Steve Jobs's greatest service to Apple during his second stint as the company's CEO might just be ensuring that the company can survive and prosper without Steve Jobs.
Apple was once a cult brand, and just like a religious cult, it relied on its charismatic leader to channel its followers' devotion. When Jobs was forced out of Apple in 1985, the company foundered. One reason was that Apple produced an array of different Macintosh models, each one hardly distinguishable from the next. This confused consumers, particularly new consumers: If choosing a Mac was just as difficult as choosing a PC, why bother? When Jobs returned, he streamlined the product line at the same time that he streamlined the products' design. All you needed to decide when buying the sleek, compact iMac was what color you wanted, and how much memory you needed.
But Jobs's great innovation was the iPod, and not merely because it revolutionized the music industry, or because it is still, after more than a decade, without rival. With the iPod, Jobs solved the dilemma that every cult brand faces: how to expand its customer base without alienating the devoted followers who helped build it. The iPod allowed users to experience the Apple brand without switching to a Mac computer, something that for some people is tantamount to changing religions. (I used to joke that I was a Mac user who converted by marriage to PCs.)
The trend continued with the iPhone and now the iPad. The former has a strong rival in Google's Android system, but the iPad has no plausible competition on the horizon, even as it promises to permanently transform how people interact with computers. Through the iPhone and the iPad, Apple and Steve Jobs have turned people into Mac users, so to speak, without them even realizing it. It means that while Apple still relies on its cadre of loyalists to give it a buzz factor, it no longer depends on them for its very survival.
I have no idea what Jobs's resignation as CEO will mean for the culture of innovation at Apple. But for millions of consumers, the company has become an indispensable part of their daily lives, something that would have been unthinkable 15 years ago. That seems likely to continue, whatever happens to Steve Jobs.
Showing posts with label iPhone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iPhone. Show all posts
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
It's just a flesh wound
It doesn't have quite the cultural import as Time's famous "Is God Dead?" cover, but Wired magazine's proclamation that "The Web is Dead" has sent shockwaves throughout the geekosphere. Wired editor Chris Anderson argues that we are moving from a web-based, PC-driven Internet to an app-based, mobile-driven Internet, owing to the convience of mobile apps for users and the greater profitability for content producers.
Like this guy, I tend to think this isn't happening with quite the speed and finality that Anderson envisions, though his critics seem to be oversimplifying his arguments a bit. But even if Anderson's vision does come to fruition, I don't think it's nearly the threat to the information culture the web has created as critics such as Jeff Jarvis have made it out to be.
Jarvis and other like-minded observers point out that the while the web is an open platform, with low barriers to entry and no gatekeepers, mobile apps are quite the opposite: closed systems controlled by the makers of mobile devices and their operating systems, most notably Apple with its iPhone and iPad. That's exactly why media companies like apps, Jarvis correctly argues: They can charge users to download to their device and they can hide their content from aggregators, bloggers and search engines that would "steal" their content. Plus there's no commenting. It's the return of the one-way media/audience relationship:
So I see the iPad as a Bizarro Trojan Horse. Instead of importing soldiers into the kingdom to break down its walls, in this horse, we, the people, are stuffed inside and wheeled into the old walls; the gate is shut and we’re welcomed back into the kingdom of controlling media that we left almost a generation ago.
I find it ironic that a media critic that Jarvis, who has been pummeling old media companies for years over their failure to adapt to the ethos of the web, is now beating them up for trying to quickly adopt what appears to be the next big thing. I find it even more incredulous that he assumes they will get it right, and doesn't understand the implications if they don't. People aren't simply going to fork over money for a news organization's app simply because it's available in the app store. Media orgs are going to have to produce good content, something that quite frankly many of them stopped doing years before anyone heard of the Internet.
What's more, users like me have carried their expectations for the web to their mobile device. For example, nothing frustrates me more than an app that doesn't let me share content on Facebook or Twitter. Some only allow you to email links to your friends. What is this, 1998? That's how my 77-year-old father uses the Internet. I might have shelled out a few bucks initially just for the novelty of an app, but I've learned my lesson, and now I'm more discriminating. Free or not, I'll delete an app that doesn't live up to snuff.
It is true that the barriers for entry are far higher in the mobile universe than in the web. But the barriers for entry on the web weren't always so low. The reason that so many IT departments held sway over organizational web sites for so long -- when a web site really is the province of marketing and PR -- is because web sites were so difficult to build and maintain. Blogger and WordPress haven't always been with us. Nor have WYSIWYG content management systems. The web has gotten easier to develop, as will mobile content.
There is still the matter of the gatekeepers -- the Apples and Googles and others that control what apps you can buy and which you can't. But without putting too much faith in the marketplace, eventually demand to create and consume user-generated content will force those companies to open the gates wider to a greater variety of apps. Sure, some content will probably never flourish on mobile as it did in the web -- namely pornography and fringe political viewpoints.
But the demand for that kind of content is steep enough -- not to mention demand for all the other types of content that flourishes on the web -- that the web will simply not die in the way that Anderson foresees. The ease with which people can create content, and the demand for that content, will keep the web alive and well for decades to come. (Well, years, anyway.) It's a trite example, but there is still good programming on radio, two generations after it was replaced as the dominant home entertainment medium. Filmmakers feared TV would put them out of business, but the experience of going to a movie couldn't replicated at home.
In other words, convienence doesn't always carry the day.
Like this guy, I tend to think this isn't happening with quite the speed and finality that Anderson envisions, though his critics seem to be oversimplifying his arguments a bit. But even if Anderson's vision does come to fruition, I don't think it's nearly the threat to the information culture the web has created as critics such as Jeff Jarvis have made it out to be.
Jarvis and other like-minded observers point out that the while the web is an open platform, with low barriers to entry and no gatekeepers, mobile apps are quite the opposite: closed systems controlled by the makers of mobile devices and their operating systems, most notably Apple with its iPhone and iPad. That's exactly why media companies like apps, Jarvis correctly argues: They can charge users to download to their device and they can hide their content from aggregators, bloggers and search engines that would "steal" their content. Plus there's no commenting. It's the return of the one-way media/audience relationship:
So I see the iPad as a Bizarro Trojan Horse. Instead of importing soldiers into the kingdom to break down its walls, in this horse, we, the people, are stuffed inside and wheeled into the old walls; the gate is shut and we’re welcomed back into the kingdom of controlling media that we left almost a generation ago.
I find it ironic that a media critic that Jarvis, who has been pummeling old media companies for years over their failure to adapt to the ethos of the web, is now beating them up for trying to quickly adopt what appears to be the next big thing. I find it even more incredulous that he assumes they will get it right, and doesn't understand the implications if they don't. People aren't simply going to fork over money for a news organization's app simply because it's available in the app store. Media orgs are going to have to produce good content, something that quite frankly many of them stopped doing years before anyone heard of the Internet.
What's more, users like me have carried their expectations for the web to their mobile device. For example, nothing frustrates me more than an app that doesn't let me share content on Facebook or Twitter. Some only allow you to email links to your friends. What is this, 1998? That's how my 77-year-old father uses the Internet. I might have shelled out a few bucks initially just for the novelty of an app, but I've learned my lesson, and now I'm more discriminating. Free or not, I'll delete an app that doesn't live up to snuff.
It is true that the barriers for entry are far higher in the mobile universe than in the web. But the barriers for entry on the web weren't always so low. The reason that so many IT departments held sway over organizational web sites for so long -- when a web site really is the province of marketing and PR -- is because web sites were so difficult to build and maintain. Blogger and WordPress haven't always been with us. Nor have WYSIWYG content management systems. The web has gotten easier to develop, as will mobile content.
There is still the matter of the gatekeepers -- the Apples and Googles and others that control what apps you can buy and which you can't. But without putting too much faith in the marketplace, eventually demand to create and consume user-generated content will force those companies to open the gates wider to a greater variety of apps. Sure, some content will probably never flourish on mobile as it did in the web -- namely pornography and fringe political viewpoints.
But the demand for that kind of content is steep enough -- not to mention demand for all the other types of content that flourishes on the web -- that the web will simply not die in the way that Anderson foresees. The ease with which people can create content, and the demand for that content, will keep the web alive and well for decades to come. (Well, years, anyway.) It's a trite example, but there is still good programming on radio, two generations after it was replaced as the dominant home entertainment medium. Filmmakers feared TV would put them out of business, but the experience of going to a movie couldn't replicated at home.
In other words, convienence doesn't always carry the day.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Odds and ends
Motorola makes a fashion statement and Google wants to get into the social networking game. Meanwhile, will the last person reading a newspaper please throw it into the recycling bin?
Back to that Google item for a second. There are all these rumors about Google Me. Can anyone really de-throne Facebook in the near future? True, it doesn't have high user satisfaction. People get annoyed with the constant changes to its interface and security settings. And Google could promise integration with all its other services and applications.
But I think too many people have invested too much time and effort into their Facebook pages, profiles and groups. A lot of people and organizations joined reluctantly, but dived right in once they got started. The people who came latest to social networking are going to be the last to ditch Facebook. I envision everyone looking around, waiting for all their friends and customers to leave Facebook for its rival -- and in the meantime, everyone stays.
Is Facebook like Microsoft, circa 1996? I remember the saying -- There are Mac lovers, and Windows users. But a lot of people stuck with Microsoft because it was the dominant player and it was what they knew. You don't have to love a product to keep using it. Just ask the cable company.
Back to that Google item for a second. There are all these rumors about Google Me. Can anyone really de-throne Facebook in the near future? True, it doesn't have high user satisfaction. People get annoyed with the constant changes to its interface and security settings. And Google could promise integration with all its other services and applications.
But I think too many people have invested too much time and effort into their Facebook pages, profiles and groups. A lot of people and organizations joined reluctantly, but dived right in once they got started. The people who came latest to social networking are going to be the last to ditch Facebook. I envision everyone looking around, waiting for all their friends and customers to leave Facebook for its rival -- and in the meantime, everyone stays.
Is Facebook like Microsoft, circa 1996? I remember the saying -- There are Mac lovers, and Windows users. But a lot of people stuck with Microsoft because it was the dominant player and it was what they knew. You don't have to love a product to keep using it. Just ask the cable company.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Epilogue
A Facebook friend who works for Apple posted this at Facebook in response to my previous post:
I respectfully disagree (surprised?). In the press conference, Apple did challenge CR's credibility b/c other smart phones incur similar weak spots. Except for some low-tech items, CR has gone obsolete, and this was essentially a PR stunt. They went out of their way to share the spotlight, and when Apple offered a free case to all buyers, CR refused to change its position.
Mea culpa for not checking the press conference transcript. One thing I failed to add was that clearly any other product panned would not have gotten CR that kind of publicity. CR boosted its standing on Apple's back.
I maintain that calling out other cell phones for the same defect was something that Apple should have done via a friendly reporter, and not publicly on its own at the news conference. It sounded too much like excuse-making.
Without knowing the health of CR, I would maintain it is not obsolete. I think plenty of people still use it. It's not a place to go for cutting-edge thinking on high-tech products, but I do think a lot of general consumers still rely on it.
Does CR have an obligation to change its recommendation? Personally, I would never use any phone without a case, but from what I've read on some users' blogs and in reaction to the news conference, that's a solution that irks some people.
I don't think Apple will suffer much fallout from all this. Their sales appear to be as strong as ever and they got some good news recently with word that most AT&T customers are pleased with their service. But my larger point, you'll recall, was more about how PR people reacted to the impact that Consumer Reports had on Apple's decision to address the antenna issue at a press conference. I don't think there is much denying the cause-and-effect in that situation.
I respectfully disagree (surprised?). In the press conference, Apple did challenge CR's credibility b/c other smart phones incur similar weak spots. Except for some low-tech items, CR has gone obsolete, and this was essentially a PR stunt. They went out of their way to share the spotlight, and when Apple offered a free case to all buyers, CR refused to change its position.
Mea culpa for not checking the press conference transcript. One thing I failed to add was that clearly any other product panned would not have gotten CR that kind of publicity. CR boosted its standing on Apple's back.
I maintain that calling out other cell phones for the same defect was something that Apple should have done via a friendly reporter, and not publicly on its own at the news conference. It sounded too much like excuse-making.
Without knowing the health of CR, I would maintain it is not obsolete. I think plenty of people still use it. It's not a place to go for cutting-edge thinking on high-tech products, but I do think a lot of general consumers still rely on it.
Does CR have an obligation to change its recommendation? Personally, I would never use any phone without a case, but from what I've read on some users' blogs and in reaction to the news conference, that's a solution that irks some people.
I don't think Apple will suffer much fallout from all this. Their sales appear to be as strong as ever and they got some good news recently with word that most AT&T customers are pleased with their service. But my larger point, you'll recall, was more about how PR people reacted to the impact that Consumer Reports had on Apple's decision to address the antenna issue at a press conference. I don't think there is much denying the cause-and-effect in that situation.
Everything old is new again
See an update on this post here.
I recently took part in an online discussion about the relative value of traditional media versus social media in a public relations campaign. One commenter, touting the continued influence of traditional media, noted the role that Consumer Reports played in forcing Apple to fess up to problems with the iPhone 4's exterior antenna.
To me, that story is less about Consumer Reports's media platform than it is about the power of the magazine's brand. People trust Consumer Reports as the source of unbiased, independent evaluation of a range of products. When the magazine declined to give iPhone 4 its recommendation, Apple had no grounds to challenge the magazine's credibility.
What Consumer Reports gives its readers is hard for anyone else to replicate, and here's where the old media/new media debate becomes relevant. The service Consumer Reports provides can't be crowdsourced: If you want to buy a computer, you might be able to find at least a dozen online reviews for each model you are considering -- but it's unlikely any of those people have tested every model like CR does.
True, other journalists and publications provide product reviews, but my sense is that the audience for CR, at least when it comes to digital devices, are the late adopters. In the case of the iPhone 4, these are the people least likely to overlook poor phone reception in favor of all the iPhone's bells and whistles. You know, the people who actually buy a mobile phone for the phone. These are consumers Apple needs if it wants to continue to rule the market, and not slip back into being a niche brand with a cult following.
I recently took part in an online discussion about the relative value of traditional media versus social media in a public relations campaign. One commenter, touting the continued influence of traditional media, noted the role that Consumer Reports played in forcing Apple to fess up to problems with the iPhone 4's exterior antenna.
To me, that story is less about Consumer Reports's media platform than it is about the power of the magazine's brand. People trust Consumer Reports as the source of unbiased, independent evaluation of a range of products. When the magazine declined to give iPhone 4 its recommendation, Apple had no grounds to challenge the magazine's credibility.
What Consumer Reports gives its readers is hard for anyone else to replicate, and here's where the old media/new media debate becomes relevant. The service Consumer Reports provides can't be crowdsourced: If you want to buy a computer, you might be able to find at least a dozen online reviews for each model you are considering -- but it's unlikely any of those people have tested every model like CR does.
True, other journalists and publications provide product reviews, but my sense is that the audience for CR, at least when it comes to digital devices, are the late adopters. In the case of the iPhone 4, these are the people least likely to overlook poor phone reception in favor of all the iPhone's bells and whistles. You know, the people who actually buy a mobile phone for the phone. These are consumers Apple needs if it wants to continue to rule the market, and not slip back into being a niche brand with a cult following.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)