Has Apple become addicted to ‘No’?

In a world loaded with existential challenge, it should not surprise anyone that Apple faces its own crisis. It should do what any cornered animal will always do and fight hard and dirty to regain freedom. That’s why it’s of concern to once again learn this weekend that Apple is “considering” acquisitions in the generative AI (genAI) space, because by this time in the fight, I want that chatter to be about acquisitions that have been made. 

Look, anyone can consider making a purchase and then come up with a dozen reasons not to go through with it. That’s not hard at all, it’s the inevitable articulation of small-C conservatism, which tends to favor stasis over change. My concern is that Apple’s own growth mindset might have been replaced by a more conservative approach, which means that the company becomes really good at finding reasons not to do things, and less good at identifying when it really should do something.

No can’t be the default

Apple’s history is packed with conflict between good ideas the company rejected and brilliant ideas it chose to move forward with. It is arguable that some of the ideas the company has looked at historically are only now becoming viable devices. (I’m thinking of the speculated HomePod as an idea of that kind.) Apple executives have frequently discussed how the company is just as proud of the things it doesn’t do as of those it does. It’s a company instinctively good at saying “No” — until it finds a good reason to say “Yes.”

The problem is that when it comes to genAI, it still feels like there’s a lot of creative mileage to be had from injecting some creative chaos into the R&D crib. To achieve that, it seems necessary that Apple find the spleen to take a few risks on the M&A journey. 

The company can’t simply wander down to the genAI development shops and find reasons not to purchase things; it needs to pick up all the shiniest things it comes across, using whatever financial muscle it takes to ensure they end up in Apple’s hold rather than elsewhere. 

Why must it do this? Because genAI isn’t finished yet. 

The genAI evolution continues

Sure, Apple’s widely disclosed challenges with Siri mean it is motivated to try new approaches to push that project ahead, but the truth is that no one — not even OpenAI — really has genAI that is anything other than a hint of what this tech is likely to be able to accomplish in a decade or two. We are still early in the AI race, and that means today’s winners can still lose and those at the back of the pack have an opportunity to get ahead. 

So, it makes sense for Apple to take a few expensive risks, rather than staying inside the safe zone. Does Perplexity have a few tools that could boost Apple Intelligence? Then grab them. Are there others in AI with tools that could help make Siri smart and hardware products sing? 

Bring them in. Take risks. Get hungry, be foolish. Make it happen.

It is also worth thinking about retention at this point. 

Keep them keen

Several pieces by Mark Gurman in recent years tell us that in many cases, people Apple has hired on the purchase of their companies have subsequently jumped ship, as they did not find their happiness. If that is the case, that’s a problem that needs to be fixed; it suggests at least some of the assumptions the company has concerning how it works with its employees must be challenged, and new ways found to ensure acquired staffers actually want to stick around. 

Apple has tried stock options to boost retention. That’s not enough. Money helps, but as Maslow says, agency and empowerment are more important. Steve Jobs understood this, saying during his last D: All Things Digital interview in 2010, “If you want to hire great people and have them stay working for you, [you] have to let them make a lot of decisions and you have to be run by ideas, not hierarchy…. The best ideas have to win — otherwise good people don’t want to stay.” 

I’m not saying Apple has become hierarchical, though I look with suspicion at work-from-home mandates and opposition to employee unionization as hints that hierarchy exists in some parts of the company. What I am saying is that if the old M.O. isn’t working, and if the important new recruits the company needs to tackle genAI don’t want to stick around, then something’s got to change. And if that means a lot more collaboration and empowerment and a few internal changes in approach, that’s a small price to pay in contrast to the global opportunity to lead the AI-driven tech future on a planet seemingly owned by billionaires and technocrats.

Sometimes you got to play your hunches — how else are you going to find what you love?

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, and Mastodon.Has Apple become addicted to ‘No’? – ComputerworldRead More