However, by signaling a change, they could stall the markets that are converging, which include their Macs, iPods, and iPhones. This would stall until these new products are right and, during that stall, someone else could rise up and displace them as market leader.
This just points out the extreme risk in being a company that is driving the change. But the potential benefit of emerging vastly more powerful than they currently are is likely well worth the risk. And Apple does this at a point when it is at the top of its game.
Typically you would expect companies that are heavily staffed with younger people to be more willing to take this kind of risk. Older firms tend to trend toward risk avoidance, which is why younger firms often out play and replace them.
Apple and Steve Jobs are clearly not going quietly into the night and we should explore this.
One of the things that seems to happen as companies age, compared to younger firms, is the tendency to avoid risk. This seems to come down to a sense that as executives age their time and ability to make up for a mistake that could end a career grows more limited. Major decisions are avoided in the belief that by avoiding these decisions risks can be avoided as well.
In watching companies over the years I believe this is not only not an accurate assessment of what results, it actually creates more risk for the firms. This is because effort goes into preventing bad decisions from being challenged as opposed to identifying them quickly and then correcting the mistake.
Not making a decision or not fully backing up a made decision can both be mistakes. Its mistakes like this that made it so that Apple and Microsoft could benefit from Xeroxs ideas in the early years. Avoiding a decision or under resourcing may allow blame to more easily go elsewhere. But they are still company killers and if the company dies it really doesnt matter to the folks laid-off who got the blame.
What seems interesting is that companies go through an evolutionary only the most fit survive process to become successful. But often dont seem to understand what they initially did right.
As a result, as they age, they seem to dismantle the very structure that made them successful. If they were lean and fast moving they become bureaucratic and slow. If they were defined as being a great place to work they dismantle the entitlements and collaborative environment that made this possible in order to save money. And if they were highly trusted eventually they will trade off that trust in order to foster short-term revenue growth.
In addition, as companies age the folks that helped the firm market its products and become successful tend to drift away from the firm and marketing types tend not to do a good job of mentoring. This was most evident at Intel. The company went from having one of the best marketing organizations in the technology market under Dennis Carter to a train wreck because Dennis clearly didnt mentor those who came behind him.
Over the years Ive rarely seen a great marketing executive mentor anyone, which may be a result of excessive competition in the field. But its still a problem that needs to be addressed if a firm is to successfully survive the departure of a marketing superstar.
Apple nearly failed in the 90s and what saved them was bringing back someone, Steve Jobs, who could redefine the company. He redefined it not only as a better reflection of its youth but as one that was more capable of making good decisions, leveraging those decisions successfully, and understanding how to market Apples unique differences.
In the end it doesnt matter if you have special products if buyers dont appreciate what makes them special. A good book to read to understand this is The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs.
To manage around this growing inability of an aging firm to make good decisions, Steve Jobs cut the complexity of Apple down sharply so that it could never be buried under a large number of mistakes. Instead of focusing on making bad decisions look good, he focused on making decisions actually succeed. In addition he reformed the management team around NeXT and new hires designed to rebuild Apples ability to move and execute.
The end result is they can bring out something as potentially revolutionary as their new tablet and execute on the potential. This is much better than focusing on really good reasons why the failure of the idea wasnt their fault.
For too many companies, the focus has been how to successfully pass blame without realizing that those chickens eventually do come back to roost. And that if you are successful in the first place you dont need to become expert at passing blame.
As much as we admire Apple we shouldnt forget that the firms success was largely the result of having a marketing-oriented CEO who could reform the company. As a group, folks with Steve Jobss skill set dont mentor well. And Steve is known for being particularly bad at this.
The end result is that Apple, when Steve eventually moves on, may simply become another aging company again and lose the very essence that has allowed it to be so successful.
This too is a lesson. For not only should firms learn what assures their success and how to protect it, but build in mentoring so that key skills arent lost as the company ages.
Apples success goes back to taking a badly aging company down to the bare walls and rebuilding it so that it regains the advantages that initially made it successful. The new Apple Tablet reflects a level of execution that few companies can showcase and it is both an example and a caution.
An example of how to take necessary risks while limiting the potential liability and a caution that while companies are potentially immortal, they can be killed by the mortality of the great people who initially made these companies great. Apple teaches both lessons but only the first one on purpose.
This new Tablet is likely Steve Jobss last bet the company decision. These things dont happen that often, and we should take from what results not just how well the product does but what it took to create it. Apple, as an aging company, still is taking necessary risks to assure its future. And that is something I think we can all admire as we are waiting to buy Apples latest toy.
One of the ways around the issues of security and control that make some businesses wary of cloud computing is to build a private cloud -- one that remains within the corporate firewall and is wholly controlled internally. Private clouds also increase the agility of IT an organization's IT infrastructure and make it easier to roll out new technology projects. Download this eBook to get the facts behind the private cloud and learn how your organization can get started.