If your company has been going up against Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) in the smartphone, tablet PC, or digital music player markets, be very afraid. Apple's return salvo may catch you completely by surprise.
The company has been too quiet recently. Ominously quiet. The silence can only mean one thing: Apple will come out soon with another major product line that will redefine its market segment. That's my prediction. How do I know? Apple's late founder, chairman and CEO Steve Jobs promised the company will be rolling out some extraordinary breakthrough technologies in the near future. I believe the process of rolling out the next product from Apple is peaking currently and we should see something compelling from the company within months.
In order to continue pacing the competition, Apple has to keep its innovation engine humming. Jobs's demise is unlikely to hamper this, at least not in the short term. All indications are that the company had a batch of products it was working on before his death. Speculations within the industry include an update to the Apple TV box -- some say it might be a conventional TV-support product (miniaturized) with video streaming capabilities. I believe Apple will probably unveil a new device that will unsettle many and redefine the video entertainment industry. It will definitely combine the best of Apple hardware and software with industry content.
I am fascinated with the growing speculations in the industry about the next products Apple might introduce for entertainment. These include a Siri or voice-controlled HDTV, an Apple iTV that transforms the television experience -- one that an analyst believes the industry isn't quite prepared for, or a direct invasion of the publishing and educational books market.
We may only speculate on what Apple has in mind next, but we can also be certain it won't be another humdrum product. The company's future hangs on its ability to wow the consumer market, repeatedly -- and failure to excite customers and intimidate the competition could hurt its huge capitalization. Already, some folks are speculating the competition is responding faster and more nimbly to Apple's design edge and may even be catching up in certain areas. (See: Is Apple Losing Its 'Cool' Design Edge?.)
I give Apple credit for sparking growth in the music player, smartphone, and tablet PC markets, but expectations for the company have become so high only Apple can beat itself. Rivals like Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Korea: SEC) have learned to make incremental improvements to their products, sneaking in quick and numerous updates while Apple sticks to its schedule of about every six months or so for new product introduction.
Plus, too many companies (Google, HTC, Microsoft, Motorola Mobility, and Samsung) have been ganging up on Apple recently, and the gradual turf encroachment by these rivals must be ticking off somebody at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, Calif. Quite naturally, Apple must fight back and it will do so in typical Apple style with a shockingly simple-to-use product that redefines a specific market sector. If Apple nails it, the already stratospherically high share price will climb even higher, ending temporarily concerns the absence of Jobs may dim investor passion.
There's another reason why Apple has to strike back with a new product that is both unique and market-defining. CEO Timothy Cook has to prove the company can continue to function at the highest level without the guiding hands of Steve Jobs. It's universally acknowledged Jobs left a vacuum few can successfully fill, but Cook, who seems to have performed extremely well during his former boss's medical hiatus in the past, must now be his own man.
He must do it with the outstanding results Jobs got while he was around, but with the Cook imprint. I believe he is up to it.
I think Apples next "Big Thing" will be revolutionizing how we buy things with atrue electronic wallet. They will digitize everything we carry in our wallet. It will be easier and more secure than the current paper and card based systems.
I agree Apple is well positioned. I am also hopeful since Jobs had a really extended time to work on picking the right people, installing the right system. I am really hoping that he created a system that will provide excellence in innovation, product design and quality that will last. This is a different situation than the first time he left when he was forced out - both because he had less time and resource to focus on leaving a legacy (being a young guy who basically got screwed over by an incompetent BOD and a manipulative CEO he had brought in from Pepsi) and because by the time of his death Steve had had a lot of time to reflect on himself, what he brought, and what it had taken to produce great success. At the same time this process of trying to institutionalize genius almost never succeeds in any endeavor. The next few years, Apple is probably okay as the products in the pipeline will feed their growth. But the question is whether they will continue to be as innovative as Apple was with the Mac, the iPod, iPhone, iPad etcetera with even newer stuff that nobody has thought of. I really hope they will be but look at the failure of DEC, Microsoft, Google, IBM and others to continue originating and am very skeptical. What is more likely is that conventional minds will come in, "management systems" and fads to rank order people, "talent manage" people, reduce costs, maximize margins and all sorts of typical MBA inside-the-box BS will supplant the innovation through which Jobs made Apple into the giant it became. This is not unique to technology. Merck has never been the company it was under Roy Vagelos. Disney floundered for many years after the founder Walt Disney died. IBM did have a very extended run then floundered until re-inventing themselves as a services company and never recovered their dominant position in innovation. Intel seems to have continued their role as lead innovator but only within their microprocessor product line without other additional innovations. Very few Nobel prize winners went on to top the original discovery that they got the prize for (Francis Crick being the best example of one who did by following his DNA work with equally creative tRNA work). My hypothesis is that innovation requires a particular type of mind focused, thinking, dreaming that has a rare marriage to a driven-personality that has to see their dream realized - a type of person that rarely flourishes in a corporate bureaucracy.
@oavery, There's no doubt Steve Jobs was one of a kind. His passion for Apple and genius was unmistakable. Following him would be a hard act but that's still something Apple must find a way to deliver. As you noted, he put in a system to ensure his productivity continued even after he was gone. Perhaps Apple will trip up in future but, for now, it's probably better positioned than many of its peer.
Actually the creativity started with the Apple II, Macintosh, Newton (a failed product but the precursor to Palm) etc. Apple has been making major innovations - mostly hits, some misses - for a long long time. I expect they are cool for the next couple of years. The interesting thing will be to see if they can continue it without the aesthetic, perfectionistic and out of the box input of Steve Jobs. Definitely when he was ejected from Apple in the whole debacle in the 1980s - he went on to create NeXT (which became the kernel of the modern Mac and Pixar) while the residual Apple company under a series of managers came up with . . . . squat. Hopefully he did better in engineering the company to try to institutionalize his genius . . . . if this is possible. Meanwhile Google like Microsoft is looking like a quasi-one-trick-pony. Both companies came up with incremental additions that were commercially important (like MS Office and the Google email and other functionalities) but neither came up with a second world changing innovation. Watching this all evolve is sooo interesting. I suspect Jobs was a one-in-a-generation type, like Edison and perhaps Tesla.
"Plus, too many companies (Google, HTC, Microsoft, Motorola Mobility, and Samsung) have been ganging up on Apple recently, and the gradual turf encroachment by these rivals must be ticking off somebody at 1 Infinite Loop"
Apple knows they are in the drivers seat. When you know you can move faster and outmaneuver the competition you aren't too worried about them. Apple's is more concerned with flustering the competition with things like patent lawsuits. People think this is a ploy to kill competition and it is, sort of. It's really hardball business tactics. They've been doing it for decades.
The employees at Apple look forward, they don't look back. If the share price tanks they don't get scared and say, "Oh our stock price tanked, we better do something now." They don't let investors drive the business decisions. They have a true passion for what they do and they do their business well.
On the subject of Universities, Apple has their own "in house" University. It was implemented by Steve Jobs when he was still alive. He hired the best business instructors and had them give lectures to Apple executives. His goal was to help people think more like him, out of the box, to make smart decisions.
University of Innovation has brand credibility, human investment, giving back and an ethos of the late SteveJobs which even his biographer did not capture...so clearly the case is made to institutionalize knowledge.
Brand Credibility: AAPL can do this right now. Anyone else? The moment is NOW.
Human Investment: Talent is the lifeblood of enterprise to wit - SteveJobs
Giving Back: Apple builds bridges and giving back is just another possibility
Ethos: Categorically " new" the SteveJobs ethos of success. This is reason d'etre for University of Innovation. As much as Apple did not invent anything new it did bring existing technologies together package them and functionally changed how they serve a purpose through innovation.
The single most important motivation for AAPL to fund a standalone university is this little secret. Public institutions of higher learning are handmaidens to corporate America. They serve a public to fulfill an unwritten guarantee that after 4 years a person can make a living doing what they learn there. They serve another public community of corporations in turning out graduates that industry needs, at a price they can afford to hire and with skills that are productive to the corporation.
What gets lost in that scenario is creativity, innovation, invention and intellectual discipline required to make a difference in the world. Apple have had to nurture, train and shape an innovative culture from within. Very rarely does it buy its innovation and bring it in-house. That is the secret to success and finding talent is like four leaf clover hunting. But nurturing, supporting and encouraging innovation in a campus setting with TechCoastAngel launching pads and DARPA grant silos for graduates is far more enriched than LinkedIN, headhunters and old fashioned resume shopping for employment.
I think one can speculate on what Apple has in the future. What I know is that if Apple wants to maintain its dominance, it will have to be more creative. The challenge lies in creating what others thought impossible. That's how it all started with the ipod, the iphone and the ipad. While others were busy doing what everybody else did, Apple stepped outside of the box and did something that others thought could not be done and that is what Apple is all about.
This will be wonderful program if Apple look for say 20% international bright students. Apple may look for advance education like graduate and post graduate.
Apple has needs to be no one in wafer scale integration and high end semiconductor designs. This may help them in long run.
I don't see Apple engaging in the creation of a university. The company is primarily a hardware vendor and not a content creator. In fact, it has done very well by being a content aggregator.
it is corporate resposibility of organization like Apple, Intel and IBM to invest heavily in University, institute like this.
@_hm, I am not sure about Apple but Intel and IBM have heavily invested in such programms. Such industry-university tie-ups helps student get exposed to the latest technology trend. Moreover companies can take the help of universities to implement R&D projects.
By moving to the core of the industry and offerings services that keep the system humming, a group within the electronics market has rendered irrelevant the question of ownership and control of the supply chain.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This