CNET writer David Carnoy’s posted a piece on the tech news site yesterday titled “Without Steve Jobs, is Apple Sony?”
In short, no, it isn’t.
But that’s too short of a post (and frankly wasn’t much fun to write), so let me elaborate on my answer. Here’s a bit from David’s article:
…no one could replace Steve Jobs, pitcher extraordinaire, a Sandy Koufax on the marketing mound, if there ever was one.
The fact is, no one can create a reality distortion field like Jobs. And ultimately, I said, that’s what Apple would miss most, especially after Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, Phil Schiller, hadn’t done much to inspire the faithful with his ho-hum keynote speech at MacWorld 2009.
The classic “Steve Jobs = Apple; Apple = Steve Jobs” train of thought. Boring and wrong. Here’s some more:
While the new releases may be a step up from Apple TV, which just hasn’t been able to find a broad audience, they’re not the iPod Nano or a new MacBook or iPhone OS 3.0. But what’s a little disconcerting is how the products, particularly the Mac Mini and iPod Shuffle, landed with a bit a thud. Sure, they got a ton of publicity–and publicity is good–but a lot of it ranged from neutral to negative.
You have to wonder whether if Jobs had been had been on the mound, they would have gotten a better reception. Sure, the good tech pundits are supposed to ignore the marketing hype and deliver the unvarnished truth, but when Jobs presents, there’s often a halo effect on the products. When he pitches, the story is not only about the products but also about the performance itself.
So, in a nutshell: Steve Jobs’ presence during a product launch makes that product better. Not only is that just another variation of the aforementioned argument, it’s pretty naive.
Not to mention it’s insulting to the teams of people who work for months to get those products to market. Steve Jobs doesn’t speak great things into existence – no matter what David Carnoy wants to believe.
The product would have the same flaws. However, after he got through accentuating its strengths, the flaws might not seem so great. Or they might not seem like flaws at all! That’s the beauty of the reality distortion field–and a good changeup.
Holy crap, David, please stop. You’re hurting me. And the baseball analogy is wearing thin.
Here’s some more:
So how does Sony fit into all of this? Sony is also known for having beautifully designed products. But it’s hit a few slumps in the past few years, and one of its big problems is not having a Jobs-like pitchman (or pitchwoman) to give those products the spin they need–and deserve.
Yes, the pitch does have something to do with the press’ initial reaction – but over time, the products speak for themselves. If people buy a shiny bag full of poop, they may like it at first, but at the end of the day, they will realize it stinks.
I’m not discrediting Sony’s achievements. The company has some fantastic products. But Apple’s branding is far above and beyond any other company’s. Sony had that in the 80s and 90s with the Walkman brand, but they never capitalized on it or used it to catapult the company into something bigger and better (and more popular) than portable tape players. Apple used the Mac (and iTunes) to grow the iPod, which in turn brought people to the Mac. The iPhone has just added more fuel to the fire.
Sure, Steve deserves credit for some of the popularity (and obsession) the brand enjoys, but people love their Macs, iPods, and iPhones. And that’s what keeps people buying them, year after year, recession or no recession. Here’s the closer on his arguement:
As for Apple’s future, the easy thing to say is that it’s still quite bright–with or without Jobs … But we’d be wrong to underestimate the power of the reality distortion field. Good products only get you so far.
So no, Apple isn’t Sony. Not at all. It’s about the products, and when it comes to products, Apple is on top.