Switching from Apple

It is interesting to read about some talk in the Apple user community regarding switching from the Mac platform.  My first thought is that this is not the kind of talk that a company with 2% worldwide market share needs to hear.  In Apple's case, this is exactly the kind of talk that they need to hear.  Paying close attention now might help to prevent the kind of disaster where the computers we all love are pushed to the brink of extinction.  We all know Apple in not an open company.  You will not find  Apple blogs to get feedback from their customers. Apple tightly controls its image and communications.  The true Apple strategy is that they make the products they want to make, if customers love them, fine, if not, that's too bad.  Very few Apple products come out in a revamped model to meet customer suggestions.

I read on drunkenblog about a number of concerns regarding Apple from "corporate policies" to "calendaring."

When user-base rot starts to occur in a given cross-section on any platform, it's often less like a heart attack and more like tooth decay: it takes awhile, you start seeing signs if you're looking, and then it eventually just caves in while you're innocuously biting on a bagel.

Then on techronin the opinion is that "options for unswitching aren't that good."

Apple is still the little guy in personal computing, so I'm glad they've got some bucks in their pockets to try new things and make beautiful, usable computers and software. I'm hoping that competition and Steve's perfectionism will out weigh the downsides of his imperial ego.

I waited for nearly twenty years for Apple to really pay attention to customer wants and needs. It still more about what Apple thinks the customers want as opposed to what the customers think they need from Apple.  Apple's strategy might be great for new innovative products, but it doesn't work very well for established products that need important incremental improvements.  Hence all the concerns over things that have slipped from Steve's radar.

So the question is what does all this mean for those of us who love Apple products but have some great concerns over the platform and/or the company?

First let me disclose a little history so no one who reads this is under any delusions. 

I worked for Apple for nearly twenty years in sales.  I was exceptionally successful.  I know and love the products.  Since the mid-nineties Apple has been a different company, not just in the products that it delivered but in the kind of company that created and supported those products.  Apple and I did not part on friendly terms, but none of the columns that I have written are rants of a former employee who is out to get Apple.  I am still an Apple stockholder, and there is nothing I would like to see more than Apple stock going through the roof.  Unfortunately I believe Apple executive management has doomed Apple to a small market share. When the bloom is off of the iPod, I don't see enough momentum in the computer products to carry the company. If you want a real comparison of Apple to the competition, check out my post, "Taking the Rosy Colored Glasses Off." If you want the gory details on how Apple is managed read some of my other ApplePeel posts.  Most of the management pieces on my other blog, viewfromthemountain are based on my Apple experience.  I get comments all the time from current and former Apple employees on the fact that what I am writing is on target and truthful.

The sad truth is that that Apple executives are taught to ask "how high" when Steve says jump.  That as many very successful people will tell you is not how you run a successful large company that will be around for the long run.  On a lot of levels this behavior leads to decision paralysis with the company.  This will likely not change as long as the bloom is on the iPod.  The success of the iPods masks many Apple problems. To get Apple to change you have to get past Apple arrogance and that only happens in a crisis.

I hope Janet Tokerud from techronin  is right about increased innovation from Apple, but I suspect she might be just as surprised as I was when I tried Linux this fall.  Linux has made huge strides in the last couple of years.  I fully expect Linux to surpass Mac OS X in market share if hasn't already.  In fact I believe there are some surprising areas already where Linux is ahead in usability.  The problems I have had with Linux have not required a full reinstall of the OS like is often the case on Mac OS X.  The only way to fully appreciate today's Linux is to try it and live on it like I have done.  I use it on a regular basis and find it very stable, friendly, and able to do almost everything I need.

Right down I recommend Xandros if you want to try Linux and don't mind buying an Intel box.  Other than the photo tools I love, and I include the latest iPhoto in that category, Linux meets almost all of my requirements now.  The virtual desktops are a pretty cool feature.  I can't complain about all the free apps either.  Interestingly what I think may lead to the further marginalization of the Mac is the high quality of integrated web applications we are seeing today.  Just look how far webmail interfaces have come.  I still prefer a client, but gmail and webmail.us are impressive and since I have a business relationship with webmail and I'm also a gmail user, I know great strides are being made in increased functionality.  However, even that pales compared to the integration of flickr the photo hosting and sharing service with blog software like typepad.  A revolution is happening based on web standards, it can either help or hurt the Mac, a lot depends on Apple and right now a lot of us don't have a lot of confidence in the decisions Apple is making so it can go either way.

Apple needs to start listening more to customers. Apple employees need to be empowered to make certain that large customers get what they need to keep their Macs in the enterprise.  Apple really needs to invest in their employees so the best stay and the managers who have shown more interest in their options than their customers need to go enjoy retirement.  It is time for Apple to become more responsive to customers.  Otherwise, some of this talk of migration will lead to a real migration to other platforms.  Those that think Linux can't win that battle, need to have a look at my article on Xandros.  If you want my detailed opinions on all the platforms check out my article "Computer Choices," on the three way race between Linux, Windows XP Professional, and OS X.  Or if you have doubts about my commitment to the Mac, check my "Computer Battle" post that I did in an attempt to correct a poorly researched comparison of Windows to Mac OS X.

I hope Apple prospers, but the reality is that Apple would have been long gone already without the great base of loyal users out there who have stayed with Apple products in spite of Apple the company.

technorati.com tag: Macintosh

Comments

[Sasha S.]

I have red several of your blog postings and I must say that as an outsider (but Apple user) I recognise tell-tale signs of everything you are naing as problems within Apple:
- secrecy for the benefit of Steve saying: "One more thing..." and grinning before awed audience
- lack of respect for employees
- feudalistic way of running a company
- lack of listening to (corporate) clients
etc, etc

But, the thing is that Apple is making products that are unparaleled anywhere because Steve is the king of his little hill and he acts that way. Apple products prove that Apple listens what their clients want. However, Apple can not be a mass appeal company because corporate customers will not tollerate Apple's behaviour. I know that from personal experience: The wider the market - the more bland the products must be. Innovation is hard act to swallow for many customers. But it is the fact that consumers are always willing to accept more innovative products then business customers. So Apple can not be both things: innovative and conservative at the same time. And if I get to choose - I choose for Apple as it is now.

I left corporate world because I could not innovate. My Apple Powerbook gets "uuh" and "aah" at every door in corporate world, yet when it comes to purchasing decisions no sane CIO would buy Apple. That is good!

Apple does not sell to corporate world because corporate world consists of large companies that hate change more then anything in the world. Yes, they want roadmaps. And I want script for my next blind date! HA! Wouldn't that be nice! Well the real world is not like that. Real world is changing - now faster then ever and it is not going to stop because IBM does not want that.

All in all, I believe that:
1. Apple should be secretive - there are enough plagiators as it is
2. Steve should respect EVERY employer as he/she is Jonathan Ive
3. Apple should not bow to the wishes of the corporate world - future is not in corporations - it is in small & medium enterprises anyhow (let sweaty monkey Ballmer dance for them instead)
4. Apple should recognise that they can not get their products 100% right. They get it 90-95% right with ease. For the rest they should listen to their customers and try to be a bit more humble and incorporate legit wishes into their products. (and no, that does not mean adding radio to the iPod - despite the fact that brainless asian manufacturers keep doing otherwise).

p.s. Just as a reminder - did you know how original walkman came to be? Akio Morita (God rest his soul) - founder of Sony get the idea for portable music player and he had to fight every engineer and manager in Sony (his own company!) to get it done. Yes, you have to be Steve sometimes to get innovative products on the market. Look at Sony now and you will see that they don't have Morita's there anymore - look at what a shamefull lineup of portable music players they offer today.