The big Apple

Apple could soon be the largest public company in America - overtaking the current biggest, Exon - and think says something interesting about our society, i.e. that the biggest US company is no longer a fossil fuel 'old economy' giant, but a company whose current success is based not just on modern technology, but personalized consumer gadgets. Talk about the 'me' age having arrived when i-this and i-that can be such big business!

Apart from the fact that personalized, completely new gadgets can take (modern,western) society by storm so rapidly (iphone only around 3 years), it is significant that non-necessities can be such an economic powerhouse. A positive take on this is (modern, western) society is so well equipped in the basics, it has money to burn on such non-essentials, but perhaps a more negative view is in order, since what does this say about that society, that it is so obsessed with the latest gimmick, especially given the fact that it is not so homogenously wealthy as the fact suggests (without even considering the poverty which is the norm in a lot of the rest of the world).

Still though, no company is going to succeed to such a scale by being angelic, and I overall think it quite cool that a company such as Apple (much as I still disagree with their restrictive approach) can be bigger than an oil company. Neither are exactly pinnacles of worthiness, but at least Apple is state of the art technology focused more on enjoyment than exploitation. If world peace and deep universal satisfaction are out of reach for now - I think i'd rather show off an Ipad to the universe than an oil refinery. We may not have a great idea where to go, but we're heading there in style...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/18/apple-largest-us-public-company

Apple poised to become largest public company in America

Success of iPhone and iPad could boost Apple past Exxon to the top of the Standard & Poor's 500 by market capitalisation

• Share267
• 
• 
• Comments (49)

• Charles Arthur, technology editor
• The Guardian, Monday 18 October 2010
• Article history

Apple was worth $2bn in 1997, shortly before Steve Jobs took over as chief executive – it is now worth around $274bn. Photograph: Kimberly White/Reuters

As Apple prepares to announce its fourth-quarter results tonight, analysts are forecasting that it will have sold another 5m iPads, and around 12m more of the iPhone 4 it released in June.

If the numbers are good, then it is quite possible that the share price will jump further above the $300 (£190) mark that it broke last week – and the company could become the most valuable in the world, measured by market capitalisation, surpassing Exxon, and capping its remarkable rebirth under the aegis of founder Steve Jobs.

Though at the end of last week, the gulf in valuations seemed large – Exxon's $331bn, against Apple's $274bn – the gap has been closing for more than a year. Even if tonight's results are not enough to propel Apple to the top spot, many on Wall Street think it is just a matter of time. Its profits will get another boost in January when Apple will begin selling iPhones through the largest network, Verizon, as well as AT&T, its partner since 2007.

Apple is forecast to show revenues of around $19bn for the quarter and $5bn of profit – with the iPhone and iPad, products you could not buy four years ago, generating about $10bn of sales.

It is a dramatic reversal from May 1997, when Jobs – who had recently rejoined the company after been fired in 1985 – was manoeuvring to take over again as chief executive. The share price put a total value on the company of just $2bn, "reflecting Apple's loss of market share in an increasingly Windows-dominated world", as analysts put it. Jobs told a team of software coders at the time: "You've got to start with the customer experience and work back to the technology – not the other way around."

He drove out the dead wood, his new recruit from PC-maker Compaq, Tim Cook (now the chief operating officer) streamlined its supply chain, and the company did as Jobs suggested, focusing relentlessly on its customers.

He also set targets – such as surpassing Dell. Asked in October 1997 what he would do in Jobs's position, Michael Dell retorted: "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." Jobs chastised Dell privately – and then celebrated with an email to staff when in January 2006, with a value of $72.1bn, it did finally pass Dell . In May this year, Apple achieved a huge milestone, passing Microsoft in market capitalisation, at £222bn against £219bn.

Apple's computer business has steadily improved, coming third behind HP and Dell in the personal computer market in the US in the three months to September, according to research firm Gartner, although it still has a relatively small share of the global market.

But it has been the newer products that have driven growth. Apple took ownership of the MP3 market with the iPod, where the integration of hardware and the iTunes software proved to be a success and baffled those who had expected Microsoft to at some stage overwhelm it with an "iPod killer" – based on software from one company, hardware from a second, and music from a third.

Then in January 2007 Jobs unveiled the iPhone, and Apple began to eat into the smartphone market – previously the sole preserve of Nokia, Research In Motion (with its BlackBerry) and Microsoft, with Windows Mobile. Sales took off again, and Jobs's comparatively modest target of 10m phones sold by the end of 2008 was easily surpassed, with 13m sold by September of that year.

The latest hit is the iPad. Launched in April, analysts think it could sell 25m in 2011. Gartner has made dramatic forecasts for the growth of the tablet computer market, which it said would triple in size next year to 54.8m units. The technology research firm is predicting that the market will grow to 103.4m in 2012 and 154.2m units in 2013. And despite intensifying competition, Gartner reckons the iPad will keep its lead until then.

Apple's longtime rival Microsoft (presently still valued at £219bn) became the largest company in the world by market capitalisation, for two years in the late 1990s during the PC boom. At the time, Microsoft did not pay dividends, though it does now. Apple still does not pay dividends but if it does reach the top, it might have to find some other way to make its stock look more attractive than simply the chance that it will keep rising in value.

However being the top-valued stock brings other rewards: billions of dollars invested in index-tracking funds will switch from Exxon to Apple if the Cupertino-based company does hit the top – and the switch could push down Exxon's value further, accelerated by hedge funds and technical traders who make bets based on the rebalancing of major indexes, and would be ready to short the oil company's shares.

Apple will come under increasing pressure to do something with its enormous cash pile of roughly $50bn, which was a necessary buffer when times were lean, but now looks like wasted opportunity. "Apple needs to do something with all of that capital," said Toan Tran, an analyst at Morningstar. "I could understand wanting to have something in reserve, but $50bn is such a ridiculous number that they should seriously consider returning some of it to shareholders in the form of share buybacks."

If Apple does surpass Exxon, it would mark a changing of the guard in the Standard & Poor's 500, where the top spot has been shared by companies including General Electric, General Motors, AT&T (before it was broken up in a monopoly investigation), and – 20 years ago – by IBM, which was also hit by antitrust investigations.

With suggestions that the world is approaching 'peak oil' as supplies begin to dwindle and increasing concern over the role that fossil fuels play in climate change, Exxon looks set to be replaced by perhaps the most potent symbol of the digital age.

The UK 'spending review' - ideology or practicality?

The UK has at last announced it's 'spending review'. Given that all countries have deficit problems, but also need to somehow keep what recovery there is alive, how they approach it has major significance for our societies, so something worth giving some first impression comments. The future will show how close/far off the mark they are!

From what I've read recently am sceptical and actually concerned about the depth and type of cuts. It seems a lot of economists think it a dangerous thing to do given the world economy,and this makes a lot of sense to me. The idea of the private sector magically stepping in to fill the breach sounds very optimistic given the private sector isn't exactly booming currently. And I also suspect the overall approach is really ideologically rather than pragmatiically driven. The idea of freeing the private sector so it can come to our rescue reminds me very much of the idea of 'trickle down' wealth, i.e. justifications of conservative policies that we might (rightly) suspect of just benefiting the well off, but that we're assurred are actually good for everyone!

The bottom line is I can't see how the loss of half a million jobs,and decimating what people get from the government can lead to anything but dampened economy....and a vicious cycle downward. So even just from a practical self serving point of view, think a very dangerous approach, and risks prolonging the crises, not just in the UK but everywhere through knock on effects (it is the 6th largest economy).

And morally, it seems even worse. Since the focus is on cuts and not tax rises, then obviously hits the less well off who receive most from the government, which is not just unprogressive, but particularly unfair since it was the upper echelons in society, the banks and the financiers that caused the problem (and also probably practically worse as well, since has more of an effect on their spending power since they would have less disposable income to start with)..

So for all the talk of 'in this together' and 'for our future' think while some measures needed, the extent show it is largely the conservatives seizing an opportunity to decimate the state for ideological reasons and justify it as 'necessary'. Am just amazed the libdems are sticking with it. It really makes them seem a pointless joke -at least the conservatives are doing what they believe in!

The irony is the UK, being such a large economy, and with it's own currency, surely has more options than say for example Ireland, which is really broke and in a fix. I really think this is going to be a disaster for them. I hope I'm wrong, and hope even more if I'm not that the consequences are contained there and don't spread to continental Europe (and Austria in particular!). Though I guess what the big eurozone countries do is much more relevant to my own selfish position. Still sad to see such conservative ideology with such a free hand in Britain.

Facebook and my many faces

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, recently made the following comment : "You have one identity. The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly ... Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity."

It's an outlook like this which I think explains Facebooks ongoing problems with privacy. If the head of the company really believes that we are simple one-dimensional social creatures (and coincidentally more easily mappable and manipulatible for advertising, then it never really will be the ultimate social networking solution. What I would love in facebook is exactly the opposite, a layered identity which I can tweak for various levels of acquaintance. Does that mean I have a 'lack of integrity'? I don't think so, because simply wanting to not publicize certain information to certain people, does not mean I have malicious intent. What Zuckerberg seemingly fails to understand is the boundary of the private sphere is not simply between me and everyone in the world I have had no contact with, rather it is specifically an intricate layering of relationships within the network of people I do know, but with varying degrees. Indeed, since I have no contact and may never meet the 'everybody else' then I actually care less about them knowing my 'private' stuff, since it will have no impact on my life. It would be as if keeping things 'private' meant keeping them secret from aliens or people in the past or distance future - it makes the term meaningless. Which of course would make things a lot easier for the likes of facebook!

Similarly, private does not mean 'secret'. The point of a 'secret' is it is restricted but useful knowledge. The recipe for coke is a 'secret' but whether I have a loose toenail is not. In both cases the possessor has information others do not, and is reluctant to share it with others, but in the latter case it is 'information' only to me, and not is irrelevant to them. And this is another element of private affairs - it is not that they are necessarily hidden from others, they are just more comfortably kept that way, since they are nobody elses business. Of course, just as I don't ultimately care if soimeone on the other side of the planet who I will never meet knows about my daily life, if it's not relevant for others, and they don't care, then the logic could be that they then won't pay attention, so it doesn't need to be private in the first place. But the reason this is not the case highlights perhaps the main reason why we want to keep things private, and this is not about our integrity, but the integrity of others.

Being honest, I am perfectly 'ok' with what I do in all my social levels. At the end of the day, I personally am not going to be embarrassed or regret what happened in any sphere; however, I wouldn't want all levels open to everyone, because I would worry about how others would view it, and how it would affect their interaction with me. Take for example political or religious views. I stand by my viewpoints, so if it came to it, would defend them in front of everyone. But, I also know not all people would agree with me, some might take offence, or (more the issue) some might disagree, and being less than perfect individuals, might act in hostile or malicious ways, or even just handle me differently. Now of course, for my closest friends this is not the case (they wouldn't be my close friends if it were), but I know am involved with much more people than this. To most it may not matter, but to some it does, and one reason why private spheres exist and are respected (in some societies anyway) is they allow us to interact and deal with others who may not agree with us, since for day to day practical matters this agreement is not necessary. Maybe if we all lived in some gigantic commune where everybody knew everything about everybody else then we'd all adapt and attitudes would change, but we don't. And a reason why we aren't likely to in any near future is that information is open to interpretation, and widespread disemination runs the risk of people getting the wrong end of the stick. To have a functioning society, made up of different individuals, requires bubbles of private space, but mechanisms for them to interact. For Zuckerbergs Utopia to exist society would either have to be very homogenous, or very small, and the web community is about as low scoring on both these counts as is imaginable.

I really think that just as social networking (and hats off to facebook for making the most of it) taps into a major force in the modern world, the game is for the taking for the company that can really tune it to how people really view it. Roll on diaspora!

Faith schools and the role of indoctrination

Watching Richard Dawkin's "faith school menace" raised again for me the whole topic of the difference issue of the role of indoctrination in education.

For me, the are two intertwined themes involved in the program. Firstly, at a macro level, there is the problem of society self-segregating on the basis of faith. This I think is clearly a significant issue for any multicultural society, since it at best merely fosters an insular and closed-mind outlook, at worst is actively divisive and detrimental to social cohesion and integration. The second issue is the question of, within those faiths and faith schools, what is the impact on the individual education and development of the children. The program illustrated the first of these themes by referring to the sectarianism in Northern Ireland, and the second by a subtle ridiculing of a faith guided science teacher's understanding of evolution (and her only slightly less confused pupils).

In both examples however, there were some statements which went to the heart of the issue, namely, the concept of indoctrination.

In the Northern Ireland example, one of his inerviewees demanded to know whether Dawkins thought it was a basic human right for parents to determine how their children are educated. This at first seems something hard to disgree with, but Dawkins repeatedly dodged the question. His problem I think was, while it sounds like an intuitive right of the parents, for him the rights of the child are also involved, and he is aware that the power of education to mould and shape our personalities means it is a double-edged sword. Passing on values and outlook is not only a desirable thing but arguably also a duty, but things become more complicated if the values are unacceptable. Would we tolerate domineering and cult-style parents 'brainwashing' their children with horrific views? I doubt it, and if not, then we, like Dawkins, could not agree to the interviewee's point, no matter how sensible it first sounds.

Simply put, Dawkins (and again I would largely agree with him) actually has issues with some people's values, whether these are explicitly important to them, or merely bundled into their declared faith without much thought on their part.

But this then leads into a much larger and complicated area - namely how much society as whole should do to influence the values which are propagated to the next generation. While a simple liberal assumption might be that it shouldn't do anything, and doesn't, the reality is it most definitely does, especially through it's educational insitutions. Hence if those institutions have differing value sets, then it is a problem.

I don't however want to go deeper into this topic here (even if I knew what to say), but in this instance we can extricate ourselves because normally, fundamentalists and some religious doctrines excepted, the moral values transmitted in faith schools do not vary so much from society's in general, at least not enough to cause a problem. Also (again fundamentalists apart) while parents might like their children having the same 'background' as they did, and hence feel some identification with a faith school which openly touts being of their background, I seriously doubt moral value education plays much of a role in their choice of school (again, because for the most part the values are so coherent across schools, even of different faiths). What is surely most important for them is the 'practical' education their child receives, and how it prepares it for one particular social role - a job.

It is from this perspective that faith schools are particularly worrying. Again it was one of the interviewees that crystalized this point, although this time it was Dawkins asking the question, and his point being proven without him saying anything. At a muslim school, he was interested to know how they were being taught certain areas of science which their teacher openly admitted disagreeing with on grounds of faith. The teachers were claiming each student independently weighed up the arguments and they all invariably came down on the side of faith. This fact showed how powerful the influence of faith teaching is, since even when they were being taught (albeit one couldn't tell how well) the scientific knowledge, they were uniformly rejecting it. It was however when he asked one student for some examples, and got some ridiculous non-scientific 'fact' about how salt and fresh water don't mix, that one saw just how worrying the practical implications are. It was summed up poignanlty by his simple but sad follow up : "and you're the one who wants to be a doctor isn't it?". The poor girl probably didn't see the ridiculousness of her situation, but the point was clear to us - if this she was going to come out of school with such a confused and useless understanding of simple physics, then what hope had she of ever achieving such a job. As a side not it is important too not to think it is an islamic only issue (no other faith school was brave enough to let him in) since Christian and other religions also have many views contrary to science. In the Christian case lay people might think these are not really seriously taken, but they are part of the catechism and the teachers are inevitably more devout.

For me the point is that indoctrination IS involved, but a special kind of indoctrination. In the case of science etc. it is an indoctrination into the world view that our society uses and relies upon. Even a relativist has to agree that whatever about the ultimate superiority of any particular world view, WITHIN a given system, such as our society, then there is a hierarchy. Believing salt water separates from fresh might be your own perogative, but is not going to help you get a job. Of course, as the revolutions in science have shown, even the 'establishment' views are not perfect, but they are the best there is at any given time for the roles and functions around at the time. And, most most importantly, and what massively differentiates this kind of indoctrination from the religious type, is it has an inbuilt self-correction mechanism, which allows these revolutions to take place. Again, at an abstract level it migth be argued whether it might be better to live in blissful ignorance with unchanging truths out of an ancient book, but again 'better' here would need not to include wanting a job.

So the question really is not whether education should be indoctrination, it is and it must be, but what, and how much, indoctrination is justified in the context of schooling. I.e. which values should be impressed on all (via a mandatory curriculum), which should be supported but not overly dictated, and which should be excluded.

My view is that government should be more open about what values it is promoting, and encourage debate and support; however this active behaviour needs to be tempered with a restraint as to which values are covered. But since there is promotion going on anyway, directly or indirectly, planned or not, then this can only be a change for the better. In the case of faith schools then, for subjects such as science a national curriculum should be mandatory, and contradictory teaching not supported (it might be a step too far to outright ban it!). The science example shows how sometimes faith values are simply not compatible with the purpose of the insitution. This is not to force the values on people outside of that setting, but inside the government funded institution it should call the shots.

This is particularly important given the evidence presented that children generally tend to prefer the most fantastical (and purposeful -i.e. theological) explanation for a problem, so modern world view has already it's work cut out (and probably exactly why it is a modern one, since it probably took so long to overcome our childlike tendencies).

A point worth making is that faith in schools per se is not necessarily a problem - many people, possibly Dawkins himself - have emerged unscathed from schools run by religious orders. However it may be in the past there was less interference in secular subjects. It could well be that with religious partipation on the wane, some religious bodies are more proactive involved outside of their initial domains, and this is a new and growing problem. Or, as seems to be the case in the UK, schools, 'acadamies' are being setup by people with a very clear agenda.
So just because faith schooling wasn't an issue in the past, doesn't mean it isn't one now.

When progress runs backward

I always find it quite sad when I read about the moon landings, or more precisely how the ambitions of space travel have fallen sharply back to Earth since the days of the Apollo program. Perhaps Icarus might have been a better moniker, since it seems man flew so high, only to crash back down for a long time.

The recent trigger for this was an article in the Observer on the 4oth anniversary of the landings. Apart from the fact that the moon is again beyond our reach, it was also somehow depressing to be reminded that with the space shuttle being retired, then even the options of just getting into orbit are being reduced. There is of course a new program talked about, but without real and new funding it's unlikely it'll be actually realized.

Given how space is the epitome of what is beyond our natural reach, and hence illustrates the triumph of collective humanity over given nature, there's something tragic in the fact that I could say to my son, when his grandfather was young they put men on the moon, when his father was young they put people in space...and when in the coming years while he is still young, they probably won't do either. Surely technology, progress even, was supposed to run the other way?

However, when one thinks about it, it all makes sense. Brutally put, glamour and one upmanship aside (which was after all a large part of the drive for the apollo mission) there isn't a lot of advantage in putting humans in space, and a hell of a lot of cost and risk. What always astonishes me, after the fact that the Apollo crew were using slide rules and sextants, and t below even the most basic smartphone, is just how hard getting out of orbit really still is. getFrom my understanding getting to the moon is another ballgame entirely to just the 'standard' trips to the space station etc. I.e. it's not just because we can't be bothered, it's just that it's still damn hard and dangerous! Which of course makes the original achievement all the more impressive.

And being honest, nostalgia (even if I missed Apollo, I played with space Lego in the shuttle heyday) and wow factor apart, I also don't think it's worth it. The pinacle of humanity's power it might represent, but it didn't do a whole lot of good for that humanity tself. While such projects of course have real technological offshoots, and spawn perhaps even more important aspiration, the sums involved are mind blowing, and given the problems here on earth, one has to weigh up the morality of it all. Of course a dollar not sent into space does not mean a dollar on malaria research, but still blood and treasure are spent which could be used for other things.

Aspiration is needed, and makes more of this world than we are given, but a balance in what we aim for is needed, so we waste our time neither in the gutter nor the stars. As Daedalus said to his son, I guess I could now say to mine : "Don't fly to low, or the waves will weigh down your wings, nor too high, lest the sun may burn them".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

copies of the referenced articles are saved here :

- Apollo the dream that fell to earth