I think he's a bit of a one trick pony. His work in almost tanking JC Penney's shows he doesn't understand consumer buying habits. I'll take a wait and see attitude on this one and just be glad it's not my 30 million he's playing with.
I hate to be cynical but it does start to look as though he simply was the guy lucky enough to be hired to enact Steve's or someone else's vision at Apple. Then he was lucky enough to be seen as the genius and has traded off that ever since.
I am curious to know why you think so. Are you speaking only from your British and Australian experiences, respectively?
The reason I ask is, I find Internet shopping in the US to be a (mostly) remarkably seamless experience. Indeed, I often have more troubles when I have to deal with help from employees at physical stores! (You'd be amazed at how many Best Buy-types populate this vast land).
I agree. I buy quite a few thousands of dollars worth of goods over the internet each year, and I find it to be remarkably problem free. Sites have really got it down, as they should, after all this time.
With that description of the service, it sounds like he's targeting the massive population of elderly who are underserved at retail. In-home demonstrations? Reminds of the "good old days" of door-to-door salespeople and scammers.
I don't see this as in home demonstrations, particularly for elderly people. Why would they let these strangers into their homes? That would be a very dangerous thing for them to do. Elderly people properly are more careful, at least, they should be. Most major scams involve the elderly. And what portion of the buying public do they make up?
I hate to be cynical but it does start to look as though he simply was the guy lucky enough to be hired to enact Steve's or someone else's vision at Apple. Then he was lucky enough to be seen as the genius and has traded off that ever since.
I wouldn't say he was lucky. He turned Target around first, which is what brought him to Apple's attention. He and Jobs got along, and his vision, and concepts were filling out what Jobs had in mind. He understood what could be some with a company like Apple in retail.
His mistake with Penny was that they have a totally different product, and customer base. His misreading of that came from his being able to turn people's thinking about Target from a cheap, low end retailer, into a cool place to shop for younger people. But Penny was too far from that to allow him to do that, and he bet the farm on it rather than starting out slowly to test the waters. It's too bed, really. but Penny was already in major trouble when he got there. Perhaps if they weren't, his plan could have worked.
Didn't Steve used to say that if you make a great product then the rest will take care of itself? In that sense a minimalist Apple Store design suited, because it allowed the products to shine, with the least other stuff getting in the way. But does minimalism work as a general purpose approach to stores, regardless of product?
I am curious to know why you think so. Are you speaking only from your British and Australian experiences, respectively?
The reason I ask is, I find Internet shopping in the US to be a (mostly) remarkably seamless experience. Indeed, I often have more troubles when I have to deal with help from employees at physical stores! (You'd be amazed at how many Best Buy-types populate this vast land).
Hear hear. Armed with any decent search engine it is amazing what you can buy from anywhere in the world at a reasonable (if not unbelievable) price with fast delivery and very low risk. I certainly don't feel like a scared unarmed townie as I explore the Internet. I've had my credit card number stolen twice in my life--within a couple month of each other, both times thanks to an in-person transaction (thanks Target for the second one). In my experience real life is more dangerous and frustrating than on-line shopping.
I wouldn't say he was lucky. He turned Target around first, which is what brought him to Apple's attention. He and Jobs got along, and his vision, and concepts were filling out what Jobs had in mind. He understood what could be some with a company like Apple in retail.
Thanks for that reminder. Even without the Apple Store on his resume, his Target experience would probably put him in the Retailer Hall of Fame (I use that as a metaphor, but of course there probably is one).
I think he's a bit of a one trick pony. His work in almost tanking JC Penney's shows he doesn't understand consumer buying habits. I'll take a wait and see attitude on this one and just be glad it's not my 30 million he's playing with.
A one trick pony that was also successful at Target. I think JC Penney revamp concept had merit but not with that particular brand.
In any case, he's assembled a decent looking team. Either he's a remarkable salesman who's managed to snow these other execs after the JC Penny debacle or he's come up with something that they think has legs despite his debacle at JC Penny.
My impression is that you'll call to get someone to show up to demo the high end devices his company will carry. The demographics will be more favorable for him this go around.
I wouldn't say he was lucky. He turned Target around first, which is what brought him to Apple's attention. He and Jobs got along, and his vision, and concepts were filling out what Jobs had in mind. He understood what could be some with a company like Apple in retail.
His mistake with Penny was that they have a totally different product, and customer base. His misreading of that came from his being able to turn people's thinking about Target from a cheap, low end retailer, into a cool place to shop for younger people. But Penny was too far from that to allow him to do that, and he bet the farm on it rather than starting out slowly to test the waters. It's too bed, really. but Penny was already in major trouble when he got there. Perhaps if they weren't, his plan could have worked.
That was always my understanding of the situation which I totally bought into. I am now thinking there was luck involved; being in the right place and the right time and being hired by Steve. There are probably many people Steve could have hired to fulfill the Apple Store plan, all of whom would have succeeded. The concept and brilliance was in place it just needed administering.
Just one example. The other day, for example, Jony recalled that he and his small team were sitting around their table in the design department and realized they should use the same tables in the Apple Store.
One of the attractive features of the Apple Store that Johnson emphasized was a sense of belonging for people who didn't even want to buy anything. For example, some people bring their children to the store to play at the kids' tables, a design feature you're unlikely to find in many other stores. "If you were in a mall waiting for someone, you had to wait," Johnson said. "You couldn't do anything, so we created a place for communities to form where people could check their email and experience the Mac," Johnson said.
Looking back on all the decisions that went into designing the Apple Store, Johnson said that following his intuition was the most important factor that led to the store's success.
"I started to imagine, 'If you were going to design a great experience for a customer, what would you do?'" he said. "I trusted my imagination."
It's not as if Ron came to Steve with a plan and was given free reign to implement it, i.e. his own thing. That is what he did before and after Apple with mixed success. Not for one second am I saying he isn't a talented guy but being talented to the level to be held up as the man behind the Apple Store success is going way too far IMHO.
Retail on the Internet is a complete mess, akin to the state of tv. Only when the web has been truly commercialised and capitalised will it come of age.
As it stands now, it's still the Wild West in need of civilisation.
Really? The web sites of major retailers, Apple, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Monoprice, Newegg and countless others are not the Wild West except perhaps in terms of credit card security breaches. Yes, there are some corrupt operations on the web, but there are also some sleazy operators in the physical world, like the "going out of business" electronics stores in the tourist areas of Manhattan where they might charge you $200 for a battery or if you buy a DSLR, tell you that the batteries, cables, case, etc., are "extra". The fact is that most e-commerce sites have an incredible array of products, you can place an order quickly and the products generally show up in a few days (or less time if you're willing to pay the shipping costs.)
Frankly, I can't conceive of what value add Johnson is going to bring to the party unless it is as some above have guessed about providing live demonstrations of very high-end products. But if that's what it is, this is going to be a very niche market.
It's not that product metadata can't get better, but most people who order online know what it is they want to buy. The primary place where I see massive room for improvement is in search engines and in e-commerce sites where you don't know what you want. The current recommendation engines are not very good. And search engines, since they're keyword based and mostly don't let you search specific data fields, are designed to bring back very broad results and there's an inverse relationship between accuracy and broadness.
For example, almost 30 years ago, there were CD-ROM databases that could handle search queries like this: Find me all books about computers (and include "compute", "computer", "Computers", etc. but not "computation") from Addison Wesley or McGraw-Hill that were published after 1985 and illustrated.
or: Find me all movies that Bob Hope and Bing Crosby appeared in together that are currently available on Beta.
CD-ROM search engines designed to search text (as opposed to metadata) prioritized the results based on both word proximity and the number of times a word was used. So if you searched "civil war", texts with "civil" and "war" adjacent would appear before texts that contained "the civil authorities tried to stop the war between the factions". You could even define adjacency in the search query, as in "civil and war within 3 words". Imperfect, but still far better than what we have today.
We've given up power and accuracy for simplicity. We can't do those types of queries on the web today - the search engines return tons of irrelevant results. In an e-commerce environment, this leads to frustration and users not being able to find the products they're looking for.
That was always my understanding of the situation which I totally bought into. I am now thinking there was luck involved; being in the right place and the right time and being hired by Steve. There are probably many people Steve could have hired to fulfill the Apple Store plan, all of whom would have succeeded. The concept and brilliance was in place it just needed administering.
Just one example. The other day, for example, Jony recalled that he and his small team were sitting around their table in the design department and realized they should use the same tables in the Apple Store.
It's not as if Ron came to Steve with a plan and was given free reign to implement it, i.e. his own thing. That is what he did before and after Apple with mixed success. Not for one second am I saying he isn't a talented guy but being talented to the level to be held up as the man behind the Apple Store success is going way too far IMHO.
Many people including John Browlett? I can't really agree. Ron already showed that he understood retail, and the younger shopping market. What he did at Target was masterly. Let's not pretend to ourselves that these stores were totally Jobs's doing.
What he wanted to do with Penny was a very good idea, but he just didn't get what Penny's customer was. Older, and only interested in buying on sales. He was reforming the company for more upscale customers who were also younger, and who, he thought, would be happier with low everyday pricing, and small upscale " stores" rather than the constant sales Penny had been holding. It didn't work.
But understand thatPenny had kicked out the CEO and replaced him with the chairman, who had left the ceo's position previously, and then came back as CEO. None of them were sufeeding. His plan got the board interested because it wasn't just more of the same. But likey nothing can save Penny. It's not doing as poorly, but it's not doing well.
I am curious to know why you think so. Are you speaking only from your British and Australian experiences, respectively?
The reason I ask is, I find Internet shopping in the US to be a (mostly) remarkably seamless experience. Indeed, I often have more troubles when I have to deal with help from employees at physical stores! (You'd be amazed at how many Best Buy-types populate this vast land).
Hear hear. Armed with any decent search engine it is amazing what you can buy from anywhere in the world at a reasonable (if not unbelievable) price with fast delivery and very low risk. I certainly don't feel like a scared unarmed townie as I explore the Internet. I've had my credit card number stolen twice in my life--within a couple month of each other, both times thanks to an in-person transaction (thanks Target for the second one). In my experience real life is more dangerous and frustrating than on-line shopping.
Speaking of "search," while the purchasing experience at Amazon is mostly seamless, I really think the search tools at Amazon are relatively primitive by today's standards. They could use better filtering choices to help get the most relevant results. Plus, sorting by price uses a value that is sometimes not the actual selling price, so you get a lot of results that are out of order.
Retail on the Internet is a complete mess, akin to the state of tv. Only when the web has been truly commercialised and capitalised will it come of age.
As it stands now, it's still the Wild West in need of civilisation.
Really? The web sites of major retailers, Apple, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Monoprice, Newegg and countless others are not the Wild West except perhaps in terms of credit card security breaches. Yes, there are some corrupt operations on the web, but there are also some sleazy operators in the physical world, like the "going out of business" electronics stores in the tourist areas of Manhattan where they might charge you $200 for a battery or if you buy a DSLR, tell you that the batteries, cables, case, etc., are "extra". The fact is that most e-commerce sites have an incredible array of products, you can place an order quickly and the products generally show up in a few days (or less time if you're willing to pay the shipping costs.)
Frankly, I can't conceive of what value add Johnson is going to bring to the party unless it is as some above have guessed about providing live demonstrations of very high-end products. But if that's what it is, this is going to be a very niche market.
It's not that product metadata can't get better, but most people who order online know what it is they want to buy. The primary place where I see massive room for improvement is in search engines and in e-commerce sites where you don't know what you want. The current recommendation engines are not very good. And search engines, since they're keyword based and mostly don't let you search specific data fields, are designed to bring back very broad results and there's an inverse relationship between accuracy and broadness.
For example, almost 30 years ago, there were CD-ROM databases that could handle search queries like this: Find me all books about computers (and include "compute", "computer", "Computers", etc. but not "computation") from Addison Wesley or McGraw-Hill that were published after 1985 and illustrated.
or: Find me all movies that Bob Hope and Bing Crosby appeared in together that are currently available on Beta.
CD-ROM search engines designed to search text (as opposed to metadata) prioritized the results based on both word proximity and the number of times a word was used. So if you searched "civil war", texts with "civil" and "war" adjacent would appear before texts that contained "the civil authorities tried to stop the war between the factions". You could even define adjacency in the search query, as in "civil and war within 3 words". Imperfect, but still far better than what we have today.
We've given up power and accuracy for simplicity. We can't do those types of queries on the web today - the search engines return tons of irrelevant results. In an e-commerce environment, this leads to frustration and users not being able to find the products they're looking for.
You bring up some good examples regarding search. I missed your post when I replied about search, expressing pretty much the same concern about Amazon specifically. Other online stores' search could use improvement too.
Many people including John Browlett? I can't really agree. Ron already showed that he understood retail, and the younger shopping market. What he did at Target was masterly. Let's not pretend to ourselves that these stores were totally Jobs's doing.
What he wanted to do with Penny was a very good idea, but he just didn't get what Penny's customer was. Older, and only interested in buying on sales. He was reforming the company for more upscale customers who were also younger, and who, he thought, would be happier with low everyday pricing, and small upscale " stores" rather than the constant sales Penny had been holding. It didn't work.
But understand thatPenny had kicked out the CEO and replaced him with the chairman, who had left the ceo's position previously, and then came back as CEO. None of them were sufeeding. His plan got the board interested because it wasn't just more of the same. But likey nothing can save Penny. It's not doing as poorly, but it's not doing well.
I think we are both correct really. I always liked Ron and what he did, I am just saying he was dealt a winning hand, to coin a metaphor. Could others have f%%^^d up? Well obviously but Steve would have fired them before they did too much damage. My original point that got lost along the way I guess, is he should have stayed but I suspect he bought too much into thinking it was he that had achieved the success, a little more than was the case, and so far he hasn't be dealt such good cards again, to totally, overuse the metaphor.
I wouldn't say he was lucky. He turned Target around first, which is what brought him to Apple's attention. He and Jobs got along, and his vision, and concepts were filling out what Jobs had in mind. He understood what could be some with a company like Apple in retail.
His mistake with Penny was that they have a totally different product, and customer base. His misreading of that came from his being able to turn people's thinking about Target from a cheap, low end retailer, into a cool place to shop for younger people. But Penny was too far from that to allow him to do that, and he bet the farm on it rather than starting out slowly to test the waters. It's too bed, really. but Penny was already in major trouble when he got there. Perhaps if they weren't, his plan could have worked.
Is there any evidence that Johnson was pivotal to the turnaround and growth at Target? He was VP of merchandising there, not the CEO and it is usually the CEO who is responsible for strategy and making sure it's executed. Jony Ive is an EVP at Apple, but he doesn't set the direction of the company, for example.
For example, almost 30 years ago, there were CD-ROM databases that could handle search queries like this: Find me all books about computers (and include "compute", "computer", "Computers", etc. but not "computation") from Addison Wesley or McGraw-Hill that were published after 1985 and illustrated.
or: Find me all movies that Bob Hope and Bing Crosby appeared in together that are currently available on Beta.
CD-ROM search engines designed to search text (as opposed to metadata) prioritized the results based on both word proximity and the number of times a word was used. So if you searched "civil war", texts with "civil" and "war" adjacent would appear before texts that contained "the civil authorities tried to stop the war between the factions". You could even define adjacency in the search query, as in "civil and war within 3 words". Imperfect, but still far better than what we have today.
We've given up power and accuracy for simplicity. We can't do those types of queries on the web today - the search engines return tons of irrelevant results. In an e-commerce environment, this leads to frustration and users not being able to find the products they're looking for.
I'm sorry, but this is complete BS. Searching today is much more powerful and accurate that it was back in the day. Artificial intelligence and machine learning have revolutionized search well beyond what we had when you had to get your boolean logic exactly right--and all the metadata had to be complete and typo-free--or you would get completely misleading results.
That was always my understanding of the situation which I totally bought into. I am now thinking there was luck involved; being in the right place and the right time and being hired by Steve. There are probably many people Steve could have hired to fulfill the Apple Store plan, all of whom would have succeeded. The concept and brilliance was in place it just needed administering.
Just one example. The other day, for example, Jony recalled that he and his small team were sitting around their table in the design department and realized they should use the same tables in the Apple Store.
It's not as if Ron came to Steve with a plan and was given free reign to implement it, i.e. his own thing. That is what he did before and after Apple with mixed success. Not for one second am I saying he isn't a talented guy but being talented to the level to be held up as the man behind the Apple Store success is going way too far IMHO.
I don't disagree with your main point (although I think you give Steve too much credit and Ron none), but the table example doesn't make the point you think it does. I see no contradiction between Jony saying "I'm the one who suggested we use the same tables we're already using in our design lab" and Ron saying "It was my idea that we have tables where people could do whatever they want on our devices." I have no idea if either if those statements are true, but they aren't in conflict with one another.
For example, almost 30 years ago, there were CD-ROM databases that could handle search queries like this: Find me all books about computers (and include "compute", "computer", "Computers", etc. but not "computation") from Addison Wesley or McGraw-Hill that were published after 1985 and illustrated.
or: Find me all movies that Bob Hope and Bing Crosby appeared in together that are currently available on Beta.
CD-ROM search engines designed to search text (as opposed to metadata) prioritized the results based on both word proximity and the number of times a word was used. So if you searched "civil war", texts with "civil" and "war" adjacent would appear before texts that contained "the civil authorities tried to stop the war between the factions". You could even define adjacency in the search query, as in "civil and war within 3 words". Imperfect, but still far better than what we have today.
We've given up power and accuracy for simplicity. We can't do those types of queries on the web today - the search engines return tons of irrelevant results. In an e-commerce environment, this leads to frustration and users not being able to find the products they're looking for.
I'm sorry, but this is complete BS. Searching today is much more powerful and accurate that it was back in the day. Artificial intelligence and machine learning have revolutionized search well beyond what we had when you had to get your boolean logic exactly right--and all the metadata had to be complete and typo-free--or you would get completely misleading results.
Searching today can definitely be more powerful and accurate...
I had interpreted zoetmb's comment to be a lamentation of sorts on the current state of online stores' search tools.
Given the search sophistication that is out there, why can't Amazon (and others) do better?
Just one example. The other day, for example, Jony recalled that he and his small team were sitting around their table in the design department and realized they should use the same tables in the Apple Store.
I don't disagree with your main point (although I think you give Steve too much credit and Ron none), but the table example doesn't make the point you think it does. I see no contradiction between Jony saying "I'm the one who suggested we use the same tables we're already using in our design lab" and Ron saying "It was my idea that we have tables where people could do whatever they want on our devices." I have no idea if either if those statements are true, but they aren't in conflict with one another.
Ok you are correct they don't necessarily contradict unless you see it as I was ... the actual design of the table as being what got people excited not there being tables there per se.
Comments
I hate to be cynical but it does start to look as though he simply was the guy lucky enough to be hired to enact Steve's or someone else's vision at Apple. Then he was lucky enough to be seen as the genius and has traded off that ever since.
I agree. I buy quite a few thousands of dollars worth of goods over the internet each year, and I find it to be remarkably problem free. Sites have really got it down, as they should, after all this time.
I remember when it wasn't so, early on.
I don't see this as in home demonstrations, particularly for elderly people. Why would they let these strangers into their homes? That would be a very dangerous thing for them to do. Elderly people properly are more careful, at least, they should be. Most major scams involve the elderly. And what portion of the buying public do they make up?
I don't see this at all.
I wouldn't say he was lucky. He turned Target around first, which is what brought him to Apple's attention. He and Jobs got along, and his vision, and concepts were filling out what Jobs had in mind. He understood what could be some with a company like Apple in retail.
His mistake with Penny was that they have a totally different product, and customer base. His misreading of that came from his being able to turn people's thinking about Target from a cheap, low end retailer, into a cool place to shop for younger people. But Penny was too far from that to allow him to do that, and he bet the farm on it rather than starting out slowly to test the waters. It's too bed, really. but Penny was already in major trouble when he got there. Perhaps if they weren't, his plan could have worked.
Didn't Steve used to say that if you make a great product then the rest will take care of itself? In that sense a minimalist Apple Store design suited, because it allowed the products to shine, with the least other stuff getting in the way. But does minimalism work as a general purpose approach to stores, regardless of product?
I am curious to know why you think so. Are you speaking only from your British and Australian experiences, respectively?
The reason I ask is, I find Internet shopping in the US to be a (mostly) remarkably seamless experience. Indeed, I often have more troubles when I have to deal with help from employees at physical stores! (You'd be amazed at how many Best Buy-types populate this vast land).
Hear hear. Armed with any decent search engine it is amazing what you can buy from anywhere in the world at a reasonable (if not unbelievable) price with fast delivery and very low risk. I certainly don't feel like a scared unarmed townie as I explore the Internet. I've had my credit card number stolen twice in my life--within a couple month of each other, both times thanks to an in-person transaction (thanks Target for the second one). In my experience real life is more dangerous and frustrating than on-line shopping.
I wouldn't say he was lucky. He turned Target around first, which is what brought him to Apple's attention. He and Jobs got along, and his vision, and concepts were filling out what Jobs had in mind. He understood what could be some with a company like Apple in retail.
Thanks for that reminder. Even without the Apple Store on his resume, his Target experience would probably put him in the Retailer Hall of Fame (I use that as a metaphor, but of course there probably is one).
Edit: how funny: there is a World Retail Hall of Fame and the guy who undid Ron's JCP work/mess was inducted last year: https://www.worldretailcongress.com/world-retail-hall-fame
I think he's a bit of a one trick pony. His work in almost tanking JC Penney's shows he doesn't understand consumer buying habits. I'll take a wait and see attitude on this one and just be glad it's not my 30 million he's playing with.
A one trick pony that was also successful at Target. I think JC Penney revamp concept had merit but not with that particular brand.
In any case, he's assembled a decent looking team. Either he's a remarkable salesman who's managed to snow these other execs after the JC Penny debacle or he's come up with something that they think has legs despite his debacle at JC Penny.
My impression is that you'll call to get someone to show up to demo the high end devices his company will carry. The demographics will be more favorable for him this go around.
That was always my understanding of the situation which I totally bought into. I am now thinking there was luck involved; being in the right place and the right time and being hired by Steve. There are probably many people Steve could have hired to fulfill the Apple Store plan, all of whom would have succeeded. The concept and brilliance was in place it just needed administering.
Just one example. The other day, for example, Jony recalled that he and his small team were sitting around their table in the design department and realized they should use the same tables in the Apple Store.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/18/6999931/watch-jony-ive-explain-apples-design-process-in-a-rare-public (comments about the Apple Table 3:20)
Yet Ron seems to take ownership of the tables:
It's not as if Ron came to Steve with a plan and was given free reign to implement it, i.e. his own thing. That is what he did before and after Apple with mixed success. Not for one second am I saying he isn't a talented guy but being talented to the level to be held up as the man behind the Apple Store success is going way too far IMHO.
Good for him.
Retail on the Internet is a complete mess, akin to the state of tv. Only when the web has been truly commercialised and capitalised will it come of age.
As it stands now, it's still the Wild West in need of civilisation.
Really? The web sites of major retailers, Apple, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Monoprice, Newegg and countless others are not the Wild West except perhaps in terms of credit card security breaches. Yes, there are some corrupt operations on the web, but there are also some sleazy operators in the physical world, like the "going out of business" electronics stores in the tourist areas of Manhattan where they might charge you $200 for a battery or if you buy a DSLR, tell you that the batteries, cables, case, etc., are "extra". The fact is that most e-commerce sites have an incredible array of products, you can place an order quickly and the products generally show up in a few days (or less time if you're willing to pay the shipping costs.)
Frankly, I can't conceive of what value add Johnson is going to bring to the party unless it is as some above have guessed about providing live demonstrations of very high-end products. But if that's what it is, this is going to be a very niche market.
It's not that product metadata can't get better, but most people who order online know what it is they want to buy. The primary place where I see massive room for improvement is in search engines and in e-commerce sites where you don't know what you want. The current recommendation engines are not very good. And search engines, since they're keyword based and mostly don't let you search specific data fields, are designed to bring back very broad results and there's an inverse relationship between accuracy and broadness.
For example, almost 30 years ago, there were CD-ROM databases that could handle search queries like this: Find me all books about computers (and include "compute", "computer", "Computers", etc. but not "computation") from Addison Wesley or McGraw-Hill that were published after 1985 and illustrated.
or: Find me all movies that Bob Hope and Bing Crosby appeared in together that are currently available on Beta.
CD-ROM search engines designed to search text (as opposed to metadata) prioritized the results based on both word proximity and the number of times a word was used. So if you searched "civil war", texts with "civil" and "war" adjacent would appear before texts that contained "the civil authorities tried to stop the war between the factions". You could even define adjacency in the search query, as in "civil and war within 3 words". Imperfect, but still far better than what we have today.
We've given up power and accuracy for simplicity. We can't do those types of queries on the web today - the search engines return tons of irrelevant results. In an e-commerce environment, this leads to frustration and users not being able to find the products they're looking for.
Many people including John Browlett? I can't really agree. Ron already showed that he understood retail, and the younger shopping market. What he did at Target was masterly. Let's not pretend to ourselves that these stores were totally Jobs's doing.
What he wanted to do with Penny was a very good idea, but he just didn't get what Penny's customer was. Older, and only interested in buying on sales. He was reforming the company for more upscale customers who were also younger, and who, he thought, would be happier with low everyday pricing, and small upscale " stores" rather than the constant sales Penny had been holding. It didn't work.
But understand thatPenny had kicked out the CEO and replaced him with the chairman, who had left the ceo's position previously, and then came back as CEO. None of them were sufeeding. His plan got the board interested because it wasn't just more of the same. But likey nothing can save Penny. It's not doing as poorly, but it's not doing well.
I am curious to know why you think so. Are you speaking only from your British and Australian experiences, respectively?
The reason I ask is, I find Internet shopping in the US to be a (mostly) remarkably seamless experience. Indeed, I often have more troubles when I have to deal with help from employees at physical stores! (You'd be amazed at how many Best Buy-types populate this vast land).
Hear hear. Armed with any decent search engine it is amazing what you can buy from anywhere in the world at a reasonable (if not unbelievable) price with fast delivery and very low risk. I certainly don't feel like a scared unarmed townie as I explore the Internet. I've had my credit card number stolen twice in my life--within a couple month of each other, both times thanks to an in-person transaction (thanks Target for the second one). In my experience real life is more dangerous and frustrating than on-line shopping.
Speaking of "search," while the purchasing experience at Amazon is mostly seamless, I really think the search tools at Amazon are relatively primitive by today's standards. They could use better filtering choices to help get the most relevant results. Plus, sorting by price uses a value that is sometimes not the actual selling price, so you get a lot of results that are out of order.
Good for him.
Retail on the Internet is a complete mess, akin to the state of tv. Only when the web has been truly commercialised and capitalised will it come of age.
As it stands now, it's still the Wild West in need of civilisation.
Really? The web sites of major retailers, Apple, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Monoprice, Newegg and countless others are not the Wild West except perhaps in terms of credit card security breaches. Yes, there are some corrupt operations on the web, but there are also some sleazy operators in the physical world, like the "going out of business" electronics stores in the tourist areas of Manhattan where they might charge you $200 for a battery or if you buy a DSLR, tell you that the batteries, cables, case, etc., are "extra". The fact is that most e-commerce sites have an incredible array of products, you can place an order quickly and the products generally show up in a few days (or less time if you're willing to pay the shipping costs.)
Frankly, I can't conceive of what value add Johnson is going to bring to the party unless it is as some above have guessed about providing live demonstrations of very high-end products. But if that's what it is, this is going to be a very niche market.
It's not that product metadata can't get better, but most people who order online know what it is they want to buy. The primary place where I see massive room for improvement is in search engines and in e-commerce sites where you don't know what you want. The current recommendation engines are not very good. And search engines, since they're keyword based and mostly don't let you search specific data fields, are designed to bring back very broad results and there's an inverse relationship between accuracy and broadness.
For example, almost 30 years ago, there were CD-ROM databases that could handle search queries like this: Find me all books about computers (and include "compute", "computer", "Computers", etc. but not "computation") from Addison Wesley or McGraw-Hill that were published after 1985 and illustrated.
or: Find me all movies that Bob Hope and Bing Crosby appeared in together that are currently available on Beta.
CD-ROM search engines designed to search text (as opposed to metadata) prioritized the results based on both word proximity and the number of times a word was used. So if you searched "civil war", texts with "civil" and "war" adjacent would appear before texts that contained "the civil authorities tried to stop the war between the factions". You could even define adjacency in the search query, as in "civil and war within 3 words". Imperfect, but still far better than what we have today.
We've given up power and accuracy for simplicity. We can't do those types of queries on the web today - the search engines return tons of irrelevant results. In an e-commerce environment, this leads to frustration and users not being able to find the products they're looking for.
You bring up some good examples regarding search. I missed your post when I replied about search, expressing pretty much the same concern about Amazon specifically. Other online stores' search could use improvement too.
I think we are both correct really. I always liked Ron and what he did, I am just saying he was dealt a winning hand, to coin a metaphor. Could others have f%%^^d up? Well obviously but Steve would have fired them before they did too much damage. My original point that got lost along the way I guess, is he should have stayed but I suspect he bought too much into thinking it was he that had achieved the success, a little more than was the case, and so far he hasn't be dealt such good cards again, to totally, overuse the metaphor.
Is there any evidence that Johnson was pivotal to the turnaround and growth at Target? He was VP of merchandising there, not the CEO and it is usually the CEO who is responsible for strategy and making sure it's executed. Jony Ive is an EVP at Apple, but he doesn't set the direction of the company, for example.
For example, almost 30 years ago, there were CD-ROM databases that could handle search queries like this: Find me all books about computers (and include "compute", "computer", "Computers", etc. but not "computation") from Addison Wesley or McGraw-Hill that were published after 1985 and illustrated.
or: Find me all movies that Bob Hope and Bing Crosby appeared in together that are currently available on Beta.
CD-ROM search engines designed to search text (as opposed to metadata) prioritized the results based on both word proximity and the number of times a word was used. So if you searched "civil war", texts with "civil" and "war" adjacent would appear before texts that contained "the civil authorities tried to stop the war between the factions". You could even define adjacency in the search query, as in "civil and war within 3 words". Imperfect, but still far better than what we have today.
We've given up power and accuracy for simplicity. We can't do those types of queries on the web today - the search engines return tons of irrelevant results. In an e-commerce environment, this leads to frustration and users not being able to find the products they're looking for.
I'm sorry, but this is complete BS. Searching today is much more powerful and accurate that it was back in the day. Artificial intelligence and machine learning have revolutionized search well beyond what we had when you had to get your boolean logic exactly right--and all the metadata had to be complete and typo-free--or you would get completely misleading results.
That was always my understanding of the situation which I totally bought into. I am now thinking there was luck involved; being in the right place and the right time and being hired by Steve. There are probably many people Steve could have hired to fulfill the Apple Store plan, all of whom would have succeeded. The concept and brilliance was in place it just needed administering.
Just one example. The other day, for example, Jony recalled that he and his small team were sitting around their table in the design department and realized they should use the same tables in the Apple Store.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/18/6999931/watch-jony-ive-explain-apples-design-process-in-a-rare-public (comments about the Apple Table 3:20)
Yet Ron seems to take ownership of the tables:
It's not as if Ron came to Steve with a plan and was given free reign to implement it, i.e. his own thing. That is what he did before and after Apple with mixed success. Not for one second am I saying he isn't a talented guy but being talented to the level to be held up as the man behind the Apple Store success is going way too far IMHO.
I don't disagree with your main point (although I think you give Steve too much credit and Ron none), but the table example doesn't make the point you think it does. I see no contradiction between Jony saying "I'm the one who suggested we use the same tables we're already using in our design lab" and Ron saying "It was my idea that we have tables where people could do whatever they want on our devices." I have no idea if either if those statements are true, but they aren't in conflict with one another.
For example, almost 30 years ago, there were CD-ROM databases that could handle search queries like this: Find me all books about computers (and include "compute", "computer", "Computers", etc. but not "computation") from Addison Wesley or McGraw-Hill that were published after 1985 and illustrated.
or: Find me all movies that Bob Hope and Bing Crosby appeared in together that are currently available on Beta.
CD-ROM search engines designed to search text (as opposed to metadata) prioritized the results based on both word proximity and the number of times a word was used. So if you searched "civil war", texts with "civil" and "war" adjacent would appear before texts that contained "the civil authorities tried to stop the war between the factions". You could even define adjacency in the search query, as in "civil and war within 3 words". Imperfect, but still far better than what we have today.
We've given up power and accuracy for simplicity. We can't do those types of queries on the web today - the search engines return tons of irrelevant results. In an e-commerce environment, this leads to frustration and users not being able to find the products they're looking for.
I'm sorry, but this is complete BS. Searching today is much more powerful and accurate that it was back in the day. Artificial intelligence and machine learning have revolutionized search well beyond what we had when you had to get your boolean logic exactly right--and all the metadata had to be complete and typo-free--or you would get completely misleading results.
Searching today can definitely be more powerful and accurate...
I had interpreted zoetmb's comment to be a lamentation of sorts on the current state of online stores' search tools.
Given the search sophistication that is out there, why can't Amazon (and others) do better?
Just one example. The other day, for example, Jony recalled that he and his small team were sitting around their table in the design department and realized they should use the same tables in the Apple Store.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/18/6999931/watch-jony-ive-explain-apples-design-process-in-a-rare-public (comments about the Apple Table 3:20)
Yet Ron seems to take ownership of the tables:
What does kid tables have to do with the tables that Ive is talking about?
Ok you are correct they don't necessarily contradict unless you see it as I was ... the actual design of the table as being what got people excited not there being tables there per se.