Is Apple Playing the Startup Game?
What would be the easiest way to keep a secret about an upcoming device? The device not to exist!
I recently read an article by Paul Graham, What Startups Are Really Like and he notes that one of the suggestions is to release early and get customer feedback. What if you didn't even have to release?
For a second lets think about what happened with the iPhone. There was a lot of speculation before January 2007, and then iPhone came to MacWorld with a magical device that no one had seen before and didn't even have them ready for release until June 2007. Even then they ran out. I don't have a clear history of the time before January 2007 because I didn't pay attention to Apple news back then but I imagine it's very similar to the rumors and speculation that has been flooding the Mac community since early December.
Lets say Apple decided in October / November that the technology was ready for an Apple phone. Rumors started to spread but initially trickled. As Apple is designing hardware they put out different little bits of rumors here and there, parts manufacturers let it slip that Apple is buying parts, patents starting making headlines etc., but Apple at this point has no actual phone. And then what does Apple do? It listens. It puts it's collective ears to the track and starts hearing what people are speculating about. Gathering ideas? In December they start developing a weak layer of software and hardware to support it, ready for January of 2007. Think about it. Apple didn't have to even give people hands-on demos or anything. I'm not saying they hadn't tested the feasibility of the device, I just think as far as features go, the community fed them to Apple. All they had to do was simply show a thin layer of design for key features on this magical mystery device. As long as they could commit to their promises, it didn't have to even be ready for release. Remember that even in June they hadn't manufactured enough to meet demand. The first OS for the original iPhone wasn't that feature-full, but it met speculations and was executed well! Six months is plenty of time for a company with Apple's level of resources to develop the software for the phone they promised in January. Interesting enough, the 3G was a completely new, more compact, design which even included a 3G radio, leading me to believe the initial hardware design was done in a bit of haste (where they didn't consider that the metal backing of the original iPhone affecting radio signal strength). To their credit, excellent execution.
As for an upcoming tablet-like device, they don't necessarily even have this new device in hand right now. There are tidbits that say "You will be very surprised how you interact with the new tablet," and it doesn't take much for people to run with that idea and come up with even newer ideas. They could be working on it as I type this and implementing key features that experts and the community are saying the device needs to beat the competition. Doesn't anyone else think it's weird that they could keep such secrets? Steve Jobs couldn't even keep his health problems a secret. There is just no secret to keep! It's also interesting their event is now two weeks after CES where the competition is presenting their sub-par tablet devices? I'd say two weeks is plenty of time to implement some last-ditch ideas, especially ones you don't have to immediately release to the public.
Apple is agile and I believe this is something they do best, and for that fact what GM does worst. And what has the entire Apple community been providing over the last month but providing excellent ideas. Why not just let the customers decide what they want and then execute their ideas?
If the device is ready for release on the 27th, this whole article is moot, but I could still be right about the iPhone 
EDIT: Just so this is clear. I have been informed that there are many iterations that the iPhone went through so it wasn't a turnaround of 6months. But it also doesn't mean they're not keeping an open ear, but this is somewhat obvious within constraints. SDK was a request from the users, but maybe it was always planned.
January 8th, 2010 - 12:41
I think it’s a good point that with all the rumors swirling around, Apple could be getting great ideas for features, but I just don’t think they or anyone is capable of scaling up to millions of devices in such a short time frame. Especially since they had very little experience in building hardware for phones. The metal backing on the 1G phone was a mistake, but there were not nearly the number of mistakes as predicted by pundits. It’s funny to go back and read what people said about the iPhone between Jan. and Jun. 2007. The fact is that there is a whole industry that was trying to do what Apple did, and I just don’t believe they pulled off in 6 months what the industry had been trying to do for years or decades. They had after all made a PDA before. I just assume that Apple has a number of pet projects they are researching that may or may not ever see the light of day.
January 8th, 2010 - 13:17
OK, you make a good point, but I actually think that Apple could pull it off if done right. While you point out that they haven’t had much experience in building hardware for phones, you point out that they had made a PDA before. The iPhone is more a PDA than it is a phone.. As far as hardware, yes, there was probably plenty of research and development on that beforehand to design a “phone,” but was that really secret? I mean, it’s not a secret now that Apple is buying touchscreen parts. They could rely on the community to tell them what to execute perfectly. I just mean, the ensemble of the entire device as it’s own entity. Does even a prototype exist yet? Maybe. Hell, maybe they don’t listen to the community at all. I guess a better, more general, point is that they seem to have a good control on things and they can announce products, make promises, and then implement it.
More to your point, I don’t think they’d announce anything they knew they couldn’t commit to and didn’t, in some form, have ready even if it was in a lab somewhere. At the point when the iPhone was announced, what had they actually committed to? I don’t remember, but I imagine it was key enough to make it big but as little as possible to keep it feasible.
Wasn’t that kinda the thing with the first Apple machine? Jobs had announced a personal computer that was self-contained or something and he and wozniak just burned the midnight oil to get it out? I don’t remember but I don’t think they had done it yet when they presented the vision. I guess that’s all business though, nowadays it’s execution over ideas!
Oh man, you make another good point though. I mean, critics pretty much tell them what not to do and how it will fail. So they either make sure not to fail in that way or they don’t try to do what critics say they will fail at. Although was Apple TV a hit? You can’t win them all.
January 8th, 2010 - 13:34
As for the rumored tablet though, that’s a bit different. They do at this point have experience with multi-touch, building the OS on multiple hardware platforms, creating good SDKs for a variety of platforms, etc. The rumor mill has been hard at work on this for years, so in this case they have had plenty of time to listen to the consumers and integrate suggested features.
I’m still not convinced that a tablet will go over well though. I can think of things I’d like to do with a tablet.
(Oops, I wrote this a long time ago, but never submitted it)
January 8th, 2010 - 13:53
I CAN think of things I’d like to do with a tablet, but not enough to justify $800 or whatever.
They don’t have a perfect record with delivering on promises, but that seems more a software thing. For example, it is still a bitch to install Windows 7 with bootcamp, at least on the new iMacs. They promised some kind of update before the holidays. Windows installs an outdated video driver and audio driver. The bad video driver means a black screen at boot, and the fix is to go into recovery mode and delete the driver.
More to the point though, I think that Apple has had a tablet prototype for awhile now, but they just weren’t sure what to do with it. Now I guess they’ve figured out some killer features that will make skeptics like me want one.
You point out that they deliver when they announce products, and I tend to agree, but I don’t think that means they aren’t working on subpar products, and occasionally one of them sneaks into the marketplace.
Steve Jobs has called the Apple TV a “hobby”, and I don’t think it has done very well. It is almost a great product, but is a bit lacking in horsepower and (possibly related) internet streaming video capabilities. I am still waiting for a killer setbox, because I really, really like the idea, but MythTV, Tivo, and the Apple TV have not lived up to my expectations.
It could be that they nail down the hardware, and then the software is not quite where it should be when they make an announcement. It’s that engineering that I don’t think is feasible in these 6 month times frames. It must take two months just to get the factories tooled up and spitting out millions of devices.
January 8th, 2010 - 18:49
First off, killer discussion we got going on here.
Only thing I had to add was that I hate Mediacom and I was thinking I’d rather pay per show, than pay for a subscription to any channel. Even if I had to subscribe to an individual channel. What Apple should do is setup some way of doing Hulu but selling per show. I wouldn’t even mind paying a small amount for the show and still having to watch some moderate amount of ads. Man you could even have tiered viewing where the less you pay the more commercials you have to watch. This would be great. It would also promote independent actors and show producers releasing shows and making money. Any Joe Schmo could create a TV show and given enough popularity on the iShow (iTunes for TV) store, could make it big without even needing to be on any major network like NBC, HBO, etc.
February 1st, 2010 - 11:18
I’ve often wondered why ALL companies don’t do just what you’re saying. Including the one that I work for. It’s exactly what customers want after all: Company asks customers what they want, makes it, and sells it to them! How much better of a business plan can you get? Your are always focused directly on your market, and everything you make will sell! I still don’t think many companies work that way though. For some reason, it always seems like somebody values their own control over their company more than how well they are satisfying customers.