Apple and Google

I have been reflecting a bit on the death of Steve Jobs and Apple. Stefan Molyneux had some interesting observations about Jobs here that reflect my own thoughts on the subject that I have been having for some time. What will happen to Apple now? Will they prosper or wither? I am with Molyneux. They will wither without Jobs.

The problem with Apple is that it was about one guy. This guy was extraordinary and exceptional. He was visionary and evangelistic. He had charisma and amazing intuition. He could also be a total dick. The same things can also be said about Hitler. Now, before someone cites me for breaking Godwin's Law, I want to be clear about this. I admire Steve Jobs as an individual. I also don't think he was evil. But he clearly was autocratic in a lot of ways.

There are many tales circulating through Silicon Valley of Jobs's famous temper and temperament. He was demanding and unrelenting. The guy was more akin to a cult leader. This sort of religious corporate fascism is intriguing because Jobs did so much. But the same thing can be said about Hitler in Germany. Hitler brought Germany back from the brink. For a time, he was an amazing leader. But somewhere, the German brain got turned off, and we see what happened as a result. Yet, there is temptation to follow that model.

Jobs was famous for his antipathy to IBM and their corporate culture. Jobs was a renegade, and you can see why he would despise such a repressive place where individual identity was subsumed to the IBM way. The most obvious aspect of the IBM way was the "uniform" IBMers were expected to wear which was a suit and tie. The shirt had to be white. The shoes polished and shined. Jobs clearly despised this. Yet, later on, the man would adopt his own uniform.

Jobs was clearly a person who wanted the freedom to do things his way. The irony was that he did not extend this same freedom to others who worked for him. Everyone around him had to subsume themselves to his aims and his vision. The result was that the people who did well under Jobs were high achievers with no spine. They responded well to discipline, but they were not leaders. This is why the future of Apple is in such doubt.

I like to contrast Apple with another company that is the antithesis to the Apple way. This is Google. Unlike Apple, Google is open. People at Google are encouraged to exercise freedom and creativity. There is no cult of personality at Google. If Brin or Page croak, no one is going to ask whether or not Google will carry on. Google seems destined to endure. The only threat to Google will be a future CEO who schemes and connives his way into the job and proceeds to turn the company into a closed outfit. Basically, this guy will try and turn Google into Apple.

As a libertarian, it should be apparently obvious which strategy I prefer. I like Google. Google is an open company. They don't always get it right, but at least they have a culture where right has a chance. Jobs would have never made it at IBM. Hell, he didn't even make it at Apple who fired him the first time around. But he would have done just fine at Google.

Jobs was not the innovator people portray him as. Would the GUI have been invented without Jobs? Absolutely. The same goes for mp3 players and the rest. This is because Jobs took ideas already there and supercharged them with his vision and aesthetics. Then, people copied him. But Jobs did not give us the internet, the web browser, or the search engine. You can imagine what a Steve Jobs search engine would have been like. It would have spent all its time picking the best websites as determined by Jobs. There would have been no "crap." Naturally, you would only get one result each time you did a search.

Google is simple, and I like simplicity. Apple was not simple so much as austere. They were simple in the early days, but they became something else as time went on. When Apple products dispensed with the colors and went with the monochromatic aluminum, this was the Jobs closed system in overdrive. If you doubt this, look how gaga people went when it was announced that the iPhone would also come out in white. What an amazing thing. A small concession to consumer choice and diversity.

Which strategy is best? Is it the Google way or the Apple way? Time will tell, but I think Apple will go the way of another cult--the Shakers. The Shakers had all the qualities you see in Apple. They believed in hard work, thrift, and simplicity. One of the enduring legacies of that sect is its furniture known for its simplicity, quality, and superb craftsmanship. People were enthralled with this furniture, and copycat producers came in to fill the demand for this type of furniture. Sound familiar?



The problem with the Shakers was they had a downfall because they adhered to strict celibacy. This requirement spelled the doom of the Shakers, and they are virtually extinct as a sect. The same thing will happen with Apple as they practice their own form of corporate celibacy. Google is a comparative orgy of ideas having sex compared to Apple.

Shaker style still lives on today. I think Apple's sense of style will endure. But I think Apple as a company is doomed. They will finish what is in the pipeline and continue on its straight line path that Jobs gave them. But Apple will no longer be an innovator or on the cutting edge anymore. This is what happened before with that company, and it will be repeated. I could be wrong, but for me to be wrong, one of two things must happen. A new leader must emerge at Apple every bit the equal or greater than Jobs. Or, Apple will have to do like Google and open themselves up.

On a sidenote, I have to remark on Apple and minimalism. Apple and Steve Jobs did a lot for the minimalist aesthetic. What people forget is that Jobs did not create this. As such, it will not die with him. Simplicity as a strategy just works. Google emulates this simplicity. I enjoy the design work of Jonathan Ive at Apple especially which is heavily influenced by another designer--Dieter Rams. I think this strategy is forever. People gravitate to the functional and the simple. Jobs legacy and important contribution was giving style and function to what the geeks built. I don't know if Jobs ever laid down any principles in this regard, but Dieter Rams did. The fact that Rams's ten principles have been copied signifies to me that what made Apple special is easily duplicated. If it didn't begin with Apple, it won't end with Apple.

---
NOTES

1. The Shakers

2. Shaker furniture

3. Jonathan Ive

4. Dieter Rams

Posted in: