Larry Jordan: Who's Accountable?

[Andrae Palmer]

http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/archives/1544

 

[Johnny Friday]

Larry speaks well about this....good to see him standing up and shouting now. Of course it all falls upon deaf ears.....Apple slowly slipping and sliding into the big shoes and they really don't seem to give a damn about their old ways. Too bad. Yep....Premier Pro approaches as my main app soon.

 

[J Davis]

Wow, Larry was carefully wording his statements to stay impartial when it launched. Thats a change.

 

[Steve Das]

...Of course it all falls upon deaf ears...

This debacle clearly shows how isolated the company has gotten...they had no clue
what a firestorm this would start. And now don't even know how to deal with it.
It's as though no-one is at the wheel driving the car.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Quote from Larry Jordan:

"The sad part is that no one holds corporations accountable. We will never learn these answers. And the damage that’s been done will be irreparable."

I would urge people to watch this youtube speech that Bill Clinton gave this past week. One of the best summations of where we've been, where we are, and where we are/ought to be going. He has some interesting things to say about how the redefinition of corporate responsibility over the past several decades has had dramatic effects on our economy and society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=894WQ2XabXU

If you're short on time you can skip to about 15 minutes to get to the meat of the speech.

In part, later in the speech he points out that the "old school" corporate law that he was taught said that the corporation is a creation of the state and in exchange for rights and protections (primarily limited liability and perpetual life with well defined transfer of shares of ownership) it also had responsibilities not only to its shareholders and share price, but to the state and society as a whole.

 

[Scott Crawley]

This debacle clearly shows how isolated the company has gotten...they had no clue
what a firestorm this would start. And now don't even know how to deal with it.
It's as though no-one is at the wheel driving the car.

Well yes, the driver has been preoccupied fighting for his life, but I think it may be irrational to point solely to that as solely responsible for the current state of affairs.

Jobs often appears isolated for many reasons but many of them seem to disappear as Apple's play develops on the field. We often just don't have an appreciation of where they are going, for all of the good and bad that goes with it.

My own bet is that they are dealing with it by following the game plan that was laid out before the whistle; keep your head down, keep pushing forward and hold the line until Lion and the third parties make the catch. The ball is aloft. Interception is always a possibility.

 

[Chris Kenny]

This debacle clearly shows how isolated the company has gotten...they had no clue
what a firestorm this would start. And now don't even know how to deal with it.
It's as though no-one is at the wheel driving the car.

This assumes Apple cares about starting Internet firestorms. Apple plays a long game. They may be of the opinion that this is just a flash in the pan. And they may be right.

 

[Scott Crawley]

This assumes Apple cares about starting Internet firestorms. Apple plays a long game. They may be of the opinion that this is just a flash in the pan. And they may be right.

They should care, but while the Internet amplifies and magnifies the voices of the user base it is still a representation of the users and should not be ignored. I don't think they are. As you say, it is a long game they are playing.

 

[Tim Morten]

Long game? Actually it's a short game: capture the most revenue that you can by prioritizing a broad userbase over a narrow one. Pretty simple stuff. The "long game" theory reflects an optimism based on wishfulness not represented in evidence.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Long game? Actually it's a short game: capture the most revenue that you can by prioritizing a broad userbase over a narrow one. Pretty simple stuff. The "long game" theory reflects an optimism based on wishfulness not represented in evidence.

Right, you've made your thoughts on that pretty clear as is our disagreement. Moving on...

 

[Steve Dent]

Long game? Actually it's a short game: capture the most revenue that you can by prioritizing a broad userbase over a narrow one. Pretty simple stuff. The "long game" theory reflects an optimism based on wishfulness not represented in evidence.

+1, about 3 months will give a pretty good idea who's right & who's wrong, in 6 months we'll know for sure. Imo, apple has dumped the pro market for purely business reasons.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Long game? Actually it's a short game: capture the most revenue that you can by prioritizing a broad userbase over a narrow one. Pretty simple stuff. The "long game" theory reflects an optimism based on wishfulness not represented in evidence.

Tim - For argument sake, let's say you are right about Apple "prioritizing a broad user base over a narrow one." (I am not sure that's the whole story but, like I said, for the sake of the discussion). Isn't that really the long game since they have to take time to spread the gospel to the broader audience and convince many of them to upgrade from iMovie (or whatever). It's the long game if your strategy calls for introducing a new paradigm and selling it hard over several years, hoping the world "sees the light" that you did when you threw it all up in the air; all the while having no guarantees. The short game is about selling more products to the customer base you already have. The long game is going through the hard work of acquiring new customers; the people who haven't yet proven they have the willingness to pay for your product.

The short game would have been to fix a few major complaints/bugs in the Final Cut Suite, add a few features to the current architecture, integrate Color a little more closely, etc., and then just rake in the upgrade fees (at least the same $299) of FCP-X) which would surely come - even if the only fix was the gamma issue. The short game would have called for "kicking the can down the road" and dealing with the aging feature set and outdated underlying architecture at some time in the future. The short game would have been patching problems and adding a few features. IMO, that's the opposite of what they did.

I believe FCP-X was a strategic move, not a tactical one. How well they executed is an entirely different discussion.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Right, you've made your thoughts on that pretty clear as is our disagreement. Moving on...

How can that be a disagreement? When speaking market strategies I don't believe there's much to opinions. Apple thought they knew the market. In a podcast I posted in another thread they spoke about the professional editor freelancers that still need the missing features, who still need what now Premiere and Avid gives them instead of FCPX. A customer base which might be the largest, larger then large corporate editors and consumers are. It might be that Apple missed those people and in the so called "long game" these editors will have moved on to something else.

Consumers might switch easier between different types of brands, but professionals might want to stick with something to create stability. They want the most reliable company to be their supplier and this is what the Apple debacle is about, not specific details on FCPX.

There has been so many posts and blogs predicting what Apple is doing or will be doing like they were prophecies from the looney down the road. And like doomsday prophets most of the "they will fix it next week" have become "they will fix it next month"... my prediction is that these will become "they will fix it over the next three months" and so on.

Seeing Larry go from the Apple fan to the Apple critic just shows that there's definitely something Apple is doing that I don't believe is worth defending. Especially when your not on Apple's payroll.
Life is too short to fight for something like defending a corporation you have nothing to do with. Why?

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Christoffer poses a reasonable question to contemplate: "Life is too short to fight for something like defending a corporation you have nothing to do with. Why?" but, of course, the opposite is true as well. Christoffer, is life not also too short to bash and criticize a corporation with which you have nothing to do? We could all just accept the perspective of the critics as fact, even when the criticism is pure FUD, which some of it is. We could let lies, ignorance and bias go unchallenged and accept it because it has nothing to do with us personally. But, then why is it so important the the critics get their podium to tear down something they clearly seem so willing to abandon; and in fact, if you listen to them, are actively doing so. Going forward, they will actually have much LESS to do with this corporation than those of us who are still attracted to the products they offer.

I see things in FCP-X that I believe will create tremendous efficiencies. I really don't care if this is Apple or Avid or Adobe or Sony. I think the new paradigm has promise. It is true that I am probably more aware of it because I am an Apple/FCP user, but what excites me about it is its potential, not its label. And yes, I do trust Apple to "get it right" more than I do, say, Sony, but this is based on my personal experiences and accumulated biases (which we all have to some degree). So why am I "defending" Apple? I don't really see it that way; merely stating strong opinions about products I have confidence in based on my personal experience. (Apple can take care of itself.) I am speaking out, probably for the same reason you are loudly voicing the opposite opinion; because I believe I have a legitimate point of view that is based on facts and reasoning. And, in my case quite specifically, spending many hours with the software along with about 15 hours of training modules from people who have been working with the software under NDA for weeks or months. I would like to see FCP-X succeed for selfish reasons and I'd like to share my optimism with others who might see my comments as a reason to look more closely and consider what advantages they might gain from using the software.

In the end, I don't care so much that "everyone" isn't using FCP. All I really care is that it is successful enough to continue developing and that it gets to reach its potential so that I can use it as a powerful tool to reach mine. If it fails to do that, I'll find something else. Right now, it looks like a good road to travel to the future. :thumbup1: