Apple, Ireland, Taxes And The Continued Life Of The Myth Of Steve Jobs

Apple is outraged that some people in Ireland (and some lawmakers in the European Union) think that Apple should pay taxes in Ireland. (Why, the nerve of those peasants!)

The headline of a story about Aplle's Irish tax situation in the Guardian says

Apple should pay its EU tax bill and start focusing on innovation rather than balance sheets --

Well, alright for the Guardian! Wait, there's more writing in the headline...

-- as the company did in the Steve Jobs era.

D'oh!

Okay. So the Guardian can see that Apple is an obscenely huge money-taking operation posing as a computer maker now, but not that it was the same sort of thing in the Jobs era. More than 30 years ago Apple went from the Wozniak-Jobs era to the Jobs era largely because Wozniak felt that Apple was too much about marketing and not enough about innovation and having actual good stuff to market. Not that Wozniak felt strongly enough about that to keep him from becoming a billionaire, or that there was ever a time when Apple was either technologically superior or a better deal than its competition. They've been selling hot air the whole time, including the 14 Jobs-Wozniak years. Apple wasn't good with Woz, it just got more shamelessly evil and rapacious without him.

Apple didn't get worse technologically or more egregiously-overpriced without Jobs because that wasn't possible. If the Guardian headline is any indication, then maybe, without Jobs, Apple is losing its ability to sell nonsense. Which would be good. But if the myth of Jobs, Technological Genius And Friend To Humanity, doesn't crumble along with that ability, then it's only part-good.

I'm Not Planning To Watch The Steve Jobs Movie Really Soon

I won't go out of my way to avoid it. If someone wants to drag me to it I'll go willingly. I'm a big fan of Michael Fassbinder and Kate Winslet and Seth Rogan and Michael Stuhlbarg, and a small-to-medium-sized fan of Danny Boyle and Aaron Sorkin.

But that's not why I'm writing to you right now. I'm writing because I've seen a lot of interviews with Danny Boyle, the director of this grand epic, and Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter, and with some of the above-named cast members and so forth, and further discussions of the movie by members of the press who've gotten preview screenings, and not just the tools who work on shows like "Entertainment Tonight," but also people whom I would characterize as fairly serious journalists, like, for example, Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews, people whom I would generally trust to be sincere and forthcoming if they happened not to agree with some current bout of hero-worship, and so far I haven't noticed that either an interviewer nor an interviewee has referred to Apple products in less than ecstatic tones. Or disputed the characterization of Jobs as a genius. Or piped up to opine that his genius lay far more in marketing than in IT.

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, I think Apple sucks. I realize that some Apple devotees won't believe that. They will think that I'm just jealous because I can't afford all of the latest Apple stuff. And I probably wouldn't be able to convince them otherwise if I tried, which I won't. But I'm far from the only non-fan of Apple. There are so many of us that it surprises me that that I haven't heard a single person yet say, while discussing this new movie about Steve Jobs, that they don't use Apple products. Let alone: that they don't use Apple products and don't plan to and here's why. Or: that Apple products are overpriced and perform poorly and are marketed with astonishing success to rubes. Or: "No, it doesn't surprise me that the Steve Jobs portrayed in the movie has some very unpleasant sides. Not in the least."

I could probably find such a reaction to the movie if I went looking for it. Just a moment. ** googling **

No. I couldn't, not within a few minutes. Hmm.

Creepy. Reminds me of the outbreaks of vaccinate-able diseases among the children of Hollywood.