Are We Better Off With or Without Apple?

Since Steve's passing, the world has honored him at Apple Stores, via social media, via television talk shows, and countless other ways.

The world, even Apple haters, has been kind to honor the work and change he's made.

But, now, it's been a few days. And we've all had a small chance to grieve. And we've all had a small chance to reflect a bit on his direct impact on OUR lives. It is like when Michael died, we all grieved because the world had lost another Mozart; then we began to reflect on what kind of difference was made on our personal lives. For some it was sad to lose Michael, but not for too long. The same has been true of Steve, for some.

He's been compared quite a bit to Thomas Edison, the famed inventor of the light bulb. I was asked this question the other day, "Edison created the light bulb, how does Steve even begin to compare to that?" My honest first reaction was to automatically assume that the asker simply doesn't think about what they do day in and day out.

To me, the impact is simple to see: almost everything that consumers do with computers today has so much to do with Steve's work. He was the driving force behind making the graphical user interface popular (a paradigm we take hugely for granted today...I think my evidence above proves it). He made using computers simple, and I'd argue that that is what brought forth widespread adoption. Because of some of Apple's poor decisions and Microsoft's willingness to copy, it happened indirectly...but it was Steve who did it.

This morning, the point was raised to me,

"i[sic] think he was brilliant for sure but are we better off as a people to have the newest toy but as a whole we are going broke to afford them.[sic] i[sic] think these things have made a much more selfish world that are[sic] self centered and spoiled."

It's a fair point with a certain amount of validity. There are also many claims going on here:

• Steve simply made the newest toys
• We are going broke to afford them
• These things have made a much more selfish world
• This selfish world is self centered and spoiled (apparently because of the devices Steve has created)

Again, it's a fair argument. I know there are families that struggle to feed themselves each night, but give their kids smartphones. I know, and have acknowledged in the past, that texting and driving has become one of the most dangerous parts of our lives.

The main point though, I think, is that Apple's marketing has encouraged people to want the next big thing all the time. Our emotional draw to the company has forced us to wait in long lines, complain excessively, and stop everything we are doing for product announcements. Yes, it's true and each any every one of those statements applies directly to me.

I think it would be fair to account that a large objection to the future and progress of technology can be summed up inside of this argument: these things (and the marketing of them) have made us worse people.

I think I've recognized the bit of truth to this argument. We text instead of call. We avoid face to face confrontation if at all possible. We have gained a new sense of individualism, and less of a sense of community. I might argue that things like Skype and FaceTime have actually counteracted this argument, but I'll leave it be for the time being.

The question for me though is, "Who is to blame?"

The Church has discussed this for ages. The questions has always been, "Are we a part of the culture or are we not?" or "Is progress good or bad?" or "Can we have material things, or should we deny ourselves?" or "How is Scripture interpreted for this purpose?"

Throughout time, religion has made use of new mediums. In example, George Whitefield's popularity in early American Christianity is largely due to the newspaper reports of his preaching. There are tons more examples.

Isn't it a question now in the Church as well? We've got churches who attract more members because of their light shows and moving backgrounds. We've also got churches who speak down on these churches and worship in a very liturgical, high church way. Both have dying churches. Both have growing churches.

This argument currently going on in the Church is not separate from the argument made to me this morning.

However, even more high church churches are beginning to figure out how to relate to people. They sometimes break it down by "worship" vs. "outreach". For example, it's ok to have a website, because people want to know about you...but no computers in a worship service. But...even that's becoming less and less true.

I know where your mind is going..."Who is winning?"

STOP

This isn't about winning. This is about living a Christ-like life. This is about hearing a call from God. This is about Resurrection and Salvation.

I am convinced that these things, these most important things, are still possible with progress.

I actually think that progress helps these things. For instance, because of the advent and popularity of texting, we have been reminded that living, talking, and being in community is important. And now, now that we know this, we are able to use these new fangled inventions and technologies as tools instead of distractions.

Sure, these tools have the ability to distract, and ARE VERY TEMPTING in this sense. But, what if the Church were to look at these tools as better ways to communicate, as better ways to outreach, and as better ways to live as disciples in 2011?

What exactly are we afraid of? That we won't be creative enough to figure it out? That God won't show us the way? We've got to have more faith than that.

What I like so much about Apple's approach to technology is that they don't do things just because others did. They don't make a bigger screen just because others have bigger screens. They don't implement a voice recognition piece of software just because Google did. They don't have an open platform just because other companies did.

No, they approach it from the perspective of use. What good is voice to text software if you still have to hit buttons? What good is a big screen if you have to use two hands to use it and it no longer fits in your pocket? What good is an open platform if its very openness is one if its greatest downfalls as an experience? It's not even really about being ahead of the game...it's about taking a technology, a concept, an idea and applying it in a real world situation for a real purpose in a way that helps people communicate. That's what spurred Steve's innovation. That's what defines who Apple is in today's world.

So has Apple's marketing asked people to become self centered? Their new iPad ads don't seem to support that.

No, it doesn't seem so. No, what has spurred on this idea is our reaction. I can no longer blame the technology companies for my failings as a human. I can no longer blame McDonald's for the hot coffee I spilled on my lap. I can no longer blame the cigarette companies for my lung cancer (post-revelations that that was actually bad for you). I can no longer blame the city for me not paying attention to that huge stop sign. I can no longer blame the fast food companies for my fatness. I can no longer blame the Church for my lack of faith.

No. Because at some point, I must take up my own cross. At some point, I must learn that it's not the new things that bother us...it's the way we use them. It's not the progress that makes us worse people...it's our sinful nature. It's not someone else's fault that I'm not the disciple I could be, it's me.

(It's worth adding that this is mostly true in America, currently. There are places in our world where girls are used in conjunction with the exploitation of men's sexual desires. This is not the girls' fault, this is the both the faults of the brainwashers above them, and the men who readily support these ventures.) I, in these cases, think the Church has to speak up for the girls...speak up for those who can't. It is still worth noting that those reading this in American CAN almost assuredly speak for ourselves.

As soon as the Church realizes that our mission is active and not passive and that we are not controlled by others, but only influenced by the grace of God through Christ, then we will be able to look at our culture with new glasses...in a way that is beneficial to the life of faith and the progress of the Gospel.

We don't do things just because. We don't slobber at the feet of our favorite company just because they brainwash us. No, we appreciate what they do because it makes a difference. It changes what we can do. It changes how we do things. It's up to us to be able to step back and see where we have succeeded and faltered.

Apple made tools. Thankfully, they made good tools.

Let's use them for good. Please.

-B

PS - Lack of recognition of Steve's contributions to society is a great example of just how well he succeeded.

Google: The Whining Bully

I don't remember the days before Google. Actually, I do. I remember Ask Jeeves (marketing used to the max), Dogpile, Yahoo (do people still use Yahoo?), AOL keywords, and so many other search engines and tools to navigate through the seemingly endless supply of websites online.

My children, though, will never know the days without Google.

We can argue left or right all day long about whether or not Google's impact on society has been positive or negative, but we will all agree that Google is present, in a big way, in all of our lives. We might even say that without Google in our lives, our existences would become a little more inconvenient. Things that we take for granted now would be gone.

We all know this. Perhaps more importantly, Google knows this. And for the better half of the last ten years, Google has been used to getting their way. They've made it their goal to document all of the ongoings of every part of the world, and have been (since day one) relatively unapologetic about their approaches.

Perhaps the best part of Google's plan? Everything is free. Everything Google offers (or seemingly everything) is free of charge to the end user. So with an almost endless supply of funding, a seemingly completely free product(s), and some of the smartest brains in the world on staff, Google has risen to the commercial power that they are today. Because Google sells ads on everything they produce, they make more and more money. Because they offer it for free, they gain more and more users. The only thing it costs the user: their information and privacy. Great deal, huh?

Whatever you think, their business model is very different than the ones of other companies.

A few months after the original iPhone released, Google made some of the work they had been doing on mobile devices known to the public. They had purchased a company writing mobile operating system software (Android Inc.) and decided (with a small alliance) to begin a movement toward popularizing open source software on mobile phones. Mobile phones had been plagued for years by the software that sat on them because the carriers locked down features, removed featured and mostly, crippled the phones. When Apple approached the first iPhone, they swore to take the control of the software themselves. When Android was announced, the pitch made was that NO ONE would have control over the device. It wouldn't cost to develop for it, it wouldn't cost to sell your app, it wouldn't cost to put the operating system on a device, and ANYONE could change whatever they wanted. Google wasn't releasing a phone, they were releasing an open source operating system.

Because for it to make any sense in Google's portfolio, it had to be completely free.

I'll, at this time, forego the argument that by giving up control over the operating system, Google gave control back to the cash-hungry-rotten-steal-all-your-money carriers.

Besides a few hurt feelings and harsh words between the two upcoming industry leaders, life went on as normal. The market, because it was free to put on any device, was flooded with Android handsets and devices and as time went on and the operating system became a little more refined, Google's Android became the number one used mobile operating system on a smart phone.

And sales at Apple remained positive. And companies like HTC and Samsung were able to make a significant mark in sales, when their numbers had previously paled in comparison to RIM's BlackBerry sales. And while it remained competitive, things were going along fine. More people were buying smart phones. A previously untapped market was beginning to be tapped.

Then crap went down.

A series of patents came up for sale from tech giant Nortel. Among the bidders for these patents: Apple, RIM, Google, and Microsoft. Google reportedly bid 3.14159 billion US dollars for these series of patents, while Microsoft and Apple (and others) bid together 4.5 billion US dollars for these patents. The highest bidder wins. And they did.

And that's all great. But Google wasn't happy.

Mostly because if these patents belong to Android's competitors, it will cost royalty money to put Android on a device. Google says somewhere in the range of $15 per unit.

The bottom line: putting Android on a device will no longer be free.

David Drummond (SVP and CLO for Google) posted a blog post called "When Patents Attack" claiming that these companies were ganging up against Google in an effort to stop Android and oppress them. Some highlights:

Microsoft and Apple have always been at each other’s throats, so when they get into bed together you have to start wondering what's going on.

But Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.

A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a “tax” for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.

Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it.

I might actually argue that patents were not intended to encourage innovation, as much as to protect innovation. Sure, knowing your innovations are protected is encouragement, but that was not the point of them.

Google is claiming that this group of companies is fighting against them through litigation. But Google forgets to mention that they ran into the other people's business with a free product, determined to overrun the market. Microsoft has to charge for their software...its their business, it is how they make money. To truly compete (with open source software), companies like Microsoft would have to have that revenue from somewhere else. They'd have to develop the ad revenue that Google has. And, at this point, it's impossible. Google is such a large corporation that almost no one can compete with their power. How can Microsoft win hardware manufacturers' hearts because Google has such a large ad revenue that they can afford to make it free?

They can't.

It's as if the I-make-the-rules-because-I-own-the-guns gang leader gets upset because the rival gang leader goes out and buys his own gun. Oh no, who makes the rules now? Who enforces what rule now?

In the business world, you have to play by the rules of the game...whatever that game is, at whatever time it happens to be. If you want a piece of mobile advertising, you partner with a computer giant for their release and then go behind their backs and release a similar mobile operating system for free so that the cost to manufacturers is much lower. If you feel as if you're losing ground to an operating system that is being given out for free and you know that that operating system violates several patents that a now defunct tech company owns, you buy them up to even the playing field.

It's the way that business works. It's the way the world works.

So, play by the rules. Throw the cheap shots. Invade others' turf. Undercut their margins and prices. Talk yourself up and convince people to become addicted to your products.

Do all these things, because it's business, innovation, and the American Dream.

But for God's sake, don't complain about it.

You were the one who spurred it on to begin with.

-B

For the record, I really enjoy both Google and Apple's business models. I think Google's is a bit scarier but I have faith that our government will help keep us protected in a situation where Google would become Big Brother. I'm just, as in the case of Casey Anthony, tired of people (especially company leaders) publicly complaining about how the rules were followed.

Play the game, because the game is all you have.

Everything is a Remix: Progress and Innovation

This is the third installment in the "Everything is a Remix" series by a guy named Kirby. These are VERY well done and if innovation, progress, and the future of creation are of any interest to you, you ought to sit back and watch this for 11 minutes.  Make sure you stay until the end, after the credits. [vodpod id=Video.11432879&w=425&h=350&fv=]

It is, without a doubt, an interesting take on the world and the progress within it. It is true that Apple did not outright invent Graphical User Interfaces (most people ought to be aware that it was a visit to the Xerox campus that changed Steve Jobs.  He has been quoted as saying, "They showed us three things that day but I didn't see the other two.  I was so caught up with the first thing that I missed the rest of the presentation.") Apple did, however, innovate in many ways.  As the video points out, they made things easier, they made things make more sense.  Those are innovations. They innovated in price, too, which made it more acceptable to the commercial market.

I don't think anyone doubts that one company or person has created things that were simply unheard of before. Some do, however, have better methods of creation and presentation that truly allows something to become...new. Apple has done this in computers since the late 70's.  Disney has done this in animation and theme parks since well before that.

This quote from Henry Ford can be found at the end of the video:

I invented nothing new.

I simply assembled the discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work. Had I worked fifty or ten or even five years before, I would have failed.

So it is with every new thing.  Progress happens when all the factors that make for it are ready, and then it is inevitable.

To teach that a comparatively few men are responsible for the greatest forward steps of mankind is the worst sort of nonsense.

-Henry Ford

-B

John Gruber says Kirby "nailed it."  I think I agree.

Look Where Technology Has Brought Us

They watched it all unfold, halfway across the globe, in real time.Wow. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeA33hE8XfE&]

"There was quite a bit of silence."

I think all in the room understood the gravity of what they had asked those SEALs to do.

-B

Can The Church Be Innovative?

One of the best shows on TV, in my opinion, is Modern Family. But that's not the one I want to talk about. That is, also on ABC, Shark Tank.

For those who aren't familiar with the show, it goes a little something like this: An inventor or someone with a "good" idea or product needs financial help. They may need financial help to be bailed out of the debt they've incurred upon themselves, they may need it to grow the business. Whatever the case, they need financial help for their business and so they seek an investor to invest in them and their product in exchange for a percentage of equity in the company or product.

Think of it like this: Joe Schmo makes really cool socks. And his sock business has been booming. It's been selling so well that he cannot meet the orders that he is getting, and so he is forced to make customers wait for the product (weeks, maybe months...sound familiar Apple?). So, in order to meet demand and not turn customers away, he comes and asks the group of investors (referred to as "Sharks" on the show) for, let's say, $50,000 in exchange for 20% of his business. The idea is that the idea and product are so good that with the Sharks' help, the business will grow and both people will make lots of money.

In fact, that's the goal...make money. One shark in particular, Kevin O'Leary, makes that point very clear. He isn't interested in stories of heartache and suffering. If he can't make money, he isn't interested at all, no matter whose feelings he hurts.

I've struggled with why I like this show so much.

I think it is exciting. I think it is a neat idea, and to be honest...when a really good idea comes along, the show is breathtaking.

Then, last night I was reminded of one of Jesus' message while putting away laundry watching Godspell. You know the one, about not serving two masters...God and money in Matthew 6. The Greek word used is "μαμωνα" which I think is borrowed from Aramaic and is most often translated "money" or "wealth."

If we agree to work off of that translation (and not the one of the personified Mammona), we can see the rationale for people in ministry attempting to live a life of non-wealth (I personally think that describing American pastors as living a life of "poverty" is unfair and untrue). We can understand why many pastors and Christians get upset at pastors like Joel Osteen. We can also see why many pastors feel comforted when they hear of Rick Warren serving his church for free (although let's be real, Warren is making plenty with his book...it's just that by most accounts he tries to tithe most of it back to the church).

Keeping that in mind, back to Shark Tank. As someone who admittedly has issues with the wealth of the world and collecting products (I should really count how many Apple products I own sometime), my first reaction to this realization that these two worlds might possibly be incompatible was to come down on myself as being a gluttonous pig. While I'm not saying that isn't true, it still didn't feel like the right answer to me.

So I thought, what is it that I like about Shark Tank? Why am I so intrigued by Apple and the tech industry?

I realized: innovation.

I like the idea of progress. I like the idea of humans using their minds to be creative. I like the idea of humans truly pursuing their callings by inventing things. And I'm not saying all innovation is good, but I do think it has helped all of our lives (even those who think that things were always more authentic and better way back when). Some forget that the very Scriptures we read were written down on a paper like material...and copied over and over, all a form of technological progress.

And that's why I like Shark Tank. The people that come and bring in companies and products are innovating, for the most part.

But it occurred to me, the world and life-centering ideology of money and the inspiration for innovation go hand in hand. In our capitalistic American society, people innovate because they want to find a way to sell their invention and make money...lots of it (and save me the arguments about people like Jonas Salk, who are obviously the exception to the rule).

And if we function off of the rationale that these two function together, my question becomes: where is the Church? Are people inspired to innovate for the Church?

There was a time when the Church influenced the culture. Sometimes, that was paired with the Church ruling over others' lives without their sayso or freedom. Today, the Church doesn't seem to have much influence on the culture.

It seems to me, in these days, that the Church has also lost its interest in innovation. We study tradition (for good reason) and then sometimes we sit by the tradition and have it speak for itself. But we have forgotten that the Gospel is what needs to speak for itself. While the tradition of the Church has brought quite a bit of positive influence of the Church, it has also destroyed many many many people's faith in God. Our tradition is good, but it is also bad.

The churches that ARE innovating these days are drawing large crowds. And they get looked down on for that. Unfortunately, because often these churches have innovated in new forms of worship with the intention of drawing more people in, to collect more money. They sell their products outside the services. (I can't remember so well, but I seem to remember Jesus not liking that idea.) So these churches aren't truly innovating for the church, they're innovating like Americans innovate...for money and money alone (and probably to "save souls").

Maybe, then, the question is less about the Church innovating...and more about letting the Gospel innovate through the Church. At least, I sure hope that's what it is.

-B

Apple in Education

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

Brilliant, just brilliant.

Propaganda for sure, but still pretty great. Make sure to watch the videos.

I can speak, from experience, that GarageBand and iMovie has helped my father in school announcements, etc.  Yes, this technology was very possible before, but I think it is fair to say that Apple's implementation of iLife has brought the art of recording and editing audio and video to life for...children. How powerful.

It occurs to me that the integration, ease of use, consistency of not only the products alone, but the User Interface of them makes this an enjoyable experience for all.

My only question: What's the cost? Who pays for this? Seems to me that private schools might be the first to be able to implement this because of financial constraints.  They could most easily work it into the price of tuition.  I know of many schools (including Duke University) that have given an iPod or MacBook to each of their students when they enter college in hopes that they will use them for school activities (like iTunes U).

Here comes the future my friends.

-B

YouTube Sensations Meet One Another

Many people advocate that the advent of technology has hurt our society in many ways. It is fair to say that society has changed because of it, and that in the wrong hands technology can be hurtful and destructive. However, there are so many upsides to our progression as a society, I kind of feel like it is worth the fight. In example, see below. We have two groups (one PS22 and the other Greyson Michael Chance) who had talents that were discovered on YouTube. They have both been able to do things that they might not otherwise have been able to do (perform for the President or Ellen Degeneres), had they not have posted the videos of them singing.

The connection is astounding.

Watch the reactions of the choir when they realize who it is that is in their presence.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEJFOs1maNM&]

It's as if they don't realize that many of their own videos are viral (given, it may be a different set of kids, but it is still the same group with the same attention to the same name).

I keep having this feeling that this type of connection and interaction (and sharing among the world via the Internet) can do a lot for the betterment of society. It can seem scary at times, because it makes it easier to disconnect from each other rather than to connect, but in the long run it can do things for us that we couldn't have otherwise done.

Better yet, think about how much technology's presence has progressed from the days in which it began. Tech and computers no longer have the "geek" label in the ways that it did before. More and more people are being referred to as "gamers" not because they own an XBox and play Halo, but because they own an iPhone or iPod. Sure, it has changed quite a bit, but it has helped to reach far more people.

I tend to think that the use of technology has helped us become more aware of problems in the world and society and has raised new voices that might have been marginalized otherwise.

And it has helped us discover new talent.

Technology, and the analogies that stem from it, reacher a wider audience than ever before and it is growing faster and faster. How do we embrace it and not let it destroy us?

-B