A brief account of jobs ' doctrine

A few days ago, the Book of the Iron and Steel book published a new edition of Jobs biography, inviting me to the platform. The scene speaks a lot, almost a little messy need to tidy up the speech. After several days of pondering, I have some new discoveries. So write a blog to share with you, and we discuss together.

Here, I would like to start by talking about Jobs ' doctrine.

After Mr Jobs's return to Apple in 1997, Apple adopted a doctrine strategy in its core technology, meaning that many of the things on Apple's products were elsewhere, or acquired, and then added a shell outside. The iOS operating system and Safari browser, for example, add an Apple's own shell to someone else's core. It was Jobs ' rebellion against his past, which, in my opinion, was doctrine.

In terms of his technology and product ideas, doctrine is no longer reinventing the wheel. By contrast, Microsoft does things very tired and hard. For example, the Windows operating system is Microsoft's own from the bottom up, plus a lot of its own application software, but also to consider keeping up with the old version of compatibility, but also consider supporting the world's hardware drivers. Mr. Jobs had a hard time with Microsoft, but after returning to Apple, Apple gave up all the lines it had done before, using doctrine tactics, such as many of the iphone's modules were off-the-shelf, and multi-touch screen technology. Once I spoke to an operator you see the other people do not like the Apple is not trying to occupy the technical commanding heights, there is no need to build a set of communication standards, but they will be the user experience to achieve the ultimate, the same in the mobile phone market has turned upside down, defeated the world without rivals, or even integrated itunes, the App Store Is this integration of existing technologies an innovation?

In the past, many people have a point of view that the original from the bottom is called innovation, think that it is important to make the core, what to do on the core is not important. However, they do not understand that, in a way, the shell is more important than the nucleus. The user experience is good, is embodied in the shell, are reflected in what you have done at the core. Apple has been pushing the ipod since 2001, this MP3 player in Zhuhai's Rotten Street has no core technology, but Apple has been on the shell for years, striving for the ultimate, creating a top-notch user experience that is the basis for the ipod's popularity, and also the conditions for Apple to further change the digital industry.

I think the doctrine of jobs deserves our reflection. Doctrine told us that not everything is done by ourselves, is called High-tech. In the past, many technology companies from their own start, painstakingly make a thing out, feel that users do not understand, not a warm welcome, it is necessary to go to education market, education consumers, high-profile publicity of the core technology. On the contrary, you look at the Apple, also did not publicize which technology is the ten years of their own grinding a sword, but the user as long as an addiction, feel good. So, I think technology this thing, whether it is original, as long as you have the ability to give users better than others, first-class experience, then you are in innovation, this innovation and to make the core technology than the same important.

In fact, Jobs also suffered from technical losses. When he left Apple, he founded Next, which was more of a technology-driven market, and the market was not buying it. In essence, Jobs wasn't technically born, and Apple's other founder, Watts, was a true technical background. But it is because jobs is not technically, that technology is not the root of the product in his eyes. On the contrary, many skilled people are too superstitious and become technology for technology. Technology was a means, and the result became a goal. For technology, the result ignores consumers. Therefore, I also often warn technicians, including myself, do a good job of product service consumers is the fundamental, with whose technology, what technology is the means just.

So Mr Jobs's return to Apple should be a new understanding of the times and the result of his constant rethinking after leaving Apple. If he had returned to Apple five years earlier, I think his doctrine would have been difficult to succeed, and was unlikely to become mainstream at the time. Like today's Apple products show the flow of the feeling that the hardware and software, even if it can support, is very expensive. But Moore's law has developed to today, the software and hardware conditions have, the user experience of the advent of the era, so jobs took advantage of, and out of hand.