Jonathan Ive on Design and Apple's Focus on Great Products Instead of Profits

[burnside]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

A $29.00 bumper isn't required to make an iPhone work.

Hehe, you do remember when they had to give away free iPhone bumpers to make their iPhone "work", don't you?

[Rogifan]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Ive is saying what Steve has been saying for nearly 30 years.

Great product first, everything else second.

Steve did say in Walter Isaacson's book that Jony understood Apple at its core better than anyone else. Are people here suggesting Steve was wrong?

[jmggs]

Originally Posted by Ochyandkaren

: Minus being green all above serve as proof that Apple is not about making money a la Microsoft ( which tries HARD to PLEASE even the dead ).
: Yeah, if you are mad just NEVER buy an apple again. See?
: I doubt he/she can see!

That i Microsoft OS can be installed in older hardware running good! No fake obsolesce! And that is be green not forcing people to buy new hardware!

[G4DP]

Originally Posted by DanielSw

Why not? Because those profits finance important aspects of Apple's business like capital investment--using CASH without incurring debt; like R&D which is VERY expensive, so that they can keep coming out with great products and improving existing profits.

Reasonable prices? They're ALREADY reasonable to anyone who appreciates the quality of Apple products.

And NO, those purchasing Apple products aren't INVESTING in Apple as such. A purchase implies an equitable exchange of money for product with NO future obligation other than limited warranty coverage.

R&D, what the hell are you on about. The component manufacturers are the ones that do the R&D. Apple didn't come up with a retina display, the display manufacturers did all the damn work.

Apple come up with and idea of what they want and ask the suppliers to make it. Apple do f all real R&D. The 'New' Mac Pro for example, do you really think they spent anything on that? Or was it Intel that spent $bn's developing the proc's?

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by WardC

Ignoring the Mac Pro, killing off the 17" MacBook Pro, Apple is not focused on Pro customers anymore, their focus is on profits -- and what is profitable for Apple is selling iDevices, iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, and the iTunes store. Solely that -- makes up over 90% of their profit. The desktop machines make up a fractional portion of maybe 1% of the total profit Apple makes now. It was not that way 15 or 20 years ago. Apple is a different company now. They used to be focused on making great computers, now they are mainly focused on purely making money, and tons of it. Sorry Jonathan, you got it wrong...YOU may be focused on great design work...but the driving forces that manage the sales, marketing, and distribution have turned Apple into a money-making machine-horse. Money has become the main focus of Apple over anything else, no matter what Tim Cook or Jonathan Ive or the Engineers say, it's easy to see through it all.

What I mean to say is, they are still making great products...but the focus is more on money, not being a niche, specialized company that caters to a professional and creative elite, that Apple once was. When you see Apple now selling stuff to mainland China -- they are doing this purely to make money. Apple once was a direct source of hardware support and all of their machines were made in the USA, in Freemont California. Now they are made in Shenzhen China!! -- yes, because Apple is greedy and focused on cheap labor to maximize their profits tenfold.

I still love the Mac, I still love Apple products, I still love the Mac OS -- but I am not as warm and fuzzy about the company as I was when I was growing up as a teenager.

Pro's are still needed as much as ever for Apple. Developers for iOS apps and the Mac App Store.

While PC desktops have dramatically dropped, Mac computers has continued to go up in sales regardless of how much profits iOS devices make.

You have no understanding of what Logistics are and cheap labor is not the motivating factor why production was moved to China. The USA cannot supply enough engineers, raw material, and factories to supply enough finished product to the world.

Originally Posted by burnside

Hehe, you do remember when they had to give away free iPhone bumpers to make their iPhone "work", don't you?

My iPhone 4 worked fine without it.

[kemal]

Profits secondary in a publicly traded company? Seems to not pass the stink test. Never-minding the legal responsibility to shareholders.

Take a view of the leaked iPhone, um, 6 along the bottom side (or top side). The lines coming together and the different materials kinda looks like some Frank Lloyd Wright art glass. Genius!

[lazard]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

cheap labor is not the motivating factor why production was moved to China.

lol

[turtlez]

Originally Posted by Reach9

what an incorrect statement. Every competitive company's goal is to maximize profits. Their goal is to make money.
Jonny is trying to make it look like Apple is different than any other company, when in it's definition it's the same as Samsung, RIM, Google etc, ... their goal is to make money.
Apple makes great products to get money, but money is still the main driving force.

Also, if a two-toned iPhone is their 'best work yet'.. then i'm unpleasantly surprised.

cool story bro hahahahaha

[Rogifan]

OK I'll ask this again. If the focus is money why wouldn't Apple be focused more on market share? Surely they could reduce profit margins and make it up in volume. I would imagine there is a large swath of people who might be interested in owning an Apple product but feel they're out of their price range.

When Apple decided to do the iPod and then iPhone do people really believe money was the driving force behind that?

I work for a Fortune 50 company that's worth $50B in market cap. Our leadership never focuses on money. The focus is all about products and services. All about retaining existing customers and gaining new ones. Profit is just a consequence of having good products/services to sell and running an efficient organization. Obviously a corporation needs to profit to survive but go to any corporate website where they post their mission statement (or equivalent) and none of them talk about company profits. All Ive was saying is when they're working on products, money is not the driving force behind it. Making great products that people will buy is.

[flux73]

For godsakes people, please stop being so dense. Of course, ONE of Apple's goals is to make money. DUH. Stop making this point. It should be obvious that that is not what Ive was referring to at all.

An appropriate analogy here I think is Hollywood sequels. When a Hollywood movie makes a lot of money, they tend to make a sequel even when it's ill-advised (Indiana Jones 4 anyone? Star Wars 1, 2, 3?), just because they know it will make money. Ives is saying that the corporate heads at Apple will not try to compromise something JUST for the sake of money. It needs to fit into their overall plan and vision. They figure if their vision is a good one, plenty of money will follow. So far, they've been right. The question is whether or not they can stay on course with their plan.

[boss.king]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

Steve did say in Walter Isaacson's book that Jony understood Apple at its core better than anyone else. Are people here suggesting Steve was wrong?

I'm suggesting that Steve liked to bend the truth. Ive is a great designer, but he doesn't run Apple. He is a designer, so obviously his view of the company will be from a design standpoint. Just because he believes that that is Apples priority doesn't make it so.

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by kemal

Profits secondary in a publicly traded company? Seems to not pass the stink test. Never-minding the legal responsibility to shareholders.

Take a view of the leaked iPhone, um, 6 along the bottom side (or top side). The lines coming together and the different materials kinda looks like some Frank Lloyd Wright art glass. Genius!

Putting profits first does not always work. Apple makes products people want to buy. They do this by first making a great product. Profits for profit sake, does not always make a good product.

Bean counters don't make good product engineers.

[Ochyandkaren]

Originally Posted by Bezetos

The headline made my laugh straight away

I don't think any number of marketing initiatives and quotes of Jonathan's "wisdom" will change public opinion about Apple's profit-focused strategy.

: Can you elucidate us about that stratejy?

[WardC]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

The USA cannot supply enough engineers, raw material, and factories to supply enough finished product to the world.

The USA supplied enough to keep Apple a vibrant company for many years...a great company. Who says they have to "deliver" to the world, why don't they just focus on the USA and stop being greedy? Move production back to the US and bring the jobs back here!! We don't need megafactories producing these aluminum machines in China...I liked the old Macs better anyways.

[Ochyandkaren]

Originally Posted by jmggs

That i Microsoft OS can be installed in older hardware running good! No fake obsolesce! And that is be green not forcing people to buy new hardware!

: Really?
: Who held the gun?
: Recycling is greener!

[Johnf1285]

Can the next photographer that takes his picture please tell him to smile? Lol

[MattInOz]

Originally Posted by Bezetos

supports open-source initiatives

Ummm.... Given that Google and Apple are now key partners in many open-source and open-standard initiatives started by each other, both investing many engineers to work on these project full time. It would seem a little unfair to just write-off Apple contribution as nothing but profit making, Yet hold Google up as some great Bastian of freedom.

Both are in it for the pure simple reason that for those things the shared investment is more valuable then exclusive one. Google may see more value and has more investment going in but that doesn't make them more noble.

To me a lot of the perceived 'Noblity' of Google is just marketing. Google's initiatives play well in their target demo. Apple involvement with things like LLVM don't.

----------

Originally Posted by burnside

Hehe, you do remember when they had to give away free iPhone bumpers to make their iPhone "work", don't you?

Yet you still see 1000's of people walking a round talking on their iPhones, at least half with on case at all.

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by WardC

The USA supplied enough to keep Apple a vibrant company for many years...a great company. Who says they have to "deliver" to the world, why don't they just focus on the USA and stop being greedy? Move production back to the US and bring the jobs back here!! We don't need megafactories producing these aluminum machines in China...I liked the old Macs better anyways.

They supplied enough until the demand got too great for America to keep up. If you want jobs to come back to America, more people need to get in to hard sciences and technology. More Asian countries seem to be far ahead of us in this field.

So a company is not allowed to grow and expand just because you said so?!? But instead you call it greedy because they worked very hard at what they did, and did it quite brilliantly. They took all the risks and hard work and determination to succeed, so they deserve to reap all the benefits.

[lazard]

Originally Posted by MattInOz

Ummm.... Given that Google and Apple are now key partners in many open-source and open-standard initiatives started by each other, both investing many engineers to work on these project full time. It would seem a little unfair to just write-off Apple contribution as nothing but profit making, Yet hold Google up as some great Bastian of freedom.

Both are in it for the pure simple reason that for those things the shared investment is more valuable then exclusive one. Google may see more value and has more investment going in but that doesn't make them more noble.

To me a lot of the perceived 'Noblity' of Google is just marketing. Google's initiatives play well in their target demo. Apple involvement with things like LLVM aren't.

----------



Yet you still see 1000's of people walking a round talking on their iPhones, at least half with on case at all.

According to Steve, half of them are holding it wrong.

[koruki]

Originally Posted by boss.king

If your goal isn't making money, then why not lower your profit margins and sell your stuff at a reasonable price?

reasonable price for the same quality? So tired of people comparing the price a unibody macbook to a plastic laptop, btw design ain't FREE either. So far we've still yet to see an iPad rival that can compete in price let alone product quality.

Might as well ask people to lower the price of gold because silver is cheaper and just as good.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

Steve did say in Walter Isaacson's book that Jony understood Apple at its core better than anyone else. Are people here suggesting Steve was wrong?

Given Steve Jobs' affinity for artists and his belief that Apple at its core was about art, I think Jobs would have a soft sport for a designer.

[NumberNine]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

cheap labor is not the motivating factor why production was moved to China.

This might be the funniest thing I've heard all day!

[vmachiel]

I freakin love Johnny Ive, I hope he stays for a long time

[rendevouspoo]

Originally Posted by DanielSw

Reasonable prices? They're ALREADY reasonable to anyone who appreciates the quality of Apple products.

Reasonable prices and Apple should never be used together.

[Reach9]

Woah woah woah. I didn't think such an obvious statement would have such replies. I forgot that there are many fanboys here.

Originally Posted by Zunjine

Subtext: I'm angry! I hate the world! I hate you! I need a hug!!!

I'm actually not angry. But hey, who doesn't need a hug now and then?

Originally Posted by boss.king

If your goal isn't making money, then why not lower your profit margins and sell your stuff at a reasonable price?

Yep.

Originally Posted by Thunderhawks

Yes, incorrect statement ....by you. He is not saying making money is unimportant.

He simply mentions that Apple's way of doing business is different. You can believe that or not. They just know that the money will come.

There is actually a proof that Jobs vision almost bankrupted them and they were saved by Microsofts money.

I see plenty of hair raising designs and products "designed" by US companies.

Take Black & Decker, Sunbeam, Broan, Faberware and the list goes on uurrrrgh

The phone is not out yet and as much as people hated the iphone 4, they will hate the next one too until they see it, hold it etc.

Ive likes the Rams design philosophy and simplicity is a beautiful thing.

Between the saturation in electronics and no real new idea around, I just hope Apple can keep things up for a while.

Nope, I didn't make an incorrect statement.
They have seen that money comes because they make great products. They make great products to make money.
However, they won't make an iPhone if they weren't profiting from it.

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Apple has ALWAYS (well, at least since the late 90s) been driven by DESIGN, not by PROFIT - it's clear that Ive was referring to the fact that it's not about designing the cheapest crap at the lowest cost to sell it at high margin...it's about designing the BEST possible device and THEN reap the rewards.

If you can't understand this basic principle, you can't understand why Apple is successful nowadays.

I do understand why Apple is successful nowadays. Yes they design great products, but the fact of the matter is.. they focus on profiting as much as possible from these products.

Sorry, but looks like you just don't have understanding of business. Every for-profit company, especially those that are public have a main goal.. which is to maximize profits.

If you can't understand this basic principle, you can't understand why businesses function.

Originally Posted by Ryth

You're absolutely crazy if you think Apple is anything close to the company that is Samsung, RIM, etc. Their views on everything are completely opposite. Apple has ALWAYS been about the superior product and user experience. You cannot argue this because they've never worried about market share in PCs or other products.

And RIM, that's a good one. Look where they are at now.

I'm crazy? lol.
The way you speak tells me that you have no education on how businesses function.

You might also need to focus on reading comprehension. I said that all of the for-profit companies have one thing in common.. they want to maximize profits. That is true for Google, Samsung, RIM, etc. the way they do it is what differs.

If you can't understand this basic principle, you can't understand why businesses function.

Of course Apple's goal is to make money...BUT instead of taking a money first, design second approach, they took the exact opposite...and you cannot argue this because it's working.

And you call me crazy, really?

Look at MS...their goal is to make money. But it's their first goal. And here is the statement from Ballmer that explains why they are no longer the superior company...

There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.

Apple created a superior device and the profits followed. Same with the iPad. Same with the iPod. Same with whatever else they come out with 90% of the time.

Meanwhile most of these other companies you mentioned are completely fine with putting out tons of versions of phones a year so they can maximize profits instead of developing and banking on ONE superior product. How many phones does Samsung make, have out on the market?

Game changing products don't come along every year. It's just not possible.

What Apple has done in the last 10 years is mind blowing from a business perspective and disruptive force.

iPod - Destroyed CD/portable market. Changed Music industry forever. New business model.

iPhone - Destroyed most phone makers. Only few remain. Smart phone era is born. Portable 'computer' in your hand.

iPad - Destroying PC/Laptop market. Individuals realizing that tablet is all they need vs bulky desktop/laptops.

That is all within a 10 year period. Staggering.

Keeping drinking that kool-aid.

You think focusing on profits is what made Microsoft so unsuccessful? what a joke.

Originally Posted by spiderman0616

And this is why you're not in charge at Apple. Of course they care about their revenue--they can't go on as a company without it. But they are not thinking about revenue when they design products. They're just thinking about making the best product they can. Jony isn't paid to worry about exactly how many millions or billions the next iPad is going to bring in for Apple. He's paid to come up with the best design idea that he can.

If you think that people in charge at Apple are thinking differently than what my post suggested, then you're dreaming.

Of course they're thinking about revenue when they design the products, why is production outsourced? If you think that the thought of "i wonder how much this is going to cost us to make, how much can we sell it at?" doesn't come up when designing a product, then you're dreaming.

Keep drinking that kool-aid.

Originally Posted by pesos

LOL! What total BS. Profit margin is ridiculously high. What he really means is "great design is one of the many tools we employ in order to make sure we make a buttload of $."

Yep.

Originally Posted by pesos

As are many of the designers at Sony, Samsung, etc. Are you saying THEY are any different than Ives? Or is the difference in the other departments?

I am happy to pay for quality, and I do, but to try and say that Apple has not traditionally milked the crap out of its consumers is blind fanboi-ism. Although it's exactly that that allowed Apple to charge $80 for a keyboard because it was see-through plastic! :-)

Yep.

Originally Posted by Mad-B-One

lol didn't hear that much missinformation in one post for a while. There are tons of competitive companies who do not care about profits at all because they are (owned/run by) foundations or very engaged in phelantropy. Heinz Ketchup, for example. There are companies which actually have that as their marketing concept e.g. Tom's Shoes. Sometimes, it is about market share, sometimes it's just the vision of the owner. Maximizing profits might be true for some but it's BS to drive it to an absolute. If that would be true, they would not build one car in Germany. It's way cheaper to build it elsewhere. Also, many communities own "companies" for a certain limited use - like a water supplier or a water treatment plan. Their goal is to keep it cost efficient and that's it. States own banks just to be able to stabilize markets or to govern transactions etc. The list can go on and on. My pointis: A company's primier goal is not only "not always profit maximization" but actually quite commonally somthing else.


PS: About the "best work yet" - did you all forget about the rumored TV/entertainment center?

Those are exceptions, but Business or Economics 101 will tell you that for-profit businesses generally focus on profit maximization.

Originally Posted by Danoc

Not necessarily. If you look at Jobs's private life, he was a modest CEO. No extravagant vacations, no huge mansion, ... He was dedicated to his job and his products.

Then of course as a corporate, to survive in this world, they have to master the finance. Operations, margins, etc. ... They built the Apple model on high margin versus high volume. Pretty successful. Cherry on the sunday, they got high volumes with the iproducts generation.

lol! Everyone has different ways of using their personal money. Steve Jobs was a billionaire.

Originally Posted by Jon the Heretic

Not sure how any of you can doubt this is indeed how Apple works.

Of course they try to get the best prices on manufacturing and use economies of scale to further drive down prices; of course they try to out compete on price when they can --- the iPad is actually cheaper than comparable quality Android tablets; of course they go for as healthy a profit margin as they can command, etc. And they like to outsource manufacturer to China, where the very state subsidizes costs in order to keep all costs low for U.S. companies. Yes, Apple likes making money, and I can only imagine Apple has a few very smart MBAs in the supply chain.

...but what makes Apple different than other companies is the focus on creating a really great product that first and foremost, people want to buy! It must be eye catching and stand out from the crowd; it must be useful; it must be simple; it must be fun; it must exude quality; and when you put all of this together, it must be a product that is a status symbol that both rich and people of lesser means are willing -- eager!! -- to purchase. No one has ever done all of this by solely focusing on lowering labor costs and cost cutting, the MBA way.

Apple is very smart about their supply chain but they are just as smart not to skimp on creating highly usable, attractive and useful products. In this sense, Apple is the anti-MBA company in that they do not follow the MBA rulebook of spending as little as possible on creating great products (almost no one invests in usability anymore) or even trying to do genuine innovation (easier to wait and copy someone else). Under the MBAs, most companies push first for lower costs (labor, materials, services) and creating products people wants to buy a distant second.

And though manufacturing is all in China, don't be surprised if Apple will end up with as many U.S. employees as IBM or HP in a few years as these latter companies are working so hard to to shed as many American/Western employees as they can, being led by MBAs who only understand cost cutting and the 'bottom line' but have no idea how to make quality products someone wants to buy.

I agree with the general idea of your post.
As a business major it seems like common sense to me. But I feel that for people who don't understand, they should consult some YouTube videos or books on Economics and/or Business.

Originally Posted by C.G.B. Spender

Bottom line is to make money, because a company can’t exist otherwise, but HOW you make that is what makes the difference.

bingo.

Originally Posted by boss.king

But they're doing more than not operating at a loss. They're making record profits. Surely then their goal is making money. If They didn't care about the money they could easily drop their prices, and still continue to make make money.

I'm not knocking Apple for making money, I'm pointing out that what Ive said is BS. I appreciate the quality of Apple products, but I'd appreciate it equally if they knocked $100 off the price tag. The quality argument is played out, many tech companies make great quality stuff, but they still charge less for it.

Yep.

Originally Posted by boss.king

But if you don't want to be poor, then one of your goals is to make money.

lol that's true.

Originally Posted by markcres

Presumably you think Apple want to churn out unicorn droppings and make rainbows of peace and love?...No..Apple absolutely is motivated by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!! Do you get it?

lol yep.

Originally Posted by Bubba Satori

"...instead of profits"?

That's either the most disingenuous comment in the history of American business or a bald faced lie.
Take your choice.
Does he think people are idiots?
Don't even bother answering that one.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Bezetos

Wow, how ill-informed you are!

I mean really? Really? You compare Apple to Google, and state that Google is the company that is driven by profit, not Apple?

Google is a million times more philanthropic (although that's mathematically incorrect, because if you multiply Apple's zero by a million you still get a zero...), supports open-source initiatives, start-ups, educational projects etc. etc.

And Apple? They're the ones who try to increase their profit margins everywhere.

I mean, dude, this: "let's get Android in front of as many people as we can so we can make more money on ads and drive them to more Google services" is just hilarious. Cause Apple doesn't want to have monopoly at all... no no no! (sarcasm)

It's just so funny how the opposite of what you said is true.

Yep.
Good points too.

Originally Posted by burnside

Some of these types of comments are pure comedy. Just last year Apple deliberately locked up the supply of screens for tablets forcing its competitors to wait for additional supply. Oh yes, changing the world one $ at a time.

Pure comedy indeed.

Originally Posted by iSee

I don't think you're quite right.
Every company has to bring in money to continue to exist.
That doesn't mean it has to be their primary focus in product development. He is saying Apple focuses on making great products rather than focusing on making products that will make money. It works out just fine from a business perspective because if you hand competent marketing, sales, production, and fulfillment groups a great product, they'll have no trouble making the money. All he's saying is the approach is different.

Also, he didn't mention those other companies--you did. You're trying to draw the conclusion that he is trying to make Apple seem different than those other companies, but that's coming out of your own head.

BTW, I'm almost 100% sure Apple has a different approach than RIM. You say making profits is the goal of every company and then say Apple is the same as RIM... I think you might be having some disorganized thoughts on this subject.

You say, "Apple makes great products to get money, but money is still the main driving force," but I don't think that squares with reality.

In his last years SJ had all the money he could possibly use or want. He also knew he was facing the end. Yet he still kept working at Apple to make great products.
* He could not benefit from more profits in any way.
* He knew it.
So: He had no possible profit motive but kept working to make great products anyway. Clearly profit was not the main driving force for him.

It is definitely the main goal of a for-profit public company to maximize profits, it might not be primary.

Apple makes great products, for sure. But Apple makes great products that will bring in a lot of revenue.

Jonny was implying that at Apple they focus on making great products instead of profits, thus implying that Apple is different than other companies. When that's just not true.
The way Apple makes profits might be different, but fundamentally Apple is as focused on making profits as any other for-profit company.
I don't have disorganized thoughts. Instead, you should try educating yourself in Business and Economics.

Note, i didn't say every company has the same approach. I said that they are all fundamentally trying to maximize profits, whereas Jonny said that Apple doesn't focus on profits, which is simply false.
So yes, Apple, RIM, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, they're all companies and so their main goal is to maximize profits.

I sound like a broken record by now.

It's tough to jump to conclusions based off Steve Jobs' actions, that is personal. People have their own ways of dealing with money.
The fact of the matter is, he was a very wealthy person.

Originally Posted by Rogifan

Steve did say in Walter Isaacson's book that Jony understood Apple at its core better than anyone else. Are people here suggesting Steve was wrong?

No people here are suggesting that Apple is a corporation, and just like all the other for-profit companies their main goal is profit maximization.

People.. there's nothing wrong with profit maximization, why are you making it sound like it's a bad thing?