An example of how I depend on smart people as filters and why I use Backtype to follow conversations, because often comments are the best parts of a post.

Ethan Bauley kicks it off with a link to FT.com | Tech Blog | App stores are not the future, says Google:

We believe the web has won and over the next several years, the browser, for economic reasons almost, will become the platform that matters and certainly that’s where Google is investing.

… and his first thought, “EPIC dismantling of conventional wisdom”.

My initial reaction:

The most important point: Jobs initially pushed developers to develop for the web instead of the device (which the FT notes at the end of the article). Jobs relented because he had to, so he took the step towards the App Store to demonstrate the potential of the devices, build a developer community, and sell tons of devices and apps.

But I’m sure Jobs has a plan to bring developers back to the browser.

But Bryan Landers took the conversation on a more interesting path, commenting on the recent user and developer backlash Apple received from their rejection of multiple applications from the App Store, which led Ethan into the geek end:

tac anderson had an interesting post the other day re: aapl comm’s strategy:

Will Apple Finally Have to Embrace Social Media?

he made the point earlier that if you make incredible products + cust svc, no one cares about anything else (which i agree with). also made some points about the “mainstream” distrusting large scale orgs. he advocates for their participation in soc media.

my first point on that is that you don’t have to participate in sm at all to be transparent.

frankly i could argue either way, but all i can say is to repeat: their execution of product + svc + retail is SO RIDICULOUSLY GOOD that none of that other stuff matters.

to that point i think aapl leverages soc media BY FAR the best of any company out there. they invest exactly zero in it: pure unadulterated WOM, at scale. as the surfers say: “sick, brah.”

Tac makes a good point:

The bottom line is that no company is perfect. It’s made up and run by imperfect people. Social media allows companies to highlight the people aspect of it making it much easier to forgive companies when they screw up.

Apple isn’t getting that benefit. I’ve always doubted Apple’s ability to scale into the main stream. Uncompromising design and closed systems don’t scale well. Big businesses have to make trade offs.

Will Apple make the right ones? It’s fun to watch though.

Ethan’s comment on Tac’s original post, noting another related post Phil Schiller Responds Regarding Ninjawords and the App Store:

My take: they’ve got all the right instincts and will pilot moves towards openness when the benes outweigh the drawbacks (in their view).

For a company that’s executing like apple is, it’s tough for me to second guess them.

My two cents:

“their execution of product + svc + retail is SO RIDICULOUSLY GOOD that none of that other stuff matters.”

Exactly. And when the other stuff matters, Apple will do it.

But will they know how to do it without learning now?

Most companies, probably not. Apple, probably.

This is why Apple is a poor example for most companies to learn from: corner cases are lessons that are incredibly hard to copy.

But that’s how they succeed. Do they even need to “scale into the mainstream”? Who wants them to do that?

Apple may simply be a modern-day outlier of corporate strategy based on a core competence which is [nearly] impossible to copy and execute to the degree it requires to succeed.

Apple won’t be Ford, or GM, or IBM, the long-running titans of American industry. But who wants that?

But the true gold, from Ethan, noting Anil Dash’s post Apple: Secrecy Does Not Scale:

i have to say that i intuitively agree with the sentiment of his [Anil's] and your [Tac's] posts on the issue. however [as the other commenters on this post can attest] i invariably can’t resist the contrarian position on a complex issue like this. and i think it’s useful to consider.

to address a couple points of anil’s:

1. “the benefit is almost certainly not viable over the long term”: right, but anil is advocating for aapl to change *right now*. huge difference. yes, “don’t put off what you can do today”, but my recent experience suggests that echo chamber monkeys like myself may actually be overestimating how quickly the media environment is changing.

note: i can’t believe i just said that ;-) http://www.ethanbauley.com/post/72002337/once-businesses-learn-to-harness-the-disruptive

2. the entire section about “real artistry”: now, this is coming from someone who holds an MFA from a prestigious art school and [barely] survived life as a professional musician for a few years, but seriously: “real artists also expose themselves, making themselves vulnerable through honest expression so that their audience can see their humanity, and thus form a connection to something universal in all of us.”

… the artist’s exposure is in *the art itself*, not how the artist communicates about his art. … Apple’s art is the product. communicating about apple itself has nothing to do with “apple as an artist”.

3. “the ability to tightly control a message is never going to come in vogue again” i completely disagree with this. crafting brands/communications strategies/messages that maintain their essence *in the face of* incredible information diaspora/entropy is such an important next-gen skill, it hurts. (http://memeticbrand.com is an interesting, uh, meme to delve into there). depends on your take on the phrase, but i don’t think apple “tightly controls” the message at all; it is total WOM outside of their launch events, advertising, and retail/product experience.

Head nodding. How about yours?

Comments are closed on this post. If you want to comment on this conversation, continue it on Ethan’s original post.

—

• Thanks Ethan, continuing to deliver business geekery at its best.
• Seriously, comments are worth paying attention to. It’s where the cool kids hang out.