Jesse Brown

Jesse Brown offers critical thoughts on technology and what it means. Follow Jesse on Twitter: @JesseBrown

Categories: Jesse Brown, Science & Technology, Technology

Apple changed everything? Yeah, right.

by Jesse Brown on Friday, August 26, 2011 1:06pm - 81 Comments

Photo by Jesus Belzunce/Flickr

My fellow Macleans.ca tech blogger Peter Nowak is a fine journalist and a compelling writer. His ideas and opinions are always interesting, and always worth reading. But he’s off his nut when it comes to Apple.

Yesterday, after news of Steve Jobs’ resignation hit, Peter wrote:

“No company—probably not even Google—and certainly no individual has made as much of a difference or changed the way things work over the past 10 years as Apple has under Jobs”.

Huh?

Apple’s gargantuan success over the past decade is inarguable. Jobs is clearly a genius of form and function, an incredible leader, a brilliant marketer. He has an uncanny sense of what we will want, and then he creates it. As a businessman, he’s a titan.

But has he made a bigger difference to the world than any other individual of the past decade? Osama Bin Laden must be spinning in his grave.

And Apple has “changed the way things work” more than any other company? The comeback to that one is so obvious that Peter name-checks it in his assertion—Google is very clearly the revolutionary company of our age.

Before I back that up, let’s deal with Peter’s argument. What, exactly, has Apple done to “make a difference” and “change the way things work”? Well…

“The iPod has changed how we buy music.”

Okay, sure. And Zappos has changed the way we buy shoes. So what? Apple brought meaningful evolution to the music industry, but wasn’t it kind of inevitable? We figured out how to digitize and download music all by ourselves. Apple’s innovation was in seamlessly integrating a snazzy device with a convenient online store that sold music at a perfect price point. If the iPod and iTunes never existed, online music sales might have taken years longer to develop from the ashes of Napster. But it still would have happened. And it still wouldn’t have been that big a deal—at least not in a grand-scale-of-human-history sense.

“The iPhone changed the world of telecommunications” by “prying the phone itself and its data capabilities away from the greedy, clammy hands of wireless operators.”

True. But who really cares how their pie is cut? So now you’re stuck in a three-year contract because you got an iPhone, as opposed to 2004, when you were stuck in a three-year contract because you got a Razr. The power balance between hardware companies and telecom outfits is only relevant to you if you’re a hardware company or a telecom outfit.

But let’s set aside the power-shift the iPhone brought within the mobile industry and focus instead on the device itself. It’s a marvel, I agree. The impact of apps is wildly overblown, but mobile email, mobile web, and GPS are things that smartphone owners use every day. They have indeed changed our lives. And they would have anyhow. Blackberry addicts, largely corporate customers, were already hooked before the iPhone. But Jobs consolidated existing technologies into a wonderfully elegant and (almost) affordable device. He may have jumpstarted the popularization of the mobile Internet by a year or so. Hats off.

Finally, the iPad, which is:

“doing much to drive computing toward a post-PC reality.”

Just what does that mean? I’ve questioned the iPad’s “magical” properties before (and faced the inevitable onslaught). It’s some months later, and I’ve yet to notice any real impact of the gadget. I know folks love their glowy pads; I know they surf around on them from the couch and enjoy how they feel in their hands. But what difference does the iPad actually make in our lives? If your iPad went away tomorrow, what would you be unable to do? Tablets are not the written word’s savior or the future of the digital age. They’re just a different kind of computer that adds comfort while subtracting control. I’m glad we have them and I look forward to them getting cheaper. It’s not unlike how I felt about USB keys when they came out.

Add it all up, and Apple’s biggest impact has been aesthetic. Their products look great and have changed the way lots of other things look. But that’s just it—Apple is all about things. It’s essentially a hardware company, and it’s ill-prepared for a world where objects mean less and information means more. There’s no new God-gadget coming from Cupertino—all Apple can do once it’s done sticking cameras on things and offering them in different colors is to release cheaper iPhones and cheaper iPads, devaluing their gear until the gee-whiz factor is totally gone. This has already happened to the iPod. You probably have a three-old version in a drawer somewhere.

Google re-invented advertising, the economic engine that powers television and newspapers (or used to). Google solved the central problem of the Internet by organizing the biggest-ever library of content into an easily searchable resource that, more often than not, finds exactly what you were after. Google popularized cloud computing, which will bring the influence of the Internet into our physical lives in ways we are only beginning to comprehend.

More than anything, Google has been an accelerator of the greater ambitions of the Internet. Ten years ago, techno-utopians spoke of a future where anyone could be a publisher. Google made random blogs findable and made reader visits bankable. Ten years ago, we heard starry-eyed predictions that any kid could soon have the tools to become a pop star or a filmmaker from their own basement. Now, thanks to Google’s acquisition of YouTube, we take it for granted that this is so. Google preaches “openness,” not because it sounds good, but because the more open and accessible the Internet is to us all, the more money Google makes.

Google is surely imperfect, prone to the odd mistake or bad policy. But while Apple spent the past decade perfecting the work of the previous century, the mass-production and mass-marketing of unnecessary objects, Google was pioneering something new: a data-driven economy fueled by the input of individuals you wouldn’t dream of describing as “consumers.”

Jesse Brown is the host of TVO.org’s Search Engine podcast. He is on Twitter @jessebrown

More by Jesse Brown

Anonymous

You Mr. Brown have absolutly no clue. But thats ok, we need people with one and people without.
http://www.flora.ca Russell McOrmond

My critique of Peter’s position would be simpler: While I agree
that Apple has had massive influence, I’m not convinced the more
positive sounding phrase of “contribution” is appropriate.

This is said from the perspective of a political activist that fights
to ensure that owners of technology control the technology they own.
My reasons range from it being what I believe is right in a just
society, to being a question of “ownership of the means of production”
in a knowledge economy. I believe that fighting against private
citizens controlling the technology that they own is unjust as well as
anti-capitalist.

Mr. Jobs more than any other individual, and Apple more than any
other company, has been the most visible on the other side of this
political fight. Yes, there are other political actors such as Sony and
to a lesser degree Microsoft, but these other entities haven’t been as politically successful as Jobs/Apple.

Google’s political influence has been mixed, but I would still put them as an overall positive for the time being. It would get a little too subjective for me to suggest whether Google’s positive on sometimes/often being open has been greater than Apples negative on opposing IT property rights, but the fact the +- sign of the numbers are different says enough.

I also disagree with Jesse as I believe that far more than
aesthetic, it has been the political influence of Apple that has been
their greatest impact. Many people who may otherwise be activists and
freedom fighters in other aspects of their lives have been perfectly
willing to give up freedom for aesthetic/convenience/whatever as they
boot up their Mac or iPadLocked devices.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com doug rogers

F’rinstance:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/28/being-right/
http://twitter.com/jonathanmc Jonathan McKinnell

I don’t see why we need to compare Apples to Oranges (or Googles) they’re pretty much two different companies doing two different things for the world and I don’t think they should be in competition. Google focuses on Software that helps organize information into an easily accessible form that we can then use to live our lives better. Apple focuses on hardware that helps us uses that software to help us live our lives better. The two are nothing without the other. Apple is stronger because of Google and Google is stronger because of Apple.

You want to know what the 1st, 2nd and 3rd most used tasks are on my iPhone are? Gmail, Google Search and Google Maps. And if you asked me if I wanted a Android phone I’d just chuckle and laugh because there’s no one single phone hardware out there that runs Andriod that can compete with the iPhone. The touch is slick, the phone feels slick and solid and the UI is good too. Combine that with the App store and you have everything you could want in a device that fits into your pocket.

But if you took away Google Search and Maps from the iPhone and gave me a worse search or map app, I would probably switch to an Android phone simply for those two things. It’s that important to my day to day life now. (As sad at that is)

So lets have less of this Apple VS. Google talk and more of what can Apple to do make Google work better on their platforms and what can Google do to make their products work better with Apple platforms. Because we’ll all be better for it.
Anonymous

Apple:
- widely acclaimed marketing strategies
- a reportedly superior computer
- a savvy and cool culture centered on its product
- and after 30 years, a market share that has climbed to 10%?

This has always puzzled me.

Of course, the company is still richer than God, but considering what they charge, it’s not surprising. It’s like the corner fruit vendor in the Depression selling apples at $100,000 each. “You’re not going to sell many apples at that price,” warns a passerby. “I only need to sell one,” retorts the vendor.

So far, Apple has managed to sell far more than one apple, but that could all change, now that Jobs has stepped down. Why continue to pay exorbitant prices in order to claim kinship with “the cool guy’s team,” when the cool guy’s no longer on the team?

Anonymous

Your comment is well taken. However, there are factors that you’ve not addressed that provide a different perspective on the landscape.

First, that 85% (I’ll even call it 90% for the sake of argument) market share for Windows is heavily slanted by corporate and government use. “Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,” and that culture won’t leave corporate IT any time soon. (There is also the side issue that a world of Macs would need fewer IT personnel, so the same people who pooh-pooh Apple products often have a vested interest in preventing Apple from disrupting their sinecures.)

In the consumer market, Apple has a staggering 90% share of the $1000+ personal computer market, and that is not counting iPads and Macs Mini. What this means when you look at who is buying computers and for what, it means that Apple utterly dominates the market for home computers above the e-machine/appliance/nettop level. One surmises the other 10% are the technically savvy hardcore gamer and modding demographics. When people want performance out of their computer, overwhelmingly they turn to Mac, despite Macs being ostensibly underspecced. “They Just Work” would appear to be a more salient filter than bullet points full of memory bus speeds.

Under $1000 in the consumer market, it’s safe to say that Apple still has a small market share. I would be surprised if it were even 10%. It’s just Macbooks, Macbook Airs, Macs Mini, and the edu-iMacs. So what did Apple do? Rather than competing on ever-shrinking margins, Apple has released the iPad and its market reach has grown like a den of Tribbles. Henry Ford once said, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said ‘faster horses.’” Steve Jobs knew people thought they wanted simpler, more powerful computers, the “faster horses” of the information age. What Jobs intuited, and the true fruit of his and Apple’s design vision, was that people don’t want “computers” per se at all. What people really wanted was “listen to music” and “email others” and “make home movies” and “surf the web” and “take it all with me without a hassle.” And Jobs’ response was to ditch the e-machine market entirely and come up with a better way to give those customers what they really wanted, rather than what they thought they wanted, in a form factor so intuitive it requires nearly no instruction at all to use. The iPad era is truly only beginning, and Apple (and Wall Street, by the look of AAPL’s value) is wagering that the sub-$1000 computer is going to become a very niche appliance in the foreseeable future.

Google’s contributions to the modern age of tech are considerable and in general I agree with the article as far as that goes. But what Apple has done is something that will not be appreciated for its true import for years yet to come — but eventually. Apple is making the computer disappear, while still giving us the output the computer makes possible.

As for price, I’m not even sure that is going to stay a discriminant. Everyone knows Macs are more expensive, right? Why is it, then, that no other maker of ultrabook PCs can compete with the 2011 Macbook Air on PRICE? The best ASUS and Sony could do against the Air was $1600-1800 for a model congruent to the $999-$1300 Airs. And how much does that $499 Dell e-machine really cost in money, desk space, time, hassle, and additional components compared to a $499 iPad 2 that does everything the user used to do with the Dell? Macs may still be a poor choice for the bargain-basementest users, for tinkerers, and for high-performance gamers… but for the rest of us, product by product Apple has introduced an affordable, well-designed, well-built, elegant, and intuitive solution that Just Works. We’ll see whether that trend continues.

Anonymous

This will cause much wetting of pants among the legion of Apple fanboys.
Anonymous

This will cause much wetting of pants among the legion of Apple fanboys.
http://idrinkinthemorning.com Rick Omen

I still think it’s just hilarious that Apple is called “innovative” for making the iPad. They literally just took an iPhone, made it bigger, heavier, and removed many features. I’ve never understood how that’s considered an improvement.
http://twitter.com/igm95 Islam Mohamed

This article is out to lunch and barely worth responding to. Apple’s innovations are legend, innumerable, and often imitated for decades. The only mistake Peter Nowak makes in his assessment is focusing on the last decade. They brought the following capabilities to the masses: Portable computing. Graphical user interface. WYSIWYG editing. Desktop publishing. Mousing. The click wheel. Micro hard drives. Podcasting and iTunesU. Solid-state memory computers. Small footprint computers. Recyclable computers, Multi-touch displays and trackpads. iTunes store software distribution platform. Fanless computers.

They achieved all of these advancements while delivering among the most accessible and elegantly designed hardware and software in the industry. In fact, many of their advancements are a *consequence* of endeavouring to produce such devices. The focus on accessible design is not merely an aesthetic priority, it is an imperative goal that drives innovation.

http://samdavies.myopenid.com/ Sam Davies

Don’t forget “Target Mode”. Then again, I guess this never made it to the masses. Still – hands down one of the best things ever!

Faiz Ahmad

A Ferrari serves no practical purpose. It makes huge profits, does nothing for the environment, and nothing else for the goodness of the world. Yet all other cars aspire to be it in some way.
Everyone knows the arrival of the motorcar would have eventually given rise to a car similar to a Ferrari, but it would have looked, felt and driven different. What’s more, the same argument above would have applied to that unknown car too.
My point is, there is a contradiction to any action that you can debate the semantics around. What you cannot dispute is the fact most computerized electronic devices and interfaces we use today try and mimic the look and feel of the industry standard – Apple. Even Google mimics Apple’s simplistic approach and you can see it in their android smartphones.
Ferraris are not remembered for the nuts and bolts that went it making them, but the end result of something being greater than the sum of its parts. While Microsoft and Google remain the workaholics of the IT industry upholding the backbone of the information technology space, Apple is the company that gives it some definition and paves the way for things to come. That to me is value.
http://www.videoconverterfactory.com/dvd-ripper/ Aguilera

I do hope to see more after the ipod, iphone, ipad, and apple TV. It is really a pity if I see Apple do nothing after its previous movement under Jobs. The new leader should do something to make Apple become more stable and special. Google is really an ambitious giant!
http://www.videoconverterfactory.com/dvd-ripper/ Aguilera

I do hope to see more after the ipod, iphone, ipad, and apple TV. It is really a pity if I see Apple do nothing after its previous movement under Jobs. The new leader should do something to make Apple become more stable and special. Google is really an ambitious giant!