In his years at IBM, the thinker and author Gunter Dueck earned the nickname “Wild Duck”. We spoke to him about IBM’s innovative power, the sense and nonsense of business plans for start-ups – and about Steve Jobs, of course, who unfortunately left us far too soon.
Oliver Gassner: Hello, Mr. Dueck!
Gunter Dueck: Hello.
OG: What do you consider to be the biggest development on the web or in mobile world over the past twelve months?
GD: Well, the constantly increasing hype about the iPad, which has a lot to do with the now cheap flash storage; now all we need is LTE (Long Term Evolution) everywhere…
OG: Will LTE-enabled tablets save the publishing houses, or is that wishful thinking?
GD: I think that many people now read on-screen. As a writer, people ask me almost daily to urge publishers toward eBooks. On the other hand, people no longer read that many books; I feel that quite clearly. Digital natives prefer a snappy speech on YouTube – something new is on the rise!
OG: Was Steve Jobs innovative? Or driven? Or a “good” manager from the “Wild Duck” perspective?
GD: Jobs gave a lot of thought to what enthusiastic people would want from a computer. That they don’t crash, that they are easy to use – stuff like that. He was the only one who didn’t make any compromises in this area. He had a kind of “emotional intelligence” – but for machines! And he definitely had a talent for attraction. Most techies don’t have it. They don’t comprehend it, and regard it with suspicion (because techies are usually verrrry introverted and tend to be embarrassed in front of audiences, for example). And since they don’t consider it to be quite kosher, they can hardly copy Jobs’ success – even though they read about it every day in the paper, while shaking their heads over it.
OG: Guy Kawasaki recently said that Apple was planned as a kind of anti-IBM back in the mid-80s. They also had that Orwell commercial back then. Has IBM and the rest of the IT world learned anything since then?
GD: Tough question. People always accuse IBM of having missed out on the “consumer front”. But IBM caters to enterprise customers, and understands them very well – in that segment the company is uncompromising and even attractive! It’s very hard, if not impossible, to have several such corporate souls. The critics don’t understand that point – that it’s too hard to be everything to everyone. Our political parties in Germany are trying that right now – what can I say?
OG: In that case, it was of course appropriate for IBM to sell its consumer division to Lenovo. To come back to Steve Jobs: in his “stay hungry, stay foolish” speech, he put his success down to the fact that he failed more than once: as a college dropout, and the first time around as the CEO of Apple. Both experiences opened new perspectives for him: calligraphy, design, Pixar and Toy Story. Is it still OK these days – for managers and regular people – to explore interesting sidelines and learn from mistakes?
GD: Mistakes! Ugh, don’t use that word in my presence! You have to see innovation as an exploration of the unknown, not as something you can do correctly or incorrectly according to a timetable. Personally, I ONLY learn while exploring! Enterprises today don’t understand that, and neither do lenders who expect start-ups to submit a business plan. These days, it’s best if I stay in the basement until I’m done exploring. Not that that would work for the pharmaceutical sector and the like…
OG: I’m aware of who I put that question to, and I find it reassuring that the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t do its research in the wild. What distinguishes a good idea from true innovation?
GD: An invention is not an innovation. Leonardo already had the idea for a flying machine (albeit some time after Icarus). But so what? You not only have to perfect the technology – you also have to build airports, set up an air traffic control system, invent luggage carousels, and get the whole system to work at a ticket price of €49. Taking that initial idea and adapting it to reality is innovation, so we can define innovation as the remaining 99.9 percent of the work.
OG: What would you require from a startup instead of a business plan before you would be willing to give them 100,000 or a million euros?
GD: I would study the new entrepreneur as if it were a job interview, and I’d ask myself a hundred times whether I trust him to handle it, whether he knows what to expect, and whether he has a realistic perspective. I’d want to be sure he’s a good innovator.
OG: Your output in terms of books and lectures is impressive. And you even used to hold down a “normal” job while working on them. What do you personally need to be creative?
GD: In life, I’ve often seen things going fundamentally wrong. And that’s when I need to take a stand. I can write well, and so that’s what I do – to disseminate “my idea” or “the truth”. Now it would also be good (as an innovation) to sell those truths so that they change our lives. I’m still working on that.
OG: Would you be willing to predict what the web’s next big thing will be? In Abschied vom Homo oeconomicus, your predictions regarding mobility were spot on.
GD: And those about China, India, wage dumping, burnout and 2.0 weren’t bad either, right? And now? China’s economy will catch up with the U.S. around 2015, and that’s not very far in the future. But the exact timing doesn’t matter: China will continue to grow for a long time, and the world will experience a new phase of growth that will encourage innovation. The direction: the internet will become the world’s “operating system”, followed by growth in new and specialized fields such as medical, bio-, genetic, solar, nano-, and other technologies.
OG: And finally, two fundamental questions: iOS or Android (or Blackberry)? Facebook or Google+? And why?
GD: I have a Blackberry because it’s the only device that supports IBM mail. So I haven’t yet had a choice. My Blackberry is fairly new, and now that I’m no longer with IBM, I’ll wait until LTE devices are available and then get myself an iPhone 6 or whatever. Or an Android, we’ll see. I’m not dogmatic – I choose according to the features I need. And to answer your other question, I have the feeling that Facebook is more friendly and appreciative, while Google+ tends to be sober and critical. So the choice is a question of your personality. That’s why the front between the two is so fundamentalist. I personally feel more comfortable with Google+ because criticism and tough arguments (and rudeness, unfortunately) benefit me more than being “liked”, although that’s also nice. I’m on both platforms.
OG: Thank you for your time, Mr. Dueck.
Andrea Wlcek: How and when did you get the idea for your post?
