We would probably never end up doing something if we decide to wait for ideal conditions.
Ideal conditions bring to mind the word perfect. And as we know (or should know), nothing is perfect.
But sometimes, in a nod to the ever-diminishing value of planning, a project can be completed in less than ideal conditions–and in an almost perfect state.
In the case of Apple and its latest subscription service, it remains to be seen whether or not it will end up being referred to as a perfect venture for the Cupertino iPhone maker. Present conditions may be perceived as ideal for Apple but I prefer to think their opportunistic efforts may instead end up being a case of too little too late.
Apple is trying to inject new life into dying print journalism by offering digital versions of 300 magazines for $9.99 a month.
Apple will have a monopoly on this no longer sustainable industry and business model while reportedly keeping a considerable and hefty portion of the profit.
I don’t like monopolies, especially those that potentially unlevel the playing field with respect to criticism of Apple.
I was an early Apple fanboy when they were battling Microsoft for supremacy on the desktop computer operating system wars. Apple lost in an unanticipated short amount of time. It was not close.
Microsoft rules the desktop to this day and is ubiquitous in the business world. Apple never made inroads there, preferring to focus on consumer, education, and print journalism segments for their macOS.
I long ago stopped recommending Apple only devices. Part of this shift in my thinking came with experience. If you live long enough you eventually learn there is more than one tool that can accomplish what it is you’re trying to do.
My issue with the 300 magazines for $9.99 a month deal is that it will undeniably bring less criticism of Apple by the journalists whose job it is to report objectively on the gadget maker quasi extraordinaire.
The only people who will be able to direct criticism at Apple without looking over their shoulders will be independent writing sources–or anyone outside of the publishing warehouse that Apple has assembled.
It’s like anything else.
Apple should not be given credit for benevolence, especially when there is money to be made.
They are a publicly-owned company tasked with generating value for its stockholders.
They most certainly view this latest initiative as a way to increase revenues. More specifically, and as viewed through the lens of an outsider, they are wringing the last bit of profit that can be had from a 20th century industry remnant long in decline.
It is not a case of Apple reaching out to assist in the preservation of journalism. Apple is not worthy of this praise. Let there be no confusion as they do not have writers’ backs here at all. Tech reporting that profiles Apple as a company will most certainly suffer when writers at mainstream media outlets (that reside under the subscription umbrella) can no longer cover both sides of the story without fear of retribution.
Apple may have waited for ideal conditions to make what may end up for them to be a perfect decision.
To look at the other side of the coin, however, is to consider the possibility they may also be presiding over journalism’s death knell.