Steve Jobs, the iPad, and cultural sugar water
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: AES on 4 Jul 2010 12:26 In article <tom_stiller-2420F4.10511904072010(a)news.individual.net>, Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Consider the possibility that, cool as it may be, the iPad is not the > right device for you and the way you work. It might be possible for > Apple to modify the device and/or its soft/firmware to satisfy your > needs but it's not clear that such modification would be viewed as > beneficial to the target customer base. I do fully consider these points. First of all, it certainly seems that the basic software design of the iPad and the other Apple iGadgets makes them much less useful than they could be for me as a heavily computer-active academic and professional; and this seems likely to be the case for a significant number of other similar individuals. At the same time, I also fully recognize that, in your phrase, the "target customer base" for these gadgets as they are now designed is not just large but humongous, and this customer base appears to be in fact ecstatically happy with these gadgets as they are now designed But, I also believe that the software built into or delivered with these gadgets is not designed (that is, is constrained and limited) in the way it is primarily to make that enormous customer base happy, although it does indeed accomplish that. Rather, it is designed first and foremost, to preserve Apple's control over _how_ these gadgets are used, and as much as possible over what content flows through them, and thereby to preserve Apple's ability to make equally large profits from that aspect of their use. In particular, very large profits will come not only from selling the iGadgets themselves, but even more from selling much of the _content_ that will be delivered (more explicitly, be _sold_) through them; and so it becomes a primary goal for Apple to preserve as much long-term control as possible over this latter aspect, and to try to block in advance anything that threatens this prospect. This means in particular that preserving, protecting and enabling DRM technology in all its variations becomes an absolutely primary concern in the basic design of these iGadgets. And doing this is not just important for Apple's own marketing of content; it's also essential for Apple's commercial relationships to the entertainment industry who will generate much of the content that Apple, and they, will market through these gadgets. So, I believe that's primarily why the software for these iGadgets, their iOS and file structure,and so on, is designed the way it is -- and that that this is a sad situation. (Given this fact, it's no accident that "jailbreak" is a term that's become prominent in the current computer vocabulary.) You may recall the story of how Jobs, trying to recruit Sculley to come to Apple, said something like, "Do you want to change the world -- or do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugar water?" In my view, Jobs has now redirected a large fraction of Apple's energies, not to trying to continue changing the world with computers, but to making and selling iGadgets which, while they can with some difficulty also be sued for other purposes, are designed primarily to market and deliver musical and cultural sugar water.
From: Wyandanch on 4 Jul 2010 12:32 On 7/4/10 12:26 PM, AES wrote: > In article<tom_stiller-2420F4.10511904072010(a)news.individual.net>, > Tom Stiller<tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Consider the possibility that, cool as it may be, the iPad is not the >> right device for you and the way you work. It might be possible for >> Apple to modify the device and/or its soft/firmware to satisfy your >> needs but it's not clear that such modification would be viewed as >> beneficial to the target customer base. > > I do fully consider these points. First of all, it certainly seems that > the basic software design of the iPad and the other Apple iGadgets makes > them much less useful than they could be for me as a heavily > computer-active academic and professional; and this seems likely to be > the case for a significant number of other similar individuals. > > At the same time, I also fully recognize that, in your phrase, the > "target customer base" for these gadgets as they are now designed is not > just large but humongous, and this customer base appears to be in fact > ecstatically happy with these gadgets as they are now designed > > But, I also believe that the software built into or delivered with these > gadgets is not designed (that is, is constrained and limited) in the way > it is primarily to make that enormous customer base happy, although it > does indeed accomplish that. > > Rather, it is designed first and foremost, to preserve Apple's control > over _how_ these gadgets are used, and as much as possible over what > content flows through them, and thereby to preserve Apple's ability to > make equally large profits from that aspect of their use. > > In particular, very large profits will come not only from selling the > iGadgets themselves, but even more from selling much of the _content_ > that will be delivered (more explicitly, be _sold_) through them; and so > it becomes a primary goal for Apple to preserve as much long-term > control as possible over this latter aspect, and to try to block in > advance anything that threatens this prospect. > > This means in particular that preserving, protecting and enabling DRM > technology in all its variations becomes an absolutely primary concern > in the basic design of these iGadgets. And doing this is not just > important for Apple's own marketing of content; it's also essential for > Apple's commercial relationships to the entertainment industry who will > generate much of the content that Apple, and they, will market through > these gadgets. > > So, I believe that's primarily why the software for these iGadgets, > their iOS and file structure,and so on, is designed the way it is -- and > that that this is a sad situation. (Given this fact, it's no accident > that "jailbreak" is a term that's become prominent in the current > computer vocabulary.) > > You may recall the story of how Jobs, trying to recruit Sculley to come > to Apple, said something like, "Do you want to change the world -- or do > you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugar water?" > > In my view, Jobs has now redirected a large fraction of Apple's > energies, not to trying to continue changing the world with computers, > but to making and selling iGadgets which, while they can with some > difficulty also be sued for other purposes, are designed primarily to > market and deliver musical and cultural sugar water. Nice philosophical piece. But from a business standpoint (i.e., the point of view of the stockholder owners of Apple like you and me), whatever maximizes the company's long term return on invested capital is the way to go...
From: Richard Maine on 4 Jul 2010 13:22 AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > In article <tom_stiller-2420F4.10511904072010(a)news.individual.net>, > Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Consider the possibility that, cool as it may be, the iPad is not the > > right device for you and the way you work. > I do fully consider these points. .... > But, I also believe that the software built into or delivered with these > gadgets is not designed (that is, is constrained and limited) in the way > it is primarily to make that enormous customer base happy, although it > does indeed accomplish that. > > Rather, it is designed first and foremost, to preserve Apple's control > over _how_ these gadgets are used,... I don't see much factual support for this rant. Indeed, parts of it seem explicitly counter to available factual data. For example, as nospam noted, Apple has a history of pushing *AGAINST* drm, with content producers pushing the other way. Apple also has a history of making most of their money selling the hardware - not software or content. What I think I do detect is poorly supported rationalizations about how it ought to be a device for him, suggesting that he hasn't fully internalized the thought that it isn't. As I noted before, it isn't the right device for me either. But rather than rant about that, I *DO* actually accept it and have moved on. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: BreadWithSpam on 4 Jul 2010 13:41 AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> writes: > Rather, it is designed first and foremost, to preserve Apple's control > over _how_ these gadgets are used, and as much as possible over what > content flows through them, and thereby to preserve Apple's ability to > make equally large profits from that aspect of their use. I think you're mostly wrong here. Apple would be happy to accomodate folks like you and me. But if doing so makes the devices less good for their, as you say, humongous general-consumer market, then they'd have been making a stupid choice. They need to please the humongous market way more than they need to make me happy. I don't think it's about insidious control over content. I think it's about keeping the device simple, solid, safe and appliance-like. Which stinks for me personally, but it's great for the vast market they're trying to win. Apple may control *some* of the content via the App store, but Apple has no control over what folks browse over to on Safari or any other web browser, and Apple doesn't control the content that gets fed *through* those apps. Nor, even does Apple control what media I put on my iPhone. > This means in particular that preserving, protecting and enabling DRM > technology in all its variations becomes an absolutely primary concern Apple played a huge role in convincing record companies to give up on the DRM for music. And I have no doubt they'd love to make the MPAA give up some of their DRM rules, too. But it's absolutely not Apple's fault that those folks insist on DRM (nor is it Apple's fault that those folks seem to have enormour influence on Congress). > So, I believe that's primarily why the software for these iGadgets, > their iOS and file structure,and so on, is designed the way it is -- and > that that this is a sad situation. (Given this fact, it's no accident I think that's, at best, secondary. The primary reason seems very clearly to me to be security and stability. I think you're looking awfully hard for evil where what's really happening is someone pleasing a market which you just don't happen to be a member of. -- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
From: Tom Stiller on 4 Jul 2010 13:47
In article <siegman-377ADE.09262604072010(a)bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > In article <tom_stiller-2420F4.10511904072010(a)news.individual.net>, > Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Consider the possibility that, cool as it may be, the iPad is not the > > right device for you and the way you work. It might be possible for > > Apple to modify the device and/or its soft/firmware to satisfy your > > needs but it's not clear that such modification would be viewed as > > beneficial to the target customer base. > > I do fully consider these points. First of all, it certainly seems that > the basic software design of the iPad and the other Apple iGadgets makes > them much less useful than they could be for me as a heavily > computer-active academic and professional; and this seems likely to be > the case for a significant number of other similar individuals. Agreed. > At the same time, I also fully recognize that, in your phrase, the > "target customer base" for these gadgets as they are now designed is not > just large but humongous, and this customer base appears to be in fact > ecstatically happy with these gadgets as they are now designed Agreed. > But, I also believe that the software built into or delivered with these > gadgets is not designed (that is, is constrained and limited) in the way > it is primarily to make that enormous customer base happy, although it > does indeed accomplish that. The same can be said of devices with embedded linux. > Rather, it is designed first and foremost, to preserve Apple's control > over _how_ these gadgets are used, and as much as possible over what > content flows through them, and thereby to preserve Apple's ability to > make equally large profits from that aspect of their use. We disagree here. I think the iOS devices are designed to be appliances with specific capabilities and functions. > In particular, very large profits will come not only from selling the > iGadgets themselves, but even more from selling much of the _content_ > that will be delivered (more explicitly, be _sold_) through them; and so > it becomes a primary goal for Apple to preserve as much long-term > control as possible over this latter aspect, and to try to block in > advance anything that threatens this prospect. Apple doesn't *sell* content, they *deliver* it. They are a hardware company. > This means in particular that preserving, protecting and enabling DRM > technology in all its variations becomes an absolutely primary concern > in the basic design of these iGadgets. And doing this is not just > important for Apple's own marketing of content; it's also essential for > Apple's commercial relationships to the entertainment industry who will > generate much of the content that Apple, and they, will market through > these gadgets. There is nothing to support your contention that Apple favors or encourages DRM, except to placate the content owners so that they (Apple) can deliver it. This is demonstrated in the availability of DRM free music rom the iTunes store. > So, I believe that's primarily why the software for these iGadgets, > their iOS and file structure,and so on, is designed the way it is -- and > that that this is a sad situation. (Given this fact, it's no accident > that "jailbreak" is a term that's become prominent in the current > computer vocabulary.) I accept neither your premise nor your conclusion. My belief is that it's to preserve the appliance nature of the iOS devices. > You may recall the story of how Jobs, trying to recruit Sculley to come > to Apple, said something like, "Do you want to change the world -- or do > you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugar water?" Yeah, so? Do you not believe Apple has changed the world or is it that you think the iOS devices are analogous to sugar water? > In my view, Jobs has now redirected a large fraction of Apple's > energies, not to trying to continue changing the world with computers, > but to making and selling iGadgets which, while they can with some > difficulty also be sued for other purposes, are designed primarily to > market and deliver musical and cultural sugar water. In my view, Apple continues to change the world and I find it extremely difficult to distinguish "musical and cultural sugar water" from growth in and appreciation of musical and cultural awareness. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF |