Want to learn the ideas in Insanely Simple better than ever? Read the world’s #1 book summary of Insanely Simple by Ken Segall here.
Read a brief 1-Page Summary or watch video summaries curated by our expert team. Note: this book guide is not affiliated with or endorsed by the publisher or author, and we always encourage you to purchase and read the full book.
Video Summaries of Insanely Simple
We’ve scoured the Internet for the very best videos on Insanely Simple, from high-quality videos summaries to interviews or commentary by Ken Segall.
1-Page Summary of Insanely Simple
The Leader of Simplicity
Steve Jobs was a very critical person, and when he rejected the work of his team members, they would tell one another that Steve hit them with the Simple Stick. Whatever their merits were, Jobs would find some flaw in it and say that it wasn’t simple enough. Simplicity is what drove Apple’s success from the start; it differentiated Apple from others.
Segall believes that many large companies are too complex. They have processes, rules, and layers that create complexity. They also tend to be less efficient because of meetings, a rigid culture (which is often created by the bureaucracy), and communication issues (since people may not be clear about who they need to talk to or what needs approval). A company can overcome its problems if it has someone at the helm advocating simplicity.
iTunes’ Flat-Rate Music
Segall believes that simplicity is most effective when it combines the best of two worlds: brains and common sense. A perfect example of this is Apple’s iTunes, which was so successful because customers paid 99 cents for a song with their credit cards and owned it.
Segall believes that Microsoft didn’t understand the simplicity of Apple’s iTunes purchase interface. With Zune, customers had to buy points in increments of 100 before they could purchase songs at 79 cents each. This let Microsoft earn interest on their money, but complicated Zune failed quickly because it lacked common sense.
Simple Meetings
Segall believes that the most effective meetings have few participants and are focused on specific topics. The most important person in the meeting should be there so they can take action on what was discussed. Segall also says that Apple doesn’t lay out guidelines for its employees to follow, but rather assumes they know how to prioritize their tasks.
To ensure that meetings are efficient, Segall recommends following three rules. First, dismiss the least important people from the meeting. Second, if a meeting runs longer than thirty minutes, leave it and get to work on something useful or productive instead. Finally, once a meeting is over go immediately back to doing something productive; don’t waste any time thinking about or discussing what happened in the meeting afterward.
“Small Groups of Smart People”
Segall says that the more people you involve in a project, the harder it gets to manage. This is because there’s an extra level of complexity involved when you have so many people working on something together. You need to make sure everyone is doing their part and provide feedback to each person who works on the project, which can be time consuming and lead to lower quality work. Segall believes that this is why small groups of smart people are better at completing projects than large teams of less-skilled workers.
When people feel like they have responsibility and trust, they will perform at a higher level. Adding more people to tackle a big project indicates that you don’t have full confidence in the team you already have. The best solution is not adding more people; it’s having a smarter team.
Having the ultimate decision maker involved is crucial. People will be inspired and stay focused if he or she is there at the beginning to offer his or her point of view and stays aware of progress at various checkpoints. The top decision maker doesn’t have to be the head person; Segall reported that it wasn’t always Jobs at Apple, but they made sure he was involved early on so that he could offer input as needed throughout development.
Projects in larger organizations often go for a long time without the decision maker getting to see them. This can be damaging because it’s more likely that they’ll reject the project if they don’t have input along the way.
