Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumabjorn
@Prestidigitweeze
Isn't that kind of entrenchment, be it a Swedish ad agency or an American music producer, proof that there will be very little growth for Apple in the computer segment.
|
Oh, I think you're right in a few respects, and not simply because the expense forestalls upgrades. The other factor is synergistic stability, which is often hard-won. Producers and working electronic musicians are often the last to upgrade because a stable system is a dependable system and no one wants to crash with a client sitting next to them. Aaron Funk (a/k/a Venetian Snares) has the most old-fashioned rig I've ever seen (an ancient version of SoundForge on pre-XP Windows and a flickering CRT monitor) -- it's PC-based, BTW -- and it's all because the system works for him.
You see that a lot -- supposedly futuristic music being produced on tech that's a decade old or more (three or four decades, if you count legacy electronic instruments).
Still, rich artists often spend a lot on Apple kit even beyond their pro rigs and studio systems. Who was the designer who owned fifty iPods at one time -- was it Karl Lagerfeld? That seems ridiculous to me, but it does point toward a cultivated relationship with the arts that once allowed Jobs to market his simple computer as if it were something inherently more creative.
Jobs would have gone on caring about my sector of the client base because we're the people who lent credibility to the rest of what Apple did. Fine-arts cred is part of what gave Apple its cool for a moment, even among consumers who never got past the iPhone. That's why Jobs talked about the arts so often. It's telling that Ives rarely does. He's less pompous than Jobs but also less hypnotically overreaching.