Apple: Bringing You the Innovations of Others Time and Time Again

Sometimes greater concepts can be gleaned by first looking inside our own psyches. Hence at this point it is time for an exercise that involves a small bit of personal introspection. To fully understand the nature of innovation versus refinement you must ask yourself one question: Do I like ranch dressing? If your answer was “yes” then hopefully today’s column will be of interest. If your answer was of a more negative bent then your time will probably be better spent attempting to win a Mac Mini by posting in the forums.

Presumably all readers left at this point are fans of Ranch Dressing and won’t mind a retelling of the lore of salad toppers in order to illustrate a more Apple specific point. Ranch Dressing was invented at, surprisingly, a ranch known as Hidden Valley. While producing dressing was not the stated goal of the ranch enough visitors liked the stuff that there was soon a regional market for the buttermilk mayonnaise concoction. Clorox (bleach maker and foodstuff provider? An obviously symbiotic relationship) purchased the rights and recipe to the beloved dressing and spent ten years trying to bottle the amalgamation in order to appeal the broader market. The rub was that the product was not stable. The one way, it was felt, to make the product long lasting was to increase the acidity. This had the unfortunate side effect of impacting the taste in a decidedly negative manner. But consumers want their dressings pre-mixed so the acidity was left high and the product was shipped. This is the moment where things get interesting: even with a compromised taste the dressing soon became the best selling salad dressing on the market. It turns out that only a very few people had actually tasted Ranch Dressing the way it was supposed to be prepared so they had no frame of reference for the more acrid tasting version. In short Clorox had taken a relatively unknown product, made it inherently worse in the taste department, yet managed to give the consumer something they had never had before: a convenient manner to purchase Ranch Dressing. One would hardly call making a dressing taste worse innovation but it was the refinement of bottling that resulted in the ranch flavored world we see around us.

Apple follows in the footsteps of Clorox more often than most people would like to admit. In fact an examination of Apple’s supposed recent “innovations” reveals that the large majority of the time Apple merely refines products rather than actually coming up with new ideas. That notion might seem heretical in some circles where Apple is regarded as the only company truly capable of innovation but it, nonetheless, remains the truth. Honestly it is hard to find an example where Apple actually comes up with a new idea, instead we are faced with a reality where Apple refines a product to conform to the taste of the consumer. Apple may make something sleeker, easier to use, or more appealing but very rarely do they generate an entirely new product.

Update: Every time you see iMovie think Final Cut. iMovie was written gorund up, Final Cut was not. My apologies to the minds behind iMovie.
iMovie fits the analogy of Ranch Dressing the best. When iMovie version 1 was revealed people hailed it as a major breakthrough and an incredible innovation (I was among the loudest proponents) but the truth is that iMovie was fairly pathetic when first introduced, it only seemed great because the vast majority of computer users had nothing to measure iMovie against. The similarities don’t stop there. Not only was the original iMovie limited it was also a program based on an application conceived outside of Apple. The Cupertino giant did not invent iMovie they merely purchased an existing program and polished to a point where the masses would fall in love. Far from being the exception to the rule this is the norm.

Of course other examples abound. The GUI was first implemented by Xerox and made useable by Apple. The ubiquitous iPod was not the first digital audio player to market but it was the first digital audio player that was ready for mass consumption. Pick ten Apple “innovations” at random and it is likely nine of them will have been implemented first by others and merely refined for the consumer by Apple. Why even he amazingly cool iPod nano is not really that innovative. The concept of a flash based music player with a screen has been around for quite a few years. As much as many like to think of Apple as a company where innovation happens with enviable regularity it is closer to reality to note that Apple is one of the more talented companies when it comes to picking what the end user actually desires and delivering the concept in a palatable manner.

Surely someone will think that noting the obvious is somehow derogatory. Our society places a high value on innovation and those that bring us the latest and greatest gadgets are held in high esteem. Those that are perceived as merely implementing features others have invented are regarded as money-grubbing poachers willing to steal others inspiration just to cram a few dollars in the overstuffed coffers. Partly this is due to the concept of the American Dream where the underdog can invent something useful and retire to their own island in the Caribbean and partly because it is seen as a failure if a company misses out on some vital, and post introduction, obvious feature. This notion discounts the valuable work a company does by taking a concept that is simply going nowhere and presenting the idea in a manner that the public at large will understand and embrace.

Using the iPod as our working example (yet again) we remember that Apple didn’t invent the mp3 player or even come up with the iPod concept. In fact that honor goes to Tony Fadell. When Mr. Fadell approached Apple after being rebuffed by a few other companies Appe saw the promise and jumped on board. The story is long (though not uninteresting) but in the end what you have is a product conceived by someone outside of Apple, designed with a heavy dose of Jobsian input and then released to the public. This realization might seem to serve as a dampening event for the enthusiasm some people feel for everything Apple. Remember though that the iPod brings a lot of joy to a large number of people (not just Apple shareholders). Without Apple buying into the concept and promoting the iPod the majority of people would be without the seeming glee the iPod brings them. So one is forced to ask a question. Which is really more important: coming up with a new idea no one knows about or spotting the diamond in a field of coal? The answer is, obviously, the ability to take the unknown and present it in a pleasing fashion. After all an invention, no matter how cool, that remains relegated to the backwater of public consciousness does very little good. Apple may not be the fount of innovation people seem to think they are but they still provide a service other companies seem to be unable to master and that is more than enough reason to celebrate the folks in Cupertino.