Jobs Biographer Walter Isaacson: 'Execution is What Really Matters,' Apple is the Best

[IJ Reilly]

We can simply have a different opinion. I never said I didn't respect the effort. I simply didn't care for his writing. I thought it was poorly organized. The sentence structure was often poor, and it was often filled with what I felt was Isaacson drooling over Jobs - even when he was writing about Job's not-so-nice qualities.

Should the media want to talk to him sure. But that doesn't mean the public has any interest in what he has to say. Why did you assume I meant that the media should have lost interest. I never said it.

I've lost interest in anything he has to say. You can disagree with me. That doesn't make my opinion less valid.

I had some difficulties with the book, but nothing that would result in my calling it fatally flawed. I read quite a bit of nonfiction and don't like any of it without some qualifications. I can look past those if I think the work overall merits it. In this case I think it clearly does.

When you say his "15 minutes are over," you are telling me that he should be out of the media spotlight by now -- since that's what this concept means. You may have noticed that nonfiction authors tend to get asked their opinions by the media about the subjects they have researched extensively and written about, the assumption being that they've acquired some knowledge on the subjects.

I couldn't watch the video (link broken, search on Bloomberg unsuccessful), but from what I read I wouldn't rate his observations as particularly penetrating. Yet, the basic point he made seems to have eluded many posters to this thread, so it might be worth something after all.

 

[samcraig]

I had some difficulties with the book, but nothing that would result in my calling it fatally flawed. I read quite a bit of nonfiction and don't like any of it without some qualifications. I can look past those if I think the work overall merits it. In this case I think it clearly does.

When you say his "15 minutes are over," you are telling me that he should be out of the media spotlight by now -- since that's what this concept means. You may have noticed that nonfiction authors tend to get asked their opinions by the media about the subjects they have researched extensively and written about, the assumption being that they've acquired some knowledge on the subjects.

I couldn't watch the video (link broken, search on Bloomberg unsuccessful), but from what I read I wouldn't rate his observations as particularly penetrating. Yet, the basic point he made seems to have eluded many posters to this thread, so it might be worth something after all.

Well put it this way. Just because Isaacson spent time with Jobs and wrote about his life doesn't make him an expert on the industry or competitors. So his comment, while not without merit, doesn't hold any more (and probably less) weight to me than if the comments came from someone with deeper insight into the industry as a whole.

 

[Gudi]

Interesting audio interview. Thanks.

If you liked that, also read this. Really do!

It's basically a love letter to Steve Jobs, that will also make you love it's author.

And utterly true about Isaacson not knowing enough to ask the right tech questions.

The sad thing is, only because this is the authorized biography and came out around the time of his dead, it is by far the bestselling book on the topic. So even most people who are interested in it, only get this socialized version of his life. He, the orphan child that got adopted, initially denied his own daughter and later named a computer after her. Thank you very much, that is not the dent in the universe, we all want and need to know more about.

 

[samcraig]

If you liked that, also read this. Really do!

It's basically a love letter to Steve Jobs, that will also make you love it's author.
The sad thing is, only because this is the authorized biography and came out around the time of his dead, it is by far the bestselling book on the topic. So even most people who are interested in it, only get this socialized version of his life. He, the orphan child that got adopted, initially denied his own daughter and later named a computer after her. Thank you very much, that is not the dent in the universe, we all want and need to know more about.

Exactly.

There seemed to be little (save for some quotes) that was "new" material. While reading I felt the overwhelming sensation that I had read it all before elsewhere. Oh not verbatim or some specifics. But overall, I didn't walk away from the book with any further insight in Jobs.

 

[patent10021]

Wow.

To read these threads, Apple products are behind (smaller screens, no expandable storage, no configurability), Apple doesn't innovate anymore, and Tim Cook is a dullard in execution, particularly as it rlates to supply chain.

And yet, Apple reported record revenue and profits, record sales for iPhone and iPad.

I wish my employer and its CEO could fail and be as disappointing as Apple and Tim Cook are. It would make me a rich man.

I get what you're saying. But I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. I guess I view it as coat tails. I may be wrong in my thinking but I believe that when it comes to a large corporation's achievements, success can be maintained for a few years even during a lack of innovation simply as a product of perceived image for as long as it takes for the reality to affect the perception. Depending on many variables it could take months, years, decades or even a generation for the market to mirror reality. (Unless something criminal took place like Enron where it affects society).

Companies could and have maintained success based on one great product within an average or "as expected" product line.

Time will tell. I think we'd find out by 2016-2020.

 

[Above The Gods]

Why wasn't my post accepted?

 

[IJ Reilly]

The sad thing is, only because this is the authorized biography and came out around the time of his dead, it is by far the bestselling book on the topic. So even most people who are interested in it, only get this socialized version of his life. He, the orphan child that got adopted, initially denied his own daughter and later named a computer after her. Thank you very much, that is not the dent in the universe, we all want and need to know more about.

My feeling based on your comment that you didn't actually read the book.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Shut up Walter. Just because you wrote a book on Steve Jobs doesn't make you an expert on the tech industry.

Why so rude? What did he say to make you angry?

 

[Frosty?Flake]

Google an innovator? Hummmm, yes a clumsy innovator in some sense, but not a particularly smart one, except home automation. Also, a few other notables. Little sense of style and broader consumer appeal. Software, yes, defiantly. Apple is a focused innovator. Finger print reader and so on. Focused innovation with new category definition sometimes. The iPad.

 

[Renzatic]

I can't imagine anyone here doing that.

I thought I'd throw it out there, cuz, you know...some people might.

 

[Poisonivy326]

I thought the book was perfectly functional for what it was intended to do -- give an authorized account of Jobs' life told the way he wanted it, that would be published shortly after his imminent demise. Other sources (Sculley, Amedio, Gates, Page, Schmidt, Wozniak) of course either didn't talk out of discretion or weren't interviewed because they didn't fit the narrative Jobs wanted for his biography. Don't know why people expecte Robert Caro-like exhaustion. In the end the book was really just another Apple ad.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I thought the book was perfectly functional for what it was intended to do -- give an authorized account of Jobs' life told the way he wanted it, that would be published shortly after his imminent demise. Other sources (Sculley, Amedio, Gates, Page, Schmidt, Wozniak) of course either didn't talk out of discretion or weren't interviewed because they didn't fit the narrative Jobs wanted for his biography. Don't know why people expecte Robert Caro-like exhaustion. In the end the book was really just another Apple ad.

I don't think it read like an Apple ad in the least. I've seen enough hagiography (at one time, glowing and adoring was a perfectly acceptable way to write a biography) to know that this book was not one of those. Be thankful that Issacson was wasn't as exhaustive and exhausting as Robert Caro, or he'd still be working on "Volume II: The Kindergarden Years."

 

[GregAndonian]

I thought it was hilarious when the iPhone 5S's slogan was "Forward thinking" when all it was was a spec bump and finger print scanner.

I don't know, I thought the A7 being 64 bit was a pretty big step forward. It's not a big deal now because there aren't many apps that fully take advantage of it, but it could pave the way for a revolution a few miles down the road...

 

[Chupa Chupa]

The profit statement from the latest quarterly report would disagree with you. Apple got lots of it's products into the customers hands.

But I didn't say Apple didn't ship a lot of product, so don't put words in my mouth.

I said TIM COOK ADMITTED they overestimated potential 5C sales and underestimated how many iPhone 5S units Apple could sell which resulted in lower than expected revenue because the desired 5S models were constrained. Tim Cook said this, not me pulling facts out of the cloud. Got it. It's why AAPL stock plunged 10%.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

The thing is, Apple may in fact have "hundreds of projects in the lab" as well, but they simply don't publicize it. But I disagree with the assertion that Google, in general, is innovative. You can only be innovative if your idea, product, or methods are accepted in the marketplace. You can't really say they're innovative because they have great ideas in a lab, or/and bought a bunch of smaller, innovative companies.

Outside of the original Android launch, what makes Google innovative?

Success is not the mark of innovation. A product can be innovative (a new take one something or something never seen before) and not be widely accepted in the marketplace. The Edsel's push button transmission was innovative, but a market flop. Edison's DC power system was amazingly innovative but lost out to Tesla's AC. Sony's consumer Betamax was innovative (predated VHS) but also a market flop. MP3 players never really took hold until the iPod but those predecessors were clearly an innovation.

And yes, Apple has lots of stuff in their labs too, but again, as I mentioned, it's not Apple's business model as a hard goods seller to need to constantly push out new product or features. In fact it's in its interest to do so very slowly and only put out the best of the best. OTHO Google is a data collection company. It's in its interest to constantly find new ways to get people to give it new information about themselves.

Bottomline: Google survives because of innovation -- consistently pushing out new ways to use their services. Apple survives because of good execution - making products desirable and available when the consumer wants them. Google can botch execution of a product, and they have, and it doesn't hurt their bottom-line, but if the idea mill dries up they are in trouble. Apple can be slow to update -- and they are, but when they do have new product they must convince consumers its "must have" and Apple must have it available when that happens. That is the difference between the two company's business model.

 

[Doomtomb]

Somebody stop the presses!! Walter Issacson says Google is more innovative and Apple is better at execution. Brilliant. But then goes on to mention recent debacles like the iPhone 5S shortage, the underwhelming demand for the 5C (shocker), let's see, anything else? Oh yeah, Maps anybody? i take offense to calling Samsung "low-end"

 

[the8thark]

But I didn't say Apple didn't ship a lot of product, so don't put words in my mouth.

I said TIM COOK ADMITTED they overestimated potential 5C sales and underestimated how many iPhone 5S units Apple could sell which resulted in lower than expected revenue because the desired 5S models were constrained. Tim Cook said this, not me pulling facts out of the cloud. Got it. It's why AAPL stock plunged 10%.

1. The stock plunges and rises for all kinds of crazy reasons. And the only constant with this is the reasons mostly don't make sense. AAPL drops after every quarterly report. Crazy but it happens. Just one example of many. Not even the stock market experts can understand this properly. Wall street gets it wrong constantly. So if you think you know better than Wall street please feel free to share with us all where you get your expert AAPL knowledge and stock market experience from.

2. My point was, does not matter what Cook said. The numbers spoke for themselves at the quarterly report.

3. Apple has the more demand than supply for certain iPhone models on the launch quarters. Nothing new there. Cook just admitted to this again.

4. I get the facts. They were said at the quarterly report. You listened to it or read the summary of it right? You don't need to shove the facts down my throat. I know them.

 

[Above The Gods]

Success is not the mark of innovation. A product can be innovative (a new take one something or something never seen before) and not be widely accepted in the marketplace. The Edsel's push button transmission was innovative, but a market flop. Edison's DC power system was amazingly innovative but lost out to Tesla's AC. Sony's consumer Betamax was innovative (predated VHS) but also a market flop. MP3 players never really took hold until the iPod but those predecessors were clearly an innovation.

And yes, Apple has lots of stuff in their labs too, but again, as I mentioned, it's not Apple's business model as a hard goods seller to need to constantly push out new product or features. In fact it's in its interest to do so very slowly and only put out the best of the best. OTHO Google is a data collection company. It's in its interest to constantly find new ways to get people to give it new information about themselves.

Bottomline: Google survives because of innovation -- consistently pushing out new ways to use their services. Apple survives because of good execution - making products desirable and available when the consumer wants them. Google can botch execution of a product, and they have, and it doesn't hurt their bottom-line, but if the idea mill dries up they are in trouble. Apple can be slow to update -- and they are, but when they do have new product they must convince consumers its "must have" and Apple must have it available when that happens. That is the difference between the two company's business model.

See this is where you guys are simply wrong. The teletouch was a great invention. For it to be a great innovation, it must "breaks in to (or obtains a foothold in) a market or society"; It has to have "widespread effect".(wikipedia). If it does not, then it was a interesting invention, not an innovation.

I remember watching a TED documentary years back that spoke about innovation, and more recently, the misuse of the term. It does not simply mean creating new stuff. What you're conflicting is invention, not innovation.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation

 

[Chupa Chupa]

1. The stock plunges and rises for all kinds of crazy reasons. And the only constant with this is the reasons mostly don't make sense. AAPL drops after every quarterly report. Crazy but it happens. Just one example of many. Not even the stock market experts can understand this properly. Wall street gets it wrong constantly. So if you think you know better than Wall street please feel free to share with us all where you get your expert AAPL knowledge and stock market experience from.

2. My point was, does not matter what Cook said. The numbers spoke for themselves at the quarterly report.

3. Apple has the more demand than supply for certain iPhone models on the launch quarters. Nothing new there. Cook just admitted to this again.

4. I get the facts. They were said at the quarterly report. You listened to it or read the summary of it right? You don't need to shove the facts down my throat. I know them.

True, stocks are volatile. But in this instance its directly related to earnings and Cook's statements about Q1 and Q2.

And OF COURSE IT MATTTERS what Cook says. He is the CEO. What he says is official and has market and legal weight. If what Cook says doesn't matter during an earnings conference call then nothing anyone says about the company matters.

Bottomline numbers are not the sine que non of a company's health. Take a look at a 10Q statement. There are so many more elements, many hidden in a company's financial report. Not comparing Lehman Bros in any way at all with Apple here but take a look at LEH's final 10Q before the s hit the fan. It had fantastic earnings. So again, earnings are not the only thing one should look at.

But SPECIFICALLY to Cook and Apple, my point in this thead is that Cook is known as a logistics guy, but he has failed Apple as CEO in this year. Yes, Apple sold a boatload of iPhone. My point is, if Apple had properly estimated the 5S demand; that $100 difference between 5C and 5S wasn't compelling, those earnings and iPhone sales you seem to want to crow about would have been a lot heftier.

In tribute to the Super Bowl, you don't praise a QB for recovering the football after it slips out of his hands. But that is what you are doing. Apple revenue is keep up with inflation but growth is nil. A good CEO grows the company with good play calling. Cooks have been poor as I noted in previous posts -- not going to list them again.

----------

See this is where you guys are simply wrong. The teletouch was a great invention. For it to be a great innovation, it must "breaks in to (or obtains a foothold in) a market or society"; It has to have "widespread effect".(wikipedia). If it does not, then it was a interesting invention, not an innovation.

I remember watching a TED documentary years back that spoke about innovation, and more recently, the misuse of the term. It does not simply mean creating new stuff. What you're conflicting is invention, not innovation.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation

I'm neither confusing anything nor wrong. Innovation exists in its own right. Whether it takes hold in the marketplace or society is another matter. Innovative ideas can have an influence on society or the marketplace or future products without huge fanfare. An innovation only needs to be disruptive. Not all inventions are disruptive. Some are novel, but pointless.

 

[Above The Gods]

[/COLOR]

I'm neither confusing anything nor wrong. Innovation exists in its own right. Whether it takes hold in the marketplace or society is another matter. Innovative ideas can have an influence on society or the marketplace or future products without huge fanfare. An innovation only needs to be disruptive. Not all inventions are disruptive. Some are novel, but pointless.

Dude, You made two completely contradictory statements in one sentence. How something be disruptive, yet have no "influence on society"? That's what disruption is: an invention that is accepted into the marketplace or society; a new product or method which "market does not expect" and creates new value. If something did not "breaks in to (or obtains a foothold in) a market or society", then it cannot be disruptive.

By no means was the teletouch disruptive to society. Thus by your definition, was not innovative.

 

[the8thark]

True, stocks are volatile. But in this instance its directly related to earnings and Cook's statements about Q1 and Q2.

And OF COURSE IT MATTTERS what Cook says. He is the CEO. What he says is official and has market and legal weight. If what Cook says doesn't matter during an earnings conference call then nothing anyone says about the company matters.

Bottomline numbers are not the sine que non of a company's health. Take a look at a 10Q statement. There are so many more elements, many hidden in a company's financial report. Not comparing Lehman Bros in any way at all with Apple here but take a look at LEH's final 10Q before the s hit the fan. It had fantastic earnings. So again, earnings are not the only thing one should look at.

But SPECIFICALLY to Cook and Apple, my point in this thead is that Cook is known as a logistics guy, but he has failed Apple as CEO in this year. Yes, Apple sold a boatload of iPhone. My point is, if Apple had properly estimated the 5S demand; that $100 difference between 5C and 5S wasn't compelling, those earnings and iPhone sales you seem to want to crow about would have been a lot heftier.

In tribute to the Super Bowl, you don't praise a QB for recovering the football after it slips out of his hands. But that is what you are doing. Apple revenue is keep up with inflation but growth is nil. A good CEO grows the company with good play calling. Cooks have been poor as I noted in previous posts -- not going to list them again.

You are correct it's directly related to earnings. Apple has a great quarter and stock drops before it recovers. Happens over and over with Apple.

How can you have more phone sales when you sell everyone you make and can't make anymore (production facilities at capacity or there's no more parts available). I assume there was no more production capacity available to make more 5S. So putting more on the shelves is not that simple.

5C on the other hand, was not so well thought out. Not Cook's fault, blame whoever designed it. But you need to keep in mind this. Did the 5C sell more units than the 4S did in the quarter the 5 was released? Of cause the 5S will sell more but I think being a 2ndary model the 5C did ok.

I'm not from the US but I get your sports analogy. And I'll say you don't heavily publicly criticise one player on a winning team. You in private analyse everyone's performance and work out what you need to do to ensure you keep winning and winning with better and better margins each time. Ie prevent complacency creeping in.

The mistake people (in general) are making is comparing the 5C to the 5S in a vacuum. The 5C vs 5S now needs to be compared to the 4S vs the 5 in the quarter the 5 was released. Because the 4S then and the 5C now are both 2nd tier on the iPhone lineup.

Cook has not failed as CEO. He did his job and did it well. He kept the team together, got each team to work better and ensured all the teams contributed to Apple's ever increasing profits. And this ensures Apple's nest egg is there for generations to come.

 

[subsonix]

For something to be innovative, it's economical cost must be such that it is reproducible enough to be accepted in market. In other words, it has to create value for customers;

Really?

From the Oxford dictionary:

ADJECTIVE
1(of a product, idea, etc.) featuring new methods; advanced and original:
innovative designs
innovative ways to help unemployed people

1.1(of a person) introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking:
writers who are now viewed as innovative

There is in no way a question of cost or acceptance on a market. The most common example I can think of is academic research, it's by definition innovative i.e "featuring new methods; advanced and original".

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/innovative?q=innovative

 

[Gudi]

My feeling based on your comment that you didn't actually read the book.

Correct, I only heard it as an audiobook.

 

[Renzatic]

Correct, I only heard it as an audiobook.

Well...then...you've heard the book. Provided you paid attention to it, of course.

 

[Gudi]

Well...then...you've heard the book. Provided you paid attention to it, of course.

A translated version by a german narrator, who made it sometimes sound like a fairy tale.
I had a good laugh at Steve Jobs in Munich, as a fruitarian forced to eat sausages.

Those filthy krauts.