Apple and Google, two of the world's most
successful tech companies have wildly different approaches to everything from building products to doing business. So much so, that they can often seem to
be living on different planets. And yet, they are both still successful. How is that possible? And why are they so different? I am Marton from TechAltar, you are watching
the 27th episode of The Story Behind series, and let me unpack that. These days both companies serve similar products
to many of the same customers in many of the same markets. They both do everything from phone and PC
hardware to phone and PC operating systems, voice assistants, wireless earphones, email
clients, and much more, so with this many overlapping businesses, one could expect them
to act similarly. Instead, they're different. And I think these differences are rooted in
the founding stories of each of these two companies. Baby Google, as we all know started with a
search engine, and for the longest time focused on internet services that were adjacent
to that very search engine. Baby Apple on the other hand started out by
building physical devices and expanded from there. Each company developed a unique formula for
success that made sense in their respective categories, and for the most part, they have
both since stuck to those formulas. Hence their differences. Google, a native of the internet space has
developed and religiously followed the perfect formula for internet services:
First, build a ton of products. Anything that seems like a good idea. Second, release them to the public early. Like, way before anyone would call them polished
products. Third, get instant user feedback, so instead
of guessing what is a good idea and what isn't, you can see for yourself works
and what doesn't. Fourth, take the things that work and improve
them until they become kickass products, using actual usage data to guide you along the way. And finally, take the things that don't
work, and kill them quickly. That way you avoid wasting your resources. And that's it. This strategy works well because on the internet,
launching, improving and killing products is relatively easy, so being fast is more
important than being perfect out of the gate. Nothing is permanent, and people usually don't
pay for products anyway so whatever. Release first, fix later. Mark Zuckerberg for example, who employs a
similar strategy famously said at one point that he wants his employees to move fast and
break things. Apple on the other hand is a premium hardware
maker at heart, with the price tags to match, so the formula they have developed is basically
the opposite of that of Google. Hardware is expensive and people have to explicitly
pay for it, meaning that they have strong expectations for it to keep working, and hardware
can't really be fixed or removed from the market once it has been sold. So releasing first and fixing later is not
an option. And for a company like Apple, which got rich
off of its brand being premium and their products having a good reputation, releasing half-finished
products or stopping support for them halfway through their lifecycle also isn't an option. So instead, Apple has developed the following
formula for success: Apple is happy to wait until others, like
Google, prove a category or a technology to be interesting. They let others publicly experiment and fail
and learn from their failings. Once they have decided that a category is
interesting enough, they develop products internally, and try to keep them a secret
as long as possible. For a company the size of Apple, remarkably
few products ever make it out of those secretive Apple labs, so we can be sure that products
go through rigorous testing internally, and all but the best are killed off before they
ever reach the market. Once Apple finally launches products, they
are usually as finalized and as polished as products get. Not a ton of betas to be found anywhere. And because Apple launches so few products,
they can afford to stand behind each one of them with extended support even when some
of them aren't as successful as expected. If you think about it, despite a few missteps
like the battery slowing issue recently, there hasn't been a single, major Apple product
in recent memory that was discontinued or stopped being supported before the end of
its expected shelf life. Which is quite amazing. And very unlike Google. So clearly, Google and Apple have their own
formulas for success, which work very well for the businesses they were in originally. Google's formula lets them be lean, efficient
and move fast, all of which are crucial on the internet, while Apple's formula helped
them build a premium, reliable brand, which customers trust and are willing to pay extra
for. Makes sense. As both companies have matured though, they
have both outgrown their own respective fields and started encroaching onto each others'
territories. Apple for example makes a ton of internet
services and software. Listen in on any of their investor calls and
they will tell you that their digital "Services" division, which includes things like Apple
Music, Apple TV and the App Store, is their most important new growth area. That division alone, by the way, is the size
of a Fortune 100 company by now. At the same time, Google seems more focused
than ever on becoming a hardware company. Sure, it's had the Nexus line and bought
companies like Motorola and Nest in the past, but all of those felt a little like half-hearted
attempts. In the last year or two though, Google went
all-in on hardware with an entire line of premium, Google branded devices. So it's interesting to see how they both handle
this transition. On the one hand, they are both clearly adopting
each others' tactics to some extent, simply because those tactics are proven to work in
the new categories. For example, since 2015, Apple is making new versions
of their operating systems available to the public through a beta program. A move that is very unlike Apple. And Google's hardware lineup too is quite
Apple-like in many ways. It's vertically integrated, with a focus on
flagship devices only and with high price tags to match for example. At the same time, they both clearly still
want to apply their own winning formulas in some places as well, so Google sometimes treats
their hardware like software, and is willing to release new, experimental products like
Google Clips for example, which, might or might not flop, and could be discontinued
at any time. A typical, experimental Google move. And Apple often treats their software like
hardware. So they usually enter existing, safe categories,
like music streaming and smart TVs instead of trying to do radically new things. A typical, calculated Apple move. And this really shows in their approach to
radically new technologies like augmented reality for example. Google of course was the first to release
a real smartphone AR platform when it announced project Tango in 2014. It was a pretty rough beta at first and it
took them around 2 years until first Lenovo and then ASUS finally released the first commercially
available Tango powered phones. Aaaand then the project basically died. Because not long after, Apple announced their
own AR platform called AR Kit, which did most of the same things Tango did, but unlike Tango,
it didn't need extra, bulky depth sensors. It just ran by default on any modern iPhone, which
clearly made it a more attractive proposition, and so, Google quickly followed suit too. While it hasn't officially announced the death
of Tango, it has clearly shifted its attention away from it and on to its new AR platform
called AR Core instead. Much like Apple's AR Kit, AR Core also works
without the need for extra sensors. The two are basically equivalent. And it's unclear who will win this race yet,
but this is the perfect example of their different approaches. Google launches early and corrects course
just as quickly when it has to, not hesitating to abandon a previous product. Apple on the other hand waits until much later,
when it can be sure that it won't need to abandon anything. Both have their positive and negative sides,
I guess, and it will be interesting to see if the two companies hold on to these formulas
in the future, or if they will move on to become more and more similar to each other. Alright, so if you have been following my
channel for a while now, you might have noticed I am adding more and
more animations to my videos as time goes on. And for today's video, I actually learned multiple
animation skills from a website called Skillshare.com, which is officially the first sponsor on the
TechAtlar channel. So, hurray! Skillshare is an online learning platform
with over 17 000 classes in a bunch of categories. So if want to learn a new skill, because,
let's say you want to start your own YouTube channel for example, you can find awesome,
easy-to-follow classes on Skillshare. Audio recording, shooting and editing video,
animations, you name it. You can upload class projects for feedback
and even interact with the instructors. It's like a real class! If you use this link to sign up during the
month of January, you will not only let them know I sent you and thereby help my channel
out, but you will also get your first 3 months of premium membership for just under a dollar. That gets you unlimited access to all of their
classes. From there on, or if you miss the January
timeframe, it is a very reasonable 10 dollars a month. So use this link and start learning! And if you have made it to the very end of this video, there is a good chance that you really enjoy my channel If that's the case, you should probably subscribe over here you should binge-watch my previous episodes over here
and you should follow me on my social media channels. I am TechAltar on all of them. Alright, I'll see you in the next one. Bye!
