Not sure why this is being called a failure when there was never an announcement about its efforts. How many skunks works projects were attempted and quietly folded in history?
They were quite public and arrogant about it
What Apple’s quiet failure can teach you about your business
41–50 of 57 posts
Re: What Apple’s quiet failure can teach you about your business
#42The crux of Apple's big success was built on the back of the music industry. Obviously iPods gave birth to the iPhone. In any case, the fact is, Apple needed a desperate victim, if you will, and without that situation to boost it, it's commonness is showing through.
How is it obvious that the iPod gave birth to the iPhone? It is a completely different operating system with a completely different user interface.
Re: What Apple’s quiet failure can teach you about your business
#43I don't call this events failures, I call them tries . And many, many tries are required to learn and create a single success. But maybe that is why I'm no analyst .
I can't help but see this as a post hoc rationalization. When Steve Jobs was at its helm, did Apple have failures that it needed to rebrand as "tries"?
I think you overestimate Steve Jobs.
What goes up must come done. It's very normal for a growing company to see a period of loss. Even invincible empires died as history tells.
Of course Steve Jobs created a big company. But it doesn't mean Apple would never fail if he was still here.
Re: What Apple’s quiet failure can teach you about your business
#44I don't call this events failures, I call them tries . And many, many tries are required to learn and create a single success. But maybe that is why I'm no analyst .
I can't help but see this as a post hoc rationalization. When Steve Jobs was at its helm, did Apple have failures that it needed to rebrand as "tries"?
Don't get me wrong, there are failures, Ping, or MobileMe being some examples, but I think that is the result of not trying (and learning) enough.
For example, it is said when designing the iPhone they tested (tried) two different operating systems, one based on OS X and the other one based on Linux. Even the hardware itself was first started as an iPad like device and was later decided to shelve the original project and do the iPhone instead. When you try an idea you learn, and you might even learn that it is a bad idea. I don't think of that as failure, the only failure is to not use what you learned. I'd be worried if they, despite the knowledge gained and to not be thought of as a failure by pundits, decided to be courageous and go to market anyway.
Re: What Apple’s quiet failure can teach you about your business
#45Re: What Apple’s quiet failure can teach you about your business
#46a seemingly rare defeat for a company that has done little-to-no wrong in the last decade (save for maybe the Apple Watch depending on how you look at it). --> Google Maps vs Apple Maps?
I am not sure the watch is a failure yet but not the best start. I wrote a piece on how much the watch devalues which I find odd how high that figure is https://medium.com/@AndyStannard/apple-watch-depreciation-so...
Re: What Apple’s quiet failure can teach you about your business
#47Apple's quiet failure has more to do with forgetting key values than the fact that the car market is incredibly difficult. (Of course it is, but that's not even the main issue.)
Jobs era Apple had a clear focus on user benefits. They were part imaginary - look and feel, styling, status - but part real, in the sense that when you bought an Apple product you were getting a specific set of experiences and possibilities which you probably felt were exciting, novel, and cool.
Cook era Apple has lost that. Apple Maps was me-too, the hardware is me-too - competing with the old Apple against itself - and the new projects don't have the old vision.
What's the novel, exciting benefit of Watch? Er...
Apple has missed some important markets, including home automation (currently a mix of competing products that barely work together, and often barely work at all), the indie content creation market (which it half-owned with podcasting, but then gave away to YouTube), and social networking.
But the biggest difference is the shift from an Apple that tried to make products to empower and delight people, including creators, to an Apple that encourages passive consumption of its products/objects/services, because "we make stuff and market it to you, and you buy it."
It's a lot easier to do the latter than the former. It looks like a subtle shift but it's really a complete change in direction. And it has made Apple a much less interesting company.
Re: What Apple’s quiet failure can teach you about your business
#48I don't call this events failures, I call them tries . And many, many tries are required to learn and create a single success. But maybe that is why I'm no analyst .
I can't help but see this as a post hoc rationalization. When Steve Jobs was at its helm, did Apple have failures that it needed to rebrand as "tries"?
The article refers to the secret car project that was never launched. It is fairly likely that in Jobs' time there were a fair amount of cancelled or downscaled projects as well but we just haven't heard of them. For example, the TV comes to mind - there were a lot of rumors about it at the time, and it was mentioned in his biography - and nothing came of it.
Re: What Apple’s quiet failure can teach you about your business
#49The crux of Apple's big success was built on the back of the music industry. Obviously iPods gave birth to the iPhone. In any case, the fact is, Apple needed a desperate victim, if you will, and without that situation to boost it, it's commonness is showing through.
How is it obvious that the iPod gave birth to the iPhone? It is a completely different operating system with a completely different user interface.
If anything, the Mac gave birth to the [concept of] iPad, which gave birth to the iPhone, which in turn led to the real iPad.
Re: What Apple’s quiet failure can teach you about your business
#50Still better "failure" then Googles "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" with its products (or even multiple similar existing at once - see messaging) that year per year slowly eroded the trust in the company.
"throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" - Is this really a bad thing? You have to try things in the real world to get anywhere. Are there any companies that can see into the future to see what works?
> "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" - Is this really a bad thing?
If you're one of the people who pay real money for a product that doesn't stick, yes.