A Lesson in "Starting From Scratch"

Why is it that great products that hold commanding market share can't hold onto that advantage over time?  We've seen it time and time again.  Take RIM and their Blackberry.  It was revolutionary.  It was a fantastic device that I carried for years and years.  It owned the market, but now has been under seige from the likes of Apple and Google.  With such a strong foundation, why is that RIM couldn't leapfrog Apple? 

The issue is being too wedded to the foundation you've created. 

There have been other cases of this as well.  Take Microsoft.  Windows dominated for years.  So what happened?  They tried too hard to continue re-using the same foundation in future versions and in other products.  They are still doing that as well!  Look at the response to the iPad.....its a tablet running Windows 7.  I know that letting go of something you've built can be hard, but the risk of not exploring that option is huge.  I've spoke about this before when Microsoft was struggling to evolve Windows.  It's not new. 

We can see examples of where starting with something entirely new can yield breakthrough products.  Take again Microsoft, this time with their xBox platform.  Sony was commanding the market with the PS2 at the time.  Microsoft could have built a platform based on Windows, but they didn't.  It took courage to pull together a team that could start from scratch.  What did it yield?  The xBox user interface was (and is) fantastic - it was different, it was effective, it was user centric.  It more than challenged Sony...it displaced them.

I believe that Microsoft is doing this again with their soon to be release smartphone.  They  could have evolved Windows Mobile...which has steadily been declining into irrelevance.  They opted not to do that.  They could have played the copycat game like Google and RIM and tried to create an iPhone-like interface.  Again, they opted not to do that.  Instead they've created an OS that is user/social/info-centric.   It is fresh and in my opinion it is a step in the right direction as smartphone users become more sophisticated and comfortable with the mobilization of their world. 

By ignoring the legacy foundations that an organization has, they can indeed create innovative breakthrough products and services.  Apple does this exceedingly well.  It's no secret that I am a big proponent of what Apple has built.  I do, however, offer a cautionary opinion along the thread of this post:  don't become obsessed with the foundation!  The iPhone was revolutionary.  It has reshaped an entire industry and introduced a whole new way of leveraging our phones.  The iPad has furthered that, virtually jump-starting the tablet market after years of that technology never really grabbing hold of the public mindshare.   The risk to Apple is that they too could fall into this trap where everything evolves the iOS foundation.  If they do this, they too will be leapfrogged.  It is inevitable. 

Blackberry, finding itself now behind with regard to the innovations of Apple, has taken a bold step with the Playbook.  This device is a gamble because it will leverage a whole new operating system.  RIM is starting from scratch with this device and in my opinion that is a good thing.  They won't be hindered by old paradigms and sacred cows - instead they can create a product that fits with the evolving users that they are targeting.  It will be interesting to see how the final product is.  Regardless of it's success or failure, however, it will be a success from the perspective that it is a departure from the legacy foundation.

It's hard to move toward the future, if your organization is always holding onto what it created in the past.  Take a risk, and start something from scratch.  I'm sure that you'll be surprised with where that approach can take you.

 

Comments

[Olivier]

Great post!

I am a big believer in the fact that paradigm shifts often explains why some companies fail when others succced: succesful ones (like Apple so far, but then again, they were also in a do or die situation before the iMac, etc... ) are the ones who can shift to a new paradigm (grow new ideas, choose new values) whereas the others are fixed to their traditional ideas (which had made them succesful in the past) and lack vision and will to take risk (IBM with personal computers, the Swiss losing the watch market monopoly to the Japanese with the advent of quartz watches, etc...)

I am intrigued and curious to read more about the Playbook now...

[mip]

Thanks for the comment - great perspective and examples you gave. I agree, it will be very interesting to see how the Playbook evolves. I have a blog post in the works to discuss the approach RIM is taking and their framework for delivery of apps. Should be posting that next week.
Thanks again for reading and commenting.
Ciao
mip

[Coney]

Interesting perspective and perhaps valid in various situations but I don't think it's a 'rule' - companies would be foolish to simply throw away what they've learned/established/produce.
RIM is about sound, strong, robust business communications. They would do well to remember that and not get pulled into the fun phone space.

[brydon]

Good read. I love the ad campaign in that it highlights the negatives of the phone experience. My concern is that I can't see how they can truly deliver on the promise they're making. I'm curious to see.

Now to promote my own fluff, I wrote something related last week including a great little video...

http://shiftmode.com/2010/10/being-different.html

I love it that windows is at least trying to be different which is great to watch.

[Jim Hayward]

I was thinking of how Wikipedia just became the standard online dictionary. Clearly a radically different approach.
Good to see you posting new blogs. I read with them with interest.
Jim

[mip]

Thanks for the comment Brydon. I took a look at your post and it was great! Your truck story reminded me of when I first got and drove the SMART car.

As for Microsoft and their latest phone, I agree, they needed to be different, otherwise, they'd be lost in the sea of Android, Blackberry and iPhone features/functions/hype. I also think that making the phone "social-centric" with the live tiles is brilliant, given that the social layer that has emerged is increasingly becoming the conduit for everyone on the web.

[mip]

Hi Jim - thanks for your kind comment - I'm glad you are still reading my blog - it had bee a while since I'd posted and it's nice to be getting back into blogging.

[Michael Ianni-Palarchio]

Coney - i agree, RIM should definitely play to their strengths in terms of leveraging the "corporate know-how" they've acquired over the years. Their devices though have been "stuck" in an old paradigm. OS 6 feels somewhat layered on top of the old OS, just like Windows 3 and Windows 95 wear really just a cover over DOS.

I've always believed that if you don't cannibalize your own product, eventually, someone will do it for you.

[bisty]

So much for starting from scratch. I read that only 44,000 handsets were sold. Doesn't hold a candle to Google's 200k+ activations per day.

[spuppet]

Lame. Windows phones are lame. Android is the future.

[Coach Outlet Stores Online]

Good to see you had fun - and managed to photograph some tricky mittens!

[Air Jordan Shoes]

DODODO.....I'VE BEEN LET YOUR DOWN.I HOPE YOUR UNDERSTAND.

[Chanel Bags Outlet]

John Fahey, the president of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corp. that Roche planted a molecule in its red-cell boosting product CERA, or Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator, during its manufacture to help anti-doping authorities detect its illegal use. Roche sells the drug as Mircera.