Another perspective on Apple as a cult

Actually the new perspective does not come from me.  I did a post back in September 2006, "Is Apple a cult or a religion?."  In it I wondered if Apple would ever get to the point of being a sustainable institution which obviously would require the company to develop a succession plan to deal with inevitability of Steve Jobs no longer being at Apple.

Recently I got alerted to a post at Venture Files by Steve Fisher.  The post which is the first of a two part series, "Is the 'Cult of Apple' really a cult?" has some interesting points.  It is definitely worth clicking over to see Steve's take on Apple.  He's a new Mac convert so he has a slightly different perspective.

Steve bases his post on an article he ran across, "8 Marks of a Cult." 

I'm only going to add to Steve's comments about about Mark number 3

The world is depicted as black and white, with little room for making personal decisions based on a trained conscience. One’s conduct is modeled after the ideology of the group, as taught in its literature. People and organizations are pictured as either good or evil, depending on their relationship to the cult.

As someone who was inside Apple for nearly twenty years, I can really relate to this comment.  I might make one change and say that in Apple's case the ideology comes directly from King Steve in stage appearances and is reinforced by infrequent communication meetings with employees and most importantly is enforced through the actions of his Executive VPs. 

At one time Apple had worldwide sales conferences for employees where the Kool-aid was dispensed in large doses.   Those are gone and Steve's appearances  at some of the local sales conferences has been an interesting employee experience. 

I can remember one answer he gave to one of my employees who was foolhardy enough to ask a question.  My employee, who was a system engineer with over twenty years at Apple, had asked when Apple was going to start advertising its professional systems instead of just iMacs? 

The answer from Steve was swift, and cleaned up for public consumption boiled down to "If I advertised, I could fire the enterprise sales force."  You might guess that Steve had a little more colorful title for the enterprise sales force which we all figured out wasn't very close to his heart.

Today not surprisingly employees and customers have to drink the same Kool-aid.

Really the key point to take away is the following.  There truly is no room at Apple for questioning the directives that come down from on high.  While some might say "Why would you want to question Steve Jobs?"  There are some reasons you might want to do that.

As brilliant as Steve is, Apple is a huge company which has some pieces of the organization which actually are tasked with doing things Steve isn't an expert at guiding.  Apple has both an enterprise and a federal sales force.  Sometimes those people in order to be successful need to do things which don't fit Apple's consumer focus.

You end up in this really weird world of having a job to do, knowing well what you need to do, but not being able to do it because your company doesn't do those kind of things.

Probably one of the best examples is working with the government and enterprise customers who absolutely need to understand a hardware and operating system company's long term plans before they allow the company's products to be approved purchases for their enterprises.

It is an article of faith at Apple that long term plans can't be disclosed to customers and certainly not even to employees.  The one huge exception to the rule is that Steve can do it whenever he pleases.

The WSJ actually had an article, "At Apple, Secrecy Complicates Life But Maintains Buzz," about this very topic.

I still feel sorry for those individuals at Apple caught in the never-never land of Apple enterprise sales.   They have some of the greatest products around.  There are plenty of customers who would like an alternative from Apple, yet many of the basic things they need to do for enterprise customers are nearly impossible to get done at Apple. It is because Steve's vision is for Apple to focus on consumer products and customers.

It's a real challenge that can drive seasoned enterprise sales professionals nearly crazy.  My post, "Lingering regrets from Apple days," discusses this at length.

Still it is good day-before-the-Super-Bowl activity to speculate on whether or not the company whose most famous ad was built around a cult has actually become one internally and maybe even one externally.

I know most of us use Apple products because of three reasons.  Apple products are the best ones we can find, they make us more productive, and we're willing to pay the difference in money, software compatibility or hassles in dealing with Apple. 

However, I wonder if the iPhone might be classed as a product delivered in a manner to enhance the cult.  It is an interesting thought.  It certainly got cult-like coverage.

Don't forget to visit Steve's "Is the 'Cult of Apple' really a cult?"

Comments

[John Muir]

I imagine a scenario where Apple learns to manage enterprise in a very different manner to the rest of the company. Hey, before anyone objects, I said "imagine!"....

1. Apple's secrecy is for the better in their consumer range. It drives buzz and delays the competition. Maintain full secrecy for major upgrades to iMac, MacBook, iPod and iPhone lines.

2. Apple's secrecy meanwhile is bad news for the enterprise. Buzz is far less relevant than projections, and the competition are quite predictable and present in every field already. Reduce secrecy for enterprise relevant roadmaps. I'm talking about Xserve and enterprise centric next-release-of OS X features here.

3. Apple have pre-announced products before. The Apple TV comes to mind, and as for Macs does everyone remember the 2004 announcement that the G5 iMac was delayed but will come that September? Pre-announcing / reducing critical secrecy around minor issues such as incremental CPU upgrades (2x4 core Mac Pro's come to mind) wouldn't hurt Apple and would save many a customer's fury / distrust in future.

So in roundup, I see where they're coming from regarding secrecy. (That is my take on the "cult" meme besides certain opposing cults trying to mark out their enemies of course! Most Mac users, including me, don't mind mixing and matching our technologies and certainly don't have idols on our walls and allocated prayer time!)

Apple really can't adopt the same enterprise centric long term public roadmap model as so epitomised by Intel. One model does not suit all. But they can certainly try rebalancing a bit, and would win kudos for doing so. Treating the Xserve for example with the same reverential top secrecy as the next iPod nano (presuming there is one!) is a mistake. Apple can survive with such mistakes. But they will always suffer the compound effects caused in this way.

Need I say "an all-Windows outfit" to make my point? The horror... the hegemony... the horror...

[Steve Fisher]

I agree that Apple should give separate working mission to its enterprise group and name a president with a strong presence to help drive it and differentiate it.

I doubt it will happen but I can wish. I believe that Apple would be a powerful enterprise play. In fact, I should write about that very soon.

After this series of posts on Apple as a Cult are done, I am going to look at the perils of when the CEO is the brand or so intertwined it will effect a company's future prospects. With Bill Gates ready to retire in 2008 there will be lots of questions of when Steve will leave.