[DougAdams]

You get it! You get it!

[tewha]

Glenn_Fleishman said:

How is writing a funny letter a "monumentally stupid idea and effort to grab attention"?

For the record, I found Tanya's letter a profoundly unfunny attention grab, too. So much so that I'm now completely unsubscribed to TidBITS for the first time since 1995 or so.

I can accept that it was written with the intention to be humorous, but it felt to me like it was annoyingly passive-aggressive, extremely whiney and immature in the extreme. Frankly, I found it absolutely shocking.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

[quote name='tewha']
>

Glenn_Fleishman said:

>
> How is writing a funny letter a "monumentally stupid idea and effort to grab attention"?For the record, I found Tanya's letter a profoundly unfunny attention grab, too. So much so that I'm now completely unsubscribed to TidBITS for the first time since 1995 or so.

I can accept that it was written with the intention to be humorous, but it felt to me like it was annoyingly passive-aggressive, extremely whiney and immature in the extreme. Frankly, I found it absolutely shocking.

Good gravy, I'll move the coal from that other stocking to yours.

Tonya (not Tanya) is a good friend, but I legitimately found her article funny. In any case, I'm not sure how someone could be so offended by mild humor.

How is it an attention grab to write an article? I'm stillconfused by that.

[Splashman]

{quote:title=Chris Breen wrote:}We almost agree. I just reverse the order. Profits first and great products the way to get there. Dr. Jobs' bedside manner spells it your way, but I don't buy it.{quote}

Fair enough.

I enjoy reading books about entrepreneurs. I've probably got 25 or so, the most recent of which are Ricardo Semler's Maverick and James Dyson's Against the Odds. A common characteristic of (I think) every one of them, is that their primary motivation was not money. Semler, for instance, didn't see why a corporation had to be run the same old way, and was determined to change it. He wasn't sure what was going to happen to profitability, but he did it anyway. It was a surprise when Semco's employees became much more efficient and the company's profits went up, drastically.

I wouldn't categorize Jobs with Semler, but, as I mentioned in my first post, I haven't seen any evidence that truly great products are ever created by people whose primary motivation is profits, so I'm giving Jobs the benefit of the doubt.

Chris, I don't mean to be snarky; I'm asking a sincere question: Have you ever heard/read about somebody who made something great, whose primary motivation was profits? I have nothing against profits -- the lure of profits motivates people to work hard, which is a good thing. I'm just not sure that truly great products can be made when money is foremost in the mind.

[TalkinMan]

In my estimation, as long as Apple maintains the high customer service levels at Apple Stores every single day, that's more important than enabling a once a year pilgrimage to San Francisco.
Also, I expect that this means Apple will be free to compete head-to-head with its real competition by presenting at CES... ;-)

[hopfrog]

You got one thing very right and one thing very wrong.
Right: Apple is a corporation that is in business to make money. That's the bottom line, not the only line; for instance, feeling that you are "making a difference", doing something Great matters a lot in motivating people; but the basic idea is correct.
Wrong: Apple is run by a bunch of suits, not Steve Jobs. Governance styles differ greatly among large corporations. The book "Good to Great" makes the point that large corporations whose charismatic founders put in place a succession plan and empower their top management do better longer after the charismatic founder departs than do companies where the charismatic founder controls everything till the end.
Apple is run by a charismatic founder, not by grey men in grey suits. There's no evidence of a succession plan (as there is at Microsoft and as there always has been at IBM). Apple did well when Jobs was in charge and terriblly when Scully was in charge; and well again when Jobs was in charge again.
What scares everyone about Apple's withdrawal from Macworld is that it might not just be a simple business decision; it might be a sign that Jobs is not long for this world. Apple is one of the few companies of its size where people would be this concerned. And that's because of the truth of the previous paragraph.
If you doubt that the guy at the top makes a difference, I invite you to consider the United States of America after Bill Clinton.

[tewha]

Glenn_Fleishman said:

Tonya (not Tanya) is a good friend, but I legitimately found her article funny. In any case, I'm not sure how someone could be so offended by mild humor.


How is it an attention grab to write an article? I'm stillconfused by that.

I'll take that coal. :) And yes, I got the name wrong. I knew it was Tonya, I just have Tanya stuck in the brain.

If you've had my mother, you'd have found it pushed all your buttons, too. That is a period of my life I'd rather never revisit.

[Chris Breen]

Splashman said:

Chris, I don't mean to be snarky; I'm asking a sincere question: Have you ever heard/read about somebody who made something great, whose primary motivation was profits? I have nothing against profits -- the lure of profits motivates people to work hard, which is a good thing. I'm just not sure that truly great products can be made when money is foremost in the mind.

Good question. I think you can look at the last couple of generations of iPod nano as an example. What's the motivation for making a new one each September? Are they truly revolutionary to the extent that they need to replace the current model or, looking for profit, Apple changes the form factor, dips 'em in different vats of paint, and puts them on the shelf?

Or Apple TV? Streaming video is an important game and the living room an important destination. Apple needs a foothold in it not to do something great for the world but to have a toehold in an important emerging market.

Or look at the pharmaceutical industry. Some of the drugs they come up with are great -- saving lives, easing suffering, etc. Do you suppose these companies would pursue that kind of work if there wasn't a hefty profit waiting at the end?

I'm not so cynical to suggest that there aren't people who make amazing stuff because of the challenge/artfulness/pure goodness of it. I'm just hinting that Apple may not always be among them.

Updated: And going back to Scott's point (and the point I would have made if I had gotten off my butt to make it) is that I'm surprised that people are surprised that Apple acts this way. They're a company that makes stuff I like a lot but they don't owe me anything simply because I've purchased their stuff or said nice things about them to my friends and relatives. Our personal relationship ends when they take my money and I take their stuff.

They've determined that continuing to participate in Macworld Expo doesn't make sense for the company -- and that sense may be based on them really buying the notion that every day at an Apple Store is like a trip to Macworld Expo (nonsense, of course), or they're tired of working to someone else's schedule, or Jobs woke up on the wrong side of the bed. And ultimately it doesn't matter to me because it's not personal.

I think there can be a Macworld Expo without Apple, but for it to succeed people need to get over the notion that unless you're breathing the rarified air brought to the hall by Steve Jobs and Apple there's nothing worth seeing. What changes is the lack of a fairly templated presentation by Jobs and a large expanse of space devoted to products you can see in a store a couple of blocks away. Far more interesting to me is the training, sessions, and looks at product I don't see at the Apple Store. And, okay, hanging out with my friends.

[tewha]

Glenn_Fleishman said:

Update: I'm not sure why it's any better to insult Lesa. Why do forum posters attack women tech writers so readily? Am I being thin-skinned about that? I don't see this nasty vitriol against guys most of the time.

It's probably because the men aren't imitating letters from a guilt manipulator or suggesting people try to emotionally scar someone giving a presentation. People often react to emotional manipulation in unpredictable ways.

I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.

[ScottP]

Glenn_Fleishman said:

Update: I'm not sure why it's any better to insult Lesa. Why do forum posters attack women tech writers so readily? Am I being thin-skinned about that? I don't see this nasty vitriol against guys most of the time.

I "insulted" Lesa because her idea is stupid. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. But don't worry, Glenn, the world now knows that you're not a misogynist. Congratulations on being so progressive in your views.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

[quote name='tewha']
>

Glenn_Fleishman said:

> Update: I'm not sure why it's any better to insult Lesa. Why do forum posters attack women tech writers so readily? Am I being thin-skinned about that? I don't see this nasty vitriol against guys most of the time.
It's probably because the men aren't imitating letters from a guilt manipulator or suggesting people try to emotionally scar someone giving a presentation. People often react to emotional manipulation in unpredictable ways.

I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.

That's why I was confused. Tonya was writing what to me seemed like a parody of that attitude -- partly because she knows (and we all know) hectoring Apple won't get us anywhere, and partly because some of us enjoy the community of Macworld Expo and she wa speaking to the pissiness we feel (unjustified, of course) at Apple taking its ball and bat away, leaving IDG with the baseball diamond.
[quote name='tewha']
> [quote name='Glenn_Fleishman']
> Update: I'm not sure why it's any better to insult Lesa. Why do forum posters attack women tech writers so readily? Am I being thin-skinned about that? I don't see this nasty vitriol against guys most of the time.
It's probably because the men aren't imitating letters from a guilt manipulator or suggesting people try to emotionally scar someone giving a presentation. People often react to emotional manipulation in unpredictable ways.

I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

[quote name='ScottP']
>

Glenn_Fleishman said:

>
> Update: I'm not sure why it's any better to insult Lesa. Why do forum posters attack women tech writers so readily? Am I being thin-skinned about that? I don't see this nasty vitriol against guys most of the time.I "insulted" Lesa because her idea is stupid. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. But don't worry, Glenn, the world now knows that you're not a misogynist. Congratulations on being so progressive in your views.

I've had 40 years to establish my views about the world--I'm not terribly concerned about that.

I'm just a little sick of seeing any woman who expresses her opinion on a subject attacked in a way that men rarely are.
[quote name='ScottP']
> [quote name='Glenn_Fleishman']
>
> Update: I'm not sure why it's any better to insult Lesa. Why do forum posters attack women tech writers so readily? Am I being thin-skinned about that? I don't see this nasty vitriol against guys most of the time.I "insulted" Lesa because her idea is stupid. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. But don't worry, Glenn, the world now knows that you're not a misogynist. Congratulations on being so progressive in your views.

[Splashman]

{quote:title=Chris Breen wrote}I'm not so cynical to suggest that there aren't people who make amazing stuff because of the challenge/artfulness/pure goodness of it. I'm just hinting that Apple may not always be among them.{quote}

"Apple" is an ambiguous term in this discussion. I submit that Jobs is the type of guy who is primarily motivated by the desire for greatness, and for whom profits are important but not all-consuming. I submit that he's gathered a group of executives who are similarly motivated. Do I think their motivations are as pure as the driven snow? That every single decision, including what to order for lunch, is squeezed through the 'insanely great' filter? Of course not, as I've stated twice already. Here, after paying lip service to the notion of primary/secondary motivations, you've again set up a false dichotomy: they're either suit-wearing profit-hounds or Birkenstock-wearing hobbyists. Neither is true. These guys are well aware that their all-consuming desire for greatness will bring profits, while the all-consuming desire for profits rarely results in greatness. I submit that the difference between the primary/secondary placement of those two motivations, is the difference between Apple and Microsoft.

[tewha]

Glenn_Fleishman said:

I'm just a little sick of seeing any woman who expresses her opinion on a subject attacked in a way that men rarely are.

Hah! Are you serious? Or are you talking about a different kind of attack? Because the vitriol directed to those women is positively balmy compared to that direct to, say, Rob Enderle, George Ou, or John Dvorak. And the reason it's lighter is not because they're women, it's because they're not known for saying stupid things. But when you say stupid things, you get called on it. And if it keeps happening, people sort of expect it, take the gloves off, and have fun with it.