Cart Before the Horse

Take these 2 quotes about the purpose of a corporation. The first one is by Brad Bird, winner of two Oscars:
“Walt Disney’s mantra was, “I don’t make movies to make money—I make money to make movies.” That’s a good way to sum up the difference between Disney at its height and Disney when it was lost. It’s also true of Pixar and a lot of other companies. It seems counterintuitive, but for imagination-based companies to succeed in the long run, making money can’t be the focus. Speaking personally, I want my films to make money, but money is just fuel for the rocket. What I really want to do is to go somewhere. I don’t want to just collect more fuel.”
The second one is by Jony Ive, Apple’s user interface God:
“We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money. It sounds a little flippant, but it's the truth. Our goal and what makes us excited is to make great products. If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money.”

I can make a safe guess that you are smirking. Yeah right, you say.

Now consider Google’s endless moonshots (outrageously ambitious projects with very, very low chances of success). Hell, they even have an entire division for such projects!

All of the above could have chosen to be the stereotype of corporations that create a successful product and then milk it for all eternity. Apple could have stopped at the iPod. Or at the iPhone. But they didn’t, did they? Google could have stopped at search. Or at Android. And yet both companies keep entering (and dominating) entirely new areas, if not industries.

If you want an example of a company that did want to “just collect more fuel”, look no farther than Microsoft. Steve Ballmer decided to just keep milking Windows and Office, even when Apple and Google were visibly moving the planet to mobile and free apps. Guess who is considered a dinosaur now?

Unless you live in a cave, you’ll know which kind of company succeeds in a fast changing world. Well ok, maybe I over-generalized: the above approach is must-have for technology companies for sure since they operate in a brutally fast changing world.

Comments

  1. Apart from the points of your argument, which I am not contesting, one needs to consider some extra factors when we discuss how corporations keep their lead. From time to time, the leading ability falters or circumstances so transpire that coping with change fails.

    One example is IBM. From the top position in the world in business computing domain, with defining power for heralding new developments both hardware and software, why did they have to become so less? Similarly, in our school and college days, Hewlett Packard was considered the pioneer par excellence. Why is it, today, they are fighting for survival from time to time?

    The question that follows is this. Would Google, Apple and such leaders also fall behind some time? Microsoft putting all their stakes on Windows is not what I am comparing with. I comparing with once-great-pioneers like IBM and HP. People will change and circumstances will change. The only thing constant is change etc..

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch