Apple's Al Gore Problem

Apple is well known for the censorship of its products, so that  no x-rated apps find there way onto Apple products. Apple CEO Steve Jobs has called the censorship "freedom from porn".

How strict is Apple censorship? When the Wi-Fi-equipped version of the iPad went on sale two and a half months ago, Apple demanded European magazines cover up scantily clad models for the app editions and cracked down on dictionary applications containing 'objectionable' words, reports DailyFinance.com.

Now Apple is in the situation of having on its Board of Directors, Al Gore, who has been accused of sexual assault. Not only has he been accused of the assault, but the accuser alleges that Gore asked her to enter the bedroom of his hotel room to listen to a song on an iPod, while he bragged about his affiliation with Apple.
.
I called Apple a number of times and asked three questions:

Will the company ask Gore to resign his director's position?

If not, will the company at least question Gore about the allegations?

Does the company have any specific comment on Gore allegedly using an iPod as a pretext to lure a female into a hotel bedroom and his allegedly discussing his affiliation with Apple while attempting to coax the woman into the bedroom?

Apple has not returned calls seeking answers to these questions. Thus the question remains, does Apple censorship stop with its customers, or will they investigate the accusations against a member of its board that go far beyond "freedom from porn" and enter the realm of an alleged sexual assault?

Bottom line, given Apple's stance on "freedom from porn," the company without question now has an Al Gore problem. An explanation from Gore, or a Gore resignation, seem to be the only options that Apple must call for to maintain the integrity of their anti-porn stance. Or does Apple's  position on  decency stop at the Board Room door?

Apple Shares Hit New All-Time High

The price of shares in this consumer-oriented company continues to soar.

Apple stock hit $275 on Friday and closed at to $273.61. For the year, the shares are up about 30 percent as the company sees strong demand for its new iPad tablet computer and strong sales expectations for iPhone 4.

As I have pointed out before, there are many reasons for the strength in Apple shares. however, it should not be ignored that Apple is a consumer goods as opposed to capital goods oriented business and that Austrian Business Cycle Theory teaches that a period of "downturn" in the business cycle, such as we are in now, is a period of re-adjustment of the economy toward consumption goods production.

Apple would be a huge success with out the wind in the sails of the business cycle at its back, but that they are there is helping the push a bit.

FTC and DOJ to Harass Apple

The Federal Trade Commission will investigate whether Apple Inc.'s business practices harm competition in the market for software used on mobile devices, people familiar with the situation said, reports WSJ.

Aside from the fact that the only true monopolist is the government and that companies in a private property society should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their property, the FTC investigation fails even if one grants that the FTC should have jurisdiction. Listen to  Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, as quoted by WSJ:

The iPhone was just introduced three years ago, and all of a sudden (Apple is) being accused of being a monopolist? To me, it's absurd. They don't even have a dominant position in smart phones—that's Blackberry.

It's all about government technocrats wielding power for the benefit of Apple competitors who can't keep up with the amazing innovations coming out of Apple.

But it is unlikely to stop with the FTC. This may not be the only antitrust investigation Apple faces, says WSJ. Justice Department lawyers recently contacted companies about Apple's practices in the music business. The Justice Department could forge ahead with that inquiry independent of the FTC's investigation, said people familiar with the matter.

Forget Wozniak and Jobs, the Adult Supervision for Apple Came (for 12 days) from the Third Founder

Ronald Wayne was at the founding of Apple Computer.

In fact, he became a 10% owner, at the suggestion of Steve Jobs. His role was to bring adult supervision and mediate disputes between Wozniak and Jobs.

The Mercury News writes:

After the agreement was signed by all three, Wayne took it to the county registrar's office. "And Apple Computer was born as a company," he says.

Jobs immediately plunged the company into debt, agreeing to fill an order for 50 computers from the Byte Shop in Mountain View, then borrowing $5,000 cash and parts worth $15,000. Wayne was impressed with Jobs as a promoter — "His psyche was already fully matured," he says — but was astonished to discover huge gaps in his new partner's knowledge of electronics, such as aluminum's ability to conduct electricity. "I almost lost my uppers," says Wayne.

He also fretted that the Byte Shop — one of the first retail computer stores — "had a terrible reputation for not paying its bills." Jobs and Wozniak were essentially penniless, which meant that creditors would eventually come looking for Wayne.

"I just wasn't ready for the kind of whirlwind that Jobs and Wozniak represented," he says. "I felt certain the company was going to be successful; that wasn't the question. But how much of a roller coaster was it going to be? I didn't know that I could tolerate that kind of situation again. I thought if I stayed with Apple I was going to wind up the richest man in the cemetery.

 Wayne sold his stock  for $800.


When Jobs and Wozniak filed for incorporation a year later, Wayne received a letter asking him to officially forfeit any claims against the company, and he received another check, this time for $1,500. Taken together, the $2,300 he made as one of Apple's founders is almost exactly one-millionth what his shares would be worth today.

The full story is here.

My Amazing Email Exchange With Steve Jobs

By Ryan Tate

I didn't plan to pick a fight with Steve Jobs last night. It just sort of happened: An iPad advertisement ticked me off; I sent the Apple CEO an angry email; he told me about "freedom from porn."

The electronic debate proceeded from there.

Of course, there was a bit more to it than that. There's the context: Jobs' legal fight with my employer Gawker Media, over the handling of an iPhone prototype; my long-simmering worries about Apple's growing power to limit self expression through its lockdown on iPad apps; and the fact that my wife, who might normally (and quite sensibly) veto the idea of spending Friday night sending email flames, was out of town.

So in retrospect I was primed to lash out. But there was some serendipity too: Watching a new episode of 30 Rock on my digital video recorder, I somehow failed to skip over an Apple ad I'd never seen before, one that billed the iPad as nothing less than "a revolution." You can see an excerpt of the ad at the bottom of this post.

With a Stinger cocktail at my side, I dashed off a short, pointed question to Jobs' well-known email address.

A few hours later—after midnight here in California—he got back to me. And I got back to him. And so on.


Read the rest here.

Lew Rockwell on Intellectual Property

Lew Rockwell has a short post on Apple's attempt to defend its right to contract. Writes Lew:

February 15, 2009

Calling Kinsella and Tucker

Posted by Lew Rockwell at February 15, 2009 12:31 PM

Apple wants to jail you and fine you if you alter your own property. Just another indication that "intellectual property," as Stephan and Jeff say, is the destruction of real property rights for the benefit of bogus ones, not so speak of an attack on human betterment.

I'm just not getting Lew's line of argument on this very important topic.

If anyone makes any type of product and sells it with stipulations, i.e. with contract, I don't see how I have the right to violate that contract. If Apple sells a phone and says, "We are selling this phone with the stipulation that you don't mess with the insides," I am free to take that deal or walk away.

If I take the deal and then mess with the insides, in my book that is violating contract. Just what gives me the right to overrule a contract we both agree on? If Apple makes you sign a contract that it will only sell the phone if you don't mess with the insides, and you sign it, and are aware of the terms Apple expects you to live up to, and you then mess with the insides, aren't you a liar by telling Apple one thing and doing another?

Mossberg: Google's G1 In The Same Class As Apple's iPhone

Walt Mossberg writes:

I have been testing the G1 extensively, in multiple cities and in multiple scenarios. In general, I like it and consider it a worthy competitor to the iPhone. Both devices run on fast 3G phone networks and include Wi-Fi. Both have smart-touch interfaces and robust Web browsers. Both have the ability to easily download third-party apps, or programs.

But the two devices have different strengths and weaknesses, and are likely to attract different types of users.

By far, the G1's biggest differentiator is that it has a physical keyboard, which is revealed by sliding open the screen. The keyboard proved only fair in my tests, with keys that are too flat and that can be hard to see in bright light, and with a bulge in the body on the right side that you have to reach over to type. But, for the many people who can't stomach typing on glass, the G1 keyboard will be a welcome sight.

His full rview is here.

Steve Jobs Refuses To Discuss His Health, During CNBC Interview

Jim Goldman interviewed Apple's Steve Jobs today on CNBC. Jobs looked more anorexic than Arnold Schwarzenegger's wife, but his health was off limits in the interview.

Goldman explains on his blog:

I agreed not to address the speculation about his health on camera, because Jobs didn't want to go there. As long as I could ask a passing question about his health off-camera, but on the record after the interview, I'd be satisfied. Apple agreed.

And passing it was:

So after the interview, I did ask Jobs how he was doing. "I'm doing fine, really," he said.

LOL. Fine compared to what?

With many firms, the health of the CEO may not be an important issue, if he can be readily placed by other competent management. However, Steve Jobs is the machine that drives Apple. If Jobs is seriously ill, it will ultimately impact the stock. I wouldn't hold the stock under this cloud. If Jobs has to be replaced anytime soon, the stock will crash. -Robert Wenzel