Why Innovation Means Less
On innovation: “saying no to 1,000 things to make sure we don’t get on the wrong track or try to do too much. We’re always thinking about new markets we could enter, but it’s only by saying no that you can concentrate on the things that are really important.”
-Steve Jobs, CEO, Apple
For years it bugged me that Apple products were so limited in features compared to their competitors. Their iPods had tremendous storage, but always has a fraction of the compatibility in file formats, a lack expandable memory, no FM radio, and forced you to use a proprietary connector instead of the industry standard. The same went with their laptops that added on over $200 for an equivalent Dell. Yet they sold so well. While some of this can be attributed to the company’s brilliant marketing, a lot has to do with their philosophy toward innovation. After reading this quote, it all made sense to me. It explains everything Apple does, they do not sacrifice features, instead they intentionally leave them out because that is innovation. The reason that no other company can catch up with Apple is because they are playing a different game. While Dell, HP, and Lenovo duke it out for the most features, Apple looks to have the least. They want to keep only what is essential, and they believe it costs more for that.
While common logic would say this makes no sense, the proof is in the sales figures. Customers buy Apple products in droves because there are fewer options to choose from. Tests have been done in the past where shoppers in a grocery store are offered 3 different flavors of jelly, versus being offered 6. While again, our logic would say that customers would buy more when there are more options; shoppers are actually overwhelmed and end up less likely buying at all. This same process occurs with technology, the less the better. For example Twitter should be an utter failure; it has a fraction of the fraction of the utility Facebook provides. However, the simplicity is attractive and is innovation.
I think we have come to a point with technology, where an enormous space for growth will be in the limiting of features. Some small companies such as 37signals have taken this mentality to heart and have been very successful. They sell CRM and Project Management software, however they have only a small fraction of the feature set and flexibility of programs like SalesForce. You have likely never heard of 37signals, yet they have been profitable for 10 years as a small company charging more for less. In their view, me as the user does not want to deal with a million unnecessary features I will never use, so they just take them out for me and don’t give me the option to put them back in. There will be less thinking necessary on my part.
While I value more features and am compulsive enough to care about each and every one, I understand that the vast majority is not like me. They just want their products to work; most people hate spending their time in the settings menu and would rather spend more time just using the product. This appeal of simplicity is somewhat unconscious in all of us, we are perplexed as to why we are drawn to the iPod Shuffle, which has no screen, but costs more than one that does. This and everything Apple and a slew of other small companies are doing show that humans value product and usability over features and settings. This is why real innovation is limiting down to as little as possible.

