Apple is famously compartmentalised & secretive: People working on one product don't even get to go into the building where another product is being developed & the employees working on new products are pretty much forbidden from discussing them outside of their own development team as I understand things.
I would imagine that this makes it very hard for managers of existing products to kill off internal competitors. So long as the board is happy to fund it, you can develop something new without having to play internal big company politics.
This makes a lot of sense. Compare this to MS where there is alot of internal politics and competition amongst products. Short and insightful article all in all.
It's a slippery slope to have teams fire-walled and competing with each other. We hear stories from the Dropbox guys that One Apple team invited them over to ask how they hacked the finder, because they didn't have access to the functionality that dropbox reverse engineered. As a recent grad at Motorola, I once heard similar stories about Motorola's PCS and semiconductor groups 10 years ago.
> It had 90 days working capital on hand when
> he took over — in other words, Apple was only
> three months away from bankruptcy.
Sorry for my finance ignorance -- but is that description correct? I'd assume that having 90 days working capital means that you can run the company as-is for 90 days with no additional revenue. Given that Apple presumably had some stream of revenue at the time, that seems like a far cry from being "three months away from bankruptcy".
It is basically correct. They had ongoing revenue from sales, but also had ongoing costs related to the producing those sales, in addition to overhead from salaries, facilities, etc. What you would need to look at is their profits, because that is what adds to capital. Apple was actually losing money at the time (lost $800 million in 1996 and $1 billion in 1997)[1], so the problem may have been worse than the simplistic "three months away from bankruptcy." It is difficult to tell for sure without doing a far more in-depth analysis, but having 90 days working capital at an unprofitable company makes the "three months away from bankruptcy" assertion quite reasonable.
Shh. Don't think logically. It makes for a better story if you make up your own facts, like when MSFT saved Apple by giving them $150M out of the goodness of their hearts.
Working capital is short-term assets minus short-term debts. So yes, you are correct. A company could have a ton of long-term assets, but very low working-capital. It's too much of a simplification to say low working-capital means you are close to bankruptcy.
In the most basic of definitions, Days Working Capital tells you how many days you can operate before your working capital is gone. WC's equation is current assets(accounts receivable, inventory) - current liabilities(accounts payable). This tells you how well a company can pay off its short term debts.
The days working capital number tells you how well it can pay off its debt, but it can also tell you how efficient a company is. This is where the author made a mistake. A company with 10 days WC may be in better shape than a company with 90 days WC depending on how well they are operating. If a company holds almost no inventory by having suppliers who can deliver in a short time period, the company will save lots of costs by keeping inventory down, which will then lower their DWC.
Basically, if Apple stopped selling products and just sat there, they'd be bankrupt in 90 days. But this is unrealistic, and thus, the authors words were a bit over dramatic.
According to the article, Jobs' solution was to organize Apple around making great products. This is enough to make Christensen himself call them "freaks".
Caring first about great products makes you a freak? Something seems deeply wrong with that. (Edit: this was unclear. I agree that "freak" is accurate in the sense that this is rare. My point is that it says something staggering about our economy that it should be so rare.)
If Apple are the only ones who do this, I would sooner call everybody else the freaks.
The definition of 'freak' for most people is "people who don't have sensible regard to norms". The norm for almost all companies is that the bottom line is the overriding factor.
So Jobs priorities made Apple a freak in the eyes of most managers. Apple didn't get any respect from ordinary managers before the iPhone sales took off and made the bottom line became impressive.
I have yet to work at/for a company that cared about its products.
There was a cultural revolution in business whereby people saw the role of the firm as profit-maximizing, where profit is measured on a quarter-by-quarter basis.
In that light, Jobs was crazy for focusing on the product (and letting the profits flow).
1. The IPAD might did some cannibalization to the mac market but in general, it brought much more profits.It was a pretty good bet that this what it would do(esp. considering apple's supply chain strengths, expected prices for android and IPAD tablets, apple's marketing value and ecosystems, etc).
2. The iPhone was launched when it was clear that mobile phone would integrate MP3 functions, and the iPod market would die. But it was more profitable than the iPod, so no dilemma here.
The real test for the innovator's dilemma is:you develop and sell a new product that might HURT your profits ,but is the future of the industry because it's better or cheaper, and you understand that having some some slice of the(smaller) future is better than nothing.
1. Creating the iPad was not a good bet that it would create profits. Microsoft had tried pushing tablet computing for a decade, and they lost a lot of money doing so. The iPad was a gamble. It was not obvious, people scoffed when it was announced. "No keyboard? No SD slot? Why would I need that when I have a laptop and an iphone?"
2. Again, people scoffed when the iPhone was released. There were already phones with MP3 functionality. It wasn't clear that the phones would kill off the iPod as the iPod allowed you carry your entire music collection with you. Smartphones back then couldn't do that, nor could the iPhone for that matter. No one at the time wanted to use touch screens. The reaction was also a lot of scoffing. "You want me to pay how much for a cell phone that doesn't even have keys?!?". The iPhone was a huge gamble too.
No, I do not believe Apple had reason to worry about market cannibalization.
The iPod was a new product. The line was segmented well, with each having clear differences in form factor, eg you wouldn't be confused between what a nano might be useful for vs Touch. This is in contrast to electronic manufacturers that flood the market with an entire spectrum of product capability.
The iPhone and Ipad are again entirely different product lines that share the same codebase. This is not very different to Windows everywhere espoused by Ballmer. The difference is in how capable the entire organisation was in execution. Although Apple is immensely profitable, it is because it focusses on creating highly desirable products in niches that are only profitable through vertical integration.
I recall Jobs lamenting the fact that they barely make any profit on their l
Laserwriterswhile HP makes all the money off toners. Apple today judiciously avoids this type commodity computing markets.
The main take away is to sell clearly differentiated products. Give them different names and use cases so that consumers cannot be confused over what each product does.
To certain extent this analysis is right, but there's also one other company that you must consider when thinking about this, and that's Google. They have also not focused on profits, and at least, in theory, have tried to create amazing products. Unfortunately, they neither have great products or great profits. You can be like Apple and focus on building great products but keep Google in mind and ask why their stock price is stagnant for last 5 years now.
Yes, Apple focuses on products but it also focuses on profits by optimizing operations and pricing products correctly. Unfortunately, at Google, they haven't done either well. They are still a search company which runs on the grace of AdWords.
Yes, Android is successful but compared to iPhone platform it is significantly behind in terms of profits - in fact, still loosing money considering Motorola acquisition was essentially to stave off patent attacks on Android.
This is a great take on it, although I might offer that Jobs never really solved the innovator's dilemma -- he just managed it. (Solve implies the problem goes away; not sure that applies here.)
Rather, what Jobs did was willingly accept potential cannibalization of some products in favor of others. Normally, in a large company, you have teams representing core products that morph into influential forces of nature inside their organization and spend a decent amount of time and resources protecting their turf. Jobs was the central decision-making authority, and he simply wouldn't tolerate that type of environment. So, territorial fiefdoms had no chance of surviving in Jobs's pressure cooker.
They can do it because Apple hasn't optimized its organization to maximize profit. Instead, it has made the creation of value for customers its priority.
Apple's market cap would suggest that this presents a false dichotomy.
The point of the article is that Apple's profits (and, indirectly, market cap) could be even higher (at least in the short term) if they decided to focus only on this instead of great products. (That would be the wrong thing to do, of course, since a more innovative company would disrupt Apple.)
Apple's strategy, the strategy to solve the Innovator's Dilemma, shows that creating disruptive products leads to profits that are large enough to be considered a successful company, even if profits are not your primary goal.
I'm looking at Corning's Day of Glass video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cf7IL_eZ38 and once again, I'm being reminded of Apple's biggest weakness.
There's no cross-platform functionality and that's going to be Apple's biggest problem within a decade.
Any idea how Apple might handle a dilemma like that ?
Apple's products have a bit more cross-platform functionality than Corning's at this point in time. Unless you consider transparency a cross-platform feature.
He founded Ceramics Process Systems Corporation, and served as chairman and president.
He founded Innosight LLC
He serves on the board of a number of others, and also works directly with a couple more.
I'm all for calling bullshit on "big name, no experience" entrepreneurs, but Clay Christensen is simple not one of them. His work is phenomenal, there is so much to learn from it.
Just because he's an academic, it doesn't follow that he's wrong.
He literally wrote the book on disruption, which I expect, from your comment, you haven't read. http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Busin... He doesn't need to start a company to prove his point because it's not really about startups, it's about the problems big companies have. He wouldn't be the founder or employee number 1, he would be employee 10,000, the one they get when everything starts going wrong.
No. If in the future a new kind of printer can "print" (chip, shape, et al) iPhones, Samsungs, etc even if Apple can catch up with this new technology it's probable that the market size of the current hardware industry will go down.
Can we say that many times the dilemma is about shrink or perish?
The point of the article (and of solving e Innovators Dilema) is that Apple would be the company selling the printers because that's what it's customers want and how it can make them happy. They wouldn't prohibit entering the new printer market because it is bad for the iPhone's profits, which is what just about every other company would do.
Can we say that many times the dilemma is about shrink or perish?
That's not what this article is about, so, while you can say it, it is pretty meaningless to TFA. If your company gets caught up in the middle of a war, it's not the innovator's dilema that could kill your company, either.
[+] [-] pja|14 years ago|reply
I would imagine that this makes it very hard for managers of existing products to kill off internal competitors. So long as the board is happy to fund it, you can develop something new without having to play internal big company politics.
[+] [-] Iroiso|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] salem|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crististm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bostonpete|14 years ago|reply
Sorry for my finance ignorance -- but is that description correct? I'd assume that having 90 days working capital means that you can run the company as-is for 90 days with no additional revenue. Given that Apple presumably had some stream of revenue at the time, that seems like a far cry from being "three months away from bankruptcy".
[+] [-] hacman|14 years ago|reply
[1] http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/1705877737x0xS10... (page 8), found via http://investor.apple.com/sec.cfm (yes, cfm!)
[+] [-] YooLi|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] refurb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lix2333|14 years ago|reply
The days working capital number tells you how well it can pay off its debt, but it can also tell you how efficient a company is. This is where the author made a mistake. A company with 10 days WC may be in better shape than a company with 90 days WC depending on how well they are operating. If a company holds almost no inventory by having suppliers who can deliver in a short time period, the company will save lots of costs by keeping inventory down, which will then lower their DWC.
Basically, if Apple stopped selling products and just sat there, they'd be bankrupt in 90 days. But this is unrealistic, and thus, the authors words were a bit over dramatic.
[+] [-] gruseom|14 years ago|reply
Caring first about great products makes you a freak? Something seems deeply wrong with that. (Edit: this was unclear. I agree that "freak" is accurate in the sense that this is rare. My point is that it says something staggering about our economy that it should be so rare.)
If Apple are the only ones who do this, I would sooner call everybody else the freaks.
[+] [-] silvestrov|14 years ago|reply
So Jobs priorities made Apple a freak in the eyes of most managers. Apple didn't get any respect from ordinary managers before the iPhone sales took off and made the bottom line became impressive.
I have yet to work at/for a company that cared about its products.
[+] [-] veyron|14 years ago|reply
In that light, Jobs was crazy for focusing on the product (and letting the profits flow).
[+] [-] ippisl|14 years ago|reply
1. The IPAD might did some cannibalization to the mac market but in general, it brought much more profits.It was a pretty good bet that this what it would do(esp. considering apple's supply chain strengths, expected prices for android and IPAD tablets, apple's marketing value and ecosystems, etc).
2. The iPhone was launched when it was clear that mobile phone would integrate MP3 functions, and the iPod market would die. But it was more profitable than the iPod, so no dilemma here.
The real test for the innovator's dilemma is:you develop and sell a new product that might HURT your profits ,but is the future of the industry because it's better or cheaper, and you understand that having some some slice of the(smaller) future is better than nothing.
[+] [-] lee|14 years ago|reply
1. Creating the iPad was not a good bet that it would create profits. Microsoft had tried pushing tablet computing for a decade, and they lost a lot of money doing so. The iPad was a gamble. It was not obvious, people scoffed when it was announced. "No keyboard? No SD slot? Why would I need that when I have a laptop and an iphone?"
2. Again, people scoffed when the iPhone was released. There were already phones with MP3 functionality. It wasn't clear that the phones would kill off the iPod as the iPod allowed you carry your entire music collection with you. Smartphones back then couldn't do that, nor could the iPhone for that matter. No one at the time wanted to use touch screens. The reaction was also a lot of scoffing. "You want me to pay how much for a cell phone that doesn't even have keys?!?". The iPhone was a huge gamble too.
[+] [-] teyc|14 years ago|reply
The iPod was a new product. The line was segmented well, with each having clear differences in form factor, eg you wouldn't be confused between what a nano might be useful for vs Touch. This is in contrast to electronic manufacturers that flood the market with an entire spectrum of product capability.
The iPhone and Ipad are again entirely different product lines that share the same codebase. This is not very different to Windows everywhere espoused by Ballmer. The difference is in how capable the entire organisation was in execution. Although Apple is immensely profitable, it is because it focusses on creating highly desirable products in niches that are only profitable through vertical integration.
I recall Jobs lamenting the fact that they barely make any profit on their l Laserwriterswhile HP makes all the money off toners. Apple today judiciously avoids this type commodity computing markets.
The main take away is to sell clearly differentiated products. Give them different names and use cases so that consumers cannot be confused over what each product does.
[+] [-] michaelpinto|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bwarp|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mehuln|14 years ago|reply
Yes, Apple focuses on products but it also focuses on profits by optimizing operations and pricing products correctly. Unfortunately, at Google, they haven't done either well. They are still a search company which runs on the grace of AdWords.
Yes, Android is successful but compared to iPhone platform it is significantly behind in terms of profits - in fact, still loosing money considering Motorola acquisition was essentially to stave off patent attacks on Android.
[+] [-] jroseattle|14 years ago|reply
Rather, what Jobs did was willingly accept potential cannibalization of some products in favor of others. Normally, in a large company, you have teams representing core products that morph into influential forces of nature inside their organization and spend a decent amount of time and resources protecting their turf. Jobs was the central decision-making authority, and he simply wouldn't tolerate that type of environment. So, territorial fiefdoms had no chance of surviving in Jobs's pressure cooker.
[+] [-] mhartl|14 years ago|reply
Apple's market cap would suggest that this presents a false dichotomy.
[+] [-] mrb|14 years ago|reply
Apple's strategy, the strategy to solve the Innovator's Dilemma, shows that creating disruptive products leads to profits that are large enough to be considered a successful company, even if profits are not your primary goal.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _k|14 years ago|reply
Any idea how Apple might handle a dilemma like that ?
[+] [-] joezydeco|14 years ago|reply
Check out this article about why Apple doesn't bother with expensive distracting public concept products.
http://counternotions.com/2008/08/12/concept-products/
Apple's products have a bit more cross-platform functionality than Corning's at this point in time. Unless you consider transparency a cross-platform feature.
[+] [-] gaius|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] destraynor|14 years ago|reply
He founded Ceramics Process Systems Corporation, and served as chairman and president. He founded Innosight LLC
He serves on the board of a number of others, and also works directly with a couple more.
I'm all for calling bullshit on "big name, no experience" entrepreneurs, but Clay Christensen is simple not one of them. His work is phenomenal, there is so much to learn from it.
Just because he's an academic, it doesn't follow that he's wrong.
[+] [-] rythie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcusf|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wslh|14 years ago|reply
Can we say that many times the dilemma is about shrink or perish?
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|14 years ago|reply
Can we say that many times the dilemma is about shrink or perish?
That's not what this article is about, so, while you can say it, it is pretty meaningless to TFA. If your company gets caught up in the middle of a war, it's not the innovator's dilema that could kill your company, either.