Amazon ‘willing to be misunderstood for very long periods of time’
geekwire.com
geekwire.com
In broad strokes, I think I'd describe the two companies this way: Amazon innovates through optimization of new markets, while Apple innovates through creating new markets. This isn't a wholly fair description of either company, and as we know, there are exceptions in either direction. But that's the business model of the two companies at a 30,000-foot glance.
As you've hinted, probably the best way to differentiate the strategies of the two companies is on the risk/reward dimension. Amazon operates on a risk-minimization model, while Apple is risk-seeking in favor of outsized rewards. This is partially because Apple is still a hardware company (for now, at least), and it needs to keep reinventing its products to stay ahead of the commoditization of hardware.
This is the problem with people that don't believe in facts: they don't believe in the fact that this belief is bad for them.
[1] http://venturehacks.com/articles/jobs-customer-development
Well said.
Even still, I think it's fair to say that Amazon primarily innovates these days through rapid and extensive iteration, especially on its consumer side.
In other words, you can measure things after they become variations on a theme, because you know what to measure, and you can measure them against past successes and failures. They've minimized the "nova" in innovation. When something is truly new, like the first time Amazon opened a new product category or a new fulfillment center, quantitative analysis isn't as helpful. "Stuff is up 12%, and crap is down 5%." "Is that good or bad?" "I dunno."
From what I've heard though Amazon does have a very WWJBD culture. It's unclear how that will play out once he's no longer a part of the company.
"On the day you decide to give up on it (hypothetical idea), what happens? Your operating margins go up because you stopped investing in something that wasn’t working. Is that really such a bad day?"
Still, I think that's a big part of his point.. to take risks early and often enough that you can (afford to) think about them this way.
On the one hand you have Apple. Apple innovates as good as, and perhaps better than the other three. But it doesn't have very many products. And while I have no knowledge of this, I'd bet it doesn't start-and-stop products as frequently as the others. And it probably doesn't have as many "active" products going on at any one time. (Maybe it does behind the scenes, but I would be surprised if it did.)
It may take some iteration and prototyping to see that you could actually turn an iPhone into a tablet.
But I'm pretty sure Jobs "saw" the tablet long ago. In his mind, it was just a matter of when.
In the case of Apple, I see experimentation occurring as a result of the vision laid out by Jobs and other senior executives.
When it comes to the others, Amazon, Facebook, and Google all seem to implement the "fail fast" strategy. In this case, experimentation leads to vision. Instead of vision leading to experimentation.
What's interesting is that Apple used to be more like the others. It had many products and segments. And very little vision. But that strategy brought it close to death. [2]
Discovery is important to all of them. But the journey seems to be different.
[1] http://allthingsd.com/20110531/eric-schmidts-gang-of-four-do...
[2] I could see why Apple sets vision first because designing and developing physical products is different than organizing information and logistics.
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/06/02/d8-jobs-...
I do believe that Apple also follows an internal "fail fast" strategy - it's just that we don't see the iterations.
I don't think Jobs is a Moses type see-all super visionary character - he just knows what's good - has "good taste". His lieutenants come up with product ideas to fit his vision, and he bashes the hell out of the bad ones. Kinda like what Google does, or Amazon does, or Bill Gates does (when he was around).
In that light, I don't think you can separate Apple from the rest of the "Gang of Four" - in fact, I think these ideas of "fail fast" and extreme agility, flexibility, and scale unite all 4 companies.
Just my opinion.
Here are the two books from that link..
Lean Startups by Eric Ries out mid-september
http://www.amazon.com/Lean-Startup-Eric-Ries/dp/0307887898
and
Little Bets by Peter Sims
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Bets-Breakthrough-Emerge-Discov...
I suspect he means "not everything we do will work". Either that or he's hinting that it's time to sell AMZN.
"All that glisters is not gold".
"All votes are not counted".
"All persons are not equal".
The problem is that they can be parsed two ways and they lend themselves to the opposite of what, in context, might have been meant.
In the same vein I am amused by "we're not going anywhere!"
See: Windows 8?
That "Why We Do This" doesn't change (and hence it's important to have the Why instead of 'here are X cool features') but the execution can differ. Great stuff from a great business leader.