Mike Jones Digital Basin
cinematic media rinse cycle

Questioning Innovation: Apple, NLE's and Market strategy

'Innovation' is a sippery concept. Much like the word 'Intuitive' it is bandied around with much gay abandon (usually by marketing directives) without a truthful engagement with what it really means.

A dictionary definition of Innovation can be read as :
"the act of introducing something new: something newly introduced"
"advanced: ahead of the times"
"producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before"

When we view the technology sector, and in particular digital creative production tools, it is most often Apple that holds a popular perception of Innovation and of being Innovative. But is the mantle warranted? Is Innovative - in the true sense of the word; that of being without precedent - really the best way to describe Apple's creative tools?

Frank Capria at Capria.TV makes the argument that in regard to creative tools such as Non Linear Editing systems, what Apple has sold with unprecedented marketing finesse as 'Innovation' is really much more accurately described as 'Commoditization'.

"Ask people to list some innovative companies, and a lot of lists include Apple.... Talk about non-linear editing, and perhaps Apple shouldn?t be so close to the top of the list. ScriptSync? Avid. Multicam? Avid. Dynamic Linking? Adobe."....

And there is much more that could be added to Franks list of innovations in NLE functionality that Apple has either delivered very much behind the other NLE's or failed yet to implement altogether - Surround Sound mixing? Vegas. Background rendering? Liquid. Format and Resolution independent real-time? Vegas. Timeline-linked client reviewing (clipnotes)? Premiere Pro. Database media management? Vegas. GPU rendering? Liquid. Integrated lossless HD intermediate codec? Avid Real-time effects without rendering? Vegas and Premiere.
Frank continues:

"What Apple?s done is commoditize the NLE. Color is cool, but it?s not innovative. It?s a smart purchase. This isn?t a knock on Apple. Making the NLE a commodity is no small feat. Taking a highly specialized product, broadening its appeal and lowering its price is tough stuff."

Writing in the context of Avid Frank makes the observation that the distinct (even deliberate) lack of innovation from Apple in creative tools, and instead a broad engagement with Commoditization, may well be Apple's greatest strength and Avid's downfall...

"In the long run, focusing too heavily on the studios and networks could be Avid?s downfall. The Economist cites Clayton Christensen, author of the Innovator?s Dilemma, giving this warning to American companies regarding their Indian and Chinese rivals, but it rings true for Avid looking over its shoulder at Apple.?

I wrote recently about the common misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Aristotle - the false attribution to him of the three act structural formula for the screenplay when in truth his contribution to drama, in the form of his 'Poetics', was purely as a philosophy of human engagement with no mention of 3 acts anywhere. The same might be argued about Apple. Their impact is without question, their profound presence irrefutable but the popular attribution of the moniker of Innovative in regard to creative software, perhaps largely mis-guided.

All of Apple's creative applications (with the exception of Aperture) were either acquisitions from other companies (Final Cut Pro, Logic, DVD studio pro, Shake, Colour) Or derivative apps made from those acquisitions (Motion, Logic Express, iDVD) Or direct copies of existing apps made by head-hunting lead designers from competitors (Soundtrack, Garageband)

This is not a criticism of Apple but rather praise for smart and strategic business development. Apple's achievement is in spying and acquiring good tools and excellent companies and then working on nesting them together in a commoditized package at a very low price to run on very functional and affordable hardware. It really is quite an achievement without doubt. But innovative...?

In the very definition of Innovative as "producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before" its hard to see any in Apple's creative apps truthfully fitting the term. And yet, ironically, this may be just the factor that leads Apple to stealing a big chunk of Avid's dominance and keeping the other competitors at bay. Apple actually don't have to be the first or the most adventurous at all. They just have to do it well and do it affordably. These are two things Apple have certainly done; witness the massive price drop of Colour from its original 3rd party Final Touch. Likewise the massive drop in price of Shake after Apple bought it.

It would appear that Apple trade on the perception of Innovation but in fact demonstrate something of the opposite in business practice. Commoditization does not sound sexy and the practice of copying and following (which Apple have undoubtedly done with their FC suite) is certainly hard to sell as a marketing strategy but there's no doubt that it makes for excellent business strategy. Experimentation and Innovation is expensive with success not guaranteed. By contrast, following, copying and emulating has the privileged position to learn from the mistakes of others, refine the innovations of others. Its a far more efficient business model and one that has driven the massive economic success of both Japan in the post-war period and China in the current era.

The truly extraordinary prowess of Apple in this regard is that they seem to be able to do what no other company can - have their cake and eat it too. Apple have cultivated the popular perception of 'Innovator' whilst at the same time engaging a development strategy of follow and catch-up. The best of both worlds; smart strategy backed up by superb marketing even when the two are at odds.
 
The power of Words and the marketing of those words to fuel perceptions, independent of actualities, is a very powerful force. Its one Apple have mastered and every other company wishes they could.
 

Posted at 12:00AM Nov 27, 2007 by Mike Jones in general  |  Comments[1]