The Apple advantage.

   Whenever I think of design, the first company that comes to my mind is Apple; and whenever of the Internet, Google. In Apple vs. Google scenario, leading to the resignation of Google CEO Eric Schmidt from the Apple board, which company is at an advantage? I examine the question from design vs. Internet perspective.

   I wonder why it took so long for the two companies to realize that they were competitors more than collaborators. Apple launched its current cash cow iPhone in January 2007. Google followed with its smart phone Android in November 2007. Apple introduced a Web browser for the Windows OS in June 2007. Google followed with the Chrome Web browser for Windows in September 2008. Apple has tied its hardware to its OS X operating system. Google has followed with its own Chrome OS, which, like Apple's OS X, runs on X86 and ARM processors, is optimized for the Web, and is built on an open-source Unix variant.

         IDEA ORIGINALITY

   These are just some examples where Google has followed Apple. Apple's hardware and software designers have persistently given the world outstanding designs. This does not necessarily mean that Apple is an eternal winner. For instance, most of the features seen on the PC were first incorporated by Apple designers into the Macintosh, including GUI, but the PC left Macintosh way behind. I would not venture to say that either Microsoft or Google designers are copying Apple. In fact, many of the "firsts" on the Mac were earlier seen on Alto, Xerox PARC's PC. Xerox did not see market potential for Alto, but Jobs saw a huge business opportunity in many designs incorporated into Alto hardware and software. Copyrights are not over ideas, but over expression of ideas. A designer may take an idea from anywhere. What is important is the originality in implementing the idea? The companies that are most successful are not only those who come out with germinal ideas but also those who implement in an original way their own ideas or design ideas they have come across, and market them successfully.

   I see a wide difference between Apple and Google from the point of view of design potential. Google offers free Internet search services and makes money by selling advertising, which constitutes almost 98 percent of Google revenue.   Designing is not the defining feature of Google; but Internet marketing is. Apple makes money by selling beautifully designed products. Designing is the defining feature of Apple, not marketing, iPhone, though without any phenomenal ad bash, has been one of the most successful products ever.

   I am not surprised that Apple can march into new design areas and emerge successful. Till the last decade Apple's identity was as a computer maker, known for Macintosh. Apple launched iTunes and emerged a global force in music software. It launched iPod in October 2001, and became a dominant video player. In 2007 it launched iPhone, a combination of iPod, tablet PC, and cellular phone, providing multimedia, Internet browsing, and networking capabilities. All these products were design marvels, and took Apple far beyond the Mac footprints.

GREAT DESIGNS

   In contrast, Google has failed to make a mark outside its original business. It competes with Apple in three key areas--Internet, mobile devices, and operating systems. It has an impregnable lead over Apple in the Internet segment, but has no significant presence in the other two areas. This is not to say that Google is less important than Apple from market perspective. Both the companies have almost the same market capitalization at $150 billion at the time of this writing. (Early September 09). Google has been around for less number of years than Apple; so obviously it has grown faster than Apple. What I am saying is that even though the two companies are competitors, their growths will come from different directions. Google's will come from Internet advertising; Apple's, from great designs, which is its advantage.

   You can reach Kirtimaya Varma at kirti.varma@rbi-asia.com