Rodney O. Lain - 1999.12.18
This article was originally published on
MacSimple, a site which no longer exists. It is copyright 1999 by
Rodney O. Lain. It is reprinted here without permission, as Rodney
is no longer among us to grant permission.
This is a version of a column that originally appeared on a
now-defunct website.
Rarely do we find men [or women!] who willingly
engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest
for half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than
having to think.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
While watching Bill Gates' "The Best is Yet to Come" commercial:
I had a revelation: I don't think Steve Jobs will ever appear in an
Apple commercial.
I think I have a pretty cogent argument here.
As a quick test and a prelude, I want you to ponder the answers
to these rhetorical questions:
- Whom do you think of when you think of Sony?
- Whom do you think of when you think of Toyota?
- How about Magnavox?
- Allstate Insurance?
- Coca-Cola?
Now...
1) Whom do you think of when you think of Id Software? (Hint:
"Damn I'm good/God" John Carmack)
2) Who personifies Oracle, Inc.? (Hint: "Big Mouth" Larry
Ellison)
And here's a softball for ya:
3) Microsoft?
Id, Oracle, and Microsoft have major problems or could possibly
have major problems, because their corporations have symbiotic
existences with their founders/CEOs: so goes the CEO, so goes the
company. Steve Jobs has wisely learned through some Zen-like
experience that in order for his company to be successful, it can't
rise and fall vis-à-vis a single person's popularity,
health, fiscal well-being, etc.
I think this philosophy is the secret to Apple's future success
- and, conversely, that philosophy may signal future problems for
companies that are easily identified with their
founders/owners/CEOs...
Now, I do leave room for the possibility that this principle
applies only to Apple and no other corporation that I know; I will
explain this at the end of the column.
The early Apple, if I read my Apple history correctly, was
acutely dysfunctional, which is probably the quintessential
understatement. In many ways, it may have reflected Steve Jobs
personality, worldview, etc. After all, these guys running these
companies were in many ways mere kids. Apple succeeded many times
in spite of its leadership and rarely because of it. From what I
hear and read, Steve Jobs was the rule-by-fear dictator. The
company culture reflected him in too many ways. He could possibly
been absolutely corrupted by Lord Acton's proverbial absolute power
- an intoxication unlike any chemically induced "high." I will make
my uninformed interpretation about Steve Jobs' "exile" years in a
future column...
Now flash forward over 20 years to the "new" Apple. Steve Jobs
has mandated that no single person can be credited with a product's
creations, not even groups of people will have their names gracing
a product anymore. Also, I remember someone trying to pundit the
fact that Steve Jobs gave credit to the Apple employees when he
rolled out the DV iMacs. The pundit took this as a sign that Steve
is numbering his days at Apple's helm.
I saw that as a form of humility that he is trying to "osmosis"
to the company culture. He has realized that the "Apple spirit" has
grown far beyond anything that a single person can control or
affect. He is in many ways making Apple The Company more faceless
than it's ever been; that is not a negative criticism. He is
helping the company get to the point where it will be
self-sustaining and no longer dependent on anyone's Reality
Distortion Field ™. That will make it more democratic in many
ways.
I will allow those more intelligent than I to elucidate this
point, if it makes any sense.
I think Steve is shaping Apple so that, regardless of who's at
the helm, the company will have it's own personality, unchallenged
by the will and agenda of a single person - even himself.
Earlier, I'd mentioned that this may apply only to Apple. I
think it does, because Apple is unlike any other company I know of.
It has followers, fans, addicts, evangelists, whatever you want to
call yourselves. No other company commands this following.
I'd love to come back to this topic in the months and years to
come, as more of Apple's strategy unfolds. I think Apple is
positioning itself to be the way Sony is: associated with
attributes and a reputation far removed from a single person or
group of people.
I'd love to hear your thoughts an feedback. Or, you can discuss
it among yourselves...
