I don't understand Gruber's conclusion, starting with:
“It’s in Apple’s DNA that technology is not enough.”
Firstly, what does Steve Jobs mean by that? I believe simply that Apple is where "Technology meets Liberal Arts".
Gruber seems to think this means "better designed, has more developer support, and it’s cheaper", which is all stuff that competitors can't copy?
That seems to just be an overview of Apple's status in this and their status relative to others, not necessarily having to do anything with "Technology meeting Liberal Arts".
In addition, I don't believe Jobs is referring to their marketing model in this -- that the technology is part of a greater "experience".
Rather, and perhaps I'm wrong on this and assuming too much, but I see it as a plea for something greater beyond just the technology and the ingenious marketing scheme. I see the devices (most specifically the iPad) as a technology that is humankind-enhancing material beyond just making life a little bit easier. Sure other tablets are, or could be rather, and I hope will be, the same or better, but at the moment the iPad does hold a special slot here. With the immense backing that it has, that's a fact I would say.
Whether Apple has purposefully created it to be so exceptional in so many areas (partner in healthcare, schools, etc.) is something I don't know or if they just got lucky, but it is true that it is excellent(or at least a big step forward) in those areas. And for that reason alone I see the device as more than just a gimmicky piece of technology and rather more of a device that assists in the advancement of mankind.
I think the "advancement of mankind" piece might get you some flak but the basic concept sounds like what Steve Jobs was alluding to. My view of it is that Apple doesn't build technology for the sake of building technology. Every technological investment is married with a deep focus on how it is APPLIED in the real world hence the deep focus on user experience and app ecosystem. I think a good way to look at it is that Apple built the iPod because they LOVE music as a company. I know some people will think it's a marketing gimmick but it's clear that Jobs & Apple are true music fans and to them, the dearth of a player that could hold thousands of songs drove them to think about a solution that could solve that problem.
Firstly, what does Steve Jobs mean by that? I believe simply that Apple is where "Technology meets Liberal Arts".
Gruber seems to think this means "better designed, has more developer support, and it’s cheaper", which is all stuff that competitors can't copy?
That seems to just be an overview of Apple's status in this and their status relative to others, not necessarily having to do anything with "Technology meeting Liberal Arts".
In addition, I don't believe Jobs is referring to their marketing model in this -- that the technology is part of a greater "experience".
Rather, and perhaps I'm wrong on this and assuming too much, but I see it as a plea for something greater beyond just the technology and the ingenious marketing scheme. I see the devices (most specifically the iPad) as a technology that is humankind-enhancing material beyond just making life a little bit easier. Sure other tablets are, or could be rather, and I hope will be, the same or better, but at the moment the iPad does hold a special slot here. With the immense backing that it has, that's a fact I would say.
Whether Apple has purposefully created it to be so exceptional in so many areas (partner in healthcare, schools, etc.) is something I don't know or if they just got lucky, but it is true that it is excellent(or at least a big step forward) in those areas. And for that reason alone I see the device as more than just a gimmicky piece of technology and rather more of a device that assists in the advancement of mankind.