Jobs' Apple Standard vs. Page's Google Standard

The worldwide outpouring of respect, admiration and eulogies for Steve Jobs, Apple’s legendary leader and creative genius, proves his standard and legacy of innovation is one to measure other aspiring tech industry leaders by. Given that Apple and Google are the #1 and #2 most valuable brands in the world and that Google has invaded all of Apple’s markets in the last few years as a new competitor, it is illuminating and instructive to compare and contrast the radically different visions, values, and standards, of Apple’s former leader Steve Jobs and Google’s current CEO Larry Page.

Jobs’ Apple’s mission is centered on product and service leadership and innovation by designing the best computing experience for individuals. Page’s Google mission is centered on information aggregation, “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” — for theworld.

Jobs’ Apple ambition is qualitative excellence designing and producing thebest products and services. Page’s Google ambition is quantitativeaccumulation of the most information to achieve universal information access.

Jobs’ Apple goal is to delight the individual with the best computing experience and to drive innovation. Page’s Google oft-stated goal is to “change the world.”

Jobs’ Apple focus is on best anticipating and meeting the computing and service needs of the individual. Page’s Google focus is on providing the most relevant information to the world’s users.

Jobs’ Apple approach to innovation is to proactively pick spots of opportunity and concentrate the company’s energy on best solving the pre-identified problem or opportunity. Page’s Google approach to innovation is to not limit the company’s innovation efforts but to work toward being all things to all people.

Jobs’ Apple innovation model is proprietary, hierarchical, and tightly-managed. Page’s Google “infringenovation” model is open, flat, and very loosely managed.

Jobs’ Apple disruption model is based on invention and property rights protection. Page’s Google disruption model is based on open sharing and presumed fair use of others’ property rather than respect for property rights.

Jobs’s Apple competitive model is to create value via the best premium products and services and to protect that value creation with the strictest corporate confidentiality and property rights. Page’s Google anti-competitive model is to take, aggregate and risk others’ value creation largely without their meaningful permission or payment.

Jobs’ Apple economic model is to create value via paid-for premium products and services. Page’s Google economic model is to redistribute the value created by others for free and often without their meaningful permission, and then monetize it via advertising.

Jobs’ Apple operational model is based on perfectionist attention to detail, in most every dimension of execution in the business. Page’s Google operational model is exceptionally free-wheeling to the point of leadership publicly boasting about not managing Google or admitting Google is not much into management controls.

Jobs’ Apple specializes in delighting the most discriminating, hard-to-please customers. Page’s Google specializes in satisfying the least discriminatingcustomers: the long tail; the automatable; and those that can’t complain because the Google product or service is free.

Jobs’ Apple publicity model is to very secretly create the best new product and service, then stage an high-profile event to announce it, and then let the quality and innovation of the new product and service do the talking and the selling via outstanding advertising showcasing the product or service’s capabilities and benefits. Page’s Google publicity model is to constantly leak early versions of most whatever Google is working on or ruminating on in pre-beta or beta form, in order to generate free earned media and to orchestrate a steady flow of favorable interviews, profiles, articles and books about Google itself and its executives, not necessarily its products and services.

Jobs’ Apple political model is to be very low-key and under-the-radar in Washington, in order to not attract political or policy attention to the company. Page’s Google political model has been to assume maybe the highest political profile of any Fortune 500 company, aggressively giving away free campaign tools, Gmail, Docs, Analytics, YouTube channels etc. to all candidates, and even co-hosting Presidential debates.

Jobs’ Apple security and privacy model is focused on providing the best computing experience for individuals so that involves proactively protecting users’ security and privacy, in part by curating, approving and policing apps in the Apple Store to prevent security problems before they occur. Page’s Google security model is based on the open source philosophy, that does not believe in curating, approving, or policing apps in the Android store, so Google/Android users are on their own and have to report security or privacy breaches after the damage is done.

In sum, Jobs’ Apple standards contrast most sharply with Page’s Google standards. One can recognize a tree by its fruit. Job’s Apple may be the most beloved major company in the world because of the delightful fruits of its many world-best products and services, and its proven respect for people, property, and the rule of law. Page’s Google may be the most investigated and feared major company in the world, because of the bitter fruits of its market-leading rap sheet of criminal, antitrust, property, privacy, security, and other problems that showcase Google’s deep disrespect for people, property and the rule of law.

Scott Cleland - Forbes