by 
As I was reading comments from {complink 379|Apple Inc.} CEO Tim Cook about the new iPhone 5 — “thinnest, lightest, fastest” — I couldn't help but think of Frances Gumm, Archie Leach, and Marion Morrison.
A question crept into my consciousness. If the founder of Apple had been named Tim Cook rather than Steve Jobs, would the whole outfit have amounted to a hill of beans? Color me dubious.
I mean, picture, if you can, someone called Frances Gumm singing “Over the Rainbow” in The Wizard of Oz , or mooning yearningly into James Mason's eyes in A Star Is Born . Can't do it, can you? No spark, no thrill. But if the girl doing that singing and mooning is Judy Garland, well… chills up and down your spine!
And if director Henry Hathaway had picked someone named Marion Morrison to play Rooster Cogburn in True Grit , what then? Very likely, everybody coming out of the theater would be asking one another, “who was the huge, manly woman in the eye patch?” But change Marion's name to John Wayne — which Morrison did long before True Grit — and there is no gender confusion. And several generations of insecure American men have a role model they can't let go of.
And Archie Leach? Wisely, he became Cary Grant. Likewise, when you think about the superstar among all the stars, past and present, of consumer electronics, the first name that comes to everyone's mind is the same: Steve Jobs — a moniker to reckon with. Tim Cook? Not so much.
So, I've got to ask? Can a super company founded by a superstar continue to be faster than a locomotive, leaping tall buildings with a single bound? Or is it destined now, inevitably, to shrink bit by bit 'til it's just Clark Kent with nothing under his suit but underwear?
If you think I'm suggesting that Tim Cook adopt a more impressive nom de guerre , you're right. Perhaps a name vaguely European and autocratic like Augustus DeHuister, or scholarly like Garrett Huxley, or something just more manly, Anglo-Saxon, and suggestively futuristic. Say, for instance, “Flash Gordon.”
Just think of the typical post-Tim Cook press release: “Wearing a pair of form-fitting jet-propelled, silver-titanium boots that he touted as 'the next big thing in personal mobility,' ” Apple CEO Flash Gordon literally flew into a press conference today in Hollywood, announcing his arrival two minutes in advance — directly into the minds of the collected media — through Apple's new 3-D HD Nano-tech brain-implanted iPhone X-27.
“Greetings, earthlings, and pardon my biodegradable jet exhaust,” said Gordon to a cheering throng of rapturous reporters…
OK, there's a serious point here. Companies with powerful and charismatic leaders — whose personal style is unique and impossible to replicate — leave behind, when they leave, a dilemma of identity and continuity for their companies. Although a company like {complink 2376|Hewlett-Packard Co.} today continues to make stuff, sell stuff, employ people, and trade shares on the New York Stock Exchange, today's version of HP is a stumblebum mockery of the widely admired, employee-friendly, and iconic organization that grew up under Bill Hewlett and David Packard.
Likewise, Japan's {complink 5114|Sony Corp.}, which became a household name under the guidance of a charming, self-promoter, benevolent tyrant and shameless peacock named Akio Morita, has faded steadily from prominence since Morita's demise in 1999.
Indeed, you could make a successful parlor game of listing companies that shriveled and dithered after their version of Don Corleone retired or died, leaving a void that required a comparably overwhelming personality. There just ain't that many Al Pacinos out there.
Even Apple, when the already legendary Steve Jobs hit the streets in 1985 — returning as his old company's savior a decade later — provided a classic example of a star-crossed startup whose superstar walked off with all the stardust. We know that, despite the stock sell-off that followed Steve Jobs's death, Apple will probably thrive for years on the offspring products spawned from the Jobs regime, like the iPad mini (which looks eerily similar to Amazon's Kindle).
But, last question: Can Apple, under the conventional leadership of a bland-sounding, charisma-challenged, apparently nice guy named Tim, reverse its current stasis and launch a second renaissance as the company every other company wishes it were?
Think of it this way: In a screen-test contest between Frances Gumm and Judy Garland, which starlet would you bet on?
Apple needs innovative product like much awaited Apple TV. They should also look into Automobile electronics and how they can help there.
Defintely Steve Jobs had a charismatic power. No one can deny that. Apple products are known to be Stylish an dtrendy. Anyone who is design, media or showbiz related business goes for Apple products. As long as APple maintains that style quotient in their product they will keep going.
Well I cant say No or Yes to this since I feel they have the resources and capability to continue but their current stratergies does not seem that promising.
One hopes that Apple will continue to do amazing things. However even Superman must run into Kryptonite eventually and how much product hype can the world really stomach. On cold analysis I do not believe their products are that much better than anyone else's but their street cred is hard to deny. It's the marketing guys at Apple that should be applauded.
Works pretty much right out of the box. Over heats quite often. The Genius's are getting cranky. Applecare will be required or you wont even know how to 'reboot'. You will have three 'color' choices: white black and all sorts of cases. The radio might work only if you put your hand 'just so' on the door frame. Can talk with your phone, TV, Mac, and soon the refrigerator. Apple should, seriously, consider buying an appliance brand.
Wow can you really talk to refrigerator and give directions. It will be great for busy people. Like we can just ask it to auto clean, give warnings if some stuff is lying inside for more than 4 days 🙂
Steve Jobs definitely did an amazing job in pushing the teams at Apple to realize his vision. I read some of the reveal on work the work environment at Apple. If something was 'for Steve', it was done amazingly fast. I wonder if the current executive team can achieve the same thing. What's more, Apple workplace stress the importance of secrecy. Things are decided top-down, and so employees seem not motivated enough do bring about big things.
“So, I've got to ask? Can a super company founded by a superstar continue to be faster than a locomotive, leaping tall buildings with a single bound? Or is it destined now, inevitably, to shrink bit by bit 'til it's just Clark Kent with nothing under his suit but underwear?”
Good analogy. I believe nothing is certain in life. With or without Jobs there is no assurance Apple would continue at the level it has been operating even if Steve were to be at the helm. Technology industry's pace of change keeps accelerating. I believe Apple will continue to thrive maybe not at the rate it did under Steve Jobs.
“I wonder if the current executive team can achieve the same thing”
I believe they can achieve something closer to it. Undoubtedly Jobs brought charisma, courage to be ruthless to Apple. He did what many in the industry will shy away from. However, let's not forget that without a strong team of management, it would have been practically impossible for late Jobs attributed achievements. For example without the vital role of Apple's head of industrial design, who brought simplicity, functionality and elegance over engineering, Apple would not have been Apple. Yes agreed, Tim cook, hasn't the qualities we saw in late Steve Jobs, however, he has the ability to improve supply chain. All of these combined brought success to the company.
_hm, I agree, Apple need to diversify. But to automobile electronics? Why would you suggest automobile?
@Nimantha.d, I don't think is a matter of “yes or no” All good runs come to an end. Could this simply be the case for Apple? I wonder!
I feel SCM has a good market and this proves it. Hope the requirement of SCM will rise and hope many more enterprise level applications will be integrated along with this.
Guys,
Tim Cook is a Bean Counter;He is precisely what Apple needs today.
He presents a simpler,more humbler side to Apple[Note his apology recently].
As a Company grows in Size and become a Corporate Giant[Which is what Apple is today];it can't adopt the same strategies which made it so Big in the first place[Look at Google or pick any case from the Book-Innovator's Dilemna].
You have to change.
And Tim cook is best placed to take them forward.
Regards
Ashish.
Anna,
Automobile Industry is not a bad sector for Apple to diversify into but I fear that (atleast in the West);its a dying industry today.
How about Medical Electronics?
Now that is an industry which looks set to do very,very well going ahead[As populations age;their medical needs go up dramatically].
What do you think?
Anna,
Could'nt agree more!!!
Tim Cook is exactly the right man(in the right place) and with the right amount of Internal Support to take Apple forwards here.
Azmat,
Sorry.
It won't work for me.
I need a Car to have fun;not be super-programmed like an Apple machine…
Alex,
Need not be the case all the time!
Very often,the Smartest ideas come in an organization from people fiddling around(Bottom Up approach).
I am not very familiar with the inner workings of Apple's work culture today(under Cook);but from whatever little I have read;he seems very clear on fostering a culture of openness at the Organization today.
If that's true(and I Know that's a BIG IF);your rationale need not hold true all the time.
I think Medical electronics sounds good. However, it would be great if Apple comes up with new innovations in e.g. own manufactured Television Screen etc .
Hi Ashish, exactly my thoughts. I think so too.
Anna,
I disagree.
The reason is Margins.
Have you seen how pathetically low the Profit Margins on Consumer Electronics products are today???
Its not a sector worth entering in because of tremendous over-capacity thanks to the Chinese.
tech4people,
yes let's hope Apple to be more open in the future 🙂 Nowadays, its secrecy does not bring about thrills anymore. There is the latest rumour about the next iPad release in March next year but not many are execited about it.
Alex,
Yes.That is very true!
I could'nt agree more regarding this issue.
Apple has to become more and more like Walmart/P&G ,etc today.
They deliver Good Quality products at reasonable prices.After all,there is not much that makes them different from their chief competitors today. The “Wow” factor[The Innovation Premium] has come down significantly in all their products.
Regards
Ashish.
Nimantha,
Could you please elaborate and explain which Tools here are Key and how will they be integrated effectively with the Entire Supply Chain?
I am really interested to learn and understand how you view this critical going ahead in 2013 and beyond.
Many Thanks!
Ashish.
I don't think (from what I've heard) employees fear being in an elevator with Tim Cook. So there will definitely be a different environment at Apple. How that will fare is to be determined over the next few quarters.
Which applications are big now?
Douglas,
When you raised these issues HERE
” the end-user cannot dictate to the manufacturer any sourcing or pre-processing of any product that is a standard, off-the-shelf component. But, where customization is involved, you as the end user may have a lot of influence further up the supply chain. When you have more control of the upstream mechanisms, you also have more assurance and earlier notification for product availability and pricing issues. “
The Thought that came to my mind more than most was this-If you had to look at this issue statistically;What Percentage of Products do you see Customization in today?
30%? Or More?
Many Thanks for a Great Blog!
Ashish.
Douglas, I know this is going to be controversial but help me understand from your perspective what you believe are the elements of “ideal supply chain.” Ideals have always been open to varied definitions and very controversial. What is ideal to one organization may be the basic foundation to another or an impossible goal to a different one. How should we approach this quandary?
@Bolaji, I think everyone involved along the chain would answer in a somewhat identical manner as to what would be the ideal supply chain for them. As I see it, each person or department, to some extent, recieves goods, services, or materials, does something with them, and if not at the end of the chain, passes the product in whatever form along. So, I believe whatever minimal process, procedure, person, or capability that is required to facilitate the efficient movement up and down the chain is at the heart of the ideal. For me, that translates into maximum control with minimum effort and time. Looking at the tools for this maximization, they would have to be cost effective and easily accessible for authorized parties. Higher levels of integration resulting from fewer steps or processes fall under the category of time and efficiency. As to the variances from-comapny-to-company, the tools and efficiencies will be deterimined by the fundamental requirements, people skills, and the budgets of each company. Overall, I believe that each company, per project, develop a material plan for each new product introduction that encomapsses all known and prospective sources, contracts, negotiations, lead-times, database updates, quality assurance practices including new supplier surveys and inspection criteria updates. Inventory handling procedures should also be defined so that every department anticipated to be “touching” the product will not be surprised or without sufficient notice to make the necessary modifcations to their internal and external processes. I have seen product held up waitng for Marketing brochures or installation kit or instructions being delayed at the printing house. In the Material plan, it is important to build in the required lead-time to bring all things together that will make the introductory launch smooth and effective. Bolaji, I know I am speaking in generalities here, but if each link along the chain customized these processes to their products and scale of business, the supply chain would be closer to ideal, notwithstanding risks and Act of God. The essence of the flow is that your output, is my input, which in turn becomes my output to someone elses input. I wrote earlier about I/O (Input Output Diagrams) and how if they are inner and interlinked between departments internal to a company that process within a single firm can be harmonized via strong internal links in the chain. If each entity was party to the I/Os and proceses of every other entity involved in a more global supply chain operation, then more control could be realized, monitored, evaluated, modified, and perfected. Simply stated, if I knew your risk factors, I could factor them into mine and make the necessary contingency plans to help mitigate those things I cannot control because you can't control them. A close, integrous relationship between and among supply chain partners is essential to the overall integrity of the entire chain. When I call Digi-Key, I get a different person each time but I know that through a long time relationship with Digi-Key that they have a very good track record for efficient and on-time operations. So I don't have to form a bond with them but the other suppliers that I may not be familiar with, I better concentrate on learning their business I/Os so that my company doesn't get broken because of an unanticipated break in the supply chain that I should have already anticipated as a liklihood or high risk candidate. Getting the right information and knowing what to do with that information is key to moving towards the ideal. Flexibility and rapid reaction are reserved for the non-ideal. Along with planning for the ideal, planning should be in place for the non-ideal as well. Only then can you say you have done what you could to properly manage your supply chain. The every day operations will vary in nature, but written and adhered to procedures help normalize the results and minimize the surprises…moving you towards the ideal.
@tech4people, As you know, customization is highly dependent upon the nature of the product. It is correct to say that Apple's iPhone docking connector, at introduction, was a custom connector that required custom tooling and parts to produce. Then when something becomes a standard in an industry and patent restrictions are lifted, the product can move to a non-custom status given the introduction of multiple manufacturers making the same product. Having said that, there is always a certain amount of customization that differentiates similar function products so that more than one manufacturer can compete on an otherwise level playing field. Bose makes a docking speaker for mobile devices, but so does Sony, Samsung, and a host of others. They look different. They sound different. They have different features, artwork, and I/O. These are the things that generate the custom requirements for materials, laabor, and design. For me to put a percentage upon these would require my viewing every bill of material. But, if you consider the uniqueness differentiating one similar product from another, you will be able to recognize the custom factors in the design that probably involved original tooling, artwork, connectors, and circuits. Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC) and masked Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) are prime candidates for claiming custom status. 10% may be not too far off the mark for circuit customization based upon component count, but in most cases when mechanical concerns are involved for enclosures and front panels, you're closer to 100%. It is these unique components that can bite you the hardest if they are not managed properly as far as the supply chain is concerned. Unless the company has licensed the tooling to multiple suppliers, the custom part supplier is usually a sole source and constitutes a higher level of risk management as well. Generally speaking, if you can achieve the same product results with legacy components and multiple material and process sources, the smoother your supply chain will be. But then innovation and cool new tech would be severly limited. It is a trade off for sure.
Douglas : This is simply great. Thank you for explaining things in detail. I think you have made a great point here.
IMO you cannot catergorize the size of the applications. True there may be several in-built integrations needed and involved but that wont be a problem as such. I think when it comes with data only the size will have to be taken into consideration.
I dont think so. Are you reffering this way because Apple 5 hasn't been a hit as it promised to be or compared to their products ? I think if that is the case I feel its too early to come into such a conclusion. Jobbs only had the ideas in mind and instructed but the developers and the architects are the ones who made those thoughts into reality and developed the products.
@tech4people:
Yes, Medical electronics is very interestingfield. But it is specilized field with lots of agency approval and high risk of getting legal claims.
Involvement of Apple in auto industry can revive it and it has lots scope for innovation.
I wasn't talking size. I was referring to popularity.
I think the 5 wasn't as big a hit because it did not change much from the 4S. People view it as essentially a new phone with a bigger screen. That's not much.
I think its YES right now since Apple are kind of struggling for innovation here. I saw Samsung has developed Note 2 with a feature of Face Recorgnition which shows the capability of them. If Jobs was alive he would have got that into Apple 1st dont you think so ?
I think Apple's inability to innovate after Steve Jobs' death has very little bearing on its current position in the market. I agree Jobs charisma, style, drive and innovative mind transformed Apple. What is certain is the late Steve Jobs star power cannot continue to sustain the organisation forever.
Steve Jobs reportedly left a bunch of products that should come out after his death. Not one market-leading product has been released by Apple since then, which makes me wonder how true it is that the company's product pipeline is “chock full” as many have said. In any case, I believe Apple may still surprise with another great product but the days of it stomping all over the market are over.
It makes me wonder too (curious to know what might have become of these stock piles? :)). Yes I agree Apple may yet surprise with another great device! But not without fierce competition from Samsung. I read somewhere last week that Apple is working on a lower cost iPhones launching later this year. I think Apple is responding to Samsung's ability to deliver to both low end users and high end users in smartphones market. Apple has the capability to deliver. I'm keen to see them release the lower version of iPhones though.
Exactly Charles. The cost too was high just for a minor change in a phone model plus the hype it did create before launching was another factor which made its downfall.
Ok so I dont see any difference in it charles.
hm,
Don't worry about Apple-They have the cash on their Balance Sheet(and already have the World's best lawyers on their roster)!!!
I think Apple has more Future Scope in Medical Industry than in Auto sector(particularly given the increasing number of Ageing Citizens all across the Developed world today)..
Anna,
Its true that Steve Jobs charisma will be unable to sustain itself on Apple today but still one expects Apple to do a lot more in terms of innovative capability.
I guess that's why the Stock has crashed over 30percent since September right?
I think Jobs' involvement was all the hype that was necessary. There was an understood greatness quality and faith in Steve. Now, with the current regime, I think that edge might be fading.
I wasn't talking differences but trying to figure out market leaders, big brands, etc.
Apple as you're aware is losing ground to Samsung and other Asian smartphone rivals. Lots factors contributed to the stock crashing. Apple realised they are unable to contend with rivals, due to weaker demand for its devices; the company had to cut scale back on parts and components orders to balance inventory (according to reports). What is expected now is for Apple to strategize and innovate. If Samsung have been able to roll out multiple devices in a year, why couldn't Apple?
Anna,
That's right.
But for that you need,Apple to step off their “High and Mighty” Pedestal and accept they got beaten at the Innovation Game by Samsung.
Only then will they be able to Innovate.
Don't see that Happening yet!
Will wait and watch the action here.
Charle,
I agree entirely!!! Could'nt agree more!
The Hype around Apple is gone for Good!!!
I wouldn't bury the hatchet just yet. Give them a chance to revive their mojo. But as it looks now, there are some major concerns for them.
I agree. I think Apple should be able to continue Job's legacy. I think we have yet to see some great products from Apple.
Easier said than done. But I think they have the brains to do it. They just have to re-engage in the fear-for-my-job mindset that made Apple a juggernaut for so many years under Jobs.
Anna that is interesting indeed. Anyway lowering the cost means do they lower the features too ? I hope not
Well technically you can integrate any application to this if it has a direct link with the supply. I dont think there are tools specifically to be named for this. It should come along with the requirements of yours.
Nimantha,
Somebody gotta do the Moulding first right?
Its not so easy to make these changes (for Different Companies) very quickly.
True its not easy and someone has the start it but who is going to do that ? It gets delayed since most of us wait till someone else starts