Skip to main content

The New Toyota

Apple has finally "jumped the shark." For those of you who aren't familiar with the idiom, it was originally coined in response to an episode of Happy Days when Fonzie jumps over a shark to prove his courage. Critics and viewers alike consider this point in the show's history to be the beginning of its decline. In general, the idiom is used to describe a moment of downturn for a previously successful enterprise.

In my opinion, Apple is close to reaching that point if it hasn't already. Granted, Steve Jobs and Company have never been in the majority in terms of market share, but they've always had a rabidly fanatical following. Still, when you call your user community a bunch of idiots and fail to acknowledge that the real problem lies with your untouchable product then you start to sow the seeds of your own ruin.

And this is exactly what has happened. CNN recently reported that Apple's response to users' complaints about cell phone reception quality (or the lack thereof) is to not hold the phone a certain way. Due to the fact that the antenna is wrapped around the outer edge of the case, Apple claims that people holding the phone with their hands wrapped around a specific corner are going to cause significant deterioration in signal strength. But (!), they continue, there is also a software bug that displays bars indicating that the strength is higher than it really is. So we'll fix that and you, Mr. User, should avoid holding the phone with anything other than a part of plastic tongs that grip the phone like Thetis did to Achilles when she dipped him in the River Styx.

User: Dr. Jobs, my phone doesn't work when I do this.
Dr. Jobs: don't do that then.

Let's be clear: I'm not predicting the eventual filing of bankruptcy by Apple. They will never go away. Historically they've done not much more than have ebbs and flows of popularity. These are sometimes severe, but that's all that's ever really happened to them. You can confirm this by looking at their 5 year stock chart.

But when a company that was hitherto considered untouchable due to the forethought they put into their product's design refuses to admit that their product has a crucial design flaw in it then you have to wonder when the sting of being slapped in the face will wear off of its user community. And, more importantly, will they start to consider joining the ranks of those who decided that phones based on Google's Android operating system aren't so bad after all.

This is an especially critical question since Google started rolling out Android 2.2 (code named Froyo) to phones. Froyo is widely considered to be an extremely strong alternative to the iPhone and contains many features that iOS 4 does not.

Additionally, I have to wonder how Apple could have missed the "cover the corner and watch the reception go down the tubes" problem. Or, since they are claiming that a software bug is causing a higher number of bars to be displayed than what reflects reality, did they know about it but thought they could get away with it?

R&D: Our product has a significant flaw in it.
Sales: Who cares? We're on top of the world!
R&D: I'm not sure that is a good idea.
Sales: We're untouchable! No one will notice.
R&D: But people will feel betrayed.
Sales: Ha! What are they going to do? Leave us for another company?

Apple? No. Toyota.

Popular posts from this blog

"Ni jiang yi yang de hua ma?"

Last week, I wrote about the necessity of having a clear message . Because this topic is so important I decided to follow-up with another entry on this general subject. This week we will approach it from another angle. (For the curious, the title says " Do you speak the same language? " in pinyin, which is a transliterated Mandarin Chinese.) Recently, a good friend of mine (who is Chinese, ironically) and I were playing pool. He had to bank the 8-ball in the pocket to win the game, and since it was an informal game and bank shots are my area of expertise, he asked me for advice. I told him, "you just need to strike the cue ball with medium speed so that it hits the 8-ball right in the middle." He didn't believe me so we marked the positions of the balls, and then he took his shot only to watch the 8-ball sail past the pocket. "A-ha!" he exclaimed. "I told you it wasn't that easy." But when we reset the positions and I made an attemp

It's Easier to Fail at DevOps than it is to Succeed

Slippery when wet Since the term DevOps was coined in Belgium back in 2009, it is impossible to avoid the term whether in discussions with colleagues or in professional trade magazines.  And during the years while this movement has gained momentum, many things have been written to describe what elements of a DevOps strategy are required for it to be successful. Yet in spite of this, there is an interesting data point worth noting: not many organizations feel there is a need for DevOps.  In a Gartner report entitled DevOps Adoption Survey Results (published in September 2015),  40%  of respondents said they had no plans to implement DevOps and 31% of respondents said they hadn't implemented it but planned to start in the 12 months after the survey was conducted. That left only 29% who had implemented DevOps in a pilot project or in production systems, which isn't a lot. "Maybe it's because there truly isn't a need for DevOps," you say.  While that

Is No/Low-Code the Key to IT Nirvana?

 Unless you've had your head in the sand for the past year or so, you've seen the phrases low-code  and no-code  bandied about quite frequently everywhere you look.  You've probably wondered if this is something new that's here to stay or just a "flash in the pan."  Although the terms have been in the fore of the IT trade publications recently, Low Code Development Platforms (LCDP) (and the corresponding No Code Development Platforms) have been in existence since 2011.  Their roots can be traced to the 90's with 4th generation programming languages and GUI-assisted programming paradigms, e.g. IBM VisualAge for Basic, which was discontinued in 1998. For those of you who aren't familiar with either, the premise is that these platforms allow someone to quickly build applications using a WYSIWYG interface and a "click and configure" paradigm to Isn't this the source code to Roblox? rapidly build full applications with little or no coding requ