Filip Novotny A bigger iPhone, new iPads, the first retina iMac or the Apple Watch - all these Apple products in the previous months introduced. However, this year brought much more from the Californian company (and vice versa for it), and not only in terms of new or updated devices. How has the position of Apple and therefore Tim Cook changed and what will Apple look like in the coming year? There is no better time to reflect than the end of the current year.
Before we look at the topics that resonated most in connection with Apple this year, it would be appropriate to recall the issues that, on the contrary, have more or less disappeared from the discussion. The most significant shift in this regard can be seen in the person of Tim Cook. While in 2013 there were still concerns that Apple's new CEO was not the right person to replace Steve Jobs, this year there was much less of that theme. (That is, if we leave aside those for whom Jobs has become a kind of unshakable idol and rotate him in their graves at every opportunity.)
Apple is still in the limelight and although it is plagued by various problems, compared to the days of Steve Jobs, it has certainly not deteriorated. However, let's not just stay with the question of customer popularity or financial results; Tim Cook was able to expand the operation of "his" company by one more dimension. The Cupertino company no longer appears in newspaper headlines only in connection with its products, but also takes on a certain amount of social responsibility and is also judged in this regard.
A few years ago, few expected that the former operations director, who never showed much emotion at the company's presentations, would have higher goals in his work, let's say a moral framework. But this year, Cook proved that the opposite is true. When a shareholder recently asked about the merits of various environmental initiatives, he replied Apple boss bluntly: “When it comes to human rights, renewable energy or accessibility for people with special needs, I'm not interested in a stupid return on investment. If that bothers you, you should sell your shares.”
In short, Apple has started to enter much more into public affairs and is very active, at least in the matter of rights. Whether it's about support minority rights, cautious approach to the requirements of the NSA or perhaps just Cook's coming out, the media and the public have become accustomed to approaching Apple as a kind of social arbiter. This is something that even Steve Jobs failed to do in his time. His company has always been the arbiter of good design, style and taste (that's up to you will confirm and Bill Gates), however, has never interfered so significantly in the formation of public opinion. She was not an opinion leader.
At the same time, however, it would not be appropriate to prematurely glorify Apple due to its enormous boom in popularity and attribute to it a moral authority that may not even belong to it. This year did not only bring high-flying statements regarding the rights of employees or minorities, there were also far less poetic matters on the agenda.
Even this year, we did not rest from the seemingly never-ending series of lawsuits. The first of them examined iTunes' protective features, which were supposed to block users of competing music players in addition to hackers. The second case, several years older, dealt with a possible violation of antitrust laws in the iBookstore. According to the agreement with the publishers, Apple was supposed to artificially push the prices up, more expensive than the biggest seller Amazon so far.
V both these cases the courts ruled favorably for Apple. For now, however, it is premature to draw hasty conclusions, both cases are pending appeal proceedings, and the final verdict will therefore be handed down in the coming weeks. After all, in the case of the e-book cartel, there has already been a reversal once - Judge Cote initially ruled against Apple, but the appeals court subsequently sided with the Californian company, although it has not yet officially issued a verdict.
However, we don't have to wait until the final decision in a pair of cases to doubt the purity of the Apple company's intentions, Apple gave us another completely different reason with its recent behavior. He is bankruptcy to GT Advanced Technologies, which was supposed to supply (for an unspecified purpose) sapphire glass to the iPhone manufacturer.
Its management accepted a highly disadvantageous contract with the prospect of billions of dollars in profits, which transferred practically all risks to the company and, on the contrary, could only benefit Apple. The blame in this case can of course be placed on the director of GT, who should not have agreed to the potentially liquidating conditions, but at the same time, the question also arises as to whether it is right - or, if you want, moral - to make such demands at all.
It is certainly appropriate to ask whether all the above-mentioned facts are at all essential for Apple and its future. Although the Cupertino company has grown to truly gigantic proportions and it may seem that little can shake it, there is one fundamental fact to be aware of. Apple is not just a hardware and software manufacturer. It's not just about providing a comprehensive, functioning platform that we like to brag about as apple enthusiasts.
It has always been – and in recent years more and more – mainly about image. From the user's side, it can be an expression of rebellion, style, prestige, or perhaps something quite pragmatic. Even if, for example, some customers don't care about image when choosing their next device (at least outwardly), the cool/hip/swag/… factor will always be part of Apple's DNA. Of course, Apple is fully aware of this aspect, so it is hard to imagine that, for example, it would put the quality of product design on the back burner.
However, he may not have realized one thing yet. That the issue of image no longer means only the preference of a certain product due to the fact that the company has certain attributes associated with it. It is not just the aura that individual products maintain that matters anymore. A certain level is also expected from their producer, i.e. at least if he is generally considered a premium brand and if he places himself in a socially responsible position.
At a time when issues of the rights of minorities, Asian workers, protection of privacy and the environment move the Western world, buying an iPhone or iPad means adopting a part of a certain identity. Proof that the public is not indifferent to Apple's values and attitudes is the already mentioned media exposure of topics that are not connected to the company exclusively through its products. Tim Cook: 'I'm Proud to Be Gay', Apple 'failing to protect Chinese factory workers', Person of the Year: Tim Cook of Apple. These are not headlines from specialized websites, but media such as with the BBC, Businessweek or The Financial Times.
The more often Apple participates in public discussions, the more strongly Tim Cook advocates for human rights (or environmental and other) topics, the more he must expect that the company will stop being just an electronics manufacturer. He puts himself in the role of authority, so he must expect in the future that society will demand from him consistency, consistency and, above all, compliance with its own values and rules. It is no longer enough to be only a rebel, the other. Apple has been the first for many years.
If Apple were to take a lax approach to its new lot - for example, if it talked about bright tomorrows in its rhetoric and behaved like a hawkish technological colossus in practice - the result could be as liquidating in the long term as a badly sloppy iPhone. It is enough to remember one of Apple's competitors and its slogan, which its authors preferred to slowly but surely stop bragging about - Do not be evil. The responsibility associated with this branch proved to be extremely impractical.
Similarly, in the coming months it will not be easy for Apple to simultaneously produce millions of successful products, keep more and more models in the range, enter new markets, have good relations with shareholders and maintain an ethical framework without losing face. The Apple phenomenon is far more complex these days than ever before.
Nicely written. Personally, it seems to me that the more Apple tries to manage (influence, produce, sell), the less it manages to focus on individual activities. Instead of the mantra "quality at 105%", it now looks like "quantity at any cost and the feeling of quality will ensure the reputation of the past". this year.
agree :-(
Regarding how Apple tries to lead by example in nature and behavior towards people, of course I like it. On the other hand, they are a company that can afford it, and such companies should do this almost obligatorily.
I currently work for a company that does similar things. That is fills out employee life insurance policies, helps the environment, helps public organizations, does not try to rob the state of taxes, etc.
It's just that if the company has reached a certain stage and is strong enough, it should focus at least some of the profit on these things, because then we should all be fine in CR :-).
In addition, this is one of the reasons why the state and people should support such companies even in those bad times, because they are asking for companies (probably company management) that did not only look after their business, but also the needs around them. And, for example, it would be possible to see it quite practically on the money collected by the state, if it wasn't enough for someone ;-).
I also work in a multinational company that preaches such things. But I also believe journalists who criticize Apple for working conditions at suppliers. The fact is that the reported inspection (whether it is an insurance company, contr.ŽP, audit, representatives of the company for which it is produced...) sees only what is shown to them, or they really want to see. That's why I know that not everything is as rosy as it seems. Accidents at work, unpaid overtime, etc. are not only the prerogative of dubious companies, but also of well-established ones. He's just better at masking it
Sure, it could be. However, if the employee notices this, because he probably has more information than even a (especially loud) inspection, he already has another reason to leave the company, and that is not good for the company.
By the way, I feel that there are no such things here, and even overtime is well paid here, and because the employer in my case knows that it is not easy, he even gives us a 10% bonus for overtime hours :-). Just a fair company.
Oh, and the fact that Apple has suppliers who don't comply with basic things is partly to blame for the way they try to make all purchases cheaper. I really like what he does. If it doesn't work somewhere, or it gets messed up, instead of rushing to another supplier, he tries to do something about it. This seems correct to me, even if it can sometimes be quite demanding, and secondly, it is good that there is a chance that it can be improved, not least thanks to Apple.
Jobs' tyranny is over, a benevolent cook is taking over... she is a scared teacher who can't even master elementary school students, while Jobs was a strict gym teacher who was feared and the most bullied in the class. ipad goes to shit, ios slips on the spot... the number 8 didn't even have to be there. the iphone has increased, which is the right direction, I continue to acknowledge the killing of the ipad mini. it should be canceled and focus on air (for it is also kktina) and adapt the OS accordingly.
Android is getting better, hats off to lollipop. one would say that the competition will push them forward more, but no. they just go their own way, just for how long. Apple rests on its laurels in some things...we'll see when I recover.