Post-Steve Jobs iPad: Innovation and Competitive Advantage

As the computer and gadgets geek I am, I was very much interested about the release of Apple’s new source of shininess, iPad 3 (or the new iPad, as they call it). I flat out refused to watch the launch event, because they would have convinced me into buying it (their advertising strategy is just THAT good), but also because I wanted to look at the reactions from the consumer and technical side before jumping into that train.

I’m glad I did.

Hurry up! Jump on the iPad 3
opinion bandwagon before it stops
being popular!

The differences between the first and second versions of the iPad were not only cosmetic. It was not only a matter of better camera resolution, or higher definition on the display; it was the refinement of the concept of Apple’s tablet computer. It was better suited for multitasking, enabled video communication through the very smart usage of two cameras, gave the software/hardware ecosystem for innovations like iMessage and the list goes on. On the very core of iPad2 was the idea of making the concept work better. The new iPad is just refining what the former model did.
It has a nice camera, but if you REALLY need high definition photos, you wouldn’t even be thinking about a tablet for that. Yes, it has a high definition display, but it is not a quantum leap from high definition to even higher definition. Furthermore, it is essentially restricted to 4G-friendly countries.

It is safe to say that even though the new iPad isn’t a quantum leap like the last release, it still has the differentiating elements that characterise Apple.  The App Store is still working (and mind you, the App Store by itself is worth more than other competitors’ entire structure!), so we Apple users are still stuck within the confines of iOS, should we want to keep our investment safe. It is still beautifully designed and will keep the look and feel of Apple. A careful reader will have spotted the keyword here, which is not necessarily an issue of poor proofreading, but the crux of the problem:  the constant use of the word STILL. It brings the same advantages that made iPad 2 a wonderful thing, but fails to deliver the massive ground breaking innovations Apple used to deliver.
On the strictly negative side, this iPad is bigger and heavier. It is slightly “fatter” and in average 50 grams heavier than its predecessor. This might not be much, but in an industry that requires portability, this might mean a lot. It also implicitly signals that Apple failed to foster technological advancement to such a degree that they could fit something better than iPad 2 in a similarly sized case, like they did from the first instalment to the second.

Artist's depiction of iPad 2's release

It would be a HUGE leap of faith to say that all the innovation from Apple came from Steve Jobs. It would be granting the man way too much credit, and would be assuming that the R&D team within the firm is made up of a bunch of lazy people. Still, the loss of Jobs can be felt underneath the ultra-high resolution of the new iPad and should be a starting point for the topic of innovation and its role on firm strategy.
Jobs’s genius was not on the technical side. His true value for the company was his capability to understand what people wanted, but had not been able to properly convey. His innovation potential came from pre-empting the market.  His extraordinary presentation skills rounded up that talent, allowing him to awaken the latent desires from his audiences.

Good news for Apple is that they will still be able to produce sleek, powerful electronics. Bad news is that they will not be able -at least in the medium run- to retain that competitive advantage. Furthermore, since this was one of the foremost core competences for Apple, it remains to be seen how well they will fare in the medium to long run, as raw technological advancements are slowly turning much less into sources of competitive advantage, but much more into mere threshold competences, particularly on the higher end of the market in which Apple thrives.

The general topic for consideration is how a firm can continue with its privileged position in a market niche when the source of competitive advantage is gone. Their options could range from exploiting another core competence they have that could allow them to still compete in that market, to outright changing the target audience for their products and services, leveraging the brand and reputation they had already built. The problem with the first strategy is that the new flagship competence might not be exactly what the market is looking for. The problem with the second idea is that it would feel “funny” for consumers of a different niche to see a brand from a higher/lower segment to come in full force in their own environments: a cheap iPad would be simply weird.

Trendy electronics are as necessary
as food. RIGHT!?

For those wondering, I’m not buying the new iPad. Still, if any reader wants to give it for free, I will certainly not reject it.