iPad vs. Bedpost

No doubt Steve Jobs is brilliant on the technical side of things. In some ways he may even rival Johannes Gutenberg. It is when he talks about ‘content’ that he has me mystified. He talks about the importance of ‘content’ and then he goes on to mention The New York Times (a money loser) and The Wall Street Journal (a money maker) in the same breath. In my view it is precisely ‘content’ that accounts for the difference.

Jobs’ toys, like the Gutenberg Press, are devoid of content. They remain so until someone other than Apple runs the applications. The New York Times will not be saved by the iPad whereas The Wall Street Journal can only stand to gain. People will not pay for anything that they consistently disagree with or find offensive. On the other hand, people will go out of their way to patronize those outlets that they perceive to be fair, instructive and balanced.

Jobs draws the additional nebulous distinction between ‘editorializing’ and ‘blogging’. What on earth is the difference? Both express opinions, except that one is bought and paid for and the other one isn’t. Does prostitution come to mind?

Finally, the majority of the world’s population consists of people who don’t even have a pot to piss in. They speak in languages that cannot be understood by people living barely 50 miles away. They rise in protest when the price of beans rises. They are grateful for the rice cookers distributed freely from the back of a government truck (even though they don’t have a working socket to plug it into). They are light-years away from understanding Kierkegaard or Krugman. Often, where they live has no cell signal.

What I’m saying is that Steve Jobs speaks largely for an elite audience – people who can afford the gadgets he promotes. For all his posturing, those whose grasp of technology extends just far enough to allow them to hang a mass-produced image of Che, Donald Duck or Dolly Parton from the sagging bedpost conveniently escape his attention.