[Chris Breen]

Splashman said:

>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.

Of course it isn't. Nor would I state anything so stupid. Again, I'm simply saying that Jobs and crew understand that they're running a very large company. And in order for very large companies to survive they must profit. And that their particular scheme for making a profit is to develop stuff that people want to give them money for. There's nothing unseemly or unsavory about it. It's business and a model I appreciate.

[macwilf]

Lots of interesting comments on an interesting article and I do not know if my thoughts are worth adding, but yes, I have used some time to get used to the idea that Christmas is cancelled as someone put it, regarding this very same topic. I have to admit that it is the feeling I have - but perhaps it is rather, in conjunction with the spirit of this article, the feeling a child have when told that Santa is just his father dressed up in red and with a white beard. But, on the other hand, I found out that all by myself when I was five:)

Anyway, I am going to digress, but I think it still has something to do with the topic. I had to buy a Nokia N82 instead of the iPhone I originally wanted, since that one lacks some features I need. The Nokia is a good phone and I like it and I even got a discount. But the thing is that I was playing solitaire with it the other day and then I took my little iPod nano and did the same - and what a difference the scroll wheel was! One is flipping through the cards where one is clicking through them on the Nokia.

That reminded me of something essential with Appleʼs products. The details which fit so well into the whole product. When you mostly use those products, it is easy to forget that, at least for me.

So, what has that got to do with it all? Well, it is my simple take on what is motivating the company. If it had been the money, I doubt that they would have come up with those details. But, as Chris Breen mentions, to be able to work with such products, you need to be in a position which gives you the absolute freedom to do so. Money brings you into that position in this world. One cannot get around that fact.

I do not think that Apple has revealed that it is a huge corporation, meaning like it is just like any other corporation. What I think it has revealed is that it is determined. It has a strategy and it has its aims. One major aim is to secure the position it needs to continue working with the products it wants to work with. When it comes to that, Apple is willing to cut off any "dead flesh", no matter how important it might be - emotionally.

Macworld has been important. It probably is not so important anymore, not when it comes to Appleʼs strategy.

People were shocked when they went to Intel. That was part of the enemy in those days, remember? And there have been several smaller and not so small incidents like that and I am convinced that it will come more. The faithful ones will find more reasons to become shocked. But hopefully awestruck as well. After a while.

I have mentioned earlier that I would not be surprised if Apple at one point would decide that they are going to do what most "true followers" believe that they will never do; license the Mac OS X. If that will fit into the strategy, they will do it. And people will be shocked.

I am not saying that they are going to do it, but just trying to give an example of the fact that Apple actually thinks differently than many of its "true followers", not because it is a cold, heartless and huge corporation, but because they are determined to continue to be in a position in which they will have the absolute freedom to concentrate on such details as the scroll wheel.

And it does not matter whether someone at Apple invented it or not. They put it to use in the right way at the right time.

Well, my two Norwegian Krone worth - and it is sinking! Hahaha!

[montgomery_burns]

adobephile said:

If Apple is somehow ignoring too many good reasons to keep attending and participating in expo's, that'd be one thing. But I think that's quite unlikely, given its rising statistics and prosperity. When you're on a roll like this, you keep doing the things that made for the success, and you quit doing the things that didn't. Perhaps expos were on the latter list.

So Steve's keynotes and product introductions at Macworld did not contribute to Apple's success?

[DPG4450Guy]

All may not be lost yet.

If Apple starts having problems - significant problems to the bottom line - I think you'll see them back, pronto. The current recession is totally unpredictable, however much money scared politicians throw at it or talking heads on the business shows make profound statements. It could bite Apple in a bad way - and what better way to make a media/marketing comeback than to come back to the Expo?

[Morrick]

Several Mac users -- especially long-time Mac users -- have formed some sort of psychological bond with the company, a relationship which has always been more than just being 'some customer' of a computer manufacturer. That's what's always been distinctive of Mac users compared to PC users, for instance.

This double announcement, Steve Jobs not doing the keynote and Macworld Expo 2009 being the last one Apple will attend, came suddenly and was greatly unexpected.

On a rational level, Apple's decision makes sense -- Jason Snell's beautiful article explains that quite well. But we have to consider also an emotional level, which is characteristic of a large part of the Mac community. I'm sure that, rationally, we all understand Apple's decision, but -- as we've seen -- many people can't help feeling somewhat betrayed. And I understand that. I found Tonya Engst's piece to be well written, funny, entertaining. I understand Lesa King's frustration and I find many attacks against her to be as immature as the attackers judged her to be.

The Mac community has traditionally been alarmed and wary every time Apple made big decisions and big transitions -- like the move from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X and the move from PowerPC to Intel -- but when people understood that those 2 transitions were ultimately for the better, everything was good again.

With the current situation it's just the same. At the moment, Apple's decision seems strange, mysterious, abrupt, but the fact is we still don't know what Apple is planning for the future. When things get clearer next year, maybe that sense of betrayal will vanish. I'm optimistic: Apple will surprise again with great products and wounds will heal :)

Cheers,

Rick

[alansky]

"Steve Jobs and the rest of Apple’s employees have one boss—Apple shareholders—and they are committed to one thing—making those shareholders money."
This analysis fails to account for the fact that, ultimately, Apple can only make money for its shareholders by pleasing its customers. No, Apple is not our friend; but Apple shareholders will be happy only as long as Apple customers are snapping up those Apple products.
This is not to say that Apple should not have pulled out of MacWorld. But Apple does not operate in a vacuum, nor are Apple's customers obligated to buy whatever Apple wants them to buy (ala Microsoft). It's a symbiotic relationship that depends on good will on both sides of the equation.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

[quote name='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.

If you can't see the difference, we can't discuss whether there is a difference.
[quote name='tewha']
> [quote name='Glenn_Fleishman']
> 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.

[blankbaby]

Glenn_Fleishman said:

I think you misread some of the intent of Tonya's hilarious letter. Community isn't just something Apple should pay lip service, too; it's part of the heart of their mercantile approach.

Also, some companies do make sure their community has big events to foster interest. Apple, never the operator of Macworld, may have felt too distant from the effort.

I assume WWDC, which is about a community of interest of vital importance to Apple, either breaks even or turns a profit.

Glenn, I agree that Apple should embrace the community but hasn't the community thrived without any embraces from Apple? As far as I can tell Apple isn't all that interested in the community, above when said community can do something for them (like write software that helps Apple sell more machines, or buy those machines outright).

I do agree, however, that Tonya's letter was hilarious. :)

[blankbaby]

When I lasted checked I wasn't a woman, and Apple didn't scorn me at all! I don't expect anything from Apple other than support (if my Applecare is paid up). I give them money, they give me a computer or iPod... and that's about the end of my relationship with Apple. I'm not complaining about that, by the way, I often find it very creepy when a company tried to be all buddy buddy with me.

[stevelee]

I'd believe "a boatload of money" but a "buttload"?

[tewha]

Glenn_Fleishman said:

If you can't see the difference, we can't discuss whether there is a difference.

No, I was asking for an example. Because most of what I've seen is calling the ideas stupid, or their presentation passive aggressive and manipulative. And that's not gender specific at all. But I have not been watching the reaction as closely as you seem to have been. :)

[WarrenS]

Scott, just one more thing, all that apple is can be wiped out with one really stupid remark, or decision. MobilMe came close.

[ScottP]

WarrenS said:

Scott, just one more thing, all that apple is can be wiped out with one really stupid remark, or decision. MobilMe came close.

You think MobileMe came close to wiping out Apple's essence? Because pundits made fun of how badly its launch went, and then the collective world moved on and forgot about it?

Sorry buddy, you're just plain wrong.

[spinoza2]

I couldn't disagree more with this article, but it does reflect the nostalgic, retro-view of computing from the 80s and 90s. Fortunately, Apple is a smart enough company to not succumb to this backward-looking thinking, instead to continue staying focused on its core values of building well-designed and purposeful products centered on computing, and to support those who purchase them.
Macworld is a throwback to the early days of computing, when a trade show was a primary means of building community for computer aficionados. Over the past several years, Apple has built a far more powerful and expansive means of building community through Web 2.0 technologies, and through its stellar bricks and mortar stores. There are still those nerdy types who consider it fun to spend gobs of money to fly out to San Francisco to wait in long lines and deal with massive crowds, but the vast majority of Apple's fans have better ways of cultivating community and interacting.
I am a strong admirer of Apple precisely because they are so successful at aligning its “business decisions” with creating powerfully useful products and in customer service/support. This is, indeed, the recipe for a successful company. In my some 25 years of being involved in computing, I have never come close to experiencing such a successful alignment of good products and service as with the current Apple. When you consider how complex computers are and how diverse computer purchasers can be, Apple's success is truly phenomenal.
I for one am grateful that Apple does not make its decisions based on whether I have a multi-colored Apple logo tattooed on my arm, or whether Phil uses Old Spice (this same thinking led to millions of people voting for G.W. Bush--“George comes across as the kind 'a guy that would put on a great BBQ, I'm going to vote for him for president!”.
Macworld (the magazine) should get its priorities straight when evaluating Apple's decisions. Apple does not put out “gewgaw” or “iBauble”, it puts out devices that improve my quality of life--there's a big difference between the “gewgaw” company and Apple, something that Macworld would do well to remember.