is what I need.
Hey, they're a great company and they make great products, no argument there. But they benefited greatly from Jobs' halo. They've lost that. Most great companies that lose such an important leader wallow about when that leader is gone, as Apple did when Jobs got canned. If Apple keeps right on innovating, it will only be further tribute to the greatness of Jobs. It's a tall order.
Evolving and staying one step ahead is what got Apple to where they are now. Catering to businesses and enterprise customers is the quickest way to go from stellar quater to bankruptcy. For decades people brought technology home from work and they were miserable. Now that they have started taking technology from home to the office they are much happier. We have to really stop separating business from consumer markets and just start thinking about devices for our lives. Apple gets this.
It is not an assumption on the part of the workers (engineers, sales, advertising, etc....) but on the part of the management. In cases like this, the worker bees generally have little to no say so.
Clearly the Siri technology doesn't have to be constrained to a phone; it could be in your car, your house as well. Along with other exciting techologies apple has in the pipeline, these may scream to expand into other markets.
The thing I don't like about the other option 'grow up' is the implication that Apple is currently juvenile, naive even. That's not a very wisely chosen wording. Along with 'must' this pretty much ensures this option won't win. Still, I'm picking it anyway because maintaining the status quo = moving backwards.
I suspect by mid 2012 or much sooner, we will see equivalent SIRI+ level functionality on other OS's.
Unfortunately, I also suspect SIRI will remain embedded into 4S only.
Hiner: As others have pointed out "Stay the Course" just isn't compatible with the computer industry, and especially doesn't describe anything that Apple does. If "stay the course" really means "continue inventing new consumer technology and push the envelope and continue taking risks" then I would jump on board that one. But instead you are saying "Apple simply needs to iterate wisely, even conservatively to continue its success." Not sounding like "risk taking" and "inventiveness" are really tops on your list. No vote for you. (BTW, I wouldn't think anything Apple has done in terms of "iteration" is really that "simple").
Perlow: From this and other articles, you clearly think Apple should make a push for the enterprise again, despite the big wall of hurt waiting for them there. This definitely would be a change in course for Apple, but not one that I would see as particularly wise. But then again, many people also said that Apple was shooting themselves in the foot for building a computer with no floppy disk or legacy ports, so I could just be a naysayer without vision. I still think Apple taking its eye off the consumer would be a mistake. We've already seen what happened to RIM when they decided they wanted a piece of the iPhone pie - their push for the consumer market has been a dismal failure, and may now result in RIM losing a good chunk of the corporate market as well!
I think you just hit it on the head. "staying the course" does mean growing stagnant and dying in the tech world. Well, actually it pretty much means that anywhere if done for any length of time. The only constant in the universe is change, so it is a case of adapt or die, and that holds true for any company, person, animal, etc etc...
Or does stay the course refer to following the SJ map as defined by SJ.
Not the TC or other map...
History proves not.
Join the conversation!
Debate Event Reminders
The Great Debate Newsletter
With the Great Debate newsletter, you get a front-row seat to every argument until the final gavel falls.
Upcoming Debate
-
Can PC makers survive in a post PC world?
May 29, 2012 | 7:00 AM PDT
Add to Calendar
Comments from the floor
Facebook Activity
RE: Great Debate: After Jobs, can Apple maintain the momentum?
Thanks for your response. It's comforting to know that not all companies are "running with scissors".
RE: Great Debate: After Jobs, can Apple maintain the momentum?
RE: Great Debate: After Jobs, can Apple maintain the momentum?
Perlow has the advantage of arguing for change, which is obvious; everything changes at some point. Saying they have to change is a trivial argument. But the changes he wants: going for the enterprise, opening up the OS, tons of products, customization over user experience... Apple went down that road once and nearly went under. The fact that nerds can't understand Apple's fairly unique (sadly) merger of design and engineering, arts and tech; means that they constantly want to make it something it's not... something they can understand.
Yes, Apple relies on one 'hit' after another, which is hard. But it's not impossible. And asking it to change is like saying that someone like Bruce Springsteen needs to start repacking his music for corporate use by making soft, muzak versions, and 'open up' his song portfolio by doing mostly cover versions. Not only is it wrong, it's terribly misguided.
Apple has excellent strategic planning
Stick with me for a minute here and give some thought to the question of "What is Apple's current strategy?" The overarching strategy is to simplify technology for the individual. Lately that has taken the form of popularizing iOS, a very fast growing mobile operating system in a world that does not yet have a 'standard' mobile OS. Apple realizes there are legitimate choices in this arena, but that it can leverage its vertical integration of hardware and software to simplify not only mobile devices themselves but the experience of using a mobile device.
When you think of it that way (and I think an awful lot of people at Apple do) it becomes pretty obvious that you can use the benefits of the cloud (backup, sync, photo sharing, etc) to build an ecosystem for the post-pc era -as long as you make it simple. Simple as in practically invisible to the user.
In doing so, the company removes a huge barrier to entry -the requirement to own a PC just so you can have an iOS device, and enables a large fraction of the globe to own an iOS device. The app store and iCloud services serves the growing user base with a gateway that serves content and apps to them. Voila, a transition plan for a post PC era that Apple can not only profit from, but will fuel growth for a very long time.
Apple's 'secret weapon' is their strategy. If that isn't clear, take a look at the fallout when Apple fails to execute on that strategy. The latest version of Final Cut Pro ignored the fact that professionals can handle greater complexity than consumers. Apple over-simplified the app and their customers beat them up for it. Questions like should Apple build a television or should they make a push into the enterprise depend on whether these actions fit with their strategy -can they simplify the experience for the individual?
I think Apple has never gotten proper recognition for its strategic prowess. When you have great strategy you already know what you want to be when you grow up. It's obvious Apple decided that quite awhile ago. They just need to keep executing on their strategy.
define growth
Apple will not change much in a timespan measured by years, unless it is run by complete imbeciles, as somebody said, but what about decades? As new technologies and new technology ???s social uses emerge it will have to adopt it (although one can survive very well, thank You, just by making toys alone, that will not change in centuries to come). How will that affect Apple? It depends on what will happen with the future Apple???s core, that what is the company today. If the future expansions in other fields are led so that the core is left unaffected even with a complete failure in any such new field, Apple will be able to recover and reinvent itself every time anew - the Beretta started by manufacturing archibughi for the Venetian Republic, today they make everything from hunting rifles and pistols to automatic canons, in the future ???phasers???, maybe? Who knows what Apple may be making 50 years from now; but if the core is destroyed, the company will become just a note in history, as many other did, great in their time but unable to ???grow??? wisely with it.