There are many ways to read oneself.
Among them, the easiest and fastest is to read a book. That said, the old saying that what comes easy is lost just as easily does not exactly miss the mark here either. Of course, I do not think anyone would take the bewildering step of giving up reading because of that.
Another way is to use the other person as a mirror to see myself. This one is very hard. If you receive the other emotionally or misread their intent, identification can happen, where you start to resemble the other. So I think some psychological background is very much needed. (* Identification = the phenomenon where the state of mind or behavior of the other person becomes the same as your own.)
Also, instead of looking at and judging the other person's behavior itself, you need to first understand the cause, motivation, and environment behind that behavior, which takes time. (Here, 'needing time' is not just a nicely polished phrase about not making hasty judgments and holding a middle position; it means…) You have to accept and endure the internal and external misunderstandings and rumors that arise in the gap of that time. You need the problem-solving capacity to work through that situation—whether it is an interpersonal one or an inner psychological conflict.
For that reason, I want to practice 'using the other person as a mirror to see myself.' Or, loosely put, it is more like a bit of grumbling I hope to exchange over a drink with the me who might become me in the future.
Mirroring Myself Through the Other 02 — Jobs ultimately failed.
1.
If the iPhone 6's screen gets bigger, and if the Apple Watch's UI is the same as the iPhone's, that is what I mean.
The context of this failure is the idea of a portable device that can access diverse information anytime, anywhere. It happens after Jobs' passing, but if the product keeps shipping under the iPhone name, then it is ultimately an evolved version of the same product.
* The text written in a color like '(such and such)'mid-stream is there because of related issues; including all personal opinions would derail the main argument, but not writing them down would risk misinterpretation of the reader's backgroundknowledge or mindset, so I note them to minimize that. Feel free to skip them. To put it simply, my writing skills are still lacking, so please understand. For now, distinguishing with color seemed the best option.
2.
Jobs went through various staged strategies in order to realize his original idea. (This is my personal guess, of course.)
Beyond the outward form of the iPhone, he considered the whole process of the user's perception (B2B, B2C, and even people who could not buy the product)—specifically the process of shifting the mental model around products in the same category (products, platform, services, distribution)—and designed it to move in the direction he wanted.
The smartphone category already existed. The tablet PC also already existed.
Back then, the opposing voices would probably have been: you want to make people browse the internet on a small smartphone? I think there were even some comments along those lines from the then-CEO of BlackBerry, whom Jobs had asked for advice.
One of the specific counterarguments that I imagine would have come up is probably this:
"Even now the technological obsession around displays lies in going bigger.
Technology is advancing toward larger, sharper screens.
That means the B2B players leading the market are accumulating and expanding technology in that direction, and the perception of the consumers they serve is moving the same way.
Despite all that, you want to make a palm-sized display and have the user browse the internet on it? Seriously? On that little screen? Isn't that just your ego? Think again about whether you are cherry-picking to fit what you want to do—this is getting out of hand!" Something like that, I imagine.(Granted, this is very similar to the struggles I am going through personally, so it may be a case of overgeneralization. But that is not the core context of this post, so I will move on.)
This is not just the late-2000s dilemma of Jobs at Apple.
It is also the dilemma of companies diving into the IoT boom.
Look at smart watches: everyone is putting a display on them. And the UI follows Apple's icon style. And it is not just that. Look at the UI of smart TVs—it is even more chaotic. Keyboard, remote, gestures, smartphone, even the remote you already use.
(This kind of tech sinkhole or deformation is a temperamental ossification that flows from an OEM-centered industrial structure which benchmarks only visible outcomes—and not only overseas: in Korea, most domestic industry is also outsourcing-based work like SI or agency work—. Major industries that decide livelihoods this way shape organizational structure and culture, which end up settling in as Korean tendencies.
For example, our marketing, branding, and distribution skills are world-class, yet we have no luxury brands—a similar case. On top of that, the cartoon attached below—a post shared on the Facebook page of a well-known publishing and consulting firm, where I left a comment arguing that most of it is the female main character's attitude problem—is a similar structure. That may be why Korea still has no 'IDEO'-like company even among agencies. Of course, to preempt the grammarian crowd over the bigger context, there are good companies I personally respect, such as PLUS X and SWBK.)
So Jobs built the iPod before the iPhone. He wanted to improve perception in stages. This covers not only design, app interactions, and UI facing B2C, but also guides for B2B so that they produce optimal apps, store-staff, display, distribution, and A/S policies.
In other words, Jobs' checklist and process for launching a product are different from our process that merely benchmarks him. Despite that, the iPhone is gradually adding more and more screen sizes and features like Android. And once the soon-to-be-released Apple smart watch arrives, it will become clear.
How did Jobs come to think in such an inclusive way? That is also an important part. It was probably largely learned through the technology-centered (IT-expert including UI) development process of the Macintosh, and the context of children's raw human emotion and instinct that underpinned Pixar, which he invested in and operated.
That is why Jobs adopted the staged strategy I mentioned earlier.
We often emphasize Jonathan Ive-style product design—the visible, tangible side. That is, simple, modern, and so on. But the user's threshold has far more varied individual criteria beyond that. So Jobs' biggest concerns were probably not only the product but, to that end, offline retail (distribution) and B2B customers.
Another important point is that he focused on the goal, not the method. This is the hardest part. For example, if one company builds its IoT stack on NFC as the foundation, that will ultimately hobble them.
Jobs, however, shipped products that functioned as intermediate steps or verification rounds (as products, not R&D!) for such important decisions, thereby mapping the user's context and unfolding his original intent. That is why I say that if the iPhone 6's screen is bigger, and if the Apple Watch's UI is the same as the iPhone's, Jobs will ultimately have failed.
3.
Jobs' goal was probably not to make something 'smart.' In other words, it was not about connecting to the internet or digitizing everything. He paid attention to what the user needs right now, in this very moment.
Rather than an all-purpose giant of a tool (one that makes you Goliath), he wanted to build a slingshot that turns a single stone into something useful (one that makes you David).
What I estimate to be the most essential goal is to provide the right information at the right time. He approached it sequentially as follows (roughly).
On the B2C (S/W) side step 1: direct approach — MP3, internet
step 2: indirect approach — iTunes, App Store
On the B2C (H/W) side step 1: direct approach — iPod
step 2: indirect approach — iPhone
On the B2B(S/W) side step 1: direct approach — iTunes
step 2: indirect approach — App Store
And to fundamentally address the convergence of the continually changing personal and social thresholds of users, he must have planned Siri and iBeacon. Siri, however, has faded a bit under social and cognitive limits, and iBeacon seems to have stalled slightly under social and contextual limits.
The point of innovation is not technology but popularization. Of course, the initial approach to popularization has to be long-tail. But defining the spot for that initial long-tail entry is at once very important and very risky.
They say build lean and iterate, but that small spot becomes the bedrock of unchanging user (B2B, B2C) perception and extensibility thereafter.
That is the reason I am writing this.
The model I am preparing carries similar concerns (of course I am aware), so while imprecise, I want to wrap up, in my modest understanding, not the outcome but the process of what he was thinking about.
For the product — which functional area do I retain as the minimum, and
For B2C — what can ultimately be done with that minimum technology
For B2B — what productivity advantage can we pitch for manufacturing and sales
That is why, trying to find an answer to 'how can I, like him (Jobs), improve the inclusive perception of users (B2B, B2C, and even those who cannot buy)?' I am following along and conjecturing about the confusion he faced—this is strictly a 'personal contextual hypothesis,' so please kindly handle the tired 'grammatical fact-checking' issues you can google up on your own, as private backroom chatter.
4.
The above content is built on the premise that 'the difference between a trade and a business is whether it keeps running even when the owner is not in the seat.'
Take a famous restaurant: if the original cook steps away, or passes on, and the taste is not passed down through the second, third, and fourth generations, the place dies. Would you not say that a 'famous' restaurant is one where, even after the founder's death, the taste keeps going (and that 'taste' is not absolute but evolves along with the times; I trust that is understood between us and will skip it)? That building process is what turns a trade into a business / family enterprise.
In that sense, however famous Jobs was and however earth-shaking his products were, if after his passing he cannot hold onto the hearts of consumers, he will end up as no more than a forgotten master.
On the personal (or 'great man') side there may be no regret, but on the corporate-spirit side there is a great deal to regret.
What about the airplane company the Wright brothers founded?
What about the lightbulb company Edison founded?
Who made the first automobile? What about that person's company?
As an entrepreneur rather than as an individual… Leaving your own name behind and leaving the company's name behind are, I think, different problems.
