Apple & Google: “What is everyone else doing wrong, and how can we destroy the foundation of the market they operate in?”

The word ‘disruption’ is thrown around by a lot of companies.  They use it to describe their operations or future products because it makes them feel like they’re innovators who are doing something truly great.  So why do most of them end up homogenizing themselves with their competitors, all while keeping their market stagnant?

The difference between Microsoft and Apple, or Microsoft and Google, is that one is looking upon the landscape from 100 feet up, while the other is looking at it from 10,000 feet up.  It’s impossible to see the big picture if you’re just looking at what your main competitors are doing.  The real winners, it seems, are the ones who see where their market will be headed in 5 to 10 years, and start working towards that system now.

——

Tucker Max’s response: “No. The real winners don’t worry about competitors or landscape at all–they worry about solving real problems that real people have, and thus create real value for them. I doubt in most cases Google or Apple even think about where the market will be in ten years, or at least, they think about it in a different way–they think about what problems people will have, and how they can solve them. Solving a problem creates value, and creating real value is the key to 21st century business success.”

At any rate, I think it’s more practical to worry about how Google perceives you — does Google think you’re a good person?  If you type in your name, what comes up?  Does Google show any of the great things you’ve accomplished, or the things that you’re particularly proud of?  If not, you need to start taking steps towards making that happen.

Google’s the closest thing to God on earth: it’s omniscient, omnipresent, and practically omnipotent if you think about it.  So don’t worry so much about trying to impress God (just be a good person because that’s how you want to be).  Instead, go out and impress Google.

Don't let this happen to you

I disagree with Steve.  Apple has been steadily rebuilding their brand’s image for the last decade, and now it’s one of the coolest companies on the planet.  They have a cult-like following and are notoriously secretive to their benefit.

While some may love the credibility and trust that comes with being more open, it can actually weaken a business to an extent.  Being extremely open sets a company up for immediate and constant criticism.  This can result in an endless discussion where the company is pandering to its consumers instead of staying focused on providing value to them.  And I don’t think ‘pandering’ and ‘providing value’ are mutually exclusive – I just think that pandering can make companies lose sight of what’s important.  Sure, it might ultimately be better for the consumer, but it can be extremely compromising for the company.

Apple’s gotten away with being secretive because people absolutely love their products.  Half of the fun in being an Apple fan is the speculation that comes before their next product release.  It creates a wild sense of curiosity all over the web.  Then when the products are finally released, people go crazy.  They literally tear the products apart to see what they’re made of and post tons of close-up shots.  It’s like technology porn.  Few corporations in the world have created this kind of madness so many times.  And this mega-hype is a result of Apple being so private.  They manufacture their brand’s mystique and they’re very good at it.

Seth Godin and Tucker Max, two great marketing strategists, have very recently reminded me that if you have a hammer, everything will look like a nail.  Basically, if you have one tactic that has worked well for you, then you’ll be apt to believe that it will work in every situation.  Being open works for Google because it’s consistent with the company’s brand.  Opening up Apple, however, would be detrimental to the brand they’ve created.

There will always have to be some degree of openness, and Apple might benefit from a bit more.  But what they’re doing right now is working very well for them – it’s aligned with their strategy.  Their main problem, in my eyes, is managing the expectations of their customers.  They’ve literally changed the face of the computer, music, and phone industries.  And now it seems like any new product they come out with that doesn’t change the world is a letdown.

Being known as the innovator is tough.

“A call for ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible… Send us your idea… We’ll post a selection of one hundred ideas and ask you, the public, to choose twenty semi-finalists. Then an advisory board will select up to five final ideas… We’re committing $10 million to implement these projects, and our goal is to help as many people as possible.”

Truly inspiring.

I’ve thought a lot lately about how the structure of businesses is flawed.  Umair Haque has been thinking about it, too.  With the fall of these enormous institutions, screwing thousands of people’s lives over while CEOs walk away with millions, it’s become extremely clear that something is wrong with the traditional way of running a business.

The old way of doing things = caring only about stockholder value and the bottom line, whatever the cost.

It doesn’t work.  It allows too much room for self-interest to ruin things for everyone else.  We’ve been going down the wrong road for too long, and now it’s time to turn back.

Google, whose motto is “do no evil,” is one of the companies that knows about the old way.  And they’re choosing to avoid it.  They know that a company founded on shady principles will fail in the long run.  But so many companies are still playing by the old rules.  And the reality they’re living in is dying out.

The easy buck is very tempting, but it doesn’t last.  A paycheck is just a paycheck – it doesn’t reveal anything about the ethics of your company.

You can react to this recession in a few ways.  You can do what everyone else is doing and complain about the economy, wish for the best in the future, and work hard at your job in hopes that you won’t be laid off.

Or you can look at this recession and see potential. ENORMOUS, unfathomable potential. Now is the time when we can change things.  We can change how businesses are run.  We can create lasting value that has the power to enrich lives long after we’re gone.  We can genuinely care about the people we’ll never meet.

We can change the world for the better.

But first, you have to dismiss the old rules and adopt the new ones.  You also have to be a genuinely good person that’s not adjusted to a sick society.  That’s the hard part.

“I found for myself that Microsoft is better organized, managed and structured. Google was like a kindergarden (sic) – young and not experienced enough people, an office full of fun and entertainment, interviews typical for junior people and lack of traditions in development of high quality software products.” -Svetlin Nakov

I have a theory that Google’s big problem is that the company hasn’t realized that it isn’t a startup anymore. This disconnect between the company’s status and it’s perception of itself manifests in a number of ways Startups don’t have a career path for their employees… Once riches are no longer guaranteed and the stock isn’t firing on all cylinders (GOOG is underperforming both the NASDAQ and DOW Jones industrial average this year) then you need to have a better career plan for your employees that goes beyond “free lunches and all the foosball you can handle”.

The technology press makes it seem like people are ditching Google for hot startups like FriendFeed and Facebook. However the truth is has a more nuances than that. Now that Google is just another big software company, lots of people are comparing it to other big software companies like Microsoft and finding it lacking.

Sometime later this year, Microsoft will launch a rebranding campaign for Windows, its core product. It’s Ballmer’s answer to “Get a Mac.” And while Yahoo may have turned down Ballmer’s $47.5 billion acquisition bid, the CEO says he’ll spend as much as it takes to build a business that challenges Google on the web.

Microsoft’s image isn’t too hot right now, but it’s not entirely irreparable.  Sure, their future is grim, but I don’t think it’s completely impossible for them to be cast in a good light someday… many, many years from now.  But if Ballmer’s at the wheel, I have my doubts.  The reason I say that is because a lot of the higher-ups in the tech industry (especially Ballmer) are wildly biased towards their own companies, and refuse to acknowledge their limitations by playing it smart (e.g. CEO of Napster).  Competing with Google at this point in time?  Is that a joke?

I saw the movie “21″ recently (meh, it’s alright).  One of the better lines from Kevin Spacey’s character goes: “The only thing worse than a loser is someone who won’t admit he played badly.”  Ballmer is wildly hubristic if he honestly thinks Microsoft can compete with Google on the web.  Like a gambler who refuses to admit he lost, Ballmer will dump money into a project that’s almost guaranteed to fail. Microsoft will never be first, or even second, in the eye of the consumer for web search, so give it up.  Put your money into something that hasn’t been dominated already.

One of the things I liked in Kawasaki’s “Art of the Start” is when he says you should always run a business idea by a woman first.  The reason for this is because guys love almost every business plan, especially when they hear you phrase your idea as “The (Some Monopoly) Killer.”  Us guys tend to get excited when we can picture ourselves taking down the #1 business in an industry, but it’s usually unrealistic thinking.  In Microsoft’s case, they have the cash, but they don’t have what’s important: innovation, corporate culture, and brand equity.  Sure, they have those things, but not like Google does.

It’s just going to be sad to watch them dump more money into their Live search, then spend even more money bribing people to use it.

Meetings are way less productive than if each individual had spent that time working on their own. I’ve avoided meetings as much as possible throughout college. It’s much easier to work with multiple people on a project through Google documents. Still, a lot of people feel more comfortable in meetings because you’re getting some face time and talking with co-workers. While it’s ok to talk business during lunch hour, I genuinely feel it’s unnecessary to have meetings during the work day. You get very little accomplished relative to the amount of time you actually spend in the meeting.

Email can become a very unproductive way of communicating for group projects. Emailing drafts of things back and forth to one another is brutal, especially when you do it more than a few times. It becomes an instant messaging program, which it obviously shouldn’t. The telephone is still the best channel for asking questions and communicating with team members. It’s faster and, more importantly, you get to hear the person’s voice. There have been many instances in my life where something was lost in translation because of the limitations on email and text messaging.

It’s unfortunate that more companies don’t implement Skype and Google documents into their work tactics. Those two programs are a lot more effective than in-person meetings and email.

*Picture courtesy of Seth Godin’s blog