The Cult of Steve Jobs or The Emperors New Clothes

[Lebowski]

Money dosent suck, greed sucks. If you take away what money represents the notion of trade of time goods or skills for some kind of payment what do you have left, you would have to grow your own fruit and Veg, hunt animals for clothes and food, live in self built houses made of natural materials, no electricity, or power as you need to pay people for things like that, and no services like police or fire, or health services, no road or rail. Were getting way of topic here by the way.

[Neon Ignition]

Diana is a good comparison. Some people felt a connection but most were parasetic.

[dataDave]

Money dosent suck, greed sucks. If you take away what money represents the notion of trade of time goods or skills for some kind of payment what do you have left, you would have to grow your own fruit and Veg, hunt animals for clothes and food, live in self built houses made of natural materials, no electricity, or power as you need to pay people for things like that, and no services like police or fire, or health services, no road or rail. Were getting way of topic here by the way.

You need to be greedy for money to have any effect though, that's exactly how you define wealth and class. There's no way you can be fair with money, in order to obtain it you need to take it from somebody else. The wheels are slowly falling off of the capitalism model though, it doesn't take much observation to see that.

[averybluemonkey]

It's not just "a gadget company," it's 50,000 jobs. Lower case j. That's pretty substantial.

Actually for a big corporation that's pretty small. Nokia employed 100,000 people a couple of years ago, Microsoft employed 60,000 before the UK cuts a few years back and were regularly held up as being very small for a company with their turnover - one of their employees also told me IBM employed more than that figure in the UK alone.

[Dogg Thang]

60,000? Seriously, that's nothing compared with the population of China.

[toythatkills]

Actually for a big corporation that's pretty small. Nokia employed 100,000 people a couple of years ago, Microsoft employed 60,000 before the UK cuts a few years back and were regularly held up as being very small for a company with their turnover - one of their employees also told me IBM employed more than that figure in the UK alone.

What's your point? It's just 50,000 people so **** 'em?

[averybluemonkey]

Yeah that was back in 2006, a couple of years ago they fired 5,000 from the EMEA region which I think hit the UK predominantly, pretty much halved their presence over here. Nokia have fired about 10,000 people over the last 2 years too. Given Apple have a massive retail network which other companies don't have it really puts their dev team size in perspective.

[averybluemonkey]

What's your point? It's just 50,000 people so **** 'em?

... noooo. As said in the post my point was that they are very small in terms of employee count compared to other multinationals. The size obviously has an impact on how newsworthy they are. You said they deserved coverage because they employ so many people I merely pointed out there are much bigger corporations who employ many more people who don't get anything like the same level of coverage.

[toythatkills]

... noooo. As said in the post my point was that they are very small in terms of employee count compared to other multinationals. The size obviously has an impact on how newsworthy they are. You said they deserved coverage because they employ so many people I merely pointed out there are much bigger corporations who employ many more people who aren't deemed newsworthy to the same extent.

Microsoft and Nokia are deemed plenty newsworthy. Nokia's profit warnings are in the news all the time, and if Bill Gates died he'd get exactly the same amount of coverage as Jobs got. If Nokia had a figurehead of the same ilk, so would they I imagine.

There's no need to compare them. 50,000 is plenty substantial. It's not substantial compared to McDonalds, probably, but it's still a hell of a lot of people.

(And for the record, I'm sure there'll be a whole ton of coverage when the Hamburglar dies too.)

[averybluemonkey]

Actually no Microsoft and Nokia don't get anywhere near the coverage that Apple does, every single Apple press release gets gobbled up, every rumour paraded across the TV. Please do not try and dispute the level of coverage between the likes of Nokia and Apple, it's ridiculously biased and one-sided. So much stuff Nokia does the press outright ignore and bury. You might think OPK was dull but at least he never got up on stage and lied about an Apple product in front of everyone and had it paraded around as fact, at least he had integrity.

You said they were newsworthy because they employed a lot of people, I pointed out that comparatively they don't and so the argument doesn't hold.

[toythatkills]

You said they were newsworthy because they employed a lot of people, I pointed out that comparatively they don't and so the argument doesn't hold.

This doesn't make any sense at all, unless you're trying to say that 50,000 isn't a lot of people. Or that 50,000 people is somehow less people when you compare it to 100,000 people, but I think you'll find it's still 50,000 people, no matter what you compare it to.

Anyway, in case you don't know, the news reports what's interesting to people. It's not based on how many people a company employs. It's not based on a company's profit. It's not based on the figurehead of a company. It's just that in Apple's case, all of those factors come together to create a brand that a lot of people feel strongly about. And then we're back to what's interesting to people, that's all the news is. The news isn't supposed to be "relevant." The news isn't supposed to be "important." That's not the role of the news, those are just side effects of the news' actual role which is to report the stories that it believes will be of interest to people.

That's the single factor in deciding what's news, and any journalist will tell you that. The only thing that affects how newsworthy a story is, is how many people it will be of interest to. News about Apple interests a hell of a lot of people. News about Nokia interests basically nobody, and so it gets relegated. But don't tell me there's no news about Nokia because there's plenty. It's just all bad so there's rarely any fanfare.

[averybluemonkey]

Anyway, in case you don't know, the news reports what's interesting to people. It's not based on how many people a company employs.

So why did you say it was then? My post was saying this exact same point in response to your post which said the opposite.

But don't tell me there's no news about Nokia because there's plenty. It's just all bad so there's rarely any fanfare.

You don't have a clue about this so stop talking about stuff you know nothing about.

[toythatkills]

So why did you say it was then? My post was saying this exact same point in response to your post which said the opposite.

Anyway, in case you don't know, the news reports what's interesting to people. It's not based on how many people a company employs. It's not based on a company's profit. It's not based on the figurehead of a company. It's just that in Apple's case, all of those factors come together to create a brand that a lot of people feel strongly about.

You don't have a clue about this so stop talking about stuff you know nothing about.

Don't be a tool. I know full well what I know about.

[EDDIE M0NS00N]

Now now ladies.

Lets CALM THE F*CK DOWN OK!!!

[averybluemonkey]

Don't be a tool. I know full well what I know about.

I would suggest that just maybe you know less about a company that others may have worked for than you think you do.