Given Palm is kind of an Apple without Jobs (granted with only a single product), does its problem foretell Apples post-Jobs future? I think it could. Or, at the very least, serve as a caution which suggests Apples post Jobs success isnt a given.
One of the things that makes Apple special is that its products are subordinated to image. In effect marketing, not products, lead in that company.
You can see this in how Apple brought the iPhone to market. When first introduced at MacWorld it was a concept that didnt actually work. What Steve Jobs presented was an ideal: what the product could be but yet wasnt. The firm then worked day and night to come as close to the concept Steve sold as they could before the product launched.
The initial iPhone had serious shortcomings but Apple focused on what it did well. And while it didnt sell anywhere near as well as later, more complete, versions, it is remembered as a success and it stunned the phone industry, causing market leaders like Nokia and RIM to begin to chase Apple.
In short, by focusing on the image rather than the reality of the product, Apple entered the cell phone market not as a small player but as a mind share market leader. And it has been climbing toward actual market leadership ever since.
In profit, they are actually a market leader now even though they have the 3rd most popular Smartphone OS. The lesson Steve Jobs teaches (and once again I recommend you read The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs) is that perception trumps reality every time. And if you get people to believe you lead a market or have the best product it is better than having the best product that no one knows about. That is why he outspends everyone else on marketing in his segment and focuses tightly on demand generation.
At the CES launch of the Palm Pre, Palm had something Apple didnt have at their own launch: A product that actually worked.
You would think that would have given them a huge advantage and, in fact, one of their top executives went on record saying that the Palm Pre would take the iPhone out of the market. This is an engineers way of looking at things, reality trumps perception, and clearly the Palm folks believed they had a better offering.
On spec it did a lot of things the iPhone didnt do, was competitively priced and had some whiz bang features like inductive charging.
It couldnt lose. So why did it?
One of the big problems they had to overcome was the idea that the iPhone defined the market. Because if people think the iPhone is the gold standard then anything non-iPhone is going to be inferior. Doesnt matter if you (the builder) think it is better; the customer wont.
Palm thought this a trivial problem and had the mistaken impression that the market would look at both products and compare them fairly. That virtually never happens. As a result they didnt even acknowledge the iPhone and only spoke to what their phone did, assuming buyers would see their advantages.
We saw Apple deal with a similar problem in their Mac vs. PC campaign and Verizon successfully deal with the same kind of problem with their Droid iDont campaign. In the first case Apple gets the audience to see the faults of the dominant Windows platform. And in the second Verizon points out the shortcomings of the iPhone and both then position against that message.
Palm didnt do that. They did high concept ads that they hoped would intrigue buyers and get them to consider the new phones.
Sprint was little help because as much as folks disliked AT&T they dislike Sprint more and, unlike Verizon and the Droid, Sprint didnt step up to the challenge. This is a common problem with engineering-driven companies: they tend to live under the concept that if they build a good product folks will flock to it. And that almost never happens, particularly when competing against a marketing powerhouse like Apple.
In addition, Apple is expert at courting high profile product reviewers. Palm missed a meeting in that they provided top reporters with products along with other reviewers, and then let them off their NDAs a day early, blindsiding the others who then mostly broke their NDAs.
It was neither elegant nor subtle and many of us that were in that second wave were embarrassed and upset because we were blindsided and either stopped writing about the product or became more critical when we would have been.
In short, this firm that was made up largely of ex-Apple people including a CEO who at one time was thought to be a Steve Jobs clone made mistakes that Apple would never have made under Jobs.
If anyone has ever worked for a powerful, micro-managing boss, who treats people very poorly (read any on the unauthorized Steve Jobs biographies, I like iCon) you may recall that when that boss leaves, people revolt and things can change very rapidly.