I didn't call apple risk-averse. Maybe you were tired. I called the designers of phones at companies like say Oppo, Xiaomi or Asus to be risk averse. This creates a monoculture because they heed to the Apple design patterns as a defensible position to their bosses and superiors. So if the product doesn't sell well they can point the finger at "well we cloned apple" as opposed to "well I insisted on this novel design" which would be a bad move.
It's the antithesis lesson of the Edsel. It made (at that time) the big 4 recalcitrant, overly conservative, and weary of change. Everything that GM acquired ended up looking like a giant amorphous indistinguishable blob.
People just want to do well and they get spooked by failures so patterns and histories create cultures of design. Nobody knows truly what the future is so they end up doing "best practice" which is a euphemism for cultural conformity.
Apple was not this under Steve. He was pattern breaking change in both Steve I and Steve II incarnations. And he had a superhero batting average. Why that is is a huge conversation outside the scope here but yeah I agree with you.
It's the antithesis lesson of the Edsel. It made (at that time) the big 4 recalcitrant, overly conservative, and weary of change. Everything that GM acquired ended up looking like a giant amorphous indistinguishable blob.
People just want to do well and they get spooked by failures so patterns and histories create cultures of design. Nobody knows truly what the future is so they end up doing "best practice" which is a euphemism for cultural conformity.
Apple was not this under Steve. He was pattern breaking change in both Steve I and Steve II incarnations. And he had a superhero batting average. Why that is is a huge conversation outside the scope here but yeah I agree with you.
Please reread my comment. Thanks