Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit

By Clayton Christensen
August 29, 2011

By Clayton Christensen and James Allworth
The opinions expressed are their own.

Steve Jobs retires as the CEO of Apple with a reputation that will place him amongst the pantheon of history’s great global business leaders. Many people have written about what makes Jobs and Apple special, but I think they’re missing what truly set him apart. Jobs has succeeded by eschewing the one thing that most people view as the raison d’être for companies — profit.

When I left the industry to come to academia 22 years ago, it was driven by a set of questions that had troubled me for some time. Why was it that the best run companies in the world — companies that have had incredibly smart leaders, following carefully detailed plans and with tremendous execution ability — reliably seem to come unstuck? The answer to this question is what has become known as the theory of disruption.

In a cruel twist of irony, the pursuit of profit — something that Wall Street pushes so hard — is what leaves companies open to being displaced. As they grow, their ability to find opportunities that are big enough to sustain their growth is reduced. They become myopic; they listen only to their best customers. They focus disproportionately on their most profitable products, and strive to improve these the fastest.

The American auto manufacturers have suffered at the hand of disruption in the past few decades; they focused on their most profitable vehicles, and abandoned less profitable markets when low-cost entrants emerged. The Japanese came along with their smaller, cheaper vehicles; the Big 3 retreated upmarket all the way to SUVs and trucks. It was not long before Toyota was winning the sales race. Now, the Japanese are going through the same process, fending off the Koreans.

In short, disruption describes how the incumbents move upmarket, and leave the bottom of the market completely open for scrappy upstarts to enter. It explains the rise and fall of many great companies.

But there has always been one company that doesn’t follow that pattern. At some point in my class every year, a student raises his or her hand and asks: “What about Apple? Aren’t they a high-end, upmarket player? Why haven’t they been disrupted?”

It’s a great question. Despite being perceived as a premium, high-end player, Apple under Job’s leadership has not simply managed to avoid being disrupted by others, it has disrupted entire industries — many of them. Even more impressive, it’s disrupting itself.

I have come to the conclusion that what has made Apple so different is that instead of having a profit motive at its core, it has something else entirely. Many big companies like to pretend this is the case — “we put our customers first” — but very few truly live by that mantra. When the pressure is on and the CEO of a big public company has to choose between doing what’s best for the customer or making the quarter’s numbers… most CEOs will choose the numbers.

Apple never has.

As paradoxical as it is that the pursuit of profit is what causes the long-term failure of companies, I believe that Apple’s lack of focus on profitability has actually made it one of the most successful companies in the history of capitalism.

The iPod was the first indication that they were, in fact, thinking different. Here was a personal computer company, used to selling $2,000 computers, willing to take a risk on a gadget that would sell for a fraction of that price. Most big companies would not invest the time and energy to develop a device that was not nearly as profitable as their existing products, in a market that did not even exist yet. This sort of endeavor is typically the domain of start-ups. If Apple had done what most big companies do: sit down, hire some consultants to do a profitability analysis, and relied on that to make the decision, I seriously doubt that the iPod would ever have been built.

Yet build it they did, and it was the first in a string of successes where Jobs tore up the usual management playbook that leads to companies losing to disruptive competitors.

But what may be most notable is how Apple is in the process of disrupting itself right now. You almost never see this happen. The iPad — Apple’s most recent success — is disrupting the PC industry, and by extension, its Mac business. The tablet computer is going to do to the PC what the PC did to the minicomputer. Most companies cannot bring themselves to make decisions that result in the market for their existing core products being completely destroyed. When they consider it from a financial perspective, it just doesn’t make sense to create new products at the risk of jeopardizing your profitable, existing products. Don’t do it. It’s exactly that fear that has led many great companies to leave themselves vulnerable to disruption from others.

But it hasn’t affected Apple because that’s not how the company sees the world. Profitability isn’t at the center of every decision. Apple’s focus is on making truly great products — products so great that its own employees want to use them. That philosophy has made Apple one of the most innovative companies in the world.

Steve Jobs’ legacy isn’t the Mac. It’s not the iPhone. Or the iPad. His legacy is in the creation of Apple itself, reminding us that profit is not the ultimate goal, but rather a consequence of something greater.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

In my humble opinion I wish to point out what has made me in my own small way both succesfull and very happy. I believe that what the authors were trying to get accross is well summed up in the old adage – What came first, the chicken or the egg? Most , if not all the people around me seem to live for money or profit at the expense of passion or lifestyle. With Steve Jobs it seems that passion, not money or profit came first. This does not mean that money or profit did not exist, but that simply, it is pushed into second place. His focus was passion and product first, profit secondary. An article I read recently on the
“Lifestyle Entrepeneur” summed up my outlook on life. At any stage in life, one can choose a certain way to live, with dreams, goals and a lifestyle. Then work hard to earn the required funds necessary to live that chosen lifestyle or passion. Most people I know seem to let the pursuit of money and profit dictate their lifestyle, goals, passions and dreams and relegate these into second place to the extent of ignoring them. Therefore in conclusion, it is not whether profit, money, passion or dreams is what makes us exist, like it made Steve Jobs exist,
or work towards, but the way we prioritize them. Passion and dreams should always trump money and profit…

Posted by timeormoney | Report as abusive

Amazon never has.

You will see the rise of AMZN in the next decade.

Posted by sinzone | Report as abusive

I agree this is so hard to do. Apple grew into this in the big, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, but in many small ways dumping the Mini-iPod for solid state Nano-iPod, dumping the floppy drive in iMacs, dumping ADB for USB, dumping SCSI for Firewire, dumping ethernet for WiFi [remember Apple first Airport was 5X cheaper than competitors], dumping CD/DVD drive for MacBook Air, not jumping on Blueray, etc.

In other words, in a host of small ways Apple made the choice to disrupt itself – this helped build the culture. When you look at Apple’s competitors, they never never make that leap. Whether in a big or small way and then later try mimic Apple or in the case own SAMSUNG be a quick follower, but even there they can’t make the break, stylus on a fat cell phone?

Where I run into a problem is understanding the job to be done that Apple consciously or unconsciously does. Is it “build the stuff we want” the way to think about jobs to be done in a practical sense?

Posted by gprovida | Report as abusive