Opinion Apple’s solitary genius

Meanwhile,though,Jobs stands accused of what in Silicon Valley is a capital crime: authoritarian tendencies. He’s long played hardball with journalists who reveal details about forthcoming products,and now he’s deciding what content people can view on the iPhone and iPad. Apple recently rejected an app from a political cartoonist — and then,embarrassingly,had to reconsider after he won the Pulitzer Prize.

Put these two Jobs profiles together — emerging infotech hegemon and congenital control freak — and you get a scary scenario: growing dominance of our information pipelines by a guy who likes to filter information. No wonder Jobs’s detractors have been making ironic reference to Apple’s famous 1984 Super Bowl ad,the one that implicitly cast the IBM-Microsoft alliance as Big Brother.

One tech journalist puts the fear this way: “I don’t want a single,Wal-Mart-like channel that controls access to my audience and dictates what is and is not acceptable material for me to create.” It’s not a crazy fear,given that some industry analysts think Apple wants to become “the Internet’s cable TV company” — turning its iMachines into the dominant distributors of print,video and audio.

Still,it’s an unwarranted fear. The nature of the digital

landscape makes it hard to be both a control freak and a global hegemon. And Jobs’s history suggests that he’ll choose control over power.

Rewind the tape to that 1984 ad. It heralded the coming of the Macintosh operating system,which was head and shoulders above anything Microsoft was offering. So why did Microsoft wind up dominating the operating system market? Because Jobs chose not to do what Microsoft did: license his operating system to computer makers. If you wanted Apple software,you had to buy Apple hardware.

Maybe Jobs is just intent on building the perfect product.

The Microsoft approach harnessed positive feedback. The more models of Windows computers,competitively priced,the more people would buy Windows computers. And the more Windows computers people bought,the more programmers would write their software for Windows,not Apple. And the more Windows software there was,the more attractive Windows computers would be. And so on. That’s how Windows wound up with around 90 per cent of the desktop operating system market.

With the iPhone,Jobs is again foregoing this positive feedback. He’s not licensing the operating system to other handset makers. There’s only one kind of iPhone — love it or leave it.

Meanwhile,Google is following a variant of the Microsoft strategy. It’s backing the Android operating system,which any handset maker is free to use. And lots of them are using it.

All of this explains why some tech observers think that Apple,notwithstanding its stunning iPod-iTunes-iPhone-iPad-based comeback,is approaching its peak.

Why is Jobs choosing the same path that,last time around,kept him from conquering the world? I had puzzled over this for months until I had a conversation with tech-watcher Harry McCracken,who suggested a theory that seemed outlandish at first but is making more and more sense to me: Steve Jobs just isn’t bent on world domination.

I mean,sure,all other things being equal,he might love to rule the world. So would I. But there are things he won’t sacrifice for that goal.

One is the high profit margins you get from being the only

company that sells the hardware linked to a good operating system. But I think there’s something else at work,too,and it’s kind of

admirable.

If you ask Jobs why he won’t let other companies build hardware for the iPhone operating system,he’ll say something to the effect that you get a smoother product,with fewer glitches,if one company designs both the hardware and the software.

That’s true,but it was true in the computer market as well,and Jobs’s smoother products confined Apple not just to a fraction of Microsoft’s market share but to a fraction of its market capitalisation; his high profit margins didn’t make up for low sales. So what’s the rationale for repeating this exercise?

Maybe there’s no rationale that makes sense in dollars and cents. Maybe Jobs is just intent on building the perfect product. Yes,he wants to make money,but,beyond a certain point,he’ll trade off money for perfection.

I say this as someone who doesn’t share his vision of perfection. In the various things I don’t like about Apple products,the unifying theme is the subordination of functional elegance to visual elegance. For example: The iPhone looks real sleek with that curvy metal,but it sure is easy to drop on a screen-shattering slab of sidewalk!

In general,I admit,Apple’s functional elegance is impressive. Indeed,it’s a tribute to Jobs that when the functionality falls short,it’s almost always the result of a conscious decision to favor aesthetics — whereas design flaws in Microsoft products often reflect a failure of engineers to put themselves in the shoes of users.

Maybe Jobs is basically just an artist. Maybe he wants above all to create products that are beautiful. And he succeeds,even if it costs him market share,and even if he doesn’t handle the trade-offs between functional and visual beauty as I would.

Some would say calling Jobs an artist is just a euphemistic way of calling him a control freak. And certainly an artistic temperament is a fussy temperament.

Still,being this kind of control freak is different from being the kind of control freak who wants to amass as much power as possible over information flow and then use it to stifle expression. That kind of control freak would follow the Microsoft strategy to maximise market share and thus maximise the number of machines whose apps menu he could then satanically control.

Of course,maybe Jobs isn’t an artist at heart,and maybe he isn’t deeply driven to create the perfect product. Maybe he just thinks having a small market share but high profit margins is the way to make the most money — and his finicky design aesthetic is a byproduct of this strategy.

In either event,the world is safe from him. Apple’s information pipeline won’t be the only one,and it won’t be the biggest one. Whether for temperamental or strategic reasons,Jobs is too intent on control to wind up in a position to control us.