In his S.P.O.N. column at Spiegel Online today, Sascha Lobo provocatively compares Apple with East Germany and claims:
“Apple’s walled garden, Steve Jobs’ closed digital realm, is a kind of East Germany of technology that gives up a decisive part of freedom in return for real and perceived security.”
I think he is far off the mark not only with this metaphor but also with several other claims in his column, which he titled “The Dark Realm of Steve Jobs”. In my view, it starts with the thesis:
“In reality, the production of technology, especially software, has long since become society-defining and is therefore a political act.”
Software certainly shapes our society today and, in my view, can also play a political role – for example through a social network that allows citizens to participate more directly in the democratic process. But that does not mean the production of technology itself defines society. In fact, it is primarily the other way round: genuinely successful products are developed market-driven. Apple’s success in recent years is, to me, evidence that Steve Jobs and his company have been highly successful at aligning product development with customer needs and market conditions.
In my view, Apple recognised and implemented the needs and wishes of an increasingly digital society very well. A revolution occurs only when there is a critical mass demanding change. Apple could trigger a usability revolution with the iPod, iPhone and iPad only because users wanted it. Facebook is similar, although much more complex, and shows even more clearly why I think Lobo’s thesis is wrong. The need for social contact really can be described as society-defining. Facebook’s success is based on that – not the other way round. I therefore find Sascha Lobo’s final demand completely contradictory:
“A corporation like Apple should have to orient its software development more strongly than before towards social requirements, rather than only its own ideas, because Apple has an impact on society. Politics must achieve the seemingly oxymoronic feat of using regulation to enforce and preserve openness and freedom in the digital society. Forced openness may sound as contradictory as peacekeeping troops or quotas for women. But unfortunately it is just as necessary.”
Ultimately, most users want devices that are secure and easy to use. Naturally, they should look stylish too. Unfortunately, security is easier to guarantee in closed systems. That makes Lobo’s demand somewhat absurd, because Apple’s recipe for successful product development is precisely to respond to social requirements. East Germany, incidentally, worked very differently: it was not market-driven; what was produced and how it was produced was dictated. We know how well that worked in the long run. In my view, regulators and statutory quotas are always a small step towards socialism and should be used only with great caution.
It is strange that Lobo compares Apple with a socialist system – East Germany – but ultimately calls for regulation and forced openness. Perhaps that simply reflects his political colour … If I wanted to be provocative, I would compare Apple with a cult instead. But even that is hardly new. Apple fans have long treated Steve Jobs as their saviour, and critics have even warned Apple users about Stockholm syndrome.
