Upsetting the Apple Cart

There can be no doubt that Apple is a hugely successful company. Their sales model works. At the moment, there is much confidence that Apple will continue to do well. No one will seriously challenge or question what Apple does as long as the company flourishes. (If it’s not broke…) Most people will agree that Steve Jobs has been instrumental in the company’s success. Consequently, there is now proper concern about Jobs’ medical condition. Successful corporate leaders, unlike American presidents, are not readily interchangeable.

Companies are much like countries. They are either successful or not. We would think twice about electing a president who smokes, for example; or one with an unsavory past. The metrics to measure a nation’s success are somewhat different however. For one thing, countries are ‘too big to fail‘. You can’t just close them down and tell the workers to go home. The failure of a country generally implies that its people are living in miserable or sub-standard conditions.

As the leaders of nations increasingly see themselves as divorced from the general population, there has been an effort underway to erase the standards by which the success or failure of a nation is defined. What remains is two classes of people: the leadership class and the led.

The leadership class is the one that generally hogs the spotlight. They tend to eclipse the led - no matter how great their numbers - in the national narrative. Furthermore, the leadership class tends to stick together. They will echo each other’s excuses and tend to support a continuance of the status quo. The led, on the other hand, are often divided and thus unable to effectively affect the issues - corruption, ineptitude, shortages, oppression, etc. - confronting them.

This is why Madeleine Albright can go over to N. Korea, smile and toast the Dear Leader while his people are starving in labor camps. This is why Robert Mugabe can continue to live in a palace; why Chavez is able to close down radio stations; why Ahmadinejad can fire live ammunition at unarmed protesters; why Hu Jintao can keep political prisoners in jail without public accusation or trial; etc.

Tunisia was a big deal because it broke protocol. The ruling class(es) - especially in the Middle East - received a wake-up call, saying that a people united are perfectly capable of upsetting the apple cart.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Apple Scruffs (How I Love You)

While I too tend to drool at the stylistic innovations of Apple products, I have never quite been tempted to buy into it. Apple, it seems, operates on the same principle of the marketing model of American car companies during the late fifties to mid-sixties. Their thrust was two-fold. One, the cars wore out after two years. And, two, after two years, the styles had changed so dramatically, nobody would want to be seen in cars two (or more) years old. The latest models were unleashed on the public with such fanfare and ferocity, it kept the cycle of trading-in the old cars for new ones in high gear.

When I went to get my iPod fixed some years ago (the battery was bad), I was told that it would be cheaper for me to get a new one (which even had additional features to entice me). Innovations are deliberatively held back to be included in next year’s model. But nobody is willing to wait that long, so they buy what’s available now, and the following year they buy again.

It’s a brilliant, all-American sales strategy that applies to women’s fashions as well. Hat tip, Steve Jobs!

Ironically, Apple products have also assumed a political dimension. Self-proclaimed liberals in particular can not seem to do without. It’s become a symbol of progressive, left-wing politics to own Apple products; much like the Volvo brand. The irony is that the Apple sales strategy flies in the face of openly professed liberal lip service in support of conservation.

The flashy cars of the sixties eventually would come face to face with the reality of more durable foreign imports, and consumers flocked to the competition in droves. Apple reminds of what’s left of the ‘trendy’, "keeping up with the Jones's" mindset. It works because an investment in Apple is not as great as an investment in a car.

As our economy continues to erode and after Apple too has been dashed upon the shoals of necessity, some toothbrush company will be attempting what Apple is doing now.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

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.