backtop


Print 63 comment(s) - last by HrilL.. on Jan 12 at 6:32 AM


  (Source: Reuters)
The cancellation of Jobs starring spot stirs health rumors, but the move could be mere politics

With the immense popularity of Apple and its bastion of fans that border on fanatical at times, there often comes an over scrutinizing of the company's moves. 

In particular, over the past year there has been much speculation as to the state of Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ health.  Jobs went through a very private battle with typically deadly pancreatic cancer several years ago and appeared to recover and be looking healthy the last couple years.  This year, however, some observers have opined that they think Jobs is looking sick and the disease may have reappeared and be worsening. 

In an ironic twist one newspaper even printed Jobs' obituary.  Apple has mostly refused to respond to these rumors, but when it has it has issued sharp denials that this is the case.

Given this background, when Mr. Jobs announced his decision to cancel his yearly keynote at the MacWorld trade show many jumped to the conclusion that the rumors were true and his illness was to blame.

Apple announced the development this week, revealing that Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, will take Jobs' place and deliver the keynote at Macworld Expo in San Francisco on January 6th, 2009.  In the past Mr. Jobs had always been on hand, typically to introduce new products; last year he had introduced the MacBook Air at the trade show's keynote address.

However, the real reason of Mr. Jobs exit appears to be more politics than health.

Trade shows' significance in the market has waned noticeably this year, partially due to the tough economy.  The word from Apple came just after Adobe announced it would not be attending MacWorld anymore.  With Belkin, Seagate, and Google also pulling out or downsizing their appearances, the fate of the show, according to some is at risk.

Along with the announcement that Mr. Jobs would not be there comes even more surprising news, which seems to verify that the cancellation was politics -- Apple will not exhibit at MacWorld next year.  Apple cites an improved direct relationship with its customer through its website as negating the need for the show, stating:

Apple is reaching more people in more ways than ever before, so like many companies, trade shows have become a very minor part of how Apple reaches its customers. The increasing popularity of Apple's Retail Stores, which more than 3.5 million people visit every week, and the Apple.com website enable Apple to directly reach more than a hundred million customers around the world in innovative new ways.

By exiting MacWorld an independent show, Apple stands to gain a tighter control on its public platform, with control something Apple always yearns for.

Despite these turn of events MacWorld's organizer IDG says MacWorld 2010 is still on -- with or without Apple. It states that it "Look(s) forward to many successful years of Macworld to come." 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Owned
By Shadowself on 12/17/2008 11:58:09 AM , Rating: -1
100% BS.

Trying to tie Jobs' recent history and Apple's recent history to trying to go up against Gates is just plain asinine.

Retired honorably? As a convicted monopolist? Does not sound very honorable to me.

Oh and have you checked into how much of the Gates' foundation's money (a GREAT charity in theory) actually gets funneled through companies at least partly owned by Gates himself? Charity is great, but profiting off your charity is not so great.


RE: Owned
By TomZ on 12/17/2008 12:25:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Charity is great, but profiting off your charity is not so great.
How can Gates "profit" off of charity? LOL.


RE: Owned
By HrilL on 12/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Owned
By TomZ on 12/17/2008 2:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its easy really. Rich person/company donates money to charity thus saving lots of money on taxes. Since rich person/company controls this charity they use it to by their products for the poor thus using money saved on taxes to gain more profits.
So are you seriously suggesting that Gates' charity has purchased enough Microsoft software to come anywhere close to the billions of dollars he's given away? I don't think so.


RE: Owned
By HrilL on 1/12/2009 6:22:52 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly this was taken the wrong way. I never said all the money is used in such a way but what I said does have truth to it.


RE: Owned
By callmeroy on 12/17/2008 4:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
Two things I think about if I were either insanely wealthy or famous -- and granted yeah, I do my share of hacking on the ultra rich or celebrities , but I do think I'd cut them a little break on two things -- 1) Giving them some credit for honorable deeds done with their wealth and 2) Their right to privacy.

If what, HrilL, you are saying is going on in Gates case - I'd love to see the proof then judge from there -- however I think its messed up how the first conclusion nearly anyone makes when they hear or read about a wealthy person donating to charity is "Well there's their little tax shelter" or "They are only doing it for the taxes"....I'm pretty cynical myself -- but even I find it hard to believe the every single rich person (let's say millionaire and above) SOLELY donates to charities because of the tax write offs and nothing else. That's just too much cynicism (sp?) even for me.

And btw, even if the only reason a rich person donates is for some tax write-offs, if they do nothing illegal or unethical -- why do I care or why should ANYONE care...its good they are donating either way.

Finally, ANYONE -- even if you aren't rich get the same rule applied for qualifying charities -- you can write it off your taxes so why is it somehow ok or not talked about if I can only donate $1,000 a year to charity, but it just HAS to be something nefarious is going on if I'm donating $100,000,000 to charity?

Despite the stupid, evil and revolting people in this world I still believe people are NOT inheritantly "evil" or "bad".


RE: Owned
By HrilL on 1/12/2009 6:32:51 AM , Rating: 2
This was taken the wrong way. I was just pointing out that some charities and companies do such things. What part of buying computers with one of your major donors software preinstalled... doesn't = money saved = money earned. Not all but some and probably a large sum since we are dealing with 100s of millions... I wouldn't be surprised if the hardware companies were not also large contributors...

Not once did I say all rich people and charities do this kind of thing. Also you should always check to see how money actually makes it to the people in need because some of them have administrative fees of 60% of your donation. Just because they have charity in their name doesn't mean they don't have ulterior motives.


RE: Owned
By bnutz on 12/17/2008 12:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
You don't think Steve Jobs is more of a monopolist that Bill, can't put OS X on any computer and the way they control iphone apps, most software apple makes is for Apple only. Some say it's quality control I say it's greed and power.


RE: Owned
By inighthawki on 12/17/2008 4:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
Also, to say microsoft is a monopoly now is actually quite ignorant if you ask me. Companies use windows because its what everyone already uses, not because Microsoft bribes them or anything. windows now works on multiple platforms including apple hardware, and microsoft has many programs such as the office suite for OSX. They don't limit the software available on their platforms, and provide easy to use developer tools for the people. Providing software for your own platform also does not count as being a monopoly.


RE: Owned
By TomZ on 12/17/2008 8:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's a fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in each of at least the following three areas: desktop operating systems, browsers, and office suites. Monopoly in this case is defined as having a controlling market share.

Because of their monopoly status, they have to make sure they don't run afoul of antitrust laws. After all, having a monopoly is not in itself illegal; it's what you do when you have a monopoly that could be illegal.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki