Writings about the business of design and strategy.

The launch of the iPad yesterday put an exclamation mark on an increasingly obvious point: Apple is the company that has captured the cultural zeitgeist. The massive hype leading up to the event - apparently achieved in a groundswell with very little effort on Apple's part - shows that they really are the "It" company right now.
Not so long ago, Google claimed that position. The amount of press ink (literal or virtual) that Google has been able to create every single day for the last decade is just astonishing - it is not uncommon to see two or three articles on the same day about some aspect of Google's business, whether it be a new product or another story about the Googleplex's free food. No other organization, save perhaps Obama's election campaign, can claim such a blanket of coverage on such a consistent basis.
But the honeymoon is over and we are in the midst of a mild backlash against Google, and at the same time Apple's cultural and financial stock has been climbing. No-one sees them as just a maker of over-priced niche products for designery types anymore. They are truly a mainstream mass-culture company that, while focused mostly on consumer electronics, touches into so many other areas of our lives simply because the boundaries between computers, electronics, media, communications and social life have all blurred so thoroughly.
Looking back over the decades, we can see a string of companies that have managed to go beyond being just successful business enterprises and have captured something special in the culture. GM perhaps epitomized this in the 1950's and 60's, summed up by the well-known phrase "What's good for General Motors is good for the country". GM helped shape the aesthetic and cultural agenda in a way that reached far beyond the automotive realm.
IBM arguably held this position in the 1970's, and Microsoft in the late 80's and early 90's, to be superseded by Google at the turn of the millennium. But none of the tech companies besides Apple have quite been able to win hearts in the same way GM did.
But one thing that all these companies have in common is strong leaders who are not just good business thinkers but are also active in the weeds of product development. Think of Harley Earl at GM, Thomas Watson Jr. at IBM, Bill Gates at Microsoft, Sergey/Larry/Eric at Google, and of course Steve Jobs at Apple. These men all recognized that there is a clear connection between a company's strategies and the details of the products they bring to market. Ignoring the latter is a good way to scuttle the former.
The iPad is but the latest result of the hand of Steve (with help from a huge team of people of course). The apparent ease with which hype appeared around it is in fact no accident: Apple has invested enormous amounts of work over the years to build a reputation around its products and brand, and that investment is now paying off in spades. Jobs himself is well tapped into the cultural zeitgeist, he transfers that to Apple's products and strategies, and in turn the company comes to reflect and even steer the zeitgeist.
It's not magic, but it is hard to do. Very hard. If history is any indication, there is room for only one such company at a time to hold this pre-eminent position, and their time in the sun is temporary. Apple's winning streak will come to an end, but in the meantime they deserve all the credit they get.
Adam Richardson is Creative Director at frog design, in San Francisco. His book, Innovation X: Why a company's toughest problems are its greatest advantage, is due out February 16 from Jossey-Bass.
Adam, thank you for this
Monika - January 31, 2010
Adam, thank you for this interesting article. After I read your post I was wondering, why a (for the most part) product company is able to so much influence the zeitgeist of our 21st-century knowledge economy.
We all love all things Apple and "couldn't" do without our MacBooks and IPhones anymore. Really? In the end, Apple still makes products. Sure great ones, but not irreplacable ones. However, if Google would cease to exist tomorrow my world and probably the world in general would shut down as well. Google and similar companies do not produce anything, they just enable me to do what I need to do as a knowledge worker and want to do as a digital native.
In theory, it does not matter what hardware I am using for that. And I think, paradoxically that is exactly what Apple has understood. All their products are made to "fit" my everyday life and my needs. At the same time many Apple products changed the way we communicate and interact with each other. But not because they made me change, but because they adapt to my previous behaviour. The products fit into my life, I don't have to make my life fit the products.
Sure, the coolness factor and the charismatic leadership both helped as well to spark the success. I am curious about Apple's fate if either one ends. Will the user-friendliness be enough or does Apple need the compelling story-telling behind its products? And if so what will the story be for a mainstream Apple?
I am very much looking forward to your book and hope for more interesting blog posts soon.