Apple: Imitation or innovation?

"Can't innovate anymore, my @$%!" Those were Phil Schiller's famous words as he showed off the new Mac Pro back in 2013. The crowd roared and clapped as we, once again, became mesmerized at the engineering feat that Apple has accomplished in personal computing hardware. Yet, no one could disregard the lingering question of whether Apple could still be as innovative as prior to the passing of Steve Jobs. Over the past few years, we've seen how Apple has developed under the new leadership from Tim Cook and the expanded role of Jony Ive. But the mobile and personal computing markets are much more crowded these days, let alone the emerging market of wearable tech. Does Apple have what it takes to remain an innovative company? Or must it borrow ideas from competitors in order to satisfy customers and maintain their loyalty? And if so, is that necessarily a bad thing? Since when did "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" turn into "imitation is just being lazy and unimaginative"?

To look at this question of imitation vs. innovation, we have to look at both Apple hardware and software. Hardware innovation is relatively easy to assess. There is little debate that Apple is leaps and bounds ahead of its competition. Its computers, phones, tablets, and now watches, have always had good build quality and often led the industry in categories such as long lasting batteries in laptops and strong performance in tablets. The latest innovation? Butterfly keys, Haptic Tap (however gimmicky it may be), and layered battery design are just some examples of how Apple is leading the industry in making solid, innovative hardware.

Hardware makes money, but, and perhaps now more so than ever before, user experience is what makes a customer take out the credit card and buy your product (over and over again). The question that must be answered is, how does your software feature make my user experience better, and does it achieve that with so much better visual and emotional stimulations that my neurons will fire off with glee. Android, and even Microsoft, have introduced some really nice features that were or still are lacking in Apple's software experience. On the Android side, there has been better 3rd party app integration, more customization options, and a better notification system and assistant. Microsoft has had the "snap" feature since early builds of windows 7. Perhaps the most innovative single piece of software experience from Apple has been the "Slide to Unlock" feature. Remember when Steve Jobs demoed that on stage? We all wanted and did see it twice back in 2007. Where has that magic gone, you may ask? Have we been excited as much as that single slide across the piece of glass had done in the past few years? There are certainly some cool features, like Continuity, where you can begin and continue to work on various documents and emails on your iPhone, iPad and the Mac. Then there is the messaging system where you can now answer not only texts on your Mac but also make and receive phone calls. And, finally, the latest iOS9 features will usher us into a world of true multi-tasking on the iPad. Yet, something is different this time. All of these features have been done already on Android or Microsoft, in one way or another. Just like in the window snap feature, Apple is no longer the first to do an innovative, easy to use software enhancement. Yet, Apple was never, is never, and will never be concerned with rushing a feature in order to get it first to market. It's about enhancing and polishing features until it is easily and comfortably integrated into its software ecosystem.

We are biased in our judgment of innovation because we only get to see the product, whether hardware or software, when they are released to the public or demoed during trade shows. However, we rarely have a clue as to when these ideas were first conceived. Yet, when Apple demoes some of their features, and when we use them ourselves, we feel that they are more polished and user friendly compared to their competitors. Sure, Apple has had its fair share of mistakes, such as Apple Maps, which recently was mentioned as a measurement to quantify terribleness on Silicon Valley.

Perhaps we should introduce or, rather, re-introduce the concept of "iteration." Apple is obsessed with details (remember those videos showing how a camera takes a number of pictures and then a robot chooses one out of many different versions of the same part in order to create a seamless fit of parts in the iPhone?). With only a handful of exceptions, Apple has delivered very well polished software enhancements to its users. It's the little things that matter, and that's what makes the Apple products' users experiences better. When people complained how much space a software update took on their iPhones and iPads, Apple responded this year by cutting down the size of their software update drastically (though the better choice would've been to increase the baseline storage options... but that's not going to increase the bottom line). When was the last time we saw Windows brag about how their new Service Pack is now 2/3 smaller or that their updates are going to be less frequent? Gradually, Apple improves on their designs and software. This year, we are seeing more of an improvement cycle rather than the drastic visual overhaul that we saw in iOS and OS X last year. Apple has learned to introduce features gradually rather than all at once in order to make sure that the users can adapt to those features and integrate them into their daily workflow without feeling overwhelmed. Remember when Samsung introduced Smart Stay, Smart Scroll, and bunch of other Smart features all at once? I turned them off and never bothered becoming Smart.

Was there a drop in Macbook sales when Windows had "snap" and Apple didn't? What about full screen app management with multiple displays? Or when the iPhone didn't have the slew of features that Android phones did and still have? Sure, Apple lost market share when it didn't have a larger screen phone. But if the best features offered by Android, some of which are more advanced and innovative, are so important to users, then why was there such a big switch from Android users to the larger screened iPhone 6? What is it about Apple that makes people like using their products more even though it may not have the coolest and latest and, sometimes, much more useful features? While a large part can be attributed to Apple's amazing marketing team, the majority can be thanks to Apple's integration of software and hardware and an almost flawless user experience.

So what does this all mean? For one thing, and perhaps the most important one, the customers will stand to benefit tremendously. Technology, no matter how advanced or innovative, doesn't do much good if we can't use it to solve everyday problems. There are many great innovative features that can benefit our daily routines, and, yet, it takes iterations and improvements in order for us to truly be the beneficiaries of using those features. Most tech companies understand this. But Apple also understands that customer loyalty is key to surviving and thriving in this fast paced, ever changing sector. The best way to build customer loyalty is to have products that work well and provide a friendly user interface, without too much fuss. And we have come to expect this level of polished and well thought out user experience when we use an Apple product. Perhaps this can explain why so many users and tech blog writers have mixed (and often negative) feelings about the Apple Watch. This is a brand new product category, let alone a product, from Apple that requires a new OS with entirely new ways of interacting with a touch screen interface. There, as expected, is a steep learning curve. Yet, most reviews have highlighted that this steep learning curve might be too much for most users. Was it not hard to learn how to use an Android smart watch or the Pebble the first few days? Why do we suddenly feel uncomfortable and almost repulsive when Apple produces a product with a steep learning curve? I would argue that it's also because we expect Apple to make magical products with magical user experiences. But you can also argue that this is because this is a first generation product, and usually there are lots of kinks that have yet to be worked out yet.

Whoa, okay, you got me there. If Apple is all about being iterative and only push out products when they have the features fully polished, then what the heck are they doing with the Apple Watch when everyone thinks they should have pushed out a product with much less of a learning curve? Isn't this very much un-Apple like? Market forces is the unlikely culprit or hero of that story.

As the various sectors of technology become ever more lucrative and competitive, Apple cannot simply wait and perfect their products before releasing them. Samsung didn't become a mobile technology juggernaut overnight. It did it by making a few big bets, from making supersized phones for the business world to cheap Androids for emerging markets. For Apple to remain dominant, it has to also be able to push out products at a similar pace. The products still have to be extremely good, but they may not have to be the most perfect versions. This really only applies to new products like the Apple Watch, which was introduced at the very moment when the wearable sector is getting competitive and, not coincidentally, iPod touch sales have been dropping. Each Apple product is produced to make a more cohesive ecosystem and a more loyal customer. iPod touch used to be the best gifts for younger kids and teens. But now, a lot of them have iPhones, which makes iPods a moot point. But here comes the Apple Watch, an exclusive accessory to your iPhone and the perfect way to replace that iPod as a Christmas or graduation gift. So for Apple, it makes perfect sense to enter the market with a less-than-perfectly-polished product but at the right time.

Confused yet? It's a complicated love affair. On the one hand, Apple strives to produce the perfect product that makes technology blend effortlessly into our daily lives. On the other hand, it has to respond to increasing market forces to remain dominant. Without the profits garnered from being the dominant player in the market, Apple may lack or be limited in their pursuits in perfecting products or having innovative R&D efforts. Yet, too much focus on market forces will limit the creativeness and imagination that has driven much of Apple's success. Sure, the customers will remain the number one priority and will definitely benefit no matter how this plays out.

But, what about us, the technology enthusiasts? Are we ready to accept that iteration can be just as important as innovation? And, are we ready to perhaps even abandon the innovation vs. imitation debate and focus on how these companies' technologies and ideas truly benefit those surrounding us? Phones, tablets, and laptops are better than ever before, and wearable tech, sharing economy, smart homes, electric sports cars, driverless cars, drones, and so much more are happening all around us. I know what my answer will be. Do you?