What does Apple do when it all goes pear-shaped?

by Yann Cramer

Most CEOs would say that innovation is critical to their companies' success. Loads of people would like to exercise their creativity and innovate, but whether at the corporate or at the individual level, something holds everyone back: risk. "What if it all goes wrong?" This can be more or less marked depending on the degree of acceptance of trial-and-error as a learning process, but to some extent it exists in all cultures, countries and companies.

What can we do about it? There are process answers around framing the project and keeping it focused, rapid prototyping different versions of the product or piloting in the market. But most importantly there is a mindset answer which is both accept it and don't accept it.


Accept It

Forbes provides an interesting list of Apple failures: a few forgotten computers such as the Lisa, the Mac portable, the Taligent, the power mac G4 cube, and a raft of other products that most people may be surprised to hear about: the Newton PDA, the Quicktake digital camera, the Macintosh TV, the Pippin video-game console, the Motorola Rokr mobile phone/mp3 (Apple developed with Motorola).

For all its resounding successes from the Apple II to the iPhone, Apple has not been immune to failure. The difference that makes the difference is that they accept that there will be some failures along the way. They have a portfolio mindset: they continuously scan the environment, they identify potential opportunities, they try, they go for it. When it does not work they pull the plug decisively, but when it works: bingo!


Don't Accept It

Apple may have failed with the Newton, the Quicktake and the Rockr but they have remained true to their multi-media vision, they sticked to the strategic challenge they had set for themselves to get into the handheld market, and ultimately they found "the magic number" to succeed with the iPod and the iPhone.

Accepting failures does not mean accepting that these mark the end of the road. Too often, a company's response to a few innovation failures is to abandon the field and shift strategic priorities in another direction. As they do so, they actually reduce the relevance of what they have learned (or should have learned) from their failures, they land themselves in a new field where they need to learn everything, and their chances of success are actually lower than if they had sticked to their initial strategic priority.


So, accept that you will be thrown off-balance along the way, but don't accept being blown off-course.


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Yann Cramer is an innovation learner, practitioner, sharer, teacher. He's lived in France, Belgium and the UK, he's travelled six continents to create development opportunities with customers or suppliers, and run workshops on R&D and Marketing. He writes on www.innovToday.com and on twitter @innovToday.

Apple Tablet Won't Be Runaway Success

by Braden Kelley

First we had incredible hype around Motorola's Droid and its sales so far have proven to be just okay. Then we had even more hype around Google's phone entry - the Nexus One - and its sales results so far have been meager.

So, now along comes Apple with its much-hyped (and only rumored) tablet innovation, which we expect to be announced on January 27, 2010 at a special media event in San Francisco.

There have been reports of Apple expecting to sell 10 million devices in the first year, and there have been rumors of a device price in the $800-1,000 range. If Apple's new device does in fact turn out to be a 3G tablet, and even if Verizon and/or AT&T (or possibly even Sprint/Clear for 4G) subsidize $300 of the cost like they do with smartphones, that would still be a $500-700 price tag with another $60 per month for data service.

Are 10 million people really going to be willing to spend between $1,000 and $1,500 in year one for a tablet device after probably buying a laptop, an HDTV, and maybe a smartphone in the last 24 months?



I don't think this will be the case. It took Apple over three years to sell 10 million iPods (Q4 2001 to Q4 2004). Three years! Apple took eighteen months to sell 10 million iPhones (2/3 of those coming in months 16-18 from iPhone 3G sales). People need to remember that even if someone launches an innovation into the marketplace, its sales don't take off immediately. Let's re-visit my definition of innovation:


"Innovation transforms the seeds of invention into a solution valued above every existing alternative."


It's that last bit (valued above every existing alternative) that will be a struggle for Apple's rumored tablet in the short term. Even if people think that the device is better in some ways than devices they already have, will people replace a smartphone with it? Will they trade their laptop in for it? Or will this be an additional device?

While the device will likely ultimately be successful, it won't set the world on fire out of the gate like people are expecting. It won't be another runaway success like the iPhone, say what you will. It won't exactly be the Newton, but its success will likely be more akin to that of the iPod.

It's a good thing too because cellular providers are going to need time to build out additional network capacity, and possibly to even acquire additional spectrum, before the whole world moves from fixed-line and WiFi computing to cellular-network-based computing.

While the smarter strategy would be to make the iPhone faster and more extensible (creating a true pocketable computer), if Apple does launch a tablet with incredibly innovative capabilities, it will probably take 18-24 months for Apple to sell 10 million of them. Apple will be held back by the speed of 4G network rollouts (currently expected between 2010-2012 depending on provider) and by competition from the iPhone 3GS, iPhone v4, Macbook Pro, and other computing and entertainment options.

Even if Apple's rumored tablet will take a while to catch on with consumers, it has already sent shock waves through the technology and publishing industries with every technology company under the sun rushing out either a new tablet computer or a new e-reader. Amazon is running scared. This week Amazon announced both better royalty terms for e-book authors and publishers, and new application development capabilities for the Kindle.

So, is Apple's stock overvalued?

Do you think I'm completely wrong?


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

When Innovation Fails

"Innovation can never be risk-free, but you can certainly make sure you look before you leap."

Ever since innovation became the buzzword du Jour, a lot of people seem to have lost their ability to tell smart ideas from stupid ones. Case in point: the financial "innovations" (read: stunningly stupid loan products) that kicked off the trillion-dollar economic meltdown mess we're currently in. The simplistic notion that "new equals good" has often been a recipe for grand-scale disaster, just as it was in the dotcom debacle at the turn of the millennium. And when the doo-doo inevitably hits the fan, it's all too easy to level the blame at innovation per se rather than admit to being a bonehead. Here's why many ideas that are labeled "innovations" are just plain stupidity.

Simply put, innovation goes wrong (sometimes big time) when an organization over-commits to an idea before validating the key assumptions on which it is based. Let's take the infamous sub-prime mortgage. The assumption here was that a jobless, homeless person who is just out of jail and doesn't even have a bank account can afford to make mortgage repayments of any description, let alone horrendously overpriced ones.

The idea of selling mortgages to poor people with bad credit was clearly "new" given that banks have traditionally offered 30-year, fixed-rate amortizing home loans to people who looked like they could actually pay the money back. But going after this risky, low-end market segment with a ripoff financial product wasn't exactly what C.K. Prahalad had in mind when he talked about "the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid." And it turns out - duh! - that this particular "financial innovation" wasn't a very smart one (to put it mildly), and even less smart when used as the cornerstone for a multitrillion dollar house-of-cards based on endless derivatives of derivatives.

It's precisely big boondoggles like this one that give innovation a bad name. In fact, columnist Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times that "financial innovation" is a phase that "should, from now on, strike fear into investors' hearts." Yet should the financial services industry - or any industry for that matter - now decide to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" when it comes to innovation?

Absolutely not. It's worth remembering that over the last couple of decades, innovation has given us a string of success stories in financial services:

• Charles Schwab's online equity trading


• Commerce Bank's open-all-day, seven-days-a-week business model


• First Direct's branchless banking


• Grameen Bank's micro-credit lending concept


• PayPal's user-friendly, online-payment service


• Umpqua Bank's people-centered retail environments

The difference with these opportunities is that they were all based on very solid assumptions about the viability and sustainability of the business model; they were not built on proverbial sand. That's why these innovations have created significant new value and wealth, instead of destroying it.

Unfortunately, there are all too many cases where companies have overcommitted to an idea that wouldn't even pass the sanity test. These tend to be ideas where the customer benefit is unclear or unimportant to people, or where the technology is not yet up to the task, or where the market is just not there, or where the business model is so stupid that it's dead on arrival. Instead of first checking the validity of critical assumptions on which the idea is based, sometimes a company (or even a whole industry) decides to jump from 10,000 feet without a spare parachute, hoping against hope that the thing will somehow work.

Take Iridium, Motorola's failed satellite telephone venture, which was built on a fundamentally flawed assumption about the size of the target market. Basically, Motorola totally underestimated the speed at which cellular coverage would spread. Their premise was that there would be huge regional gaps in the global network - parts of the world that would have no mobile phone coverage for a long time to come. That would have made Iridium the perfect answer. It turned out quite quickly that those regions would be very few and far between (you would practically have to be an Arctic explorer to need an Iridium phone!), so the target market soon shrank to insignificance. This is something Motorola should have known better.

Or take Webvan, the "oh-so-dotcom" online grocery business that burned through a billion dollars and went belly-up. There was nothing fundamentally flawed about the idea of online grocery shopping, as a host of other retailers have since proven. Rather, Webvan's massive failure was based on a whole series of flawed and untested assumptions around the customer value proposition, the economic engine, the value of partnerships, and the product and service offering.

Business history is full of such examples: from Coca-cola's infamous "New Coke", to GM's all-electric EV-1 project (which cost a billion dollars and sold only 700 vehicles), to all those other empty dot-com business models in the late 1990s - like Pets.com - that quickly disappeared. The lesson from all these disasters is to look before you leap. A company should first reduce the uncertainty surrounding critical project assumptions before committing irreversible and non-recoverable resources to an idea. The greater the uncertainty surrounding these assumptions, the greater the risk associated with any new opportunity. Therefore, the focus of an innovation project should initially be on learning rather than earning. It should be on launching experiments to test whether a business model makes sense or not, or whether a new technology will work or not, or whether customers would value the new service, or what they would be willing to pay for it, or which product configuration would work best, or which distribution channels would be most effective, and so on.

Clearly, innovation can never be risk-free. But the process of validating or invalidating these critical project assumptions should stop you from ever completely misreading the basic economics of an opportunity. It will make sure that hubris never gets the better of humility.

---

Rowan Gibson is a global business strategist, a bestselling author and an expert on radical innovation.

Battle for Mobile Dominance Escalates

Lest anyone thought that Apple and Google's latest assaults on Nokia's dominance in the mobile space would go unchallenged, news came out today that Nokia is acquiring the rest of Symbian that it did not already own.

This would be interesting news by itself, but Nokia, recognizing that its future as a handset manufacturer is at risk ratcheted up the competition at the same time.

How are they doing this?

By making the bold and correct move of making Symbian instantly the largest open source mobile platform through its transfer to an entity called the Symbian Foundation. Nokia really has no other choice but to make this move. RIM is evolving to become a more capable competitor, PALM and Motorola are both making their last ditch efforts to save themselves, Samsung and HTC continue to gather strength, Apple is opening up and poised to gain significant share, and Google has already launched an open source platform.

So who stands to lose the most as a result of Nokia's move?

Probably Google...

Google launched the android platform to try and ensure their search advertising dominance moves from the desktop/laptop world into the mobile world. Developers looking for an open source solution for their applications (corporate or otherwise) are more likely to choose a more robust and widely adopted OS like Symbian now that they have the choice.

And also Microsoft...

Windows Mobile has the advantage of trying to pair with Windows Live and Windows Vista, but with open source Symbian on one side and Apple on the other, Microsoft may end up stuck in the middle. Not quite as a elegant as the Apple offering, and more expensive and closed than the Symbian offering. Now of course Linux hasn't overtaken Windows in the PC market, but the mobile market is more of a green field and people are still defining their expectations of a mobile OS. Unfortunately this environment favors Symbian and Apple.

Which of those two will win the race, remains to be seen...

What do you think?