Apple is definitely a little bit of both. Steve Jobs is completely arrogant, but usually his company makes innovative products. The iPod revolutionized an entire industry.
Apple creates hard innovations in it's software and soft innovations in it's hardware innovations. I mean the software is massively elegant, while the hard ware is often perceivably original (when it's often not the case). The arrogance is found mostly in it's boutiques.
Apple seem these days to be a little of both - but I think their continued successes in design and innovation allow them some arrogance. The balance of their perceived arrogance is simply talked up by jealous media types.
I really think that it is a combination of both. There is an arrogance about the company that they are the leaders in their field and I think that is because of the inovations.
I must say I have been particularly annoyed at Fast Company's bashing of Apple. Is it really arrogance when year after year, Apple puts out superior design and easy-to-use software and no one from Microsoft, Dell, Gateway can match it? We pay a premium for good design, particularly in electronics, yet Apple has to justify their methods? I don't get it. They are arrogant and innovative, you have to be both to be good.
A little of both, actually, but then, you almost have to be when you're walking through the jungle with the lions and tigers and bears.
There's a mindset you encounter now and again that seems to suggest people believe companies like Apple et al. should just give everybody what they want without regard to how well it sells--or how best to market it. So, when the wishes of that segment are ignored or challenged, they immediately complain how "out of touch" said company is (if not worse).
My company sells ebooks. We're informed we're greedy for pricing them the same as mass market paperbacks because "everybody knows ebooks don't cost anything to produce." Well, of course they don't--everyone knows the editor and the cover designer and the layout person love donating their time so people can get their ebooks for free.
Not.
One also has to consider that gathering information from media reports isn't always the best basis for drawing a conclusion like the one the question poses. We are, after all, reading or hearing what a reporter and an editor and who knows who else decided was all we needed to know.
Neither, really--Steve Jobs is a guy who likes to feel "special," so he gets his strokes by being habitually contrarion. It's surprising how often success lies in swimming against the current, finding the undefended niche or the indefensible common wisdom. Sometimes the current is too strong--it may even drown you--but if you can locate some calmer water along the edges and don't mind swimming like hell, you'll be way upstream in a hurry. When a contrarion succeeds against the common wisdom, he feels special, and when he fails, he likes the fact that everyone knows he did it in a special way.
apple is arrogant because they believe that they can continue to have ok products with great design, and nobody will notice as they become more popular. as a Mac/ipod user, I love the experience, but I don't think the competition will stay too far behind (and is much cheaper). apple needs to change the game again, and the apple tv just isn't going to cut it.
I should probably explain the "neither" in my previous post: Needing to feel special isn't arrogance, though it can look like it; it's more like a fear of being ignored. And while the habitual contrarion is, by definition, creating innovations, they're often more hit-or-miss, more emotionally driven, than they are the result of systematic strategies like what Peter Drucker proposed so brilliantly in his little book, "Innovation and Entrepreneurship." But maybe I'm drawing too fine a line here.
Innovative. While the continued rollout of new innnovative products with aggressive marketing may seem arrogant to some, it is certainly less arrogant than Microsoft's closed code. Jobs certainly crows a lot about his products, but then he has a lot to crow about, doesn't he?
Proof is the pudding ... since 1984 this company has been the market leader in innovation and product design. There have been a few years of drought when Jobs was not around but generally this company sets the trend for innovation. 3&1/2 floppies, no floppies, firewire, ethernet, laser printers, an OS that is stable and user friendly based upon a GUI from inception and products that consistently definee the state of the art in design and functionality. Anyone who thinks or says otherwise wishes their computer had the features of an Apple computer - or their music player or phone had the features and the style of the Apple creations.
Hands down the innovator of the industry. Too bad Micheal Dell and Steve didn't collaborate closer.
You may want to take a look at the following study results on the subject, where Apple is also mentioned.
http://www.strategy-business.com/li/leadingideas/li00057
I wonder if using the pair "innovative" and "arrogant" makes a good metric; one may be a strategic thrust where the other is an affectation.
Regardless of whether they are arrogant or they are innovative, they are successful. From the business standpoint some pwople see it as arrogant and a certain percentage like that, anc a certain percentage don't. On the other hand some people think it is innovate and some like it, some don't. Just need to find a hot button, it doesn't matter what the button is.
Larry Brown
I think more innovative than ever!
The question's really Apple's ability to continuously develop appropriate technology suppliers networks and keep or improve the speed and success rate in their prototyping and product launches, being software or hardware, and also continue to lead debates around successful business models in digital copywriting.
François Wayenberg
Apple Community Surfing Experience Project, deviantArt
Leadership in a market, as personal leadership in an organization, can be negatively affected by arrogance; for me, some of Apple's strong market foundations are product innovation and "friendliness", and as such, these does not match well with being or seeming arrogant. Even Steve Jobs projected public image is friendly, one without arrogance. Apple seems to have the means for making sure their competitiveness and innovative capabilities do not appear as "arrogant" to the eyes and ears of the market. Leadership in any arena might derail and affect performance and results when falling into the trap of arrogance.
Please excuse the below - it was to a different question! Anyway, Apple = Innovative . . . that can't be denied. If you owned their stock going back 24 months, I'm sure you'd agree! Now, success does breed a level of arrogance, but a certain degree of that is warranted in Apple's case. The issue is whether they can keep winning . . .
Having been a hardcore PC user for the past 10 years, I switched back to a Mac and have loved it.
Some may take issue with this, but Apple can remain innovative, as they keep control over the hardware and software which can run in their environment. Not out to conquer the world by distributing a mediocre product that 'everyone' needs, they remain true to their mission.
I still love both PC's and Mac - they each have their place in life.
Innovative...the phone is slick, the PCs are slick, reliable, with nice interfaces. I'm dumping my Toshiba / Windows machine ASAP.
Their current AD campaign is good, funny, simple, wry (nice to be able to use that in a sentence occasionally).....
Arrogant! Apple, like most successful companies, is falling into the line-extension trap caused by arrogance. It's time for Apple to remember the laws of marketing and success - the narrower the focus, the broader the appeal.
Sounds like a question framed by a Bush Republican--give only two alternatives. Kind of like the administration saying, "Either you're with us or you support the enemy."
My own view of Apple is that it runs rings around Microsoft and everyone else in beauty of design, simplicity of use, and winning and retaining market share among certain end users; e.g., schools. Where Apple has always failed and continues to fail (hence its snail-like progress to 8% from 5% market share) is in never broadening its application base and, most importantly, price. While there may be a certain cult smugness among Mac users, I think management is happy being #2. They would probably make all the same mistakes Microsoft has made and continues to make if it were #1, although, being more innovative than Microsoft, it would probably invent some new ones.
Well that man! Of course innovation is the result of creative minds. Creative people need to believe that they can create well, so continuous positive feedback is essential for those teams. Their belief in themselves is the momentum upon which a company moves forward. Some call it arrogance - others positive growth!
It would make more sense if my posting below started off saying "well said, that man!" referring to Steve Kob's comment that it was in fact, a little bit of both.
No, Apple is innovative, competitive, and setting a new standard in personal computing. They will own this space in tandem with Google and a few others, leaving Microsoft behind unless Microsoft can change its culture, technology position and perception in the market.
Often many things in innovative are called arrogant due mostly to ignorance. We stop, we call out, we listen, we hear, we learn and we progress or retreat.
Bottom line is it is our choice and we have not been empowered to make then so we struggle with the most innocuous and wonder why and then strike out in frustration and fight the consequence - effectively losing sight on what started the whole episode in the first place.
Apple is certainly innovative, and has often been accused of arrogance. The challenge with all Apple discussions is to seperate the fact from the passion (some may call it hype) that surrounds the brand and its products. Fast Company magazine took plenty of heat from true believers for its December/January cover story, which questioned whether Apple's business momentum might slow. Judging from the company's share price tumble from $190 to today's $125, there seems to have been at least a grain of truth to our analysis.
So, given the landscape Apple now finds itself in, will the road ahead be tougher or easier? And could a tougher landscape actually help propel a competitive company like Apple (and its competitive leader, Steve Jobs), to new heights?
40 Total
January 16, 2008 at 10:08pm
Mike WittensteinJanuary 17, 2008 at 8:49am
Tim TymchyshynJanuary 17, 2008 at 2:50pm
Lynne d JohnsonJanuary 18, 2008 at 1:30am
craig BrimmJanuary 18, 2008 at 2:18am
Adam McDeanJanuary 18, 2008 at 7:09am
brian meekJanuary 18, 2008 at 9:20am
Steve KobJanuary 18, 2008 at 9:55am
Chad BozellJanuary 18, 2008 at 10:41am
Fernand BoudreauJanuary 18, 2008 at 11:04am
Matthew KantzJanuary 18, 2008 at 1:17pm
Elizabeth BurtonJanuary 18, 2008 at 1:29pm
Ricardo McRaeJanuary 18, 2008 at 1:30pm
Gregg HodgsonJanuary 18, 2008 at 1:40pm
Ryan ButtsJanuary 18, 2008 at 1:46pm
Gregg HodgsonJanuary 18, 2008 at 2:07pm
Rick RaymondJanuary 18, 2008 at 3:26pm
David WallaceJanuary 18, 2008 at 3:33pm
Leslie ProctorJanuary 18, 2008 at 4:59pm
Paul DigginsJanuary 18, 2008 at 8:13pm
Rich AntcliffJanuary 18, 2008 at 8:41pm
Clinton MancerJanuary 18, 2008 at 10:30pm
Cemal EkinJanuary 19, 2008 at 1:16am
Exequiel RodriguezJanuary 19, 2008 at 8:16am
Larry BrownJanuary 19, 2008 at 8:36am
Francois WayenbergJanuary 19, 2008 at 9:30am
Manuel MateosJanuary 19, 2008 at 9:38am
Andrew ZiolaJanuary 19, 2008 at 11:10am
Joshua LetourneauJanuary 19, 2008 at 11:57am
S O'BrienJanuary 19, 2008 at 1:11pm
Michael GladJanuary 19, 2008 at 2:47pm
Richard HockettJanuary 20, 2008 at 8:34pm
Seth KaplanJanuary 20, 2008 at 10:09pm
Lee SolonJanuary 20, 2008 at 10:17pm
Lee SolonJanuary 21, 2008 at 7:35am
Geoffrey WadeJanuary 21, 2008 at 5:07pm
Steve ShefvelandJanuary 21, 2008 at 5:30pm
Paul HodgmanJanuary 24, 2008 at 3:57pm
Peter FasanoJanuary 29, 2008 at 12:17pm
Stéphane BeignetFebruary 8, 2008 at 11:09am
Robert Safian