when an Immutable Law is broken does it make a sound?

====

“If you do not see light at the end of the tunnel, consider it an opportunity to create an opening yourself, wherever you want.”

—-

Ashok Kallarakkal

=====

“Larine had a bright future ahead of her, but she had to learn to obey the rules before she could begin learning which could be broken and when.”

—

Robert Jordan

======

So.

In 1993 a pretty smart couple of guys wrote a book called The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing (the smart guys were Al Ries and Jack Trout). Here are the first two of The 22 Immutable Laws:

1. It is better to be first than it is to be better.

2. If you can’t be first in a category, set up a new category you can be first in.

Uh oh. Apple has mastered making these laws un-immutable.

(note: I am concerned that is not a word)

I am not sure people have noticed (because I believe when you break one of these laws they don’t make any sound) but Apple has been quite successful by not being first at anything they have done nor created any new categories.

They have possibly become the absolute best “follower” in the history of business. Apple is regularly voted the most innovative company in the world. But I am not sure that is the award they should be winning. Its inventiveness takes a peculiar form in that it is “renovation” rather than building. They should be voted the best “renovator” company in the world (boy, that sounds like a shitty award to win, huh?).

What do I mean? Rather than developing entirely new product categories Apple is excellent at taking existing ideas, which may not be optimally implemented, and showing the rest of the world how to implement them in a much more appealing way.

It has already done this three times.

In 1984 Apple launched the Macintosh. It was not the first graphical, mouse-driven computer, but it employed these concepts in a useful, pleasant appearance product (they kind of not only understand the usability function, but they also understood that their product – most often seen as a desk accessory – was a fashion statement for the user).

In 2001, came the iPod. It was not the first digital-music player, but it was simple and elegant, and carried digital music into the mainstream (and once again they understood the “fashion” aspect of the product).

In 2007 Apple launched the iPhone. It was not the first smart-phone, but Apple succeeded where other handset makers had failed, making mobile internet access and software downloads a mass-market phenomenon (and fashionable again).

Suffice it to say … while they renovated existing ideas they also renovated the entire categories because as competitors rushed to respond to Apple’s approach, the computer, music and telecom industries were transformed.

In 2010?

Here comes their fourth attempt at renovation. The iPad — a thin, tablet-shaped device with a ten-inch touch-screen. Hey. Who knows if it will be successful. Apple has certainly had their share of failures but even in their failures they have been spectacular.

But this isn’t a post on whether they are good at these things.

This is about Apple breaking Immutable Laws and being good at something else – Renovation.

So.

In the end I believe I like, really like (although I don’t own an i-pod and I hate Macs), Apple because they are a renovator and not a builder (sort of like me but they are bigger and better than I am). As a great ‘Renovator,’ Apple has this innate ability to identify the essence of an existing or emerging product category, identify the parts (or pieces…whatever) and then put usability at the core of these pieces, making them famous with a really cool façade feature. Somebody called it “re-hashing half baked concepts” but I call it Renovation.

Apple is the ultimate Renovator (not innovator nor “1st to market”).

So.

With all that said…I think that stupid sounding award I suggested earlier is a valuable award. And nothing to be embarrassed by. Being the best at something is nothing to be embarrassed by. I vote for Apple as Renovator of the Year if not the century (but not innovator).

———————————–

{Note: some people may argue with how I define innovator & innovation, that’s fine. I agree innovation is most often using what exists in different formulations or ways but the majority of people think of innovation as “original.”}