Why I’m Drawn To Apple Over Google: The Individual Vs. The Collective

January 12th, 2010

Two posts the other day solidified another thought rolling around in the back of my mind. The first was a WSJ article World Wide Mush (a promotion for a new book You Are Not A Gadget by Jaron Lanier), and Google Lacks Humanity by Joe Wilcox at Beta News.

The thought that needed solidification: Although I use a lot of Google products, which are competitive with Apple’s offerings — I choose Apple every time. Safari over Chrome, iPhoto over Picasa, iPhone over Nexus One, and although I use Gmail daily, at the end of each day I download everything to Mail.

I’ve chalked this loyalty up to a lifetime surrounded by Apple products, but the two posts had me thinking about how the companies differ in terms of structure. At its most basic, Google has tons of smart people who throw stuff at a wall repeatedly until something works, hoping the cream rises to the top. They follow the release early, often, and iterate mantra.

Apple thinks differently in many ways. Their desire to control the message leads them to be very secretive, they don’t participate in social media, and we’ve all heard rumors that at the top of the chain are a few individuals who make large decisions guiding the rest of the company, more specifically in product design.

Google aspires to be bottom-up while Apple, led by Steve Jobs, cultivates an image that they’re top-down. Google is a collective while Apple is led by one visionary leader. The Borg vs. the Federation, Vulcans and humans humans.

Or quite simply — mass media vs. an individual artist. And then consider all the works of entertainment or art produced by committee vs. one or two guiding hands. I love movies that bear the stamp of one visionary director, not scripts written by ten hacks. I enjoy blogs with one writer and a distinctive, individual voice as opposed to thirty faceless people threading together a single post.

I envision of Steve Jobs, lying in a hospital bed recovering from surgery, cradling an Apple Tablet prototype, trying to figure out how to make this thing work. He gets pissed at tiny details, and sends it back repeatedly. He’s obsessed with making this thing work, because this could be the last Apple product his name is associated with. His last chance to change the world, and he’s going to get this thing right.

Meanwhile, there’s a team of Google engineers, poring over piles of mined consumer data and coming up with a Nexus One.

The latter fantasy appeals to my brain, while the former appeals to my heart. And that’s the crux of why I’ve always been left a bit cold with Google products. Google doesn’t get UI, their products don’t look pretty or emit that “I must have this” aura. Specifically with the Nexus One: the specs are on par with the iPhone and sure to please everyone, but there’s something… missing.

Google product bears the stamp of logic and collective agreement, as opposed one incredibly picky, driven user to which nothing less than perfection will do. I suppose it’s a matter of personal taste, but I’ve always gone with the lone visionary approach as opposed to groupthink.

Personally, that’s what makes the difference between an adequate product and one that’s a sheer joy to use, that I can’t keep my hands off of and recommend to everyone. And I expect nothing less from Apple, regarding whatever they announce later this month.