Steve Jobs has no Belt.
April 13th, 2008 by Nathanael
Steve Jobs doesn't wear a belt. His typical attire when in the public eye includes a black long-sleeve shirt, a pair of ordinary jeans, and casual shoes. A "timeless" look to some degree. But what about the belt?
I began to ponder why this innovation superstar did not opt to wear a belt, and then it occurred to me that he decided he didn't need one. He didn't need the help of that third-party apparatus. And then it all made sense.
Apple has become a superstar in the technology world by reinventing the approach to technology. The products are beautiful. The products are cutting-edge in technology. The products are marketed well, and people will pay a premium price for them. Oh, and they last a long time, but that's why Apple's stock has dropped drastically... people don't need to buy a new one anytime soon. So how has their revenue model changed?
Subscription Model
Apple's Itunes has become a powerful force and direct venue for lots of micropayments. But according to Financial Times they might take it one step further and push an "all you can listen to" subscription that is either a one-time fee when buying a device, or a monthly fee. This consistent cashflow is something nice to have I'm sure.
So to tie it back to the "no belt," Apple has a vertical merger that has a created a perfect Apple experience from the fancy computer, through the simple intuitive software, through the easy, convenient, and fast supply chain, and now you're experiencing your favorite media, whether a movie, a book, or music. All done Apple Style. If the shirt and pants work, why do you need a third-party belt? It just interrupts.
Belts are Out of Fashion.
Media on the internet has become an uncontrollable monster with illegal downloads, torrents, and the works. The only true way to bring it back is to make it more convenient the user, and make it unlimited. This is why I think the subscription model will work, and is where the industry needs to move. Internet TV however does not need a subscription because we are conditioned to commercials. Hulu rocks:)
So in conclusion, Steve Jobs doesn't need a belt, as Apple doesn't need a "belt". I believe this trend will become a staple for media distribution. But if Jobs goes on stage without a shirt, we might all be in trouble!
1) Apple's stock has more then quadrupled in the past few years. However, the length/quality in which an apple product "lives" has absolutely no correlation to the stock quote; stocks are based upon the amount of stock purchased for a given company and the supply and demand within the market for that specific product. Given a limited supply of stock and an increased demand of it, each "stock" thus costs more (basic economic principle)
2) The length in which Apple's products last is highly debatable, as is their "technology." Their main strength is in marketing a product that is similar to all others on the market, yet creating a false image of "cool" that forces the buyer to purchase their product instead a different product. Furthermore, due to their "innovative designs," they have been able to create a monopoly on essentially the same computer as every other computer. Each Apple is designed along the same lines as an AMD or Intel, but rather than keeping an open infrastructure as AMD and Intel do, Apple has taken away modifiability and monopolized software and such so that it must be Apple Certified. In doing so, Apple takes a chunk of cash out of every software released on the Mac, and is the sole distributor of the hardware. That's not genius; that's just a falsely created monopoly, on par with the falsely created monopoly of fuel that the *government* currently has (since there is absolutely no strain in supply, and demand is a constant rise in 2% over the course of the past 100 years, oil refiners are "allowed" to refine at under-capability in order to drive prices of gasoline up).
3) Steve Jobs doesn't wear a belt because he's a tool himself. Tool's cant use other tools to get a job done.
4) Given the mission statement at the top of this page,
"A collection of articles, essays, concepts and ideas about the new mediums of today and their impact on culture and the marketplace."
I don't see the relevance of this.. or better yet, how the Apple Trend written of above could possibly be beneficial toward the people as opposed to big business. Apple created a false monopoly and roped in an insecure and weak American public; they took advantage of our social downfalls, our "American way" of buy-buy-buy, and our general stupidity: Do you really want other businesses to follow this method? An explication of Jobs' lack of belt hardly seems as if it's a piece regarding the impact of some consumer products on a market as a whole. Itunes makes almost no dent in terms of sale of music (CDs still remain the top dog, for now), Mac computers are for a very select few (read: lazy people, ignorant people, and businesses who get special deals to use Mac's), iPhone's are big, lunky, and look like a subway train window after being used a few times (and charge exorbitant fees for basic Internet service, provide tiny video, and are an awfully large mp3 player.. and are expensive, to boot!), and iPods, while popular, are bestsellers not due to exceptional features but rather a market niche carved out by the fact that they have become status symbols.
The Itunes store is redundant when free songs are still available to those who look. If one is actually interested in the quality of a song the Itunes store is not an option, as they only produce mp3s at 190kpbs.. which, while decent quality, is far below that of a CD, which is far below that of a record.