An interesting discussion by John Siracusa over at Ars Technica. He reflects on Microsoft’s experience of a ‘strategy tax’ which prevented them from innovating or changing effectively whilst they were dominating the planet during the 1990s and early 2000s.
I’ve been thinking about the concept of a “strategy tax” while watching Apple’s latest round of App Store policy changes. Competition between divisions within a large company has, at various times, been lauded as a best practice. But danger lurks on both sides of the issue. Too much internal competition can lead to a lack of focus, with divisions pulling in all directions at once, causing the company as a whole to stand still. Allowing too little internal competition, as in Spolsky’s Microsoft example, results in the absurd situation where a company handicaps its own products.
John highlights a ‘strategy tax’ example thus: Apparently the Microsoft Internet Explorer team wasn’t allowed to fix the browser’s DHTML editor because it might compete with Word.
Will we start to see this happen with Apple? Are we already seeing it, given Apple’s continual tinkering with the App Store submission policies? Is Steve Jobs the current panacea for preventing the ‘strategy tax’ from taking root? Countless people from Apple have told me that virtually nothing gets done if ‘Steve hasn’t okayed it personally’.
Witness, for example, a mobile operator — that will remain nameless — who was unable to go to press with a huge media campaign because Steve hadn’t yet approved it.
Perhaps Jobs is the moderating influence that keeps it all ticking along — focused, yes — but ticking along. What happens when he is out of the picture? Do the rest of the team begin to ask, ‘What would Steve do?’ and begin limiting themselves? I don’t know.
I particularly like this sentence from John’s piece:
Apple’s recent App Store changes, however logical and empirically justifiable [see Daring Fireball’s coverage] they may seem, all point strongly to a company that has started to believe that what’s good for Apple is good for America.
I think we’ll see Apple focus laser-sharp on the ‘App Store’ model and surrounding ecosystem to their detriment over the next 3-5 years. The single app silo concept, where success is measured in downloads, is, I think, highly unsustainable.
Fundamentally, I don’t want 1,000 apps on my phone. I want tightly integrated services that deliver me a unified, consistent and exciting experience. I don’t want silo apps that do just one thing, can’t talk to each other and have no access beyond the data layer to the network — because Apple needs to own the whole experience and is busy cutting the operator out of the value chain.
I’d like to see a lot of typical ‘app’ functionality devolved into the network so it just works without me having to flick-flick-flick-flick-where-is-it-flick-tap to activate it. An example: I don’t need 11 different train and bus time table apps. I need one ‘service’ that constantly monitors my current location, my upcoming diary appointments and presents some options — when I need them — automatically, telling me how best to get to my destination by the array of available options.
Apple is now very much wedded to the point-n-click app economy. So it’s going to make sure we’re wedded to it too.
I think it’s wonderful right now, but give it time and I will be screaming.
Anyway. I liked John’s piece. Give it a read, see what you think.