Successful
revolutionary

initial instantiation. Within an established company, it probably is disruptive of the orderly method of product development, manufacture, and development. It causes strains within the organization.

When I was at Apple, I watched many innovative products fail. Badly done? No, simply ahead of their time. For example, from 1992 to 1994 Apple developed one of the first commercial digital cameras, the Apple Quick Take 100; one of the very first smart pen-based computers (the Newton); and innovative software applications (e.g., CyberDog, Activity Based Computing, OpenDoc). In my consulting practice I helped develop the first digital picture frame and an extremely high-quality distance education system for MBA courses. All failed. Were they bad ideas? No. Were they badly implemented? No. All were excellent concepts that were ahead of their time. The first company to make automobiles in the U.S. failed. The first commercially sold computer that used a graphical user interface and helped develop many of the ideas now central to today’s world of computing, the Xerox Star, failed. The second commercial attempt to use a similar philosophy, the Apple Lisa, failed. The third attempt, the Apple Macintosh, almost failed, saved only by the fortuitous arrival of desktop publishing with programs such as the MacPublisher and Aldus PageMaker along with the development (by Canon) of low-cost laser printing.

Why did the Macintosh
almost fail? Was the world ready
for the concept? Not really.
Apple didn’t help with its adver-
tising campaign, which snubbed
business as dull, dreary, and
not worthy of a Macintosh. As
a result, a far inferior com-
puter, the IBM PC, running a
command-line, baroque oper-
ating system (MS-DOS), swept
the market. Within Apple itself,
the Macintosh caused huge
internal disruption between
the Lisa, Macintosh, and the
Apple II groups. The Apple II
was where Apple was making its
money: The other groups were
losing money. Internal politics?
Massive. Interdivisional
rivalry? Yup.

innovation is rare.
In any given arena,
it happens only a few
times per decade.

Why? In part
because it is difficult
to invent a new
concept that truly
fits people’s lives
and needs.

 

applications, from the silly to the reasonable. Examine patent applications over the past century: Most are mundane, many are silly, and some hint at broad breakthroughs. New products arose through the tinkering and experimenting of inventors. Most failed. But some were accepted as people discovered their value. Often they had to be nurtured, tamed, modified, but over time, a small number found their niche: the technology launched the products. The products produced needs. People slowly adopted the products, experimented with them, discovered their potential, and as a result, uncovered needs that had not even been conceived of before. These needs, in turn, led to more changes in the products.

March + April 2010