Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Versus Google Innovation Strategies

Posted by samzenpus on from the getting-it-done dept.

porsche911 writes "The NY Times has a great story comparing the top-down versus bottom-up innovation approaches of Apple and Google. From the article: '"There is nothing democratic about innovation," says Paul Saffo, a veteran technology forecaster in Silicon Valley. "It is always an elite activity, whether by a recognized or unrecognized elite."'"

3 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. apple does market research by alen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ipod released only after there was a market for MP3 players
    iphone released after some phones got the ability to play music files, access email and surf the internet. WAP had been around for years
    tablet concepts had been around for years as well

    Apple's innovation is to find a new market or one in need of a new product
    make a list of all features currently available or wanted
    pick one or a select few thought to be the top features and do them better than everyone else
    add in the rest of the features over the next few years

    apple has never released a brand new unique product that no one ever has

  2. general business vs. the pursuit of knowledge by recharged95 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Top Down == innovation for the sake of business (value)
    Bottom Up == innovation for the sake of knowledge (evolution)

    Hasn't changed for thousands of years if you think about it. Aside from the power hunger dictator once in a while.

  3. top-down / bottoms-up - it's all in the context by RevEngr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There's a subtle thing here that I think often gets lost in discussions of this nature. The fact is that much (most?) innovation is "top-down" in the sense that there is one person holding the entire idea in their head that ultimately drives its attainment. That person might be a team of one, in which case they are just managing themselves, or they might have 20 people reporting to them that they can direct.

    Whether you consider the resulting innovation top-down or bottom-up really depends on the context of that person within their organization. (And if you are in the organization, it depends on your own position in relation to that person).

    Consider a manager in a company like Google who has 20 people reporting to her. Imagine that this manager has a vision of some innovation she believes she can achieve through the work of her 20-strong team, and so she manages the team in an extremely hierarchical and directed way in order to achieve it. She sets goals for individuals, she approves all design decisions, she vetoes any aspect of the project - at any level - that she doesn't like or that don't fit into her vision of how the result should look.

    If the result of this process is ultimately perceived to be some Great Innovation (say, something like Google Maps), then outside observers are very likely to point at this as an example of why "bottom-up" is the best way to get innovation. After all, the manager was low-level, and was operating outside the direct influence of upper management, such that the innovation "emerged" rather than was designed from the top down.

    Yet this same scenario tweaked such that the manager is instead the CEO of a 20 person company suddenly looks like the epitome of "top-down" hierarchy a la Steve Jobs. People will point at the CEO and say that she is controlling and hierarchical. But, again, if the result is good, this will be used as an example for why top-down hierarchies are "good" for innovation.

    I've witnessed this directly in my own career. Several years back, as the lead of a team of ~20 people, I developed "innovative" new products that were not dictated by upper management of my 2000-person employer. It was seen as 'bottom-up' innovation in the organization, even though I was fairly hierarchical with the team and driving them to my vision. No matter, it was 'bottom-up' because I was innovating without being instructed by my bosses. Flash forward to being CEO of a 40+ person company with a ~20 person product/engineering team. The same characteristics that brought me success and the perception of "bottom-up" success at the large company are now perceived as "top-down" and controlling in this organization.