Master marketer Steve Jobs made Apple a ruthless corporate machine that exploits consumers, gives little back

“No sooner had Steve Jobs resigned than the process of his canonisation began. Genius, visionary, even revolutionary were some of the epithets used to describe the man who took Apple from the brink to the world’s most valuable company,” Julian Lee writes for The Sydney Morning Herald. “Yet, once the hyperbole is stripped away, it may be that he was merely the man who made us fall in love with pretty gadgets, and made Apple shareholders immensely rich in the process.”

“Jobs made computing sexy and packaged music players, phones and portable screens to make them the must-have item for millions. But he is guilty, among other things, of bequeathing to us a worldwide cult of technological onanism from which we are unlikely to recover any time soon,” Lee writes. “Those among us who have an iPod, Macbook, iTouch, iPhone or iPad have surrendered our powers of concentration and free time to this cult, not to mention our personal data. An entire generation will only be able to walk into its future so long as Apple holds its hand. They will only be able to commune with each other via their devices and a shared experience will only be truly shared through Facebook or Digg.”

“There is nothing very cool about the culture of the company Jobs has presided over since he returned as CEO in 1997, after being ousted some years earlier in a boardroom coup. Its ‘my way or the highway’ approach to business has earned it few friends. Apple is one of the few technology companies in the world that has succeeded despite having a closed ecosystem that does not work with any other technology,” Lee writes. “This protectionist approach extends to Apple’s aggressive policy towards patents and trademarks. Any company, be it large or small, that dares use the ‘i’ or anything resembling an apple in its brand, invites the wrath of Apple’s corporate lawyers.”

Lee writes, “In spite of all the facts – that Apple is a ruthless corporate machine that exploits consumers at will and gives little back (it doesn’t even pay its shareholders a dividend) – we love this brand and the avuncular evangelist Jobs who is slowly but surely being raised to the pantheon of ‘greats’ alongside Nobel prize winners, mighty philanthropists and, dare I say it, even religious leaders. In the end I suspect Jobs will be remembered chiefly as one of, if not the, best marketers the world has ever known.”

Full article – Think Before You Click™ – here.

MacDailyNews Take: This is an attempt at satire, right? Or is Lee just another hit-whore?

 

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]

44 Comments

  1. As devout an Apple fan as I am, I’m pretty sure I could go on with my life if they shut the doors tomorrow and I never saw another iProduct again. The news, weather, and entertainment industry currently suffers from a major bout of suck these days.

  2. I switched back to Mac 2002 and have had the opposite feeling. Feel less expoilted than other companies and specific- Microsoft. Whom I have had the great pleasure of having to deal with and realize what a nightmare it was.

    If Apple is expoiltive, then I am first in line. Now if Steve could make a women- well I would be VERY happy!

  3. Lee is ludicrous. He shows his ignorance of business.

    “Apple is one of the few technology companies in the world that has succeeded despite having a closed ecosystem that does not work with any other technology” Lee writes.

    Hmm, I seem to have no problem communicating with the rest of the world on my Apple devices. ‘Unclosed’ or ‘open’ systems seem to have the most problems with security, so now why is “open” good for the average consumer?

    Patents? That is specious, as every company large and small uses these, and they wouldn’t have time to recover their development costs if they could not protect their inventions.

    Trademarks? With out a trademark a corporation would have no “name” as an independent ongoing “legal person” or name for their products that was only their product.

  4. Closed ecosystem??? What is he talking about? How many thousands of 3rd partyy developers are out there for Apple products? Okay, the iPod is a closed system, but not the Mac, and certainly not the iPhone (has he not seen the AppStore). And I don’t know about the rest of you, but I can interoperate fine from my iMac with any other piece of equipment that uses industry standards.

    Hit Whore is right. He probably looks at Microsoft as a benevolent company….

  5. another moron who things he is enlightened. This constant drumbeat of hating successful people and companies gets old. None of these holier-than-thou Marxist drones ever look at their own wealth and extravagant lifestyles…usually funded by some parasitic means. Oh no…it’s always “hate that rich guy over there! He’s screwing you!” Never mind that guys like jobs make technology affordable for the proletariat to enjoy. But then that concept is ultimately why the Marxist hates a guy like jobs. The purpose of the Marxist parasite is only served if the proletariat is suffering and pissed off. The elitist Marxist journalist thinks technology like smart phones should be reserved for elite people like him. Why, if all the world’s poor have things like smart phones, the planet might be destroyed!

  6. “a ruthless corporate machine that exploits consumers, gives little back”

    I always considered this a description of Google. It really is seen when they demand you use a real name in their new Social website similar to FaceBook. The reason so they can sell accurate data about you and your friends to the highest paying advertiser with them.

    Now that is truly evil in my book.

  7. I would say that SOME of what this guy is saying is correct. Steve is very much known to have a my way or the highway attitude. I do not think this makes it a bad company. His ideas, his visions have brought those gadgets to us. The part I do agree with is that, like Microsoft, Apple wants to control its proprietary systems and brands. The app store is not open, it must be approved by apple. Did anyone notice Amazon and others getting kicked off the app store? This is almost as ‘bad’ as Microsoft bundling internet explorer free with Windows. If you will remember that is what got Microsoft in trouble.
    I personally do not see anything bad or wrong with any of these situations. Let these companies do what they need to in order to make a profit. We the consumers are aware of it and accept it and love using the machines. So why not leave us and the companies that produce what we like to purchase alone. The big difference right now is that Apple does not own 95% of the market share in PC’s. I feel they will continue to grow, and when they do have 80 + percent of the market share (like they do in tablets) look out for the justice department to clamp down on Apple and tell them to open up the app store. I do not think that Apple is doing this any worse than any other company trying to protect and grow their profits. It does bother me from a business standpoint that many on this blog have issues with Microsoft for doing this but are defensive of Apple doing the same thing. In either case it is OK for a business to do what they need to in order to remain profitable. There is nothing wrong here….move along.

  8. I also said this first, and it is an absolute truth: “…In the end I suspect Jobs will be remembered chiefly as one of, if not the, best marketers the world has ever known.”
    Above all else, marketing genius. Upcoming proof? Try this – when the new iPhone is released, look for “improved antenna” among its descriptions. Then, ask yourself – if the thing needed an improved antenna, why were we told there was nothing wrong with iPhone 4 antenna. The blunder of Ive’s form over function was solved with MARKETING and not engineering.

    1. It’ll have a redesigned antenna. Why? Because it will have to work with all of the various radio formats that the different networks use around the world. If you want to interpret that as ‘improved’, and then use it as ‘proof’ that the iPhone 4 antenna was, in your opinion, ‘flawed’, then that’s your right. Of course, it’ll just serve to prove that, in fact, you’re a jackass.

      1. I second that motion.

        I also object to the flippant use of the phrase ‘absolute truth’. Applied to an uninformed speculative opinion? Wake up: As humans,we never know everything about anything.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.