How do you like this Apple?

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.

Cult brands, Facebook and Sarah Palin

I don't plan to spend much time discussing politics on this blog. If you want evidence of my political beliefs, it's not hard to find. But political campaigns and policy debates often provide useful public relations and marketing case studies, and Sarah Palin's decision to scrub her Facebook page of negative comments is one example.

Let me state a bias up front: I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. Furthermore, I'm an advocate of online transparency who recently has counseled his own employer to let stand harshly negative comments on a Facebook page. That said, from the point of view of enhancing her brand, Palin is probably smart to stifle dissent on her Facebook page.

Think of Palin as a cult brand, with a relatively small but highly devoted following -- much like Apple was in the 1990s. Every cult brand eventually faces the same dilemma: Continue to cater exclusively to a small but loyal customer base, or try to branch out and risk alienating your original customers. Apple solved this dilemma with the iPod. The company created a device consistent with its brand -- favoring ease of use and elegance of design -- without requiring iPod buyers to switch to the Macintosh computer operating system.

But a politician as divisive and radical as Palin doesn't have an equivalent option. She can't lurch to the center without alienating her rabid right-wing followers. Instead, she needs to convince mainstream Americans -- for lack of a better term -- that their values are actually not so different from her values, or from those of her devotees. Hence Palin's "Mama Grizzlies" metaphor; she's appealing to motherhood, one of the most common values Americans share.

Allowing her critics to skewer her on Facebook isn't going to help Palin broaden her appeal. Some of those comments may actually remind people there are good reasons not to like Palin. And from Palin's perspective, responding to all those negative comments, which her followers are bound to do, is not a good use of their time. She'd much rather have them reading her books, listening to her speeches, and supporting the candidates she endorses. Facebook is a one-way channel for Palin, and while that may contradict the ethos of social media, it seems to be working quite well for her. Bottom line, the only people she alienates by deleting negative comments are people she'll never win over anyway.

The problem with this strategy is that it may limit what Palin can achieve. It's perfect for someone who wants to be a political kingmaker, reliably delivering votes for the candidates of her choosing. What she's saying is, "I'm the head of a private club. Anyone can join, but only on my terms, and on the terms of the other members." That is not a winning message for a presidential candidate.