[Chris Breen]

spinoza2 said:

I couldn't disagree more with this article

Am I missing some subtlety in the rest of your post? From what you write it sounds like you agree with this article.

[blankbaby]

spinoza2 said:

I couldn't disagree more with this article, but it does reflect the nostalgic, retro-view of computing from the 80s and 90s.

I'm just as confused as Chris is to why you think you disagree with me (other than for my offhanded joke about Phil and Old Spice). It seems that you and I agree.

[spinoza2]

Chris, here are some of the article's statements I disagree with:

?...but I have never been under any illusion that I am anything more than a pile of disposable income to Apple.?
This is a ridiculous claim that is way off the mark. Thinking in this way is why so many American companies have disappeared or are collapsing (cf,, the American automobile industry). Apple is thriving precisely because it does not regard me as ?a pile of disposable income?.

?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 is patently untrue; Apple has demonstrated again and again that it does not have its shareholders as its primary focus (with dropping Macworld being a good example: the stock tumbled after the news). Again, ?committing to making shareholders money?-type thinking is why this country is in such a financial crisis.

?...but it's foolish to believe that Apple has ever been as touchy-feely as some people think.?
This is a fantasy cultivated by the American press because Apple is so service oriented. When it comes to solving a problem with my MacBook Pro, Apple Support is more touchy-feely than my grandmother could ever be. I know better, however, to not bake Apple Support brownies after solving the problem. The Cult of Apple is a by-product of a successful company, it is not something Apple fosters itself. This does not mean, however, that Apple is a cold, calculating corporation in business suits.

?To many people, Steve Jobs is Apple, and while he's a very powerful driving force at the company, Apple, Inc. is a faceless corporation that is run by people wearing suits, not turtlenecks and jeans (oh, the horror!). And what do those people in business suits want to do? Make money.?
Again, this is a fantasy cultivated by the American media. It's a lot more interesting, and fun, to turn a company into a personified soap opera. Steve Jobs avoids the limelight and the media; the only time we see him is when he does his decidedly undramatic keynote-based product announcements a couple of times a year. Again, the cult of Steve Jobs is something fabricated by the media. But the author sets up a straw man with this characterization. Apple is decidedly not a faceless corporation bent on taking my money. If they were, I would have avoided Apple products long ago. I own a Volvo over a GM because Volvo makes solid products and it treats me like a real person, it practices humane values that I respond to. The same is true with Apple. I abandoned Microsoft many years ago precisely because of its bad products that betrayed little respect to its customers, and as such came across like a faceless corporation wearing business suits. Through his characterization the author lumps all these ?corporations? together because they, by implication, are not your ?friend?, and that they don't make business decisions based on your tattoo.

?The truth is, much as you might want it to, Apple doesn?t care if you have a multicolor logo tattooed to your arm. Or if you named your first child ?Moof.? Nor will it care if you remain silent during Phil Schiller?s keynote at Macworld Expo 2009.?
Again, this is a pseudo issue: I'm glad Apple doesn't care, it's silly to even bring this up as an issue.

?What Apple cares about is whether or not you?ll be buying whatever gewgaw or iBauble it releases next.?
I also responded to this earlier: this is not all that Apple cares about.

?The harsh reality is that Apple isn?t your friend?and even if it were, it'd probably be the flaky guy who never returns your phone calls.?
I hope by now I've made it clear how much I disagree with such statements found in this article. Because a company should rightly not be considered a ?friend? does not mean that it is an enemy, or some cold business corporation wearing business suits and not taking your calls. The author repeatedly makes claims about what Apple is not, but by doing so it discredits Apple as a company by making just as distorted a counter-image. The tone, and the characterization, are off the mark.

[Stephen123]

The shareholders are NOT the boss. This is a common misconception, but is not based in reality. The shareholders are people gambling on the ability of the management to make a profit. In any company where the shareholders are the boss, the shareholders are gambling on their own collective wisdom. This is a nonsense investment, because if they where that good at using their money to make more money, they should be doing that, not investing in someone else's decision making.

[Chris Breen]

spinoza2 said:

Apple is thriving precisely because it does not regard me as ?a pile of disposable income?.

And yet the company has no problem charging iPod touch users for features that are free to iPhone users. It has no problem releasing versions of the Mac OS, the iLife suite, MobileMe, and hardware that are clearly not ready for primetime because the company needs to meet a financial goal. It has no problem with failing to offer upgrades to iPods because they would prefer that you purchase a new iPod rather than upgrade an old one.

>Apple has demonstrated again and again that it does not have its shareholders as its primary focus (with dropping Macworld being a good example: the stock tumbled after the news). Again, ?committing to making shareholders money?-type thinking is why this country is in such a financial crisis.

So Apple is in it for the altruism? Isn't it possible that Apple dropped Macworld because it feels it's financially prudent to do so (and, thus, will make more money for the company and help stockholders)?

>The Cult of Apple is a by-product of a successful company, it is not something Apple fosters itself.

Oh, I dunno. Those early ads portraying PC users as lemmings, the hammer through Big Brother, the pirate flag, even today's Mac vs PC commercials. Apple has always portrayed itself as being "the cool kids." Much as Apple may try to keep the worst of the fanboys at bay, there's no question but that it fosters this club mentality.

Quote

Again, this is a fantasy cultivated by the American media. It's a lot more interesting, and fun, to turn a company into a personified soap opera. Steve Jobs avoids the limelight and the media;

You mean the Steve Jobs who swaps scoops for the cover of Time magazine? The man who has the power to corral the media with the drop of a single press event? That guy? Uh, no.

Quote

?What Apple cares about is whether or not you?ll be buying whatever gewgaw or iBauble it releases next.?
I also responded to this earlier: this is not all that Apple cares about.

Really? If it's not interested in selling its wares, where do you suppose its interest lies? Curing cancer? Sending a man to mars. Staring at its navel?

>Because a company should rightly not be considered a ?friend? does not mean that it is an enemy, or some cold business corporation wearing business suits and not taking your calls.

I don't know that Scott characterized it as anyone's enemy. Rather, it's a company and yes, even a corporation and if you talk to any number of Apple's partners and competitors you'll discover that, yes, it can be as cold as any other large corporation.

No one's suggesting that Apple is anti-customer or that it makes lousy products in an effort to rip off customers. It's just that the opposite isn't true either -- that Apple is driven only by the pursuit of excellence. It's a company that wants to do well and it believes producing quality products is the way to get there.

[spinoza2]

?It has no problem releasing versions of the Mac OS, the iLife suite, MobileMe, and hardware that are clearly not ready for primetime because the company needs to meet a financial goal.?
This is pure journalistic hyperbole. I experienced the release of all these products and, other than a couple of minor issues expected of major product releases, I had no problems with them. The same is true for the vast majority of other Apple customers. Macworld and other computer media outlets took a relative handful of bloggers screaming they had problems and blew them completely out of proportion, without mentioning that there were reasons for their problems (hacked hardware, unconventional software, etc.).

?So Apple is in it for the altruism? Isn't it possible that Apple dropped Macworld because it feels it's financially prudent to do so (and, thus, will make more money for the company and help stockholders)??
Your catch phrase here is ?and, thus?: if you accept that as a by-product the decision helps stockholders, then fine, we're in agreement, but it's not the reason why Apple made the decision. There's a big difference, which I hope you pick up.

?Apple has always portrayed itself as being "the cool kids." Much as Apple may try to keep the worst of the fanboys at bay, there's no question but that it fosters this club mentality.?
Attempting to distinguish oneself is no different from what BMW, Sony, or any other quality company does. What its customers do after this is largely out of the hands of the company. It is a part of a human's social nature to develop a ?club mentality?; Apple certainly interfaces with the Mac community, but it does not create or control it.

?The man who has the power to corral the media with the drop of a single press event? That guy? Uh, no.?
This says nothing to the fact that Jobs avoids the media: you actually see him, or have access to him, a couple of times of year (much to your chagrin). That Jobs is made into a personification of Apple is a media creation, it does not come from him.

?Really? If it's not interested in selling its wares, where do you suppose its interest lies? Curing cancer? Sending a man to mars. Staring at its navel??
This is the crux of where we disagree: the above statement betrays your lack of consumer literacy (just as those who voted for Bush because he does great BBQs lack political literacy). To reduce a company's strategic purpose to ?selling its wares? is so simplistic that, in the end, is meaningless. A vacuum cleaner salesman (or GM, or any number of other American companies) is only interested in selling its wares.

A literate, discriminating consumer knows better: the core to a good company is producing well-designed, high-quality products that effectively address one's needs, and then to provide the support in facilitating their use. Company employees should be focused, understanding, knowledgeable about their products, and sympathetic. There's a world of difference between a company like Apple and one that markets a commodity-driven, throw-away product, cookie-cutter like, and then provides support with interminably long phone calls to India (Dell, et al). You'll never get a hard sell at Toyota, Sony, BMW, or Apple, and you won't feel betrayed after the purchase: the products speak for themselves and the support treats you with respect.

I feel that it's a humorous irony that a simple consumer is having to say all this to a Macworld editor...

[macwilf]

You are saying exactly what I made a futile attempt to say and the misunderstanding seems to lie at the simple point in that while the main motivation of Apple lies in creating the best products possible, which will satisfy the consumers, they view it as necessary to be in a position from where they have as much freedom as possible to achieve that goal.

A solid economy give them that position. Thus, the money is not the goal and neither is to make money. To make money and money is a means to achive their goal.

That does not make them a huge, heartless corporation. But they are not the cosy leader of a private club, either.

It might prove to have been a wrong move to abandon Macworld but it is too early to judge about that. I do not think that the move was motivated solely by the cold, soulless desire to make more money, but yes, they might have found that it made sense economically, especially now.

Should they have advertised the move differently? Possibly. Could be. But not doing so, does not reveal a huge and heartless corporation, either. And neither as your nice buddy, always careful not to hurt your feelings.

[Ilgaz]

If shareholders believe a company is not managed/run professionally, they lose their trust in future stability of the company and sell their shares.

If Apple goes down when IBM goes up, it is the reason. IBM is called "Big Blue" for a reason.

You know, people speculate the tiny critisms of Apple on Macworld made SJobs personally mad so he is not attending. Now, that is not a good image for a gigantic, publicly traded company.

We aren't speaking about a Web 2.0 startup here, this is Macworld, a publication of IDG which is way older than Apple and its Expo which professionals gather and meet. It is not some poor kid that they can ban from Apple discussions list or kill his Developer account.

If IDG said that they made Macworld Expo for traditional values and in fact, they lose money for doing it, I would believe.

[Chris Breen]

spinoza2 said:

?It has no problem releasing versions of the Mac OS, the iLife suite, MobileMe, and hardware that are clearly not ready for primetime because the company needs to meet a financial goal.?
This is pure journalistic hyperbole. I experienced the release of all these products and, other than a couple of minor issues expected of major product releases, I had no problems with them. The same is true for the vast majority of other Apple customers. Macworld and other computer media outlets took a relative handful of bloggers screaming they had problems and blew them completely out of proportion, without mentioning that there were reasons for their problems (hacked hardware, unconventional software, etc.).

Oh please. Even Steve Jobs -- a guy not known for ever backing down -- said MobileMe was completely screwed up. iPhone 2.0, same idea. iMovie anything is routinely screwy on the first release of a new iLife iteration. I understand viewing Apple through rose-colored glasses, but this kind of denial is what gives fanboys a bad name.

Quote

?So Apple is in it for the altruism? Isn't it possible that Apple dropped Macworld because it feels it's financially prudent to do so (and, thus, will make more money for the company and help stockholders)??
Your catch phrase here is ?and, thus?: if you accept that as a by-product the decision helps stockholders, then fine, we're in agreement, but it's not the reason why Apple made the decision. There's a big difference, which I hope you pick up.

Oh, you have the reason? What is it? Apple hasn't bothered to tell anyone. Maybe you could enlighten us.

Quote

?Apple has always portrayed itself as being "the cool kids." Much as Apple may try to keep the worst of the fanboys at bay, there's no question but that it fosters this club mentality.?
Attempting to distinguish oneself is no different from what BMW, Sony, or any other quality company does. What its customers do after this is largely out of the hands of the company. It is a part of a human's social nature to develop a ?club mentality?; Apple certainly interfaces with the Mac community, but it does not create or control it.

This goes beyond merely distinguishing yourself by adopting a cool logo. Apple, like Nike, sells attitude because it helps with brand loyalty.

Quote

?The man who has the power to corral the media with the drop of a single press event? That guy? Uh, no.?
This says nothing to the fact that Jobs avoids the media: you actually see him, or have access to him, a couple of times of year (much to your chagrin). That Jobs is made into a personification of Apple is a media creation, it does not come from him.

?Really? If it's not interested in selling its wares, where do you suppose its interest lies? Curing cancer? Sending a man to mars. Staring at its navel??
This is the crux of where we disagree: the above statement betrays your lack of consumer literacy (just as those who voted for Bush because he does great BBQs lack political literacy). To reduce a company's strategic purpose to ?selling its wares? is so simplistic that, in the end, is meaningless. A vacuum cleaner salesman (or GM, or any number of other American companies) is only interested in selling its wares.

I'm not reducing Apple to simply selling its wares, only pointing out that if it doesn't achieve this single task, everything else goes by the wayside. So yes, selling wares is primary. How it chooses to do so is what makes Apple interesting.

>You'll never get a hard sell at Toyota, Sony, BMW, or Apple, and you won't feel betrayed after the purchase: the products speak for themselves and the support treats you with respect.

We don't disagree. That doesn't mean Apple isn't a large corporation interested in making money. It only means that it understands that doing these things helps it make money.

Quote

I feel that it's a humorous irony that a simple consumer is having to say all this to a Macworld editor...

Oh, I'm sure you're more than simple.

[Ilgaz]

People expect human like emotions and qualities from companies these days. Even Microsoft figured it out.

For example, while there is zero chance that they will make money from it, Opera ASA of Norway releases their 9.5 Browser beta to Symbian UIQ3 variant which Sony and Motorola abandoned themselves. The title of release announcement? "Leave no platform behind"

You know why they do such a thing? They want a company image that releases software to tiniest fraction of a operating system even while the producing companies abandoned the customers.

What kind of image Apple has recently?

1) Abandons their PowerPC using customers as not releasing latest OS for PPC. Remember PPC users are the ones actually believed in Apple and OS X, not the ones thinking "If Apple dies, I would keep running Windows"

2) Abandons a publications expo which is done since 1984, publication also happens to be the magazine who never lost their trust to them.

Apple keeps selling out their developers (look what they did to Fuller), Magazines, Users and we are expected to be understanding... Well, no, I am not a Wall Street evil investor. I am a consumer and I can buy any brand, it is my choice. The human like qualities of companies matters to me too.

[outdevo]

I agree with most of what you said (Apple is a corporation at the end of the day). But if you knew anything about Apple corporate culture, you would that nobody there wears suits with the possible exception of certain departments wear such traditional attire is necessary (say, if they were some business team who must interface with other execs from time to time). Silicon Valley in general seems to shirk the suit wearing completely (from what limited knowledge of it that I have), asides, again from people whose job description makes that necessary.
Also, Apple does at least propagandize its employees to believe in lofty ideals that go far beyond mere concern for shareholders and bolstering the bottom line. Thus you would think that since those employees make up the corporation, Apple, although it must make profits, cares. They care far more than most other companies about what they do. I think that is really what makes the company "different." That and sweet innovative designs from Jon Ive.
I think at the end of the day those ideals account for a larger percentage of the greatness of their products more than Scott McNultty admits (though that may still be a single digit percentage, but a small difference, say 5% difference, is huge).

[himbo]

spinoza2 said:

A literate, discriminating consumer knows better: the core to a good company is producing well-designed, high-quality products that effectively address one's needs, and then to provide the support in facilitating their use. Company employees should be focused, understanding, knowledgeable about their products, and sympathetic. There's a world of difference between a company like Apple and one that markets a commodity-driven, throw-away product, cookie-cutter like, and then provides support with interminably long phone calls to India (Dell, et al). You'll never get a hard sell at Toyota, Sony, BMW, or Apple, and you won't feel betrayed after the purchase: the products speak for themselves and the support treats you with respect.

If the "literate, discriminating consumer" attributes these behaviors to altruistic intentions rather than to establishing competency and loyalty to increase the likelihood of future business, that consumer is less informed than he would like to believe. The point has been made already that this is not an either-or proposition; there is not a choice made between being a good and responsible company because it will make everyone feel good or being a good and responsible company because it will get repeat business, but ultimately every successful business does have a bottom line of making money to which all other objectives are subservient, and Apple is no exception to this.

[spinoza2]

?Oh please. Even Steve Jobs -- a guy not known for ever backing down -- said MobileMe was completely screwed up. iPhone 2.0, same idea. iMovie anything is routinely screwy on the first release of a new iLife iteration. I understand viewing Apple through rose-colored glasses, but this kind of denial is what gives fanboys a bad name.?

Countless millions of MobileMe, iPhone, and Mac users are busy using these products, quietly, and without problems--is this a ?fanboy denial?? I transitioned from several years of .mac to MobileMe with a few hours of downtime. Rather than complain, I was impressed with Apple's efforts in carrying out such a massive transition, and the significantly increased functionality was worth the minor convenience. I use MobileMe heavily, and it is everything but ?completely screwed up?. Likewise, whatever problems I've had with iPhone 2.0 are not worth mentioning; the benefits far outweigh any of the minor problems that arose. Finally, I'm a heavy iMovie user; it's a terrific piece of software that is far superior to the earlier version. Again, I'm not alone in being spared any of the ?screwed up? problems that seem to have plagued you.

?Oh, you have the reason? What is it? Apple hasn't bothered to tell anyone. Maybe you could enlighten us.?

I thought I had answered this in an earlier message, and I won't repeat it here. As with everything Apple does, it does not sit around and rest on its laurels, it is in a continual state of innovation and improvement. In the case of Macworld the reason to move on seems simple enough: it no longer serves its purpose. I know from experience that doing a trade show is extremely expensive and disruptive for a corporation. Planning consumes a tremendous amount of corporate energy, and during the week of the show companies are completely distracted by the event. Macworld fits into a quaint throwback era when Apple Computer was dominated by a relatively small community of computer buffs. This is decidedly no longer the case, and it is time to move on. As I said earlier, Apple has far more potent means of interacting with the Apple community than a trade fair with exorbitant costs far out of proportion to the expected benefits.

[Chris Breen]

spinoza2 said:

>Again, I'm not alone in being spared any of the ?screwed up? problems that seem to have plagued you.

Dude, seriously, use the Google, it's your friend. Start with "mobileme outage." Thousands of people were left without email for weeks. People continue to have their contacts wiped out because MobileMe syncing still isn't right. This is not a minor matter. Brand new 3G iPhones crashing time and again was not a minor matter. People seeing their iMovie 08 projects vanishing in an instant with no way to recover was not a minor matter.

I'm glad that you haven't suffered but to take the experience of one user and assume that makes everyone's experience hunky dory is, at the very least, short-sighted and smacks of denial. Apple does good stuff, but it's not perfect.

Quote

?Oh, you have the reason? What is it? Apple hasn't bothered to tell anyone. Maybe you could enlighten us.?

Quote

In the case of Macworld the reason to move on seems simple enough: it no longer serves its purpose.

Well, that's pretty obvious. But what purpose exactly is this? You seem to view it as partly a push toward innovation. In what sense? Do you really buy Apple's notion that retail Apple Stores are equivalent to Macworld Expo? You believe that an Apple Store that sells a handpicked catalog at full retail price (because Apple makes a nice profit on it) is a more potent way to interact with the Mac community? Frankly, I find the experience of asking technical questions of people who actually worked on Apple's stuff more enlightening than talking to a kid in a t-shirt (however gracious and helpful as those kids can be).

I like your other reasons better. Eschewing Expo saves Apple money and it allows the company to work at its pace rather than conforming to another entity's schedule. I'd expect any smart corporation to behave this way, particularly in these troubled economic times.

And that brings us full circle. Apple is a company. It's acting like a company. And to take it personally is silly.