Why does it take Apple to make a MacBook?

Over the past years, Apple has consistently grown faster than the PC industry. Should you wonder why, take a closer look at the new MacBook presented by Tim Cook on March 9. Even if you leave aside the full-size keyboard with the new butterfly mechanism and the force touch trackpad with the new taptic engine, it is an astonishing product. What is even more astonishing is that its key ingredients are Intel’s Core M chipsets that allow fanless designs and industry standard USB-C connectors everyone can buy. So in theory, every other PC maker could have made it, or a very similar product. But they have not and there are three reasons for it:

1. Purpose and focus

Apple executives know exactly what they want and are aligned. The purpose of the new MacBook is clear – be the most mobile consumer laptop in the world. Once this is clear, most other things fall in line. Mobile means wireless and wireless does not need connectors. With USB-C you can charge in two directions and exchange data. Focus tells you to take away everything that does not support the purpose. Would two USB-C connectors make the MacBook more mobile? No, so one is enough. This focus has great side effects. Having only one connector allows for simple cable routing and a small motherboard. This in turn leaves lots of space for useful stuff like batteries.

Apple’s competitors would start with giving the new laptop the purpose of selling as many machines as possible. For them finding focus is a challenge as they typically have 20 to 50 different laptop models as opposed to Apple’s current six. This gives room for a lot of different interpretations. Someone in engineering may suggest using only one USB-C connector. But this would immediately be met by concerns by product marketing about alienating customers who want to connect legacy equipment. They would end up treating USB-C as yet another connector that they add to existing designs. So rather than simplifying the design, the USB-C connector would lead to more complicated cable routing, a bigger and more expensive motherboard and less room for batteries and ultimately a bigger and heavier product.

2. Mechanical engineering excellence

Apple puts extreme emphasis on mechanical engineering. Jony Ive’s affection for metallurgy is well known from videos shown at keynote speeches. What is less publicized is the heavy investment Apple made in CNC equipment. Apple’s gigantic fleet of CNC machines is humming 24/7 turning blocks of extruded aluminum into millions of unibody chassis for its iPhone, iPad, and Mac product lines. A traditional chassis is made of several parts that are screwed or glued together in a process that accumulates their tolerances. When you squeeze a traditional chassis you will hear some sound in response.

In contrast, Apple’s competitors view high-tech predominantly from an electrical/electronic engineering standpoint. Mechanical engineering is something that is outsourced to suppliers. These suppliers follow the industrial design and specifications provided by the OEM. Lacking Apple’s financial muscle, the suppliers don’t have large fleets of CNC machines and will mostly rely on traditional injection molding and stamping equipment that inevitably leads to chassis made from discrete parts.

3. Boots on the ground

Apple is extremely prescriptive when working with original device manufacturers (ODMs). ODMs are typically headquartered in Taiwan and operate huge factories in China where they make the motherboards and perform the final assembly of the products. Apple plans the manufacturing processes, the required equipment and tools and fixtures in detail and sends armies of manufacturing experts into the ODM factories to manage execution.

Apple’s competitors take a more hands-off approach. They rely on ODMs to figure out the details of making their products. 20 years ago, when labor costs in China where irrelevant, this was a good idea. But these low labor cost have caused ODMs to neglect good industrial engineering practices that used to be standard in America before outsourcing to Chinese factories. Today, with labor cost of $4 per hour these inefficiencies do matter a lot. Walk through any ODM factory in China and you will notice that any given point in time, half of the operators are idle. ODMs are keenly aware of these challenges that are further aggravated by China cutting back government subsidies for running these factories. But two decades of loose industrial engineering practices cannot be fixed overnight. So Apple’s competitors either have to live with inefficient manufacturing or take a more active role following Apple’s example.

As of today, it seems that it does take Apple to make a MacBook. Apple’s competitors can catch up but they will need to take a different approach going forward. First, they will need to recognize what a winning product looks like. Second, they will need to make mechanical engineering a core competence. And third, they will need to work with their ODMs in a different way.