New York Times on Apple Job Growth

The New York Times has published a rather silly article in which they claim that Apple has never contributed any jobs to the economy.

Well – they do not put it exactly that way – but their article practically says it outright.

I will agree with the quote:

… said Gary P. Pisano, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. “It’s hard to say the exact size.”

I agree as well that the methods used by the company they hired could be the subject of legitimate debate (as long as that statement is NOT interpreted as an innuendo that someone was dishonest.)

However, the following quote is a bit odd:

David Autor, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said via e-mail that the “entire business of claiming ‘direct and indirect’ job creation is disreputable” because most of the workers Apple is taking credit for would have been employed elsewhere in the company’s absence.

They go on to note:

Mr. Cappelli said. “If you say, ‘If there had been no Apple, those people would not have jobs,’ that’s not true.”

Of course it is not true that every single one of those individuals would be jobless, but if there were no Apple and engineer X took a job at HP then there would be some other engineer who would not have a job.

According to the logic provided, then no business anywhere creates any jobs at all. Everybody else would have been working somewhere else. This is – of course – utter foolishness.

I will admit that they do conclude with the statement:

Apple is, however, an innovative company that created a market for tablets and radically increased demand for smartphones.

In reality – the smartphones existing before the iPhone are not today considered smartphone. Additionally, the app business was relatively nonexistent prior to the iPhone, so perhaps they should be credited with ALL the apps developers (snicker).

As for people buying alternative products if Apple did not exist… sure they would be buying Asus and Lenovo computer that are totally designed, engineered, and built in China in factories with absolutely NO oversight at all. And…

They would be running DOS 12.1. (What a pleasant thought.)



On NetFlix: Shot in the foot X 2


THE problem with Netflix was that they failed to realize one very important thing: There were two reasons for their current success:

        1. It was easy,
        2. customer loyalty to a company that valued them.

Yes, there are and were other competing services. But did you ever call in to Netflix help? WOW great, positive people, who bend over backwards to help, solve your problem and generously give out little extras to make up for any glitch.

So who cares about a little this or that? You get your DVDs and easy streaming all in one, with great service and an excellent web site.

Well, first they did away with the good will. Customers can see that a company needs to raise prices once in a while, but the huge hike while they were already making a big profit? That effectively killed the customer loyalty issue. Hey guys, learn this:

Loyalty is a 2-way street!


Now you have the separation of DVDs and streaming. There goes the easy portion. (Like you never heard of a company with more than one product that bills for both at the same time????)

I see a world in which Netflix joins Hollywood Video in that corporation place in the sky. All because they shot themselves in the foot. And on purpose!!