Measuring Up

This Apple is bittersweet

The holidays are over. And, it’s back to work as usual.

This holiday season was pretty typical for my family. My kids received lots of gifts. And as usual, they each fell head over heels in love with one specific present that they were longing for. They absolutely adore their new iPod Touchs. In fact, they jumped for joy the second they found theirs under our tree. Then, for the next three hours, my wife moaned and groaned with frustration.

You see, my wife attempted to set up iTunes libraries for each of my kids on our two computers. The problem (which shouldn’t really be one) is that each of us has existing accounts already on our respective computers. What happened next was actually sad. A seemingly routine task of loading up an iPod turned into one that erased some of my files, synched all of our downloaded music/videos over and over again on each other’s accounts, and ultimately, had my wife pulling her own hair out in utter contempt for Apple. Even the Apple Help Desk couldn’t make it work (she actually called on Christmas, but was automatically hung up on twice because no one was working that day). When she went to visit the Apple store at our local mall the next morning, they informed her that this is not their domain. So, it was back to the Apple Help Desk…or some other alternative.

Sometimes, “some other alternative” ends up being the better answer (though) because my wife’s friend Barrie was finally able to explain how each account now has to be operated manually when downloading any new purchases. Although the manual download takes an infinite more time (and patience) than the normal way, it’s critically important to each individual library, or my seven year old son could be stuck listening to Led Zeppelin and watching The Departed. Not good…

I don’t get Apple. On the one hand, this company is simply incredible from an innovation standpoint. It continually leads the market place by developing really cool and amazingly appealing products that consumers and businesses simply don’t want to live without. Then on the other, it baffles customers by creating mind boggling, backwards technology protocols that are so frustrating and completely unfriendly to consumers. It truly makes no sense.

Either Apple is purposely trying to make it difficult for any one computer to have more than one account, or the company simply doesn’t give a damn.  I thought about those theories and then decided to research a few blogs to find out if others are having the same issue and why they believe Apple allows it to happen.  What I found were dozens of posts from many Apple and iPod haters (I actually didn’t realize so many are so disgusted with the company). More to the point of this post, I read through a mish mash of various points of view which educated me some, but didn’t paint an either/or conclusion on why Apple does this. Instead, the truth lies somewhere within both my theories.

According to many, Apple just doesn’t care. It has a monopoly on this category (iPods). And therefore, it knows that these frustrations will not repel the masses from continually buying the next greatest versions when they come out. Others write about the more reasonable business rationale that Apple really doesn’t want its library content to be shared among family and friends (or it will lose money on sales). That’s why it is extremely difficult for families to successfully load more than one account on any given computer.

My guess is that the latter viewpoint is more realistic. But, either way it stinks.  Companies that sell products/technology which aren’t consumer friendly lose market share quickly when true competition begins to heat up in their industry. 2011 should be the year that Apple faces just this. Let’s see what happens…

Michael, A foreign affair

It's official. The House Foreign Affairs Committee is seriously weighing a 1,500 word resolution in Michael Jackson's honor.

Why is this something that the Foreign Affairs Committee should possibly care about? Perhaps it’s because the resolution calls Jackson a "global" humanitarian. The resolution was introduced by Republican Lee of Texas. It praises the entertainer's many charitable activities that took place throughout his life. It states: Resolution Number 600-- honoring an American legend and musical icon.

Clearly, people tend to get carried away when someone famous dies. And, this resolution seems a tad over the top. But, this seems to be par for the course for Michael. I just heard this morning that a grassroots effort in Jacksonville, Florida is now underway to rename the city after the fallen pop star.

The media have also covered Michael's sad story (in both positive and negative ways) nonstop on a 24/7 basis for two solid weeks.

All of this has led to countless blogs, emails and just plain conversations from many that they are sick and tired of being forced to watch this story everywhere. I've heard some rant a few days back that after a week of coverage, no one cares any more. And, others grumble they are simply annoyed that this entertainer's death should receive the same CNN-like headlines as "more important" real stories like the Iran election battles, American journalist abductions in North Korean and our President's diplomatic discussions in Russia.

I don't disagree with any of this. But, on the other hand, I'm kind of surprised that so many people can't understand why news about the Prince of Pop has reached epic proportions.

Our culture has always been obsessed with celebrities and especially entertainers. And, that will never change. Some might claim that this is a chicken and egg question. (Which came first?) They believe the Jackson feeding frenzy is happening simply because the media won't stop reporting on it. Thus, the public are forced to consume it. On this topic, I tend to disagree. According to Nielson Media Research, over 31 million viewers watched Jackson's funeral on TV (and the Staples Center was completely sold out as well) and CNN.com served out 4.4 million video streams to a ravenous public who simply could not get enough of this story’s details.

Michael's ratings drew more views than two Presidents' memorial services (Reagan and Ford) and came in a close second to another beloved celebrity like figure years back (Princess Diana) who had 33 million people watching.

The bottom line is that after Elvis and The Beatles, Michael Jackson might be the next most influential rock/pop icon ever. The deaths of both Elvis and John Lennon incurred tremendous public interest also. And, I'm sure if either had passed away in today's age, we'd be experiencing similar 24/7 obsessions across the globe as well.

Entertainers create controversy. The media love to cover all of it. And, we consumers eat it up. Call it crazy. But, all this craziness surrounding Michael Jackson's posthumous interest seems very normal to me.

It will start to slowly fade away. My suggestion to all those people who are pulling their hair out-- turn it off whenever you can and just tune out all the time. But, stop fighting it. This is a continuing big global news story because our international society wants it. Whether you like it or not, that simply won't change.