How not to over serve; The machinery of vanity

The Asahi Shimbun Interview Part 4

Horace Dediu / Takeshi Narabe & Dylan Weir / Asahi Shimbun Interview, April 2026

Takeshi Narabe • 22:44
Japanese companies always follow and concentrate on seeking additional functions so that is very in contrast to Apple so there is a growing concern that Apple might be falling into the same spec trap that runs parallel. Japanese firms you know focusing on incremental hardware improvements like you know iPhone’s more thinner and thinner…

Horace Dediu • 23:34
It’s true. But I will say to the defense of Apple, of course, they need to maintain some improvement. Otherwise, people may not consider buying it. They do think hard, though, about what needs to be improved. And many times they don’t improve things that many people ask for. They’ll say, “Oh, you need a refresh rate of hundreds of hertz.” They don’t bother with that. Or they [won’t offer] more resolution, more than even the eye can see. They don’t do that. But they’ll do a lot with the camera.

And they’ll probably do more. They do amazing things with audio. They do really, really interesting things as far as… Like face ID was something that was nobody asked for. But now it’s a very, very useful thing. People recognize the value. So I do think there’s a roadmap there that’s kind of interesting.

But here’s the bottom line, you know, Christensen said, that the trajectory of what performance people expect is not as steep as the trajectory that companies can deliver. And that’s why you overshoot. What Apple has been able to do, at least through the lifespan of the iPhone so far, is to cause people’s interest in more improvements to rise a little bit.

And so the theory basically says that there is a flat trajectory to the user demand of performance. But my [observation] is that eventually you do drag people up, just like with non-consumption. People don’t ask for a better camera, but once you give it to them, they’re like, oh, yeah, I really want an even better camera.

[The performance demand] it created… I mentioned the short video TikTok format, It was the phone’s camera that allowed [average] people to suddenly become filmmakers. And it allowed people to become “vanity machinery”1. It became all about vanity, all about selfies. And [as a result] you have to have a front camera and a back camera and you have to have editing software and you have to have a more powerful processor and you need a huge amount of storage when you’re dealing with video.

So suddenly, the phone needs more and more and more. But the demand for video editing on a phone was created essentially from nothing. It was created by the supply of camera. And so, yes, that is a theory that you have a problem if you overshoot. But I think in the old days, a consumer electronics company would add buttons.

I was at Nokia for a long time, and we had buttons and buttons and buttons. We had one phone with over 100 buttons on it.2 That wasn’t very useful. So the idea of Apple is that they remove buttons. They make it even cleaner in that design, and they make it easier. So face ID is an example, and privacy is important.

By the way, that’s another thing that they sold to people. If you think about it, nobody asked for privacy because everybody was okay with sharing. But the fact is, it’s like the automotive industry has safety, and nobody asked for safety either. But you should deliver safety, you should protect the passenger. [Today] it’s considered hygiene. [If] you don’t have it, it’s bad, but if you have it, nobody cares. But in the case of Apple, they’re pushing on privacy.

So yes, it is a concern that you overshoot. However, one more defense of Apple is that they introduce these wearables. So if you take the AirPods, for example, again, not a product anybody asked for. And when they were first introduced, they were made fun of because it was [so funny looking.]

The AirPods are a very clever new product, [they are] an extension of the iPhone. They’re not the iPhone per se, but we have a wonderful must-have accessory. I feel like I’m naked without taking my AirPods with me. The same with the watch. Another product extension. Again, it’s an option. You don’t have to have it, but once you have it, it becomes addictive.

There are many things on the watch, which again, from health reasons, from managing information that I only need to look at for a few seconds, all of those things. (I’ll give you a simple example. I never check the weather on my phone. I only check the weather on my watch because it’s there with the temperature always on the home screen. And if I want to learn more, I tap on it. I don’t even know how to do it on the phone anymore. You know, I have to find the weather app and then scroll and things like that. Never do that anymore.)

So there are things you do now with accessories that the phone has essentially been disrupted by. But it’s still at the heart of the network of Apple. It used to be the Mac was at the center. Now it’s the iPhone. So again, this is cleverness.

I was a student of Christensen, and Christensen always thought that Apple was not disruptive, and that Apple would be disrupted by the low end. [I was not so sure.] I was a bit sensing that there was a disturbance in the theory because in many ways Apple’s behavior is so atypical to a normal company. And most companies would do the wrong thing, but somehow Apple managed to not step on those mines, not to fall into those traps.

Why? I’m not quite sure. And we continue to have the discussion. I really think it’s culture. I really think that they’ve solved the Innovators Dilemma. Not by reading a book, not by taking a university class, but by always being extremely nervous, extremely careful and extremely passionate and extremely paranoid. All of these things.

Which points out the vulnerability of Apple. If that culture breaks, if the management, the next generation doesn’t know how to do it, then suddenly it might fail. Because it’s held together by such a force that it’s hard to write it down. It’s public information actually, that they have Apple University, which is meant to teach internally how things are done to the next generation of managers.

So this is something they are trying to codify and to preserve. And that’s an experiment, I would say, because it’s not easy. But again, that’s a self-critique, an introspection, looking at yourself and asking, why am I good? How do I make sure we continue? Few companies do this. Founder-led companies might, because the founder is the company, in a sense. The founder is the culture. The founder’s personality is more or less how everything is done. So those companies, to speak of, let’s say, Meta with Zuckerberg, even Google, and those companies, or Amazon a little bit with Bezos, although he’s mostly gone.

[But], that’s not an answer, because the founder doesn’t last 50 years in that job. And as we talked about one century, no way is it possible. It’s beyond the human lifespan.

Next in series: Part 5: Succession, study of the firm vs. study of the person

Previous in series: Part 3: Low-end, Game consoles, Secondary Markets, Displays and AI

Interview as published: 聞 Asahi Shimbun on Apple & Innovation