Apple-bashing in the post-Steve Jobs era

“Taking shots at Apple isn’t exactly a new sport. It’s been popular since the dawn of Macintosh,” Ken Segall writes for Observatory. “Even Apple’s multiple revolutions wouldn’t change that attitude. iPod, iPhone, iPad, iWhatever. For those who disdain Apple, its success has always been easy to explain: It’s not about innovation or design. Apple takes its ideas from other companies. It succeeds through marketing hype. It’s all flash, little substance and hardly worth the price.”

“The detractors had to adapt when Apple became the most valuable technology company on earth. Fortunately, success makes a company even easier to loathe,” Segall writes. “Now Apple is just too big. It’s greedy and arrogant. It’s anti-freedom. And it’s still not worth the price. Clearly it’s doomed to failure.”

Segall writes, “For Apple stockholders, these types of claims have never been more than a harmless sideshow. However, one thing changed everything: the death of Steve Jobs… Without Steve as the driving force of Apple, people do react to the company differently. When they see an error, or weakness, or a competitor making inroads, they’re more receptive to the critics’ argument: without Steve, this isn’t the same Apple. I can’t say this is 100% wrong. Steve was unique. Irreplaceable. Things have to be different without him. However, ‘different’ isn’t quite the same as ‘doomed.'”

Much more in the full article – recommended – here.

24 Comments

  1. Yep, the fate of Apple post-Steve is still up in the air. But we’d already have our verdict if Cook & Ive rushed a bunch of new, half-baked products out the door in a clumsy attempt to quell any apprehension about the company. The verdict would be: doomed. It would prove that they learned absolutely nothing from Steve.

  2. I agree with “When they see an error, or weakness, or a competitor making inroads, they’re more receptive to the critics’ argument.” Steve had a wonderful way of drawing attention away from problems. Such as the iPhone 4 antenna issues. He told the media every phone has problems, it is no big deal.
    RIP distracting Steve

  3. Bashing YES, listen to consumer I doubt, to much emphasis on stocks from some and to color or aesthetics from others, hope they will listen to simple users. May be the solution is in the competition, markets…

    1. Exactly. They bashed Steve as a credit stealing asshole who only rode the “real” work of engineers before he died, then claim apple will wither within days of his passing because he was invaluable.

      Both extremes are way off base.

  4. People need to understand that Steve is gone, get it through their thick skulls. If you are looking for a Steve jobs replacement, there isn’t one. No one can compare to Steve.

    Apple, is still Apple, they are still following their trailblazing ways but people need to realize that Apple isn’t going to reinvent themselves overnight. Even when Steve was around, products where released slowly and new things took their sweet time. The first iPhone didn’t have apps and there wasn’t an App Store. Even with Steve, things didn’t always work as planned but we had faith, that’s what makes an Apple fan and that’s what makes Apple great.

  5. It sure took a long time before someone wrote about this, if someone else did, well good for them.

    I certainly did contemplate what would happen to Apple once Steve Jobs retired, or the sad scenario of what actually happened. From what I’ve seen it’s pretty well spot on, the stock has taken a serious hit, there are all sorts of leadership attacks and death knells for Apple although the latter hasn’t changed much, Apple has always been passionately hated by those who love to hate.

    The risk of it all is to see whether or not Steve Jobs was a visionary fisherman, that could fish for ideas or if he left a legacy and took the time to show people and provide an environment where people can fish on their own. It’s a twist on the adage of giving a person a fish feed them for a day, teach a person to fish, feed them for a lifetime.

    I’m willing to lean toward the latter, only cause I am optimistic. The danger here is that western society is now so disempowered by the addiction for so called strong leadership to blindly follow, regardless of protest that they can barely see the value of a strong team where people are empowered and there is no need to a leader to usurp that power. That danger is also an opportunity that can come from a situation of chaos. People are going on like chickens with their heads cut off or worse yet like analysts running around and writing about the iwatch, ieye, iprick, icansell when really, when you really really think about it, Apple has not changed at its core.

    It makes software and computers. The ipod, iMac, iphone, folks they are still computers.

    Let the bashing continue.

  6. I will give Apple every chance to prove itself with Tim Cook. One problem: When Apple choose to influence the Supreme Court to destroy the essential foundation of what marriage is supposed to be, it lost my heart and my mind! To think we live in an age where Bob and Henry have the same rights, social status, moral standing, and financial benefits of a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman is utterly shameful! TY Tim for putting your own personal political agenda ahead of your customers! Steve would have never been that insensitive or stupid!

    1. You know that Steve supported same sex partners at Apple back in the 80s? You know that Apple in the past has refused to change its corporate policy which has for decades supported same sex couples even when some states offered significant financial incentives if they would do so?

      Apple’s stance on this issue is not new.

    2. About your comment: “To think we live in an age where Bob and Henry have the same rights, social status, moral standing, and financial benefits of a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman is utterly shameful!”

      The concept of marriage between one man and one woman is just that, a concept. You can put a religious attachment to it but if you do, realize that there was an age where polygamy was sacramental as well (King Solomon comes to mind). To this day there are countries that legally accept a variety of polygamy relationships. Many of these are attached to their sacred religious beliefs.

      If you lean towards evolution you can see that we are moving from a some sex marriage situation (monogamy where you experience only “some” sex that is of a person of the opposite sex) to add a same sex marriage situation (monogamy where you experience only “some” but the “same” sex of a person of the same sex). It goes to reason, from an evolutionary point of view that humans will one day evolve a “sum” sex marriage situation (where you experience the “sum” sexual experience, with a person of the same and opposite sex). Threesomes would not work in that type of marriage, it would have to be a minimum of four people.

      The age of some (straight) sex marriage is merging with the age of same (homosexual) sex marriage. This will provide the foundation for the age of sum (bisexual) sex marriage.

      Intolerance will lead to conflict. If all groups tolerate each other with a live and let live aspect then peace will ensue, deity interference notwithstanding.

      The choice belongs to everyone.

      For

    3. I’m a very religious person. I think the act of homosexual sex, just like the acts of premarital and extramarital sex are on the same level: unacceptable (1 Cor 6:9-10). Some might call me narrow-minded, some might call me old-fashioned or puritanical. I’m not a hypocrite. I don’t choose which parts of the bible I want to apply. I’m always shocked at so-called Christians who rail against gay marriage while thinking nothing of living together before marriage. Hypocritical.

      Anyhow, this is just a primer to this: The government does NOT dictate your beliefs. The legal definition of marriage, simply put, does not (and should never) affect a true Christian. If you care about the legal definition of marriage, you are essentially saying that what the government decides will affect your belief system. If the religious organization you belong to now starts performing gay marriage ceremonies and you feel that it’s not following bible principles, then leave that organization, because it is false.

      Who cares what the legal definition is of marriage is.

Reader Feedback

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