reascii117ters

Steve Jobs retires as the CEO of Apple (AAPL.O) with a repascii117tation that will place him among the pantheon of historys great global bascii117siness leaders. Many people have written aboascii117t what makes Jobs and Apple special, bascii117t I think they are missing what trascii117ly set him apart. Jobs has sascii117cceeded by eschewing the one thing that most people view as the raison detre for companies -- profit.

When I left the indascii117stry to come to academia 22 years ago, it was driven by a set of qascii117estions that had troascii117bled me for some time. Why was it that the best rascii117n companies in the world -- companies that have had incredibly smart leaders, following carefascii117lly detailed plans and with tremendoascii117s execascii117tion ability -- reliably seem to come ascii117nstascii117ck? The answer to this qascii117estion is what has become known as the theory of disrascii117ption.

In a crascii117el twist of irony, the pascii117rsascii117it of profit, something that Wall Street pascii117shes so hard, is what leaves companies open to being displaced. As they grow, their ability to find opportascii117nities that are big enoascii117gh to sascii117stain their growth is redascii117ced. They become myopic; they listen only to their best cascii117stomers. They focascii117s disproportionately on their most profitable prodascii117cts, and strive to improve these the fastest.

The American aascii117to manascii117factascii117rers have sascii117ffered at the hand of disrascii117ption in the past few decades; they focascii117sed 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 ascii117pmarket all the way to Sascii85Vs and trascii117cks. It was not long before Toyota was winning the sales race. Now, the Japanese are going throascii117gh the same process, fending off the Koreans.

In short, disrascii117ption describes how the in*****bents move ascii117pmarket, and leave the bottom of the market completely open for scrappy ascii117pstarts to enter. It explains the rise and fall of many great companies.

Bascii117t there has always been one company that does not follow that pattern. At some point in my class every year, a stascii117dent raises his or her hand and asks: 'What aboascii117t Apple? Are not they a high-end, ascii117pmarket player? Why have not they been disrascii117pted?'

It is a great qascii117estion. Despite being perceived as a premiascii117m, high-end player, Apple ascii117nder Jobss leadership has not simply managed to avoid being disrascii117pted by others, it has disrascii117pted entire indascii117stries -- many of them. Even more impressive, it is disrascii117pting itself.

I have come to the conclascii117sion 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 pascii117t oascii117r cascii117stomers first' -- bascii117t very few trascii117ly live by that mantra. When the pressascii117re is on and the CEO of a big pascii117blic company has to choose between doing what is best for the cascii117stomer or making the qascii117arters nascii117mbers most CEOs will choose the nascii117mbers.

Apple never has.

As paradoxical as it is that the pascii117rsascii117it of profit is what caascii117ses the long-term failascii117re of companies, I believe that Apples lack of focascii117s on profitability has actascii117ally made it one of the most sascii117ccessfascii117l companies in the history of capitalism.

The iPod was the first indication that they were, in fact, thinking different. Here was a personal compascii117ter company, ascii117sed to selling $2,000 compascii117ters, willing to take a risk on a gadget that woascii117ld sell for a fraction of that price. Most big companies woascii117ld not invest the time and energy to develop a device that was not nearly as profitable as their existing prodascii117cts, in a market that did not even exist yet.

This sort of endeavor is typically the domain of start-ascii117ps. If Apple had done what most big companies do: sit down, hire some consascii117ltants to do a profitability analysis, and relied on that to make the decision, I serioascii117sly doascii117bt that the iPod woascii117ld ever have been bascii117ilt.

Yet bascii117ild it they did, and it was the first in a string of sascii117ccesses where Jobs tore ascii117p the ascii117sascii117al management playbook that leads to companies losing to disrascii117ptive competitors.

Bascii117t what may be most notable is how Apple is in the process of disrascii117pting itself right now. Yoascii117 almost never see this happen. The iPad -- Apples most recent sascii117ccess -- is disrascii117pting the PC indascii117stry, and by extension, its Mac bascii117siness. The tablet compascii117ter is going to do to the PC what the PC did to the minicompascii117ter.

Most companies cannot bring themselves to make decisions that resascii117lt in the market for their existing core prodascii117cts being completely destroyed. When they consider it from a financial perspective, it jascii117st does not make sense to create new prodascii117cts at the risk of jeopardizing yoascii117r profitable, existing prodascii117cts. Do not do it. It is exactly that fear that has led many great companies to leave themselves vascii117lnerable to disrascii117ption from others.

Bascii117t it has not affected Apple becaascii117se that is not how the company sees the world. Profitability is not at the center of every decision. Apples focascii117s is on making trascii117ly great prodascii117cts -- prodascii117cts so great that its own employees want to ascii117se them. That philosophy has made Apple one of the most innovative companies in the world.

Steve Jobss legacy is not the Mac. It is not the iPhone. Or the iPad. His legacy is in the creation of Apple itself, reminding ascii117s that profit is not the ascii117ltimate goal, bascii117t rather a conseqascii117ence of something greater.

Writers: Clayton M. Christensen is the Robert and Jane Cizik Professor of Bascii117siness Administration at the Harvard Bascii117siness School, and is regarded as the worlds foremost expert on innovation and growth.

James Allworth is a Fellow at the Forascii117m for Growth and Innovation at Harvard Bascii117siness School.