(This was written before Steve Jobs died, and it was never intended to be disrespectful, only slyly satirical. Because of publishing schedules, it is only appearing now. I admired Jobs and I will sincerely miss his presence in the consumer electronics industry. His influence went far beyond his own company. He was a human catalyst accelerating the pace of computer evolution to warp speed.)
1984 was and still is a year forever tainted by George Orwell's novel of the same name. Orwell, "Big Brother", and even the year itself have become shorthand terms for totalitarianism or anything that even hints of it, whether it's a security camera or a political philosophy you disagree with or Microsoft's Windows validation software. "Orwellian" is a way of saying "like the Nazis, but without Godwin's Law".
During the 1984 Super Bowl broadcast, Apple showed one of the most memorable commercials ever filmed. If you've never seen it, you can probably find it on YouTube. Directed by Blade Runner's Ridley Scott, the commercial shows a woman in a track suit running through a totalitarian environment. She dashes past all the drone-like people sitting on benches and hurls a hammer at a huge screen that represents the Big Brother of George Orwell's novel, 1984.
That was how Apple introduced the Macintosh computer. They advertised that it was "the computer for the rest of us." It was a marketing triumph. They sold a lot of machines and established Apple Computers as an innovative, forward-thinking company. But over here in what was once the IBM-compatible world, but was now becoming the PC world, the rest of us did not want a computer that was overpriced, underpowered, and had no place for the user to add in any board or peripheral that wasn't sold by Apple.
Apple has continued that philosophy of the "walled garden" for more than a quarter of a century and that 1984 commercial was weirdly prophetic—only the mindless drones on the benches are Apple's customers and it should be Steve Jobs' picture up on the big screen.
Have you ever been to one of those Apple product announcement gatherings? All that orgasmic cheering and shouting—it's like the Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl, only without "Can't Buy Me Love" and "Ticket To Ride."
Apple has become a cult.
As cults go, it's a pretty good one. You don't have to abandon your family, you don't have to wear funny robes and bang a tambourine, and you don't have to eat any poisoned pudding to catch a ride on a UFO. On the downside, you still have to spend a lot of money to join this cult and it's very hard to get out, but at least you get some really upscale, high-status hardware to advertise your membership. The hardware is still overpriced and underpowered, but you get to pretend that you bought "a computer for the best of us." (That whole "rest of us" thing seems to have been forgotten. Corporate exclusivity is now the game.)
To its credit, Apple succeeds because it isn't afraid to innovate. The company takes big chances. Throughout the 90's, the company invested hundreds of thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars into the development and marketing of products like the Apple III, Lisa, Newton, Pippin, Macintosh TV, Macintosh Portable, the G4 Cube, the QuickTake camera, and the ROKR phone. Any company with that history would probably be history itself, but Apple is too mean to die. It's the Moriarty of computer companies. It just keeps coming back, each time smarter.
What's true about most of Apple's failures is that they weren't also-rans or me-too or copycat products. They were attempts to expand digital technology forward. They represented a genuine effort to design and build a different future. The failures weren't a failure of vision as much as they were a failure of technology. The ideas were good, but the chips weren't powerful enough, the batteries didn't last long enough, the software didn't deliver the functionality the users wanted. They failed because they were a reach too far—for the moment.
But one big success can pay for a dozen failures. And it is the innovative aspect of Apple's products that has sustained its cult-like appeal in the customer-base since the first Apple ][ was built. "New" and "different" are always exciting. Every advertising expert knows this. Paste "Now With Blue Crystals!" on the front of the detergent box and sales go up. (I'm not making this up. I'm thinking of adding blue crystals to my website.) Twenty years ago, the detergent makers sold laundry pre-soak products "With Phosphates!" When it turned out that phosphates put a beer-like head of suds on your drinking water, the revamped products were advertised as "Now Without Phosphates!"
Fortunately for Apple, the company's products do not need blue crystals. (I don't know about the phosphates though.) In the last ten years, Apple has done a marvelous job of creating whole new product lines, and in doing so, has reinvented a large part of the consumer electronics market.
There were music players long before the iPod—the Sony Walkman was a standard for an entire generation—but the iPod was the seed crystal that transformed portable music. You didn't have to carry a box of cassettes or discs, everything was already in the player. And the player was small enough to fit into a pocket. Oh, and it was hip. Apple's marketing is as innovative as its products. Apple doesn't just sell products, it sells style.
But if the iPod was a game-changer, it was only a warmup for the iPhone. Before the iPhone, the must-have cellphone was a Motorola flip phone. You could pop it open and say, "Kirk here. Beam me up, Scotty." After the iPhone, those things were quaint little antiques. The iPhone transformed an entire industry. Cellphones disappeared, smart phones became the new standard. And they were hip. Another victory for Apple's marketing.
Where the iPod and the iPhone were reinventions of existing product niches, the iPad represents the creation of a whole new kind of computer. It changes our relationship with information by making the internet a portable experience. People who don't want to bother schlepping a laptop seem to have no problem pulling a tablet out of a backpack or a purse. The add-on that takes the iPad from fascinating to lustworthy is a cover that doubles as a wireless keyboard, so you can use it as a notebook as well as a tablet.
Of course, every other computer and electronics company has been playing catch-up with Apple for ten years. (The first iPod was released in October of 2001.) Creative marketed a superior media player called the Zen, but they couldn't get enough traction in the marketplace to be a viable alternative. Microsoft came out with an even better media player, the Zune, with the same result.
The same conditions occurred in the smartphone market. HTC, Motorola, Samsung, LG and others are all playing the game of "beat the iPhone." The Samsung Galaxy S is superior to the iPhone (it's much lighter, it has a better screen and the Gorilla glass is damn near scratch-proof) but the iPhone continues to hold the attention of the media. Apple is so good at marketing itself as a brand and its customer base responds like Star Wars fans, lining up at the Apple stores hours and days before a new product goes on sale. Did I say cult? Cults should be so popular.
Apple is still the leader in the product niches it has created, but creating a niche doesn't guarantee permanent ownership. PC users tend to be skeptical of fruit-flavored products because they come from a walled garden. "Plays well with others" is not going to be on Apple's report card this year either. The competition in the tablet market is growing ferocious and it's only going to get more so. The primary issues are screen, chip(s), weight, interface, apps, cameras, and price. Samsung has an attractive rival in the Galaxy tablet, but Apple is throwing multiple lawsuits in the path of Samsung and Samsung is predictably counter-suing Apple. Both are using the courts to prevent the other from selling their tablets in key markets.
Apple has also done something else to slow down the competition—something smart from a business perspective, but also ugly. They have signed exclusivity deals with their suppliers so that the high-end technology that goes into an iPad cannot be sold to Apple's competitors. (Those of you who used to complain that Microsoft was a big bully…how do you feel about this?)
While lawsuits and exclusivity deals may slow down some of the competition in the tablet market, it won't be enough to stop the inevitable tsunami of new products. In the long run, other suppliers will step up to sell state-of-the-art hardware to Apple's competitors. All those other companies know they have to surpass the iPad to compete. So manufacturers will add better cameras, higher-resolution screens, Gorilla glass and other features that the iPad doesn't have. And a lot of suppliers would rather sell high-end hardware to many companies, not just one. And after Windows 8 hits the streets, users could have a much more dynamic interface as an option, one that is expected to integrate easily with all their other hardware.
Unlike the iPod and the iPhone, both of which are still market-leaders in their respective niches, the iPad may not have the same legs in the marketplace. As cheaper and more powerful units start hitting the store shelves (like Amazon's Kindle Fire and T-Mobile's Springboard) consumers may find those tablets tastier than the iPad. The tablet wars have only just begun.
What do you think?