제목   |  Apple`s main foe (not Samsung) 작성일   |  2011-10-19 조회수   |  3213

 

Apple's main foe (not Samsung)

 

 
By Oh Young-jin

Assistant managing editor

In last week’s column, I argued Apple is not Samsung’s biggest enemy.

To be fair, I have decided to write a sequel to claim that vice versa is also true.

To give you a heads-up for my argument, I would say it is based on two reasons ― one being personal in Tim Cook, the late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs’ handpicked successor, and the other addressing the structural uniqueness of Apple.

Maybe, the two reasons are so intertwined with each other as to make it difficult to separate one from the other.

One last diversion before our “surgical” journey to separate the conjoined base for my argument, I want to bring my readers’ attention to two small elements in a one-page special about the Apple-Samsung patent war in the Monday edition of The Korea Times, being wrapped up under the big title of “Jobs’ War” with his picture accompanying the flagship article.

Having said that, let’s start by putting ourselves in Cook’s position.

First, it goes without saying that Cook appears to have a herculean task to emulate Jobs.

Jobs started Apple, using his sheer innovative power to turn it into the apple of the technology world’s eye with its products changing the patterns by which people live.

At this early juncture after Jobs’ death, Cook will either follow the map drawn by Jobs or strike on his own path. Either way, Cook would find himself facing a kind of successor syndrome.

By following Jobs’ uncharted path, the map is not clearly drawn because Jobs, the genius, was opting to draw new lines as he went. To laymen’s eyes, it is difficult to read.

One good example is Microsoft.

MS founder Bill Gates is now in retirement, leaving Steve Ballmer in charge.

Even with Gates alive, MS under Ballmer is no longer an innovative firm under Gates.

For some time, MS has already been on the evolution path toward a mature, bureaucratic firm, which no longer stands out from among the crowd.

It is not entirely Ballmer’s fault because he is doing everything he can, sometimes consulting his mentor who is devoting himself to philanthropy. His only flaw is that he doesn’t have what makes up Gates but is trying to pretend he does.

Ballmer has been destined to the role of Salieri in a slight twist, perpetually trying without success to catch up with Mozart and agonizing over his lack of the young one’s genius.

Of course, Cook can go independent and try slap his name on Apple.

By many indications, Cook doesn’t have what takes to be a Jobs, as with Ballmer’s case, but admitting it is the first step to prevent himself becoming another Ballmer and take Apple on a new path rather than trying to read tea leaves about what his predecessor would do in a given situation.

Ironic as it may sound, choosing a new path is a key to succeeding Jobs’ spirit of challenge ― taking us where nobody dares and pointing to the destination we should go.

To get his Apple prepared for that journey, Cook should give up on some of Jobs’ dying wishes. A successor should not blindly pursue what his predecessor decided on a bad judgment. Why bad? It runs counter against the spirit of Jobs at his best.

The ongoing patent war concealed Jobs’ sense of insecurity that, if he’s gone, Apple would be gone, too, so he had to leave behind a safety net of sorts to ensure the longevity of his business empire, behaving like the son of God or acting as if he were given a messianic role. His death due to cancer is by any means that of a martyr. For Cook, it is his crusade and he should declare it is not.

The ongoing extensive patent war is one of Jobs’ safety nets, tying down the future with the past rather than going forward. In other words, Jobs tried to slow down Samsung rather than lead the technology world by his hallmark of innovation, a moment when Jobs turned into a Ballmer.

The decision to turn the technology world back to a competitive playing field is very much in the hands of Cook.

From my perspective, I don’t want to advocate Apple over Samsung or the other way around but I am deploring the degree of attrition in the ongoing patent war, fearing that I am being deprived of an early chance to get my hands on a new Galaxy or iPhone and that the price I would pay for that device will include exorbitant fees the two firms are paying their lawyers.

Explaining Cook’s shortage of choices needs a look at Apple’s structure.

Despite all appearances that resemble modern corporate governance, Apple has been run like a cult with Jobs its leader.

The way Jobs unfurled his new products may remind one of the scene from “Eyes Wide Shut,” Stanley Kubrik’s last film, where a crowd of masked people participate in an orgy.

We know of the great lengths Apple fans would go in order to grieve about their leader’s death.

I believe that Cook would make a significant contribution to Apple by straightening out kinks in the Apple mania, or more frankly cleaning up after Jobs and starting a new chapter.

By doing so, Cook will be able to find Apple a new destination as Jobs brought us his i-gadgets that we didn’t even know we needed.

The biggest enemy for Apple is its tendency, growing bigger but insidiously, to settle for the past. I find that tendency in Jobs’ patent war against Samsung. With Jobs gone, Cook is in charge. I hope that Cook has a big heart.

 

 







'애플 vs 삼성 전쟁' 잡스 불안감에서

지난주에 애플이 삼성의 주적이 아니라는 컬럼을 썼다.

이번 주엔 반대로 삼성이 애플의 가장 큰 적이 아니라는 요지의 속편을 쓰기로 했다. 우선 이 두 컬럼은 두 회사를 화해시키려는 목적의 글이 아니라는 것을 밝혀둔다. 오히려 애플과 삼성이 현상황을 냉철하게 고려해 두회사는 물론 소비자에게 최선이 되는 선택을 하게 도우려는 의도이다.

이번 컬럼에서는 애플의 공동창립자인 스티브 잡스의 후임자인 팀쿡의 관점에서 왜 삼성이 애플의 주적이 되서는 안되는지를 따져 보려한다.

두말할 필요도 없이 쿡 애플최고경영자는 잡스라는 걸출한 인물의 후임이라는 쉽자 않은 입장에 있다. 잡스는 애플을 창립하고 개인 가진 혁신의 힘만으로 애플을 세계최고의 반열에 올려놨다.

잡스의 사후를 이어 애플을 이끌고가는 쿡은 잡스의 길을 따라 회사를 이끌어 가던지 새로운 길을 모색해야 한다.

잡스의 길의 따라 간다는 것은 간단한 일이 아니다. 우선 정확하게 어디로 가야 하는 지, 어떤 결정을 해야 하는 지 선택에 순간에 잡스라면 어떻게 했을까를 끊임없이 질문을 해야 한다. 잡스는 사망했고 더 이상 쿡이 결정하는 것에 대해 맞고 그름을 확인할 길은 없다.

완전히 같지는 않지만 마이크로소프트의 경우가 예가 될 수 있다.

마이크로소프트의 창립자인 빌케이츠는 살아있지만 후임자인 스티브 발머가 이끄는 회사는 더 이상 변화의 중심에 서있는 회사는 아니다.

이를 모두 발머의 잘못이라고 할 수는 없다. 꼭 지적해야한다면 발머가 게이츠가 아니라는 것 그리고 그럼에도 불구하고 케이츠가 되려고 노력하는 것이 문제라고 할것이다.

쿡도 잡스의 천재성을 가지지 못했다.

그점을 인정하는 순간 자신이 또다른 발머가 되는 것을 막을수 있다.

아이러니컬하게도 이렇게 잡스를 모방하지 않고 새로운 쿡만의 길로 애플을 이끄는 것이 모두가 엄두를 못내는 길을 걸으며 다른 사람들에게 새로운 목적지를 제시하는 잡스의 도전정신을 실행하는 길이다.

이런 새로운 여정을 위해 쿡은 잡스의 잘못된 결정을 번복해야 하며 그중 하나가삼성과의 특허전쟁이다.

무엇보다도 삼성과의 전쟁은 잡스의 불안감에서 기인했다고 생각된다.

그의 불안감은 죽음을 앞두고 애플제국의 유지에 초점이 모아졌고 잡스는 자신의 혁신력이 없는 상황에서 최선책은 기존의 특허에 대한권리를 확보하는 것으로 귀결됐으리라 보인다.

이는 과거 현재 미래로 이어지는 선순환이 아니라 미래를 저당 잡혀 과거를 답습하는 일이며 잡스가 발머가 되는 순간이다.

애플의 미래가 과거에 있느냐 미래에 있느냐의 선택의 쿡이 결정해야 한다.

물론 소비자 입장에선 두회사의 법률 분쟁으로 신제품출시가 늦어지고 어마어마한 액수의 변호사비용이 신상의 가격에 포함될것이라는 것이 큰문제이다.

물론 종교조직처럼 움직이는 애플문화에서 쿡이 새로운 시대를 열기위해서는 무엇보다도 내부의 압박를 이겨내야 한다. 쉽지 않은 일이기에 쿡에게 행운을 빈다.  

 

인쇄하기