Form and Fortune

8/2/2019 Form and Fortune

1/14

06/03/2012 18:20Form and Fortune

Page 1 of 14http://www.tnr.com/print/article/books-and-arts/magazine/100978/form-fortune-steve-jobs-philosopher

Evgeny Morozov February 22, 2012 | 3:06 pm

Published on The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com)

Form and FortuneSteve Jobss pursuit of perfectionand the consequences.

Steve Jobs

By Walter Isaacson

(Simon & Schuster, 627 pp., $35)

I.

In 2010,Der Spiegelpublished a glowing profile of Steve Jobs, then at the helm of

Apple. Jobss products are venerated in Germany, especially by young bohemian

types. Recently, the Museum of Arts and Crafts in Hamburg presented an

exhibition of Apples products, with the grandiloquent subtitle On Electro-Design

that Makes Historya good indication of the countrys infatuation with thecompany. Jobs and Jony Ive, Apples extraordinary chief of design, have always

acknowledged their debt to Braun, a once-mighty German manufacturer of radios,

record players, and coffeemakers. The similarity between Brauns gadgets from the 1960s and Apples gadgets is quite uncanny. It

took a Syrian-American college dropouta self-proclaimed devotee of India, Japan, and Buddhismto make the world appreciate

the virtues of sleek and solid German design. (Braun itself was not so lucky: in 1967 it was absorbed into the Gillette Group, and

ended up manufacturing toothbrushes.)

The piece about Jobs inDer Spiegelshed no light on his personality, but it stood out for two reasons. The first was its title: Der Philosoph

des 21 Jahrhunderts, or The Philosopher of the Twenty-First Century. The second was the paucity of evidence to back up such an

astonishing claim. Jobss status as a philosopher seems to have been self-evident. It is hard to think of any other big-name CEO who

could win such an accolade, and from an earnest German magazine that used to publish long interviews with Heidegger. So was

Steve Jobs a philosopher who strove to change the world rather than merely interpret it? Or was he a marketing genius who turned an

ordinary company into a mythical cult, while he himself was busy settling old scores and serving the demands of his titanic ego?

There are few traces of Jobs the philosopher in Walter Isaacsons immensely detailed and pedestrian biography of the man. Isaacson

draws liberally on previously published biographies, and on dozens of interviews that Jobs gave to the national media since the early

1980s. He himself conducted many interviews with Jobs (who proposed the project to Isaacson), and with his numerous colleagues,

enemies, and disciples, but as one nears the end of this large book its hard not to wonder what it was that Isaacson and Jobs actually

talked about on those walks around Palo Alto. Small anecdotes abound, but werent there big themes to discuss?

That the book contains few earth-shattering revelations is not necessarily Isaacsons fault. Apple-watching is an industry: there exists

an apparently insatiable demand for books and articles about the company. Apple-focused blogs regularly brim with rumors and

speculation. Ever since its foundingbut especially in the last decade, when Apple-worship reached its apogeeApple has been


2/14



living under the kind of intense public scrutiny that is usually reserved for presidents. Jobs relished such attention, but only if it came

on his own terms. He did his best to manage Apples media coverage, and was not above calling influential tech reporters and

convincing them to write what he wanted the world to hear. Not only did Jobs build a cult around his company, he also ensured that

it had its own print outlets: Apples generous subsidy allowedMacworldthe first magazine to cover all things Appleto come into

being and eventually spawn a genre of its own.

As Isaacson makes clear, Jobs was not a particularly nice man, nor did he want to be one. The more diplomatic of Apples followers

might say that Steve Jobsbloodthirsty vegetarian, combative Buddhistlived a life of paradoxes. A less generous assessment wouldbe that he was an unprincipled opportunist-a brilliant but restless chameleon. For Jobs, consistency was truly the hobgoblin of little

minds (he saw little minds everywhere he looked) and he did his best to prove Emersons maxim in his own life. He hung a pirate flag

on the top of his teams building, proclaiming that it is better to be a pirate than to join the Navy, only to condemn Internet piracy

as theft several decades later. He waxed lyrical about his love for calligraphy, only to destroy the stylus as an input device. He talked

up the virtues of contemplation and meditation, but did everything he could to shorten the time it takes to boot an Apple computer.

(For a Buddhist, whats the rush?) He sought to liberate individual users from the thrall of big businesses such as IBM, and then

partnered with IBM and expressed his desire to work only with corporate America. A simplifier with ascetic tendencies, he

demanded that Apples board give him a personal jet so that he could take his family to Hawaii. He claimed he was not in it for the

money and asked for a salary of just $1, but he got into trouble with the Securities and Exchange Commission for having his stock

optionsin a move that gave him millionsbackdated. He tried to convince his girlfriend that it was important to avoid attachment

to material objects, but he built a company that created a fetish out of material objects. He considered going to a monastery in

apan, but declared that, were it not for computers, he would be a poet in the exceedingly unmonastic city of Paris.

How serious was he about that monastery thing? Isaacson recounts well-known anecdotes of Jobss quest for spirituality and seems to

take them all (and many other things) at face value. The story of Jobss youthhis pilgrimage to India, the time he spent living on a

farm commune, his fascination with primal scream therapydoes suggest that his interest in spirituality was more than a passing fad.

But how long did it last, exactly? Did the more mature Jobs, the ruthless capitalist, feel as strongly about spirituality as his younger self

did? Surely there were good reasons for the mature Jobs to cultivate the image of a deeply spiritual person: Buddhism is more than

ust a religion in America, it is also a brand. And one of Apples great accomplishments was to confer upon its devices a kind of

spiritual veneer.

obs was quite candid about his vanishing interest in matters of spirituality as early as 1985. When aNewsweekreporter inquired if it

was true that he had considered going to a monastery in Japan, Jobs gave a frank answer: Im glad I didnt do that. I know this is

going to sound really, really corny. But I feel like Im an American, and I was born here. And the fate of the world is in Americas

hands right now. I really feel that. And you know Im going to live my life here and do what I can to help. In a more recent interview

withEsquire he claimed that he did not pursue the monastery route in part because he saw fewer and fewer differences between living

in the East and working at Apple: Ultimately, it was the same thing.

obss engagement with politics was quite marginalso marginal that, except for him lecturing Obama on how to reset the country,

there are few glimpses of politics in this book. He did not hold politicians in anything like awe. We see him trying to sell a computer to

the king of Spain at a party, and asking Bill Clinton if he could put in a word with Tom Hanks to get him to do some work for Jobs.

(Clinton declined.) When he was ousted from Apple, Jobs may have flirted with the idea of running for office but was probably

discouraged by all the pandering it required. Do we have to go through that political bullshit to get elected governor? he reportedly

asked his publicist. In an interview withBusiness Weekin 1984, he confessed that Im not political. Im not party-oriented, Im people-

oriented.

But not political may be the wrong term to describe him. There is a curious passage in his interview with Wired, in 1996, where he

notes:

When youre young, you look at television and think, Theres a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But

when you get a little older, you realize thats not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. Thats a

far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks arereally in business to give people what they want. Its the truth.


3/14



There is a hint of contempt, even of misanthropy, in this observation; and also of the marketers view of the world. Reform as a

category of thought did not seem to exist in Steve Jobss universe, even if he was always tweaking his products. That an entirely

different institutional and political arrangement might be possible; that it might result in better television; that this new kind of

television might still be enjoyed by the population and play an important civic role in the national discoursenone of this occurred to

him. Had he only bothered to look across the Atlantic, he would have discovered that a different televisionthe BBC, or the Franco-

German Artewas not only possible, but attainable. Jobs claimed to have liberal leanings, but he chose to live in an intellectual

bubble that was decidedly pre-political. In that bubble, there were only two kinds of people to be reckoned with: producers and

consumers. Norms, laws, institutions, politicsnone of that larger context matters. Jobs was a revolutionary, but a limited one; and

never did so limited a revolutionary create so vast a revolution.

II.

PURE WAS THE ultimate compliment that Steve Jobs could bestow. The word and its derivations appear often in Isaacsons

book. Every once in a while, says Jobs, I find myself in the presence of puritypurity of spirit and loveand I always cry. For

obs, ideas and products either have purityand then they are superior to everything elseor they do not, and then they must be

rejected or revised. He wants Apple computers to be bright and pure and honest. He orders the walls of an Apple factory to be

painted pure white. The iPad, he says, must embody the purest possible simplicity. He is deeply moved by artists who displayed

purity, and describes an ex-girlfriend as one of the purest people Ive ever known. Apple, he claimed in 1985, was about as pure

of a Silicon Valley company as you could imagine. Ive, Apples master of design, loves purity as well. He wants his devices not in

plain white but in pure white, because there would be a purity to it. A clear coating on the iPod nano would ruin the purity of

his design. Ive believesand says that Jobs shared this beliefthat products need to look pure and seamless.

Neither Jobs nor Ive tells us exactly what he means by pure, and Isaacson is not much help here. It appears that pure products

exhibit a perfect correspondence between their form and what both Jobs and Ive refer to as their essence. Ive notes that we dont

like to think of our knives as being glued together. Steve and I care about things like that, which ruin the purity and detract from the

essence of something like a utensil, and we think alike about how products should be made to look pure and seamless. It is a kind of

industrial Platonism. All knives have an essence, and if the form of a given knife corresponds to that essence, then the knife, the

designed object, is perfect, or pure. Nothing compound or cobbled together; only the integrity of a single substance in a simple form.

Pure products are born, not made; any visible signs of human assemblysay, screwswould make it hard to believe in the higher

integrity, the perfection, of the product.

Isaacsons discussion of the idea behind Toy Storythe wildly successful computeranimated film that was made in 1995 by Pixar, then

run by Jobsprovides a further glimpse into how Jobs thought about essences. Jobs and John Lasseter, the films director, shared a

belief that

products have an essence to them, a purpose for which they were made. If the object were to have feelings, these would be based

on its desire to fulfill its essence. The purpose of a glass, for example, is to hold water.... The essence of a computer screen is to

interface with a human. The essence of a unicycle is to be ridden in a circus. As for toys, their purpose is to be played with by kids,and thus their existential fear is of being discarded or upstaged by newer toys.

But Isaacsons equation of essences with purposes only complicates matters further, since products can be made for purposes that

have nothing to do with their essences. (Toys can be made for the purpose of making money.) Later Isaacson writes that as usual

obs pushed for the purest possible simplicity. That required determining what was the core essence of the [iPad]. The answer: the

display screen. But by this logic, the essence of a unicycle is the wheel rather than being ridden in a circus, as Isaacson himself claims

above.

I DO NOT MEAN to be pedantic. The question of essence and form, of purity and design, may seem abstract and obscure, but it lies

at the heart of the Apple ethos. Apples metaphysics, as it might be called, did not originate in religion, but rather in architecture and


4/14



design. Its these two disciplines that supplied Jobs with his intellectual ambition. John Sculley, Apples former CEO, who ousted Jobs

from his own company in the mid-1980s, maintained that everything at Apple can be best understood through the lens of

designing. You cannot grasp how Apple thinks about the worldand about its own role in the worldwithout engaging with its

design philosophy.

Isaacson gets closer to the heart of the matter when he discusses Jobss interest in the Bauhaus, as well as his and Ives obsession with

Braun, but he does not push this line of inquiry far enough. Nor does he ask an obvious philosophical question: since essences do not

drop from the sky, where do they come from? How can a non-existent productsay, the iPadhave an essence that can bediscovered and then implemented in form? Is the iPads essence something that was dreamed up by Jobs and Ive, or does it exist

independently of them in some kind of empyrean that theyby training or by visionary intuitionuniquely inhabit?

The idea that the form of a product should correspond to its essence does not simply mean that products should be designed with

their intended use in mind. That a knife needs to be sharp so as to cut things is a non-controversial point accepted by most designers.

The notion of essence as invoked by Jobs and Ive is more interesting and significantmore intellectually ambitiousbecause it is

linked to the ideal of purity. No matter how trivial the object, there is nothing trivial about the pursuit of perfection. On closer

analysis, the testimonies of both Jobs and Ive suggest that they did see essences existing independently of the designera position that

is hard for a modern secular mind to accept, because it is, if not religious, then, as I say, startlingly Platonic.

This is where Apples intellectual patrimonywhich spans the Bauhaus, its postwar successor in the Ulm School of Design, and

Braun (Ulms closest collaborator in the corporate world)comes into play. Those modernist institutions proclaimed and practiced

an aesthetic of minimalism, and tried to strip their products of superfluous content and ornament (though not without internal

disagreements over how to define the superfluous). All of them sought to marry technology to the arts. Jobss rhetorical attempt to

present Apple as a company that bridges the worlds of technology and liberal arts was a Californian reiteration of the Bauhauss call

to unite technology and the arts. As Walter Gropius, the founder of the Bauhaus, declared, Art and technologya new unity.

Bauhaus ideas inspired Jobs throughout his career. Speaking at a design conference in Aspen in 1983, Jobs proposed that, in contrast

to Sonys heavy high-tech look, new design should take Bauhaus as its starting point and relate more to the functionality and true

character. (True character was another term for essence.) Jobs went on to say that what [we at Apple are] going to do is make

the products high-tech, and were going to package them cleanly so that you know theyre high-tech. We will fit them in a small

package, and then we can make them beautiful and white, just like Braun does with its electronics. Isaacson claims that it was at

Aspen that Jobs was exposed to the spare and functional design philosophy of the Bauhaus movement, since the buildings of the

Aspen Institute (of which Isaacson is president and CEO) were co-designed by the Bauhaus veteran Herbert Bayer. Perhaps it was

from Bayerwho in the mid-1920s designed a typeface that eschewed uppercase lettersthat Jobs got the habit of signing his name

in lowercase.

In all likelihood Jobs was familiar with Bauhaus before he visited Aspen, since Bauhaus idealsin a somewhat modified formwere

embodied in consumer electronics designed by Braun. The design philosophy of Dieter Rams, Brauns legendary designer, has shaped

the feel and the look of Apples latest products more than any other body of ideas. Since joining Braun in 1955, Ramswho likes to

describe his approach to design as less, but betterbegan collaborating with the faculty at the Ulm School of Design, which tried to

revive the creative spirit of Bauhaus with a modicum of cybernetics and systems theory. Eventually Rams produced his own manifestofor what good design should accomplish. His ten principles of good design encouraged budding designers to embrace innovation

and make products that were useful but environmentally friendly, thorough but simple, easy to understand but long-lasting, honest

but unobtrusive. Rams wanted his products to be like English butlers: always available, but invisible and discreet.

One such budding designer was Ive, born in 1967 in London, who had been fascinated by the elegant simplicity of Braun products

ever since his parents bought a Braun juicer in the 1970s. It was the essence of juicing made material, Ive writes in a moving

foreword to a recent book on Rams. To him, Ramss products seem inevitable, challenging you to question whether there could

possibly be a rational alternative. It is this clarity and purity that leads to the sense of inevitability and effortlessness that characterizes

his work. Ives tribute to his hero casts light upon the origin of Apples obsession with essence and purity. When Ive observes that

Ramss genius lies in understanding and giving form to the very essence of an objects beingalmost describing its reason for

existence, he is plainly expressing his own credo, too.

The sevent -nine- ear-old Rams who claims not to like com uters or to use them and refers to be called a Gestalt en ineer


5/14



rather than a designer, greatly appreciates the fact that his design legacy lives on in Apple. (Ive used to send him new Apple products.)

In almost every interview, Rams is asked about Appleand he is always quick to lavish praise on the company. Rams also likes to

emphasize the hidden spirituality of his own products, and even claims that my basic design philosophy and my ten principles are

similar to the Zen philosophy. Ramss products were once exhibited in Kyotos historic Kenninji temple.

THE BAUHAUS LIVES ON in Apple also in other ways. In addition to its minimalism, the Bauhaus also championed an obsessionwith functionalismthe idea, revolutionary in its time, that form follows function. The Bauhaus enthusiasm for function is the

precursor of Apples enthusiasm for essence. But how did the Bauhaus designers and architects explain the functions of their

products and structures? Where did they come from, and how were they discovered? In a superb essay, in 1995, on the question of

why the notion of form follows function was so attractive to the Bauhaus, the design historian Jan Michl observed that, instead of

appealing to religious deities or nature to justify the products functions, modernist designers appealed to something abstract and

objective: the spirit of the times. Functionalists proper, Michl writes, those of the 1920s and 1930s, did not refer to God but rather

to demands of the Zeitgeist, Modern Epoch, or Machine Age.... They referred to Purposes of an other-than-human Intelligence.

Such Purposes, in not being human purposes, were allegedly no longer subjective but objective, and as such they sanctioned the vision

of objective design. Writing in 1926, Gropius, director of the Bauhaus at the time, proclaimed that the Bauhaus seeksby the

means of systematic theoretical and practical research into formal, technical and economic fieldsto derive the form of an object

from its natural functions and limitations.

The task of the designer, then, was not to please or to innovate. It was to uncover and to revealrather like scientists; for design is just

a tangible, natural, and objective byproduct of history. As Michl put it, Functional forms do not simply appeal to taste, because they

are a matter of truthand truth does not pander to taste. It is no wonder that the functionalists loved to tout the supposed

timelessness of their forms: truth, after all, has only one timeless form, or so many members of the Bauhaus believed. (That the

modern epoch may eventually come to an end and be followed by an epoch with a different set of values and needs did not occur to

them.) Its no wonder that the highest compliment that Jony Ive could bestow on Dieter Rams was to call the design of his products

inevitable.

Functionalism gave modernist designers the illusion of working outside of the crass realities of the commercial marketplacetheywere in the truth-seeking business, after allwhile also infusing them with a sense of autonomy that elevated them to the ranks of

poets and artists: they were no longer mere instruments in the hands of big business. And functionalism had something to offer their

customers as well. In pretending that they did not exist, functionalism, paradoxically, elevated the customers to a kind of priestly

status. In what is probably the best explanation of Apples astonishing appeal to consumers, Michl notes about the Bauhauss ideology

that

to be defined as a user worthy of the functionalist architects attention one had first to qualify as Modern Man, i.e., a person whose

likes and dislikes were practically identical to those of the modernist architect himself. The functionalist references to users never

suggested a readiness to consider the users wishes, demands, and needs on their own merits. The individual client, who until the

arrival of modernism was thought to have a legitimate say in both functional and aesthetic matters, was now on his way to

becoming an unperson. This was only logical: since forms were claimed to be intrinsic to functional solutions, there was no reason

to take the form- or function-related preferences of clients and users seriously.

For consumers, to embrace such products was to embrace the higher spirit of modernitya lesson that Steve Jobs understood all too

well. Jobs famously expressed his utter indifference to the customer, who in his view does not really know what he wants. Apples most

incredible trick, accomplished by marketing as much as by philosophy, is to allow its customers to feel as if they are personally making

historythat they are a sort of spiritual-historical elite, even if there are many millions of them. The purchaser of an Apple product

has been made to feel like he is taking part in a world-historical mission, in a revolution-and Jobs was so fond of revolutionary rhetoric

thatRolling Stone dubbed him Mr. Revolution.

There was hardly an interview in which Jobs did not dramatize, and speak almost apocalyptically about, the stakes involved in buyingApples products. If Apple were to lose to IBM, we are going to enter sort of a computer Dark Ages for about twenty years. Or: If

Apple falters, innovation will cease. We will go into a dark ages in computing. He saw revolutionary potential in the most obscure


6/14



things; he even claimed he had never seen a revolution as profound as objectoriented programminga niche field that was the

focus of his work before he returned to Apple. Occasionally his revolutionary rhetoric spread to non-Apple products as well; Time

once quoted him as saying that Segwayyes, Segwaywas as big a deal as the PC.

No wonder that the counterculture fizzled in the early 1980s: everyone was promised they could change the world by buying a

Macintosh. Linking Apple to the historical process (Hegel comes to Palo Alto!), and convincing the marketplace that the company

always represented the good side in any conflict, broke new ground in promotional creativity. Jobs turned to the power of culture to

sell his products. He was a marketing genius because he was always appealing to the meaning of life. With its first batch of computers,

Apple successfully appropriated the theme of the decentralization of power in technologythen also present in the deep ecology and

appropriate technology movementsthat was so dear to the New Left a decade earlier. If people were longing for technology that

was small and beautifulto borrow E.F. Schumachers then-popular sloganJobs would give it to them. Apple allowed people who

had missed all the important fights of their era to participate in a battle of their owna battle for progress, humanity, innovation.

And it was a battle that was to be won in the stores. As Apples marketing director in the early 1980s toldEsquire, We all felt as

though we had missed the civil rights movement. We had missed Vietnam. What we had was the Macintosh. The consumer as

revolutionary: it was altogether brilliant, and of course a terrible delusion.

THE LAST DECADEApples most successfulhas been even more intriguing, for the company once again built products that

perfectly responded to the spiritual and aspirational demands of the dayor at least it did an excellent job convincing people that this

was the case. Amid all the current brouhaha about the liberating impact of social media, it is easy to forget that, as far as technology

was concerned, the last decade began on a rather depressing note. First came the dot-com bubble, which all but shattered the starry-

eyed cyber-optimism of the 1990s. It was quickly followed by September 11hardly an occasion to celebrate the wonders of modern

technology. The hijacked airplanes, the collapsing twin towers of the World Trade Center, the failure of the American militarythe

most technologically savvy force in the worldto do much about it, the invisible surveillance of our electronic communications in

AT&T intercept facilities: it seemed as if technology was either malfunctioning or profoundly repressive.

Apples response to the mood of the time was to build technology that was easy to use and worked flawlessly. While its gadgets looked

plain enough to match the sober spirit of the country, they also teased their users with the promise of liberation. It just worksobss signature promise at product launcheswas soothing to a nation excited and addled and traumatized by technology. Nothing

could go wrong: Apple had thought of everything. The technology would work as advertised; it was under total control; it would not

get hacked. Apple promised a world in which technology would be humane, and used to amelioraterather than underminethe

human condition. For much of the last decade, Apple was not just selling gadgets; it was also selling technologically mediated therapy

and America, a nation that likes to cure its ills with redemptive shopping, could not resist the temptation.

It should be noted that Apples therapeutic role was not unique. The British historian Paul Betts argues that Brauns products played

a similar role in postwar West Germany, helping it to move beyond the fascist aestheticization of politics by means of grotesque

political rallies and grandiose architecture to the postwar aestheticization of everyday life by means of sleek and efficient consumer

electronics. As Betts puts it in The Authority of Everyday Objects, his magnificent cultural history of West German industrial design in the

1950s, Neofunctionalism ... derived its moral authority from the specific postwar situation. In a country devastated by war and thecrushing shortage of necessary goods and materials, the call for simple, practical, and long-lasting design was hailed as the very

expression of a new postwar moral economy, one that did not squander precious resources or bow to black market pressures to pass

off shoddily designed goods. Brauns products just worked.

The best designers of that eraand they were to be found teaching at Ulm and working at Brauntapped into the same themes of

humanity and spirituality that Apple would express and exploit half a century later. The 50s world culture of high design was very

keen on uniting design practice and humanist culture, Betts remarks. The design ware was redefined as a distinctive cultural good

possessing certain ethical qualities and even a spiritual essence. The parallels with Apple are obvious. Dieter Rams claimed that

designers can render a very concrete and effective contribution towards a more humane existence on earth in the future, and Steve

obs propounded something quite similar a few decades later. One of his more important goals in life, he said, was creating great

things instead of making money, putting things back into the stream of history and of human consciousness as much as I could. In

this endeavor, Jobs excelled. His machines would enhanceor so he insistednothing less than human life. No one ever mastered


7/14



the art of retailing humanismin beautiful boxes sold in beautiful storesbetter than he did.

APPLES LINKS to Bauhaus, Ulm, and Braun suggest that the company has always operated in a much richer intellectual tradition

than is generally recognized. The conventional viewthat Apple is unique, so exceptional and so unpredictable that it defies easy

categorizationssays more about the inability of technology analysts to cut through Apples design philosophy, which, while dense,

has been quite consistent over time. While this philosophy has produced a bevy of beautiful products that are tremendously popularwith the general public, it would be wrong to ascribe Apples success to superior design alone. Jobs never hid the fact that ultimately

he was in the business of selling not computers but dreams. He was quite sincere about this. However harsh his business practices

were, in his beliefs there was not a trace of cynicism.

Explaining the sad plight of his company in the early 1990swhen Apple was on a path to self-destruction while he was awayJobs

said that Apple didnt fail.... We succeeded so well, we got everyone else to dream the same dream.... The trouble is the dream didnt

evolve. Apple stopped creating. It was a curious admission that Apple was not merely in the business of fulfilling customers dreams,

but also of creating them from scratch. Apple is in fact a textbook example of consumer engineeringa concept eagerly embraced

by the American advertising industry in the 1930s to try to get America out of the Depression. Consumer engineering, wrote Roy

Sheldon and Egmont Arens in their classic work on the subject, is the science of finding customers, and it involves the making of

customers when the findings are slim. The motto embraced by Regis McKenna, Apples p.r. firm, in the early 1980s was not all that

different: Markets are made, not won.

It is hardbut not impossibleto reconcile such a view of business with the Bauhaus-inspired rhetoric of purity, essence, and

function. If gadgets and devices in their ideal form exist independently of reality and are to be discovered by epistemologically

privileged designers, then the science of making customers out of thin air can be justified only on the grounds that the designer is a

kind of prophet who has access to a higher truth and needs to spread that truth as widely, as evangelically, and as remorselessly as

possible.

Those who attack Apple as a quasireligion are more correct than they know: the company does function on the assumption that its

designers, and Steve Jobs above all, are qualitatively different from the rest of us. The cult of the designer is the foundation of Apples

secular religion. And there is a way for the rest of us to participate in the truth upon which the design is based, and to rise to the

human level of the designers themselves: it is to buy an iPhone or an iPod. This is how Jobs explained the superiority of the iPod over

other MP3 players: We won because we personally love music. We made the iPod for ourselves. Nothing ambiguous about that.

Apple products are built by gods for gods. And in a free market, this privilege is available to anyone with the understanding and the

money to acquire it.

obs, the Modern Man par excellence, did not do market research; all he needed was to examine himself. An Apple manager once

described the companys marketing research as Steve looking in the mirror every morning and asking himself what he wanted. That

is not just a description of narcissism; it is also the natural consequence of viewing the designer as the medium through which the

truth speaks to the world. So what if customers did not like some of his products? Jobss mirror told him not to worry. As Isaacson puts

it, Jobs did not believe the customer was always right; if they wanted to resist using a mouse, they were wrong. He also notes thatone of Jobss ex-girlfriends recalled that they had a basic philosophical difference about whether aesthetic tastes were fundamentally

individual, as [she] believed, or universal and could be taught, as Jobs believed. Steve believed it was our job to teach people

aesthetics, to teach people what they should like, she said. This smacks more of Matthew Arnold and Victorian Britain than of

Timothy Leary and California in the 1970s.

As a philosophy, of course, this borders on paternalism, if not authoritarianismsomething thatDer Spiegelfailed to grasp when it

celebrated Jobs as a philosopher; but philosophy has no place on corporate spreadsheets. For many people, Apples success itself

ustifies Apples philosophy. Whats more intriguing, though, is how a company infused with such conservative ideas emerged as the

most authentic representative of the counterculture, with Jobs arguing that he was simply extending the power to the people fight to

the world of computing. Jobs wanted every household in the world to have an Apple product so that he could teach the bastards

proper aesthetics: this was emancipation from the top down. It is a strange way to promote empowerment.

No wonder, then, that when he was asked about his lifes goal, Jobs replied that it was to seek enlightenment-however you define it.


8/14



Here he is once again indebted to the functionalist ideology of Bauhaus and its successors. Dieter Rams sees the mission of the

designer in similar terms: We can only expect constructive progress from companies and designers that ... accept that they play an

economic, civilizing, and ... cultural role in society. Economic and culturalsure. But civilizing? Was the world before Apple

uncivilized? Do machines bring civilization? This is the same missionary agenda that gave us modernist apartment blocks with pre-

installed blinds and furniture: it may have maximized the purity of the form, but only by disregarding individual idiosyncrasies. The

difference is that Apple induces us to buy its civilizing products through clever marketing, while some people were forced by

government fiat to move into Le Corbusier-inspired large-scale housing projects.

The Bauhaus was over before the modern advertising industryat least as we know it todaycame of age. Gropius, Breuer, Itten,

and the other Bauhaus luminaries never properly theorized the relationship between design and advertising, even if they did print a

lot of stylish ads. (Things were a bit more complicated with the New Bauhaus run by Moholy-Nagy out of Chicago.) Of course,

neither the Bauhaus nor Ulm shied away from commercialismboth worked very closely with industry, and Braun is an apt

illustration of how fruitful such collaborations were; but it is difficult to imagine either school being as obsessed with marketing as

obs, who, at a weekly meeting, would approve every new commercial, advertisement, and billboard. (The left-wingers and socialists

at the Bauhaus would certainly have looked askance at such an emphasis on advertising, or capitalist propaganda.) Jobss enormous

creativity extended also to the practice of marketing. He set a new tone to product launcheshis well-rehearsed unveiling of the

Macintosh in 1984 was reportedly inspired by his reading about the tremendous success ofStar Wars on its opening dayand he

made American advertising look like art. (Apples celebrated 1984 commercial was the first American ad to win a Grand Prix atCannes.)

obs never lost an opportunity to embellish his story or to connect dots that did not exist. The Economists cover on the week that Jobs

died introduced him as The Magician, but a more accurate description would have been The Mythmaker. While there hardly

exists an interview in which Jobs did not emphasize Apples origins in a garagehe liked to ruminate about the purity of the

garage, and he described his rebellious Macintosh project as the metaphysical garageApples other co-founder, Steve Wozniak,

always maintained that the garage played a very marginal role in how the first Apple computer was built. I built most of it in my

apartment and in my office at Hewlett-Packard, he toldRolling Stone in 1996. I dont know where the whole garage thing came

from.... Very little work was done there.

That a man so enraptured by purity never seemed worried that the obsession with marketing might dilute the pristine nature of hisproducts is odd. Jobss most impressive achievement was to persuade the shackled masses that they could see the Platonic forms

without ever leaving their caves. Marketingwith its shallowness and its insidious manipulation of the consumerwould normally be

relegated to the inferior realm of appearances, but it took on a different function in Jobss business metaphysics: it played the gospel-

like role of showing us the way to the true, natural, and pure products that have not yet been spoiled by the suffocating and tasteless

ethos of faceless corporations such as IBM and Microsoft. That Jobs could launch a campaign against capitalism by using capitalisms

favorite weaponand get away with it!was truly remarkable.

III.

APPLES EXTRAORDINARY success in the last decade has been owed, to a large extent, to its dogged and methodical

commitment to understanding and avoiding the failures of other technology companies. Apple respects business history like no other

company. Perhaps it was his early fascination with Hewlett-Packardwhen he was twelve, Jobs cold-called Bill Hewlett and ended up

getting a summer job at the companythat left Jobs always measuring Apple against veterans of the computer industry. As early as

1985 he was struggling with the existential question of why great companies stop innovating and die. Ten to 15 years ago, if you

asked people to make a list of the five most exciting companies in America, Polaroid and Xerox would have been on everyones list,

he ruminated toPlayboy. Where are they now? They would be on no ones list today. What happened? The case of Polaroids

Edwin Landa college dropout who built an extremely innovative company that eventually fell aparthaunted Jobs for a long time.

The answer Jobs offered at the timethat companies, as they grow to become multibillion-dollar entities, somehow lose their vision

[and] insert lots of layers of middle management between the people running the company and the people doing the workseems

banal, but the thorny question of legacy, of what kind of company Apple would become after he was gone, stayed with him for


9/14



. ,

company that was so imbued with innovative creativity that it would outlive them.

After his triumphant comeback, Jobss preferred way of ensuring that his company did not turn into another Polaroid was to put

Apple in a permanent state of emergencya state where normal business rules would not apply, where the color code for terror

would always be red, where no business partners would be trusted, and where every Apple product would be treated as if it were its

last.Inside Apple, a new book by Adam Lashinsky about the culture of the company, suggests that new Apple hires are often assigned to

fake or ambiguous products so that their loyalty can be tested before they are put on real projects. Dont get too comfortable is the

spirit that Jobs wanted to cultivate at Apple on his return.

It is hardly surprising that Apple has accumulated almost $100 billion in reserves. Since Jobs could not know who would stab him in

the back next, he wanted to have on hand enough resources for a battle. He was always expecting a battle. His legendary single-

mindedness was partly a refusal to be distracted from the Darwinian environment, to desist from the fight against the internal decay

or the external competition that he feared would strike Apple at any moment. That his role model HewlettPackard was beginning to

implode much like Polaroid must have only intensified his paranoia. (He told Isaacson that it was tragic that H.P. was being

dismembered and destroyed.) So instead of watching Apple lose its innovative edge and get crushed by some arrogant start-up, Jobs

took two pre-emptive measures. One was to ensure that Apple would never get too attached to a particular product line, no matter

how profitable it was. The other was to maximize its autonomy in the marketplace and ensure that it could not be pushed around by

others.

HERE JOBS was drawing on another intellectual tradition that Isaacson mentions at least in passing. Jobss thinking about how great

companies come to live, innovate, and die was influenced by Clayton M. Christensens bookThe Innovators Dilemma, which appeared

in 1997. Christensen, a theorist of innovation at Harvard Business School, postulated that many companies fall victim to their own

success: having discovered a product that could turn their business into a gold mine, they hold on to it for too long. In the meantime

they become too slow, inattentive, and complacent to see what might disrupt their own business. Thus, cameramakers were too slow

to grasp the implications of digital photography and cellphones; map-makers missed the advent of GPS technology; search engines

failed to grasp the importance of social networking.

Seen through the prism ofThe Innovators Dilemma, Apples business strategy is easier to discern. A conventional technology company

might hesitate to launch a phone that does everything that its own highly profitable music player is already capable of doing, because

the sales of the phone might cannibalize the sales of the player. Likewise, a conventional technology company might be reluctant to

launch a tablet computer that would compete with its own profitable line of laptops and desktops. But Apple defied such conventions.

It has consistently been taking risksinternecine risks, competing against itself. Not only does it introduce products that vie with each

other, but it is not afraid to say so: one of the first ads for the iPhone noted that there has never been an iPod that can do this.

Apples reasoning seemed to be that, while sales cannibalization may eat into short-term profits, it is not the worst thing that can

happen to a great company. Whatever it may lose in sales, the company would gain in innovationthat is, its designers and engineers

would never get a chance to slack offand in branding: that is, new products (released with impeccable regularity) would guarantee

regular press coverage and produce an even stronger association of its brand with progress and innovation.

Even though Apple is often criticized for screening which apps are allowed to run on its phones and its tablets, it has been far more

permissiveespecially when it comes to the apps of its competitorsthan one would expect. Today anyone with an iPad can stream

music from Spotify and watch films from Netflix, which bypass Apples iTunes store and directly undermine one of Apples revenue

streams; and anyone can read newspapers, magazines, and books through Amazons Kindle app, again bypassing Apples own iBooks

store and App Store. Apple does not seem to mind. (It did not initially allow apps from Skype and Google Voice, but this was

probably driven by its commitment to AT&T, its exclusive carrier partner, rather than by its fear of eroded business models.)

Of course, innovation potential and smart branding may not be immediately reflected in a companys stock price. For many firms, the

lure of easy profits from existing products is too great to resistespecially given that they are run by hired managers who do not

much care about legacy and will find a cushy new job anyway. Contrasting Apples cavalier attitude to profit with the rest of the

corporate world, Christensen has noted that most companies cannot bring themselves to make decisions that result in the market for

their existing core products being completely destroyed. When they consider it from a financial perspective, it just doesnt make sense


10/14



o crea e new pro uc s a e r s o eopar z ng your pro a e, ex s ng pro uc s.... s exac y a ear a as e many grea

companies to leave themselves vulnerable to disruption from others. Obsessed with issues of legacy, Jobs was different in that he went

in for the long term; and by focusing on innovation and branding rather than on the immediate bottom line, he delivered more value

to his company than any other CEO in recent history. If you had invested $100,000 in Apple in 1997 when Jobs returned to the

company, your shares would have been worth $6.86 million on his retirement.

INNOVATION IS one thing, but making money off it is another. Were Apple to stick to hardware manufacturingputting all its

energy into designing its phones, tablets, and computers while someone else was building the operating systemit would need to

insure that all its latest hardware innovations would actually be supported by the next version of someone elses operating system.

This, of course, might not happen, or it might happen too slowly. Jobs sought to avoid such dependence at all costs. As he saw it,

Apple in its short history had already accumulated too many scarsmost of them from competitors and former collaborators. It

would take risks and enter into business relationships only in situations where it could expect to gain autonomy, or at least the upper

hand.

obs understood that abandoning control at any point in the chainhe would eventually build his own retail stores to manage the

very last stage in the processcomes with risks, whatever the savings. For Apple to innovate at its own pace, which was the only

option acceptable to Jobs, it had to control everything or get out. As Jobs put it, We didnt want to get into any business where we

didnt own or control the primary technology because youll get your head handed to you. This does not mean that Apple is an

autarky. Its goal has never been self-sufficiency; it does not aim to produce every single component in-house. Its ultimate goal is

innovation, which, in Jobss view, could only come with relative independence. To that end, working with other companies is

acceptable as long as it does not give any single supplier outsize influence on the company. Apples list of suppliersreleased for the

first time earlier this yearlists 156 companies (which account for 97 percent of its primary suppliers).

Can Apples obsession with innovation become a liability, blinding it to numerous ethical issues involved in the manufacture of its

products? This is an increasingly burning question. Isaacson recounts a visit that Danielle Mitterrand, then Frances first lady, paid to

Apple in the early 1980s. When she asked Jobs about overtime pay and vacation time for workers, Jobs got annoyed and told her

interpreter that if shes so interested in their welfare, tell her she can come work here any time. Isaacson fails to relate this episode to

Apples more recent troubles with working conditions in the factories of its China-based suppliers, a subject thatinexplicablyisnever broached in the book. The controversy is casting a growing cloud over Apples image. But Jobs promised aesthetic purity, not

moral purity. Apple has certainly not been deaf to the mounting public concern over how its gadgets are manufacturedit has

recently joined the Fair Labor Association, a respected non-profit; but it is not clear how far it is willing to go in revamping its supply

chain. Given his ambition to minimize his companys dependence on any one player, it is surprising that Jobs was willing to place so

many of Apples eggs in the basket of Foxconn, its largest and most disturbing partner in China.

IV.

OBS NEVER PRODUCED a coherent theory of technology, but his curt responses to interviewers reveal that he was indeedprepared to think about technology philosophically. In one interview after another, Jobs comes off as a pragmatic but sophisticated

thinkercertainly not your average one-dimensional tech-loving engineer. Jobs accepted that his products would be used and

modified in unforeseeable ways: People are creative animals and will figure out clever new ways to use tools that the inventor never

imagined. He was aware of the pernicious appeal and the low effectiveness of technological fixes (Whats wrong with education

cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent. Its a political problem), and he seemed to believe that

much of the digital revolution was being overhyped (Its a disservice to constantly put things in this radical new lightthat its going

to change everything. Things dont have to change the world to be important).

While most technologists believe that technology is value-neutral, Jobs was prepared to talk about the values embedded in the gadgets

and the appliances that we use. This was most evident when he described how he went about buying a washing machine:

We spent some time in our family talking about whats the trade-off we want to make. We ended up talking a lot about design, but


11/14



.

we care most about our clothes feeling really soft and lasting longer? Did we care about using a quarter of the water? We spent

about two weeks talking about this every night at the dinner table.

obss meticulous unpacking of the values embedded in different washing machines, and his insistence on comparing them to the

values he wanted to live by, would be applauded by moralistic philosophers of technology from Heidegger to Ellul, though it may be a

rather arduous way of getting on with life. But Jobs understood the central point that philosophers of technology had tried (and failed)

to impart: that technology embodies morality.

obs himself was never shy about the value that Apple products were to embody: it was liberationfrom manual work, from being

limited to just a few dozen songs on your music player, from being unable to browse the Internet on your phone. Yet liberation is

hardly the only value that matters. We need to identify the other moral instructions that may be embedded in a technology, which it

promotes directly or indirectly. And this fuller analysis requires going beyond studying the immediate impact on the user and

engaging with the broaderlet us call it the ecologicalimpact of a device. (Ecological here has no environmental connotations;

it simply indicates that a technology may affect not only its producer and its user, but also the values and the habits of the community

in which they live.)

Whether a washing machine uses a quarter of the water or more matters morally only if its users can establish a causal connection

between water use and climate change, ocean depletion, or some other general concern. Jobs understood this. The problem was thatobs, while perfectly capable of interrogating technology and asking all the right questions about its impact on our lives, blatantly

refused to do so when it came to his own products. He may have been the ultimate philosopher of the washing machine, but he

offered little in the way of critical thinking about the values embedded in the Macintosh, the iPod, and the iPad. When he discussed

his own products, he switched from philosophical reflection on the effects of consumer choices to his Bauhaus mode of the vatic

designer.

Tellingly, it was not the washing machine that Jobs invoked to promote his gadgets, but the automobile. In the early 1980s, he

regularly compared the computer to the automobile, stressing the emancipatory power of the latter. The Macintosh was pitched as a

Volkswagen, and the more expensive Lisa model as a Maserati. Jobs spoke of the Crankless Computer: in a memo he declared that

personal computers are now at the stage where cars were when they needed to be cranked by hand to be started. In hisPlayboy

interview, he said that people really dont have to understand how computers work. Most people have no concept of how an

automatic transmission works, yet they know how to drive a car. He persistently praised Henry Ford for making cars accessible

without following the whims of his customers; it was apparent that he also liked to think of himself that way. On the whole, the media

found Jobss car analogy persuasive. In 1982, The New York Times reported that Apple was to the personal computer what the Model

T Ford was to automobiles.

On the surface, the car analogy seems flawless: both technologies allowed customers to do what they wanted, and boosted their

autonomy, and gave them more choices about how to live their lives. But as any environmentalist, urbanplanning activist, or

committed cyclist can attest, liberation was only one part of the impact that the automobile had on how we live, especially in America.

Congestion, pollution, suburban sprawl, the decline of public transportation, the destruction of public space in the name of building

more highwaysthese are only some of the less discussed effects of the automobile. Of course, the automobile did not have the sameeffects everywherecompare how easy and pleasant it is to get around without a car in Portland versus Dallasso simple appeals to

technological determinism, or to the zeitgeist, or to the canonical myths about how the automobile would transform and liberate our

culture, do not explain very much. Some cities and communities simply approached the automobile with the kind of philosophical

sensibility that Jobs applied to his washing machine, and others did not.

NOW, WHAT DOES all this tell us about Apple? What is its ecological impact, and should we fear it? It is tempting to point to the

impending death of bookstores and music stores and suggest that Applealong with Amazon, Google, and Netflixis culpable.

Technologists already have a well-rehearsed rejoinder: that this is all just creative destruction, and what needs to be preserved is the

content, not the distributional channel. At least Apple, they say, has been something of a savior to record labels and book publishers.Well, perhapsbut bookstores have other important functions for the individual and the community that will not be easily replicated

online.


12/14



Yet this is not the most interesting and troubling aspect of Apples ecological impact. Ironically enough, the most consequential of

Apples threats is not to the physical but to the virtual: the company may eventually suffocate the Internet. Apples embrace of the

app paradigmwhereby activities that have been previously conducted on our browsers shift to dedicated software applications on

our phones and tabletsmay be destroying the Internet in much the same way that the automobile destroyed the sidewalks and the

playgrounds.

The idea of the Internet is still too young to produce strong anti-app sentiment. We do not yet have an adequate understanding of

cyberspace as space. While it is safe to speculate that different design arrangements of the online world give rise to different aesthetic

experiences, we still do not know the exact nature of this relationship. Nor do we know enough about how the design and the

interconnection of online platforms affect the distribution of civic virtuessolidarity, equality, and flnerie, to name just a fewthat

we may wish to promote online. Just as we recognized many of the important civic functions of the sidewalk only after it had been

replaced by the highway, so we may currently be blind to those virtues of the Internetits inefficiency, its unpredictability, its

disorderthat may ultimately produce a civic and aesthetic experience that is superior to the automatic, effortless, and seamless

(one of Apples advertising slogans) world of the app.

The point is not that we should forever cling to the shape and the format of the Internet as it exists today. It is that we should (to

borrow Apples favorite phrase) think different and pay attention to the aesthetic and civic externalities of the app economy. Our

choice is between erecting a virtual Portland or sleepwalking into a virtual Dallas. But Apple under Steve Jobs consistently refused torecognize that there is something valuable to the Web that it may be destroying. Jobss own views on the Internet stand in stark

contrast to how he thought about the washing machine. Asked about the future of the Internet in 1994, he was clearly reluctant to

think about it in ecological terms:

Rolling Stone: Lets talk more about the Internet. Every month, its growing by leaps and bounds. How is this new

communications web going to affect the way we live in the future?

Jobs: I dont think its too good to talk about these kinds of things. You can open up any book and hear all about this kind of

garbage.

Rolling Stone: Im interested in hearing your ideas.

Jobs: I dont think of the world that way. Im a tool builder. Thats how I think of myself. I want to build really good tools that I

know in my gut and my heart will be valuable. And then whatever happens is ... you cant really predict exactly what will happen,

but you can feel the direction that were going. And thats about as close as you can get. Then you just stand back and get out of

the way, and these things take on a life of their own.

Had Henry Ford been asked about the impact of his cars on the quality of urban life in America, he would probably have given the

same answer.

Standing back and getting out of the way and letting things take on a life of their own is not a variety of moral reflection, though it

makes sense as a way to think about a wildly successful product. The total and exclusive focus on the tool at the expense of its

ecosystem, the appeal to the zeitgeist that downplays the producers own role in shaping it (whatever happens is ... ; feeling the

direction), the invocation of the idea that technology is autonomous (these things take on a life of their own)these are all

elements of a worldview that Lewis Mumford, in criticizing the small-mindedness of those who were promoting car-only travel in the

1950s, dubbed the bankruptcy of social imagination.

Should we hold Ford Motors responsible for the totality of its impact on our lives, or just for the part that deals with liberation and

autonomy? Perhaps it would set the bar too high to hold it accountable for pollution, congestion, and the disappearance of public

space. But Apples brand, its lofty conception of itself, has been built on the idea that it is not a company like other companies. It was

Apple that insisted that it wants to think different, and that it is not dominated by suits who care only about its quarterly earnings.So it is Apple who set this bar so highand Apple that seems to have fallen short of it.


13/14



CURIOUSLY, A YEAR AFTER his tirade inRolling Stone, Jobs gave another interviewtoNewsweekand offered a more cogent

(and more disturbing) prediction about the future of the Internet:

The way to look at the Web is, its the ultimate direct-to-customer distribution channel.... Youre going to see more and more Web

sites where you feel like youre driving, where youre asking questions.... You wont be looking at a Web page that 3,000 other people

are looking at. Youre looking at one thats exactly what you want to see, whether its information on that new Chrysler Neon that you

want to buy, with exactly the color you want and the dealers that have it in your area, or whether its Merrill Lynch showing you your

portfolio of stock, updated every time you check in. Its really going to be customized.

This is an accurate description of what Apple is doing at the momentexcept that instead of customized Web pages, it is taking the

form of personalized apps. But as his interview makes clear, Jobs outright rejected the possibility that there may be a multiplicity of

irreconcilable views as to what the Web is and what it should be. For him, it is only a direct-to-customer distribution channel.In

other words, Jobs believed that the Web is nothing more than an efficient shopping mall, and he proceeded to build his business

around what he believed to be the Webs essence.

That the Web did become a shopping mall fifteen years after Jobs made his remark does not mean that he got the Web right. It

means only that a powerful technology company that wants to change the Web as it pleases can currently do so with little or no

resistance from anyone. If one day Apple decides to remove a built-in browser from the iPad, as the Web becomes less necessary in an

apped world, it will not be because things took on a life of their own, but because Apple refused to investigate what other possible

directionsor forms of lifethings might have taken. For Jobs, with his pre-political mind, there was no other way to think about

the Internet than to rely on the tired binary poles of supply and demand.

This is not to say that Apples embrace of apps at the expense of the Web is bad for innovationa charge that is often levied at the

company by Internet academics and advocates of the vague ideal of Internet openness. The concern of thinkers such as Jonathan

Zittrain (who uses the term generativity to refer to innovation) is that Applewhich inspects and approves every single app

submitted to its app storemay not be able to recognize the next Wikipedia when it is sent its way. They propose that somethingit

is rarely specifiedneeds to be done so that Apple loses its fantastic gatekeeping powers. Anyone not steeped in the world of Internettheory would find the idea that Apple harms innovation quite ridiculous. If Harvards Christensen is right, moreover, there would

inevitably come a moment when the Internet itself gets disruptedby apps or something elseand such disruption would probably

be good for innovation. Yet the promotion of innovation cannot be the sole determinant of how our digital future will be mapped.

Ethical and aesthetic considerations should also serve as an important impetus for regulation and activism. But since most discussions

about the future of the Internet have been dominated by lawyers and venture capitalists, innovation is still the overriding concern.

And as long as innovation is the value that dominates the public debate about the Internet, Apple has nothing to fear.

What is most troubling is that Apple is not doing anything to explore its online footprint. Perhaps Apples design mentality

combined with its messianic self-portrayal as the only company in the world that is fighting some anonymous corporate menace (even

as it is one of the most valuable companies in the world!)has worn down its ability to ask the sort of big-picture questions that Jobs

was so prone to asking in his youth. Apple, with its total fixation on the user and its complete disregard of the community in which

that user is grounded, does not seem well-equipped to identify and evaluate the threats that it poses to the Internet, let alone do

something about them. You would be hard-pressed to see Applethe largest technology company in the worldsponsor events,

festivals, think-tanks, books, or any other kind of research or debate about technology. It is as if they are convinced that the

intellectual justifications of their work are all self-evident. After all, why re-visit truth?

Even Google, with its nave technocratic ethos, is more committed to questioning the impact that it is having on the Internet and the

world at large. They fund a bevy of academic and policy initiatives; they have recently launched a Berlin-based think tank dedicated

to exploring the social impact of the Internet; they even started a quarterly magazine. Granted, Google is doing this partly in response

to mounting regulatory pressure, but even so one must acknowledge that Google has not shied away from engaging many of its critics.

Apple, by contrast, holds itself above the fray. It seems to believe that such discussions of meanings and consequences do not matter,because it is in the design business, and so its primary relationship is with the user, not with the society. This may be what some

parochial designers thought about themselves until the 1970sbut today the advent of design that is critical, value-sensitive, and


14/14



participatory has exposed the great moral void of the rigid functionalist paradigm. But Apple, alas, remains stuck in the most

conservative, outdated, and bizarre interpretation of the Bauhaus, which was, ironically, a movement that flaunted its commitment to

social reform and utopian socialism. Would a job applicant who spends weeks pondering the morality of washing machines get a job

at Apple now?

Unfortunately, most of us are too addicted to Apples products to demand or to expect anything more of the company. As long as

Apple can ship new devices every quarter, much like a dealer would ship new drugs, few questions are asked. How little has changed

since Lewis Mumford complained that

For most Americans, progress means accepting what is new because it is new, and discarding what is old because it is old. This

may be good for a rapid turnover in business, but it is bad for continuity and stability in life. Progress, in an organic sense, should

be cumulative, and though a certain amount of rubbish-clearing is always necessary, we lose part of the gain offered by a new

invention if we automatically discard all the still valuable inventions that preceded it.

As for Jobs, his own tragic limitations were on full display whenRolling Stone asked him about the future of technologywhether

genetic research and cloning were pushing it all too far. He rolled his eyes. You knowId rather just talk about music. These big-

picture questions are justzzzzzzzz, he said, and started snoring. The philosopher of the twenty-first century, indeed.

Evgeny Morozov is the author, most recently, ofThe Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom (PublicAffairs). This article appeared in

the March 15, 2012 issue of the magazine.

Source URL:http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/100978/form-fortune-steve-jobs-philosopher

Documents

Form and Fortune