By Oh Young-jin
Assistant managing editor
In last week’s column, I argued Apple is not Samsung’s biggest enemy.
To be fair, I have decided to write a sequel to claim that vice versa is also true.
To give you a heads-up for my argument, I would say it is based on two reasons ― one being personal in Tim Cook, the late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs’ handpicked successor, and the other addressing the structural uniqueness of Apple.
Maybe, the two reasons are so intertwined with each other as to make it difficult to separate one from the other.
One last diversion before our “surgical” journey to separate the conjoined base for my argument, I want to bring my readers’ attention to two small elements in a one-page special about the Apple-Samsung patent war in the Monday edition of The Korea Times, being wrapped up under the big title of “Jobs’ War” with his picture accompanying the flagship article.
Having said that, let’s start by putting ourselves in Cook’s position.
First, it goes without saying that Cook appears to have a herculean task to emulate Jobs.
Jobs started Apple, using his sheer innovative power to turn it into the apple of the technology world’s eye with its products changing the patterns by which people live.
At this early juncture after Jobs’ death, Cook will either follow the map drawn by Jobs or strike on his own path. Either way, Cook would find himself facing a kind of successor syndrome.
By following Jobs’ uncharted path, the map is not clearly drawn because Jobs, the genius, was opting to draw new lines as he went. To laymen’s eyes, it is difficult to read.
One good example is Microsoft.
MS founder Bill Gates is now in retirement, leaving Steve Ballmer in charge.
Even with Gates alive, MS under Ballmer is no longer an innovative firm under Gates.
For some time, MS has already been on the evolution path toward a mature, bureaucratic firm, which no longer stands out from among the crowd.
It is not entirely Ballmer’s fault because he is doing everything he can, sometimes consulting his mentor who is devoting himself to philanthropy. His only flaw is that he doesn’t have what makes up Gates but is trying to pretend he does.
Ballmer has been destined to the role of Salieri in a slight twist, perpetually trying without success to catch up with Mozart and agonizing over his lack of the young one’s genius.
Of course, Cook can go independent and try slap his name on Apple.
By many indications, Cook doesn’t have what takes to be a Jobs, as with Ballmer’s case, but admitting it is the first step to prevent himself becoming another Ballmer and take Apple on a new path rather than trying to read tea leaves about what his predecessor would do in a given situation.
Ironic as it may sound, choosing a new path is a key to succeeding Jobs’ spirit of challenge ― taking us where nobody dares and pointing to the destination we should go.
To get his Apple prepared for that journey, Cook should give up on some of Jobs’ dying wishes. A successor should not blindly pursue what his predecessor decided on a bad judgment. Why bad? It runs counter against the spirit of Jobs at his best.
The ongoing patent war concealed Jobs’ sense of insecurity that, if he’s gone, Apple would be gone, too, so he had to leave behind a safety net of sorts to ensure the longevity of his business empire, behaving like the son of God or acting as if he were given a messianic role. His death due to cancer is by any means that of a martyr. For Cook, it is his crusade and he should declare it is not.
The ongoing extensive patent war is one of Jobs’ safety nets, tying down the future with the past rather than going forward. In other words, Jobs tried to slow down Samsung rather than lead the technology world by his hallmark of innovation, a moment when Jobs turned into a Ballmer.
The decision to turn the technology world back to a competitive playing field is very much in the hands of Cook.
From my perspective, I don’t want to advocate Apple over Samsung or the other way around but I am deploring the degree of attrition in the ongoing patent war, fearing that I am being deprived of an early chance to get my hands on a new Galaxy or iPhone and that the price I would pay for that device will include exorbitant fees the two firms are paying their lawyers.
Explaining Cook’s shortage of choices needs a look at Apple’s structure.
Despite all appearances that resemble modern corporate governance, Apple has been run like a cult with Jobs its leader.
The way Jobs unfurled his new products may remind one of the scene from “Eyes Wide Shut,” Stanley Kubrik’s last film, where a crowd of masked people participate in an orgy.
We know of the great lengths Apple fans would go in order to grieve about their leader’s death.
I believe that Cook would make a significant contribution to Apple by straightening out kinks in the Apple mania, or more frankly cleaning up after Jobs and starting a new chapter.
By doing so, Cook will be able to find Apple a new destination as Jobs brought us his i-gadgets that we didn’t even know we needed.
The biggest enemy for Apple is its tendency, growing bigger but insidiously, to settle for the past. I find that tendency in Jobs’ patent war against Samsung. With Jobs gone, Cook is in charge. I hope that Cook has a big heart.