Perfection

Written by

Harry Marks is the creator of CuriousRat.com and co-hosts the weekly technology podcast, inThirty.net.

Tell me if you’ve heard this one: “Steve Jobs never would’ve let [PRODUCT/SERVICE/INCIDENT] happen.”

That declaration has distorted the way the press writes about Apple and how it operates. The claims of his alleged perfectionism and ability to “sweat the details” didn’t just elevate the CEO to “best thing since sliced bread” status, it mutated the perception of the company for industry insiders and the public.

Perfectionism was the driving force behind the hackneyed “reality distortion field” and has only gotten worse in recent years. Shortly after his death, publications and blogs lauded the man, calling him “an ingenious perfectionist,” a “design perfectionist,” and waxed poetically on how the original Macintosh took more than three years to develop due to Jobs’s “obsession with detail.” There’s no denying the man was brilliant, but let’s take a step back.

Based on those and many other articles, we’ve been led to believe Jobs was untouchable. After all, this was the man who brought us major hits like the iPod, iMac, iPhone, and iPad. All four of those devices either brought Apple out of obscurity or pushed it to the head of the class.

When you look back at these products — all released under Jobs’s watch — you notice what set them apart from the competition: durable polycarbonate plastic, anodized aluminum, glass, chrome, superior build qualities, stellar support, and higher resale values. Apple’s products may not have been perfect, but because they were so much better than the bland junk being churned out by other companies, it began to appear as if Apple could do no wrong.

We easily forgot or forgave products like iPod Socks, the iPod Hi-Fi, the G4 Cube, and the original Apple TV, all of which were came out while Steve Jobs was CEO.

Unfortunately, it was a little too easy to overlook the flaws and we were saddled with a conundrum when Steve stepped down as CEO in August of 2011: Would Tim Cook be at least as good a CEO as Steve Jobs?

Anyone who had been watching the company for the last several years knew that answer: Yes. Cook, as COO, was the one to streamline Apple’s supply chain, thus increasing profit margins. He also steered the ship while Jobs was on medical leave in 2004 and 2009.

Now, with Cook at the helm, the company is under even more scrutiny than in years past. Every decision, every choice, and especially every mistake is currently under the world’s pettiest microscope and even worse, is amplified ten-fold thanks to the “echo chamber of suck” that is the blogosphere. “Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs” is the running theme these days, and while Cook is unlike Jobs in some cases, the sentiment also implies he is an inferior CEO compared to his predecessor.

Who else would apologize for poorly performing products, or allow vendors to go unpunished for leaking images of unreleased hardware other than Steve’s lesser replacement?

For one, component leaks are nothing new to Apple. The iPhone 4 was lost in a bar while Jobs was still in charge and the press had a field day. There were articles about how the prototype was found, the subsequent raid on a prominent blogger’s home, and how it was so unlike Apple to let this happen.

Before that, there were leaks of the iPhone 3G S’s hardware and software. This wasn’t because Apple was “slipping,” but, rather, because any mention of a new Apple product sends the public and the press into a frenzy. New iDevices mean more speculative articles, more op-eds, more money for leaked pictures, and of course, more ad revenue from page impressions.

It became the M.O. of the media to perpetuate the idea that Jobs was an obsessive, secretive perfectionist with a mean streak who ran a company against a straggling competition. However, unbeknownst to that same media, it ended up proving Apple was just like any other company. It had flaws, it made mistakes, and it even owned up to them.

For reference, below are several “-gates” of which Apple has been the subject:

  • “Antennagate” — Soon after the iPhone 4′s release, it was discovered that users who covered a certain section of the phone’s antenna with their hands could cause the device to lose reception. What did Apple do? It held a news conference and gave everyone a free case.
  • “Locationgate” — News reports came out claiming iPhones were tracking users’ locations. In reality, the devices were logging locations of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers around those users’ current locations without their knowledge. The resulting kerfuffle was declared “Locationgate” and misreported as “Apple tracks everywhere you go, ooga booga.”
  • “Glassgate” — Ryan Block was upset when he discovered that slide-on cases for the iPhone 4 tended to scratch the phone’s glass back if dust or debris became trapped between it and the case. Eventually, this non-issue petered out and had no effect on iPhone 4 sales.
  • “Scuffgate” — A recent problem affecting iPhone 5 owners who handle their phones in the same hands as their keys.
  • “Mapgate” — The latest “scandal” to hit Apple has iOS 6 users up in arms because the original default maps application (which used Google’s map data) has been replaced with a brand new version utilizing Apple’s own data, which is arguably inferior depending upon the part of the world in which the user lives. Tim Cook has since issued an apology and suggested several alternative apps to use for better location information.

Regarding that last “-gate,” several pundits saw the bungled Maps launch as another notch in the “Apple is doomed without Steve” belt, claiming “Steve Jobs never would’ve released iOS 6 like this” and “Steve never would’ve apologized,” but history has shown both of those claims to be untrue.

It’s easy to forget that a company as omnipresent and highly-regarded as Apple makes mistakes almost as often as it encounters success. Apple is an anomaly in that it’s one of the few companies users are quick to defend when things go wrong and then forget about those problems soon after. Apple’s products are well-built, well-marketed, and well-supported, and they come from a company that takes what it does very seriously.

When a product as gorgeous as the iPhone shows a defect or flaw, it’s magnified like a bloodstain on fresh snow. And when a company that consistently outperforms the rest of the industry stumbles, it’s like watching Gene Kelly in a room full of marbles. The illusion of perfection is shattered for those who believe the subject is infallible.

No company is perfect. No product is perfect. And no matter how hard he tried, Steve Jobs wasn’t perfect, either. However, unlike any other company, Apple strives for perfection in everything it produces. Apple is climbing a new mountain with several of its products, like the updated Maps app and Siri, and it’s going to encounter problems along the way. It would behoove us all to remember Apple slipped a few times on the way up several other mountains when Jobs led the way, too.



  • franktisellano

    Amen!

    Also, iPod Socks were awesome.

    • xynta_man

      So was the hockey puck mouse and the G4 Cube, yet they are perceived as fails for Apple by most people (who neither used or saw one IRL).

      The only fail for the G4 Cube (aside from manufacturing defects and user screw-ups, which exist for any product) were the timeframe of its release and positioning:

      It was a cool small pro computer and was worth like one, yet the pro market wasn’t that interested in it (because of old habits, misconceptions, etc) and the pro market wasn’t that strong for Apple in those years — Apple released great pro gear, yet they were looked down by many pros because of their near-death experience (“Buy Apple’s stuff? Are you mad? They were almost bankrupt and killed many products to stay alive”) and consumer-frendliness (“A workstation? From the colored computer guys? Ha, that’s a good one”). It’s should not a surprise why Apple isn’t really thinking about the pro market as the main priority now.

      While the market has clearly started to move to more compact and mobile solutions (with the “snow” iBook becoming one of the most popular products for Apple), the majority of “old” computer users still head tower-desktop-only mentality and just didn’t want a compact workstation, which the G4 Cube was — “why buy a smaller machine, when you can get a bigger one?”. The old towers were slowly losing the relevance, yet compact and mobile slowly gained it and the G4 Cube got released in the middle of this cycle.

      It’s also the issue that “most people” (at least those who were interested in buying Apple’s computers) were “wanting” a more modern and compact replacement for the “old” CRT-based iMacs (which they later got in form of the iMac G4) and not tower-based PowerMacs. An “ideal” Apple computer was viewed by many as a “displayless iMac” (which was later released as the Mac mini), not a “volumeless” PowerMac.

      Personally, I think that a Cube-like (very small workstation) computer form Apple would be more popular and successful today, than it was than, since far less people “need” a tower, while still wanting a workstation, but alas it’s probably not possible to make one because of Intel CPUs: the cube was small and passive-cooled, despite being a workstation with a real graphic card — good luck trying to do it with fast desktop (or even laptop) i5/i7, let alone Xeon CPU from Intel.

      As for the hockey puck mouse, it wasn’t bad (it even had good sides and was pretty comfortable, if you got used to it) — it just was way too different from what most users were familiar with at that time. And while there are different mice that require different styles of use and hand placement, making a new one that had the image of “that iMac toy mouse for kids” didn’t help in establishing its popularity.

  • Larry

    Five times Apple has introduced a product that initially was panned as a “toy” or a “disappointment”. The Macintosh bought GUI to the masses and is now the standard for personal computers. The iMac gave a rebirth to the Mac, and brought the all-in-computer to market. The iPod made mp3 players usable and revolutionized the music business. The iPhone gave us the future of mobile. The iPad is the future of computing. We long for these products and lust for more. Can anyone name another company more likely to deliver the next big thing? However, disruption is an unpredictable collision of opportunity and innovation. Apple’s ability to disrupt is what sets it apart from others. While some companies disrupt, it is largely unintended. For Apple, disruption is a business plan.

    • http://twitter.com/colinmat Colin Mattson

      You left out another good one: the toilet seat iBooks.

      While hideously ugly then and even more hideously ugly today, Apple was the lone company willing to experiment so boldly with notebook design.

      Colors. USB. A latchless lid. A shape that wasn’t a three-inch-thick brick. All the connectivity you could need built right in, including this newfangled “WiFi” thing.

      • xynta_man
        While hideously ugly then and even more hideously ugly today

        By Apple’s current design? Maybe, but still far better than most PC laptops, lol.

  • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

    I skimmed the majority of it but really well written and accurate. Great job!

  • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

    Oh and I prefer the 2nd definition of ‘bland’: adjective, bland·er, bland·est. 1. pleasantly gentle or agreeable: a bland, affable manner. 2. soothing or balmy, as air: a bland southern breeze.

    lmbo. ;-)

  • BC2009

    So true. So true. I think part of the problem came before Steve passed though (Antennagate?). Apple has become the big kid on the block. The press no longer gives a free pass for any mistake. Google is still enjoying a free pass on their mistakes (especially for where their mapping solution fails or their utter lack of user support).

    But the number one question I have whenever somebody says an Apple stumble is going to spell their doom is “who in the competition is doing a better overall job?” The answer is simple: nobody. If you get an Android phone then customer support and OS upgrades are nightmare (even on some Nexus models if they run Verizon). If you buy an HP or Dell computer you may save $100 at the high end or $400 at the low end that Apple won’t bother to touch, but ultimately you are going to have to run Windows (possibly on cheap low-end hardware), deal with split support from Microsoft and the hardware vendor, and muddle your way through backup and security solutions.

    There are competitors that do some things better than Apple, but Apple takes home more gold medals than any competitor and where they don’t take home the gold, they bring home a close silver medal. When Apple wins bronze in some fluke occurrence people act as if every other victory is meaningless. Microsoft has been coasting on “good-enough bronze” for years.

    Some might argue that Nokia maps are better than Apple’s solution, but many argued that TomTom was better than Navteq (Nokia’s maps) for years until it went under the Apple Scrutiny Microscope. Apple is graded on a different curve than every other tech company. The telling point is that they have topped JD Power’s customer satisfaction survey for eight years running and 94% of iPhone customers plan to buy another iPhone. This means that the stories of “I switched from Apple to XYZ and have not looked back” are either often faked or are a very vocal minority. It also means the Tech media is out of touch with what consumers are actually looking for in their products.

    There is nobody in the tech industry that can currently deliver like Apple can. Those who miss the fact that Apple has such solid fundamentals and are in it for the long haul are mistaken. Those who are constantly waiting for the once Cinderella team to return to their former state of shame are going to singing that tune for a long time since Apple is going nowhere but up for the next three years. Apple may continue to go up beyond that but its hard to know if something revolutionary may come along to change the game. Then again, it could be Apple who brings about the next revolutionary change as well. If I had to put my money on who would bring about the next revolutionary change, I would put my money on Apple.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Peter-Juhl/806489169 Peter Juhl

    There’s a lot of hyperbole surrounding Apple, both positive and negative. Pundits and journalists needs to create content and get page views – just look at something like the Gawker Media Big Board as a concept if you want to get a feel for how fierce the competition is… even within the same company.

    On the other hand Apple seemingly have created an army of knights who roam the Internet look for a hint of criticism, ready to shout down everything that moves until everybody sings the company song – so it’s rare to have an obejective view on Apple and it’s surroundings.

    I miss Steve as a person because he was a fun character and inspiring like nobody else (almost), Tim isn’t that character – his stint at AllThingsD last year left me sort of wondering where Apple want’s to go – it also seems like quality assurance within Apple has been lacking a bit the last couple of years. I really have a hard time seeing how anyone at Apple really thought Maps would amaze anybody, and I feel like (breaking the rule of not invoking Steve) that’s something “the old Apple” wouldn’t have executed this way. I understand the reasoning, expected it to be done – not just as clumsy.

    It may be 10 years of stellar marketing that makes the last couple of years stand out – as an example: the iPad3 “LTE” debacle in Europe – it seemed like only Apple was surprised by this, sticking to your guns and having a court order you, not to write “LTE” is fairly idiotic from a marketing standpoint. Secondly – to this day, I don’t understand why they didn’t lower expectations for their Maps adventure, they could have slapped a beta tag on it and users would expect it to be a bumpy road. Maps isn’t a very good app… yet – but according to Scott Forstall of Christmas past, it was the best thing since sliced bread – that is what’s disappointing about it. It just looks like there’s a power struggle at Apple and it saddens me that this energy doesn’t go into making a stellar experience instead – Tim might be too nice?

  • http://ryanblock.com/ Ryan Block

    Hey, regarding “glassgate”: I wasn’t “upset” about the fact that slide-on cases could potentially scratch or score iPhone 4 + 4S rear glass. As I said at the time, Apple identified this as being a potential flaw with the design, and responded quickly (but quietly) so as to prevent further negative narrative about their flagship product.

    The reaction Apple took, in this case, was to go totally nuclear on all slide-on iPhone cases. Specifically, that meant completely removing any non-snap-on case from Apple Store sales for an extraordinarily long period of time. This included very high profile accessories, such as the Mophie Juicepack. (Fortunately, a few slide-on cases, including the Juicepack, have since gone back on sale at the Apple store over the last couple years.)

    Was it a major issue? Nope. As it happens, Apple probably totally overreacted to the possibile damage caused by slide-on cases. (Then again, the issue ended up being kind of moot, so maybe their reaction did the trick!) But whether you were likely to scratch your phone with a slide-on case was never really the point.

    The point was that Apple went into serious preemptive damage control, and that had a material effect on Apple’s accessory partners and the products consumers could buy at the Apple Store.