Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You Can't Innovate Like Apple

pragmaticmarketing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: You Can't Innovate Like Apple

#31

Post by masklinn »

thought_alarm wrote: post #22
masklinn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So companies like Microsoft, Motorola, HP, Acer, Nokia, Sony, and Nintendo can only do what they've always done. I'm not sure Nintendo fits well in this list. They have seemed pretty willing to "take risks" (in a controlled way) and do things differently in recent years (since 2002~2003 and the start of the DS project, though they weren't initially as bold with it as they could have been, calling it a "third pillar…

> I'm not sure Nintendo fits well in this list. I think Nintendo is a great example. The GameCube was clobbered by the PS2. How did Nintendo respond? Not by trying to be more like Sony but by being more like Nintendo. The point is that it's very difficult change corporate culture, for better or worse.

> How did Nintendo respond? Not by trying to be more like Sony but by being more like Nintendo.

Erm… how? Since the NES and the GB, Nintendo had been following a pretty "normal" path of giving more power each time. You could argue that they always had something of an interesting approach to controllers (see N64 and GC controllers), but they'd never entirely opted out of the current/existing performance races and picked "wacko" control schemes before the DS.

Re: You Can't Innovate Like Apple

#32

Post by masklinn »

wazoox wrote: post #28
masklinn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So companies like Microsoft, Motorola, HP, Acer, Nokia, Sony, and Nintendo can only do what they've always done. I'm not sure Nintendo fits well in this list. They have seemed pretty willing to "take risks" (in a controlled way) and do things differently in recent years (since 2002~2003 and the start of the DS project, though they weren't initially as bold with it as they could have been, calling it a "third pillar…

Just to make it clear : Nintendo really got back to its roots, the Gunpei Yokoi philosophy, after the departure of its old CEO. Before Gunpei Yokoi, Nintendo was making playing cards; he conceived the first nintendo toys (Ultra hand, Ultra machine...) in the 60s, the first Nintendo electronic toys (Love tester, Light gunner ... ) in the 70s, the first Nintendo arcade systems, the Game & Watch concept in the 80s, the…

> For instance the GameBoy went out after the Game Gear.

Yes, right, the GB (released in April 1989) went after the Game Gear (released in October 1990). The Game Gear project had barely even started (if that) when the GB was released.

You also overlooked the GB being about half the price of the Game Gear and it being nigh-indestructible (where the Game Gear was plagued by hardware problems, especially early on) and thus a much better fit for handheld, especially children handheld.

Re: You Can't Innovate Like Apple

#33

Post by CrazedGeek »

masklinn wrote: post #31
thought_alarm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure Nintendo fits well in this list. I think Nintendo is a great example. The GameCube was clobbered by the PS2. How did Nintendo respond? Not by trying to be more like Sony but by being more like Nintendo. The point is that it's very difficult change corporate culture, for better or worse.

> How did Nintendo respond? Not by trying to be more like Sony but by being more like Nintendo. Erm… how? Since the NES and the GB, Nintendo had been following a pretty "normal" path of giving more power each time. You could argue that they always had something of an interesting approach to controllers (see N64 and GC controllers), but they'd never entirely opted out of the current/existing performance races and pick…

They were definitely doing wacky-ish things before the DS, but not necessarily controller-related. "Hey You, Pikachu!", those Pokemon Snap Blockbuster printing stations, and the e-Reader come to mind.

Re: You Can't Innovate Like Apple

#34

Post by eitland »

ody wrote: post #25

"Apple designs for #2. No other mass-consumer products company puts as much attention to detail into the fit and finish of the box—let alone the out-of-box experience." I'm sorry but no they do not put as much attention to detail into their products as you would think. They didn't even have multitasking in the iPhone until recently! And what was the antenna problems all about? All I see is just enough attention to de…

This actually holds true for Macbooks/Mac OS X as well. I've been using a MBP for over a year now, and "attention to detail" is hardly the first words that comes to my mind.

A few examples:

* Different shortcuts in different programs.

* "Home"( * ) and "End"( * ) mapped to different key combinations in different programs. (No, not just 3rd party apps, apple apps too.)

* Holds true for hardware, too: ctrl is positioned differently on small and full size keyboards.

( * ) Of course, there are no home and end, but one of +, or + or + will usually work. The only text movement combination that works almost in all apps are + which jumps by words. Of course, being unix, +a and +e works everywhere (?) but they can't be used together with

Re: You Can't Innovate Like Apple

#35

Post by mechanical_fish »

extension wrote: post #3

I think there are plenty of companies that innovate like Apple, but none of them make hardware. You can make a great piece of software with just a few programmers. But making a great gadget requires so many different specialized services and such a large scale operation that it's impossible to get everyone drinking the same kool-aid. If DIY manufacturing ever takes off, that's when you will see Apple caliber products…

This is a fascinating hypothesis but I predict a big caveat: Much of Apple's quality derives from standardization. Everyone with an iPhone 4 has the same iPhone 4. You can design a case, a bicycle mount, a Twitter client or a learn-to-juggle app for the iPhone 4 and know that everyone will have the same experience.

Consider the world of free software, for example, where we have DIY manufacturing. Everyone can write their own Drupal, Wordpress, or Rails. But the market is not moving toward such bespoke products. Quite the opposite: customers want something that is based on customizations -- as minor as possible -- of a standard product.

Part of the problem, actually, is that you underestimate the effort of design. When you can turn a blueprint into hardware overnight, you'll still have to sweat over every line of that blueprint, and document it, and support it.

Re: You Can't Innovate Like Apple

#36

Post by jscore »

ody wrote: post #25

"Apple designs for #2. No other mass-consumer products company puts as much attention to detail into the fit and finish of the box—let alone the out-of-box experience." I'm sorry but no they do not put as much attention to detail into their products as you would think. They didn't even have multitasking in the iPhone until recently! And what was the antenna problems all about? All I see is just enough attention to de…

I'd say 99% of Apple's target market were fine without multitasking plus it's a nice battery saver.

And this is coming from a hardcore Android fan with a Nexus One.

Re: You Can't Innovate Like Apple

#37

Post by recoil »

masklinn wrote: post #32
wazoox wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to make it clear : Nintendo really got back to its roots, the Gunpei Yokoi philosophy, after the departure of its old CEO. Before Gunpei Yokoi, Nintendo was making playing cards; he conceived the first nintendo toys (Ultra hand, Ultra machine...) in the 60s, the first Nintendo electronic toys (Love tester, Light gunner ... ) in the 70s, the first Nintendo arcade systems, the Game & Watch concept in the 80s, the…

> For instance the GameBoy went out after the Game Gear. Yes, right, the GB (released in April 1989) went after the Game Gear (released in October 1990). The Game Gear project had barely even started (if that) when the GB was released. You also overlooked the GB being about half the price of the Game Gear and it being nigh-indestructible (where the Game Gear was plagued by hardware problems, especially early on) and…

You're absolutely right, but the original point is (I think) that Nintendo do things differently to their competitors, which I think you illustrate rather well.

The analogy of the original GB hardware with Apple products (say the original iPod) is a pretty good one: Nintendo delivered what customers actually wanted (portability, near-indesctructibility, great battery life, low cost) at the expense of certain extra features, which it turned out were less important to the customers that Nintendo sought. The iPod was exactly the same: it was worse in many respects than the competition, but sold amazingly well because of all those "other" factors.

Nintendo are also similar to Apple in that they're willing to try something completely out of the box once in a while. People deride both the Wii and the DS (and recently the 3DS) because the hardware specs don't match the competition, but what differentiates both of those products is the originality (and in the case of the 360, the hardware quality!), which is comparable to the way that the iPhone has trounced all comers by re-inventing how people use a phone.

First-party software is an incredibly important part of Nintendo's successes too, and again they differentiate themselves from the competition with a focus on quality, which is obviously not unlike Apple either. That's not to say that Nintendo aren't guilty of churning out some bad games, but they're never buggy, at any rate...

Nintendo's industrial design isn't a patch on Apple's though, and that's definitely part of what the article's about. Things like the DS Lite and Wii are both better than the awful N64 and GameCube designs, but they're rather derivative of Apple products.

Of couse both Apple and Nintendo have made some awful decisions over the last 2 or 3 decades, but there's always been enough of a difference in each company's culture for them to be able to standard apart from the others around them.

Re: You Can't Innovate Like Apple

#38

Post by recoil »

masklinn wrote: post #31
thought_alarm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure Nintendo fits well in this list. I think Nintendo is a great example. The GameCube was clobbered by the PS2. How did Nintendo respond? Not by trying to be more like Sony but by being more like Nintendo. The point is that it's very difficult change corporate culture, for better or worse.

> How did Nintendo respond? Not by trying to be more like Sony but by being more like Nintendo. Erm… how? Since the NES and the GB, Nintendo had been following a pretty "normal" path of giving more power each time. You could argue that they always had something of an interesting approach to controllers (see N64 and GC controllers), but they'd never entirely opted out of the current/existing performance races and pick…

Neither the DS nor the Wii is really an exception to the "more power" rule, though the difference between a GC and a Wii is obviously minimal.

The N64 controller was a much "wackier" step than you imply too, in my opinion. Nobody else had the idea of sticking an analogue stick on the controller for a 3D-oriented console. Nintendo did it, and now everybody else has copied.

The Virtual Boy is another contradictory example, though a failed one.

Re: You Can't Innovate Like Apple

#39

Post by brown9-2 »

skeletonjelly wrote: post #8

Lorem Ipsum is Greek huh? How can I read the rest of the article without vexation knowing that the writer can't identify a simple foreign language and a prolific tool of design?

Read that again, the articles author is quoting someone else making that statement.

Re: You Can't Innovate Like Apple

#40

Post by brown9-2 »

One interesting thing about the idea that most companies can't be like Apple because their super-focused design attitude is risky and costly is: how did Apple get here? If it's so hard for a company to bootstrap themselves into this philosophy (and get large while doing it), how did Apple pull it off?

If my understanding of history is correct, it took a few failures and a dark period of non-success. Perhaps there is an additional lesson in there about recovering from failure and turning unsuccessful enterprises around.

On a related note, can anyone recommend a good book about Apple's history and particularily the story of how Steve Jobs turned the ship around when he returned? I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of interesting stories in that history which probably haven't been widely disclosed.

Post reply on HN