I have a couple comments to make on these selections.

Regarding Xerox and training, this story screams the "Toyota Way" to me very loudly. I've been reading about Toyota's 14-point system, and this move at Xerox seems to ape many of the points in that system.

With respect to the Apple vs Google question, Taking just the snippet you cited, I think that opinion piece is problematic. They aren't parallel competitors except in a few key spaces (mobile devices, ads, office apps *maybe*), and each is a remarkable example of their differing core methodologies. Google has been very effective at big ideas using large groups, and Apple has been very effective at big ideas using top-down expertise. I think each one shows that greatness can be achieved via execution, not because one is necessarily better by design than another. Also, why should the question be relegated to just notions of design? Why is not utility the end goal? Both companies accomplish this in spades. The biggest way they compete is in their view of the world, where Google solves the everyman problems for us, and Apple seeks to be THE man to solve the problem.