（预告）Apple 50周年的5个问题、Axios遭黑与AI安全、Starlink问答、AI公司IPO、AirPods
- Apple 最重要的决策是收购 NeXT、让 Steve Jobs 回归，而不是推出 Windows 版 iTunes。 Ben 认为 Windows 版 iTunes 的论点虽然站得住脚，但最终是错的。Andrew 表示自己的判断并非高确信度，但他的 Windows 使用经历说明，iTunes 为用户进入 Apple 生态提供了入口；如果没有它，后来 iPhone 的普及可能会更难。
- Ben 对 Jobs 领导缺陷的首要回答，是他极度漠视身边的人；在 Ben 看来，这与 Apple 对产品标准的要求不可分割。 他还转述了 John Gruber 的技术批评：Jobs 控制一切的冲动走得太远。Jobs 2.0 通过组织层级在一定程度上收住了他的破坏性倾向；而 Windows 版 iTunes、App Store 等 Apple 最好的决策，有些是在 Jobs 改变想法之前通过内部反抗推进出来的。
- 原版 iPhone 广告是 Apple 最强的广告，因为演示、教育和说服在其中是同一个动作。 一部手机和一根手指展示“这就是网页……这是邮件……这是通话”，既揭示了前所未有的产品，也同时教会用户如何使用它。
- Apple 当前的软件摩擦，已经像极了它当年嘲讽 Windows 的那些问题。 Ben 举例称，一台无头 Mac 可能会因为网络存储弹窗而停止工作，直到有人登录图形界面处理；两位主持人也都在嘲讽通知泛滥，比如 Apple TV 在观众已经看比赛时提醒“嘿，比赛很胶着”。
- 中国对 Apple 最终实现规模化至关重要，但反事实推演仍没有答案。 Apple 当年跟随竞争对手进入中国，而不是率先推动生产迁移，随后才掌握了这套体系。Ben 认为，如果没有全行业迁往中国，Apple 的相对处境可能反而更好，但它能否实现同等速度、产量、价格和统治力，仍无法确定。
- Ben 的科技界“总统山”第1位是 Microsoft，第2位是 Apple，因为 Microsoft 创造了第1个真正的平台。 Andrew 质疑 Microsoft 是否必须入选，但 Ben 的态度斩钉截铁：理解 Microsoft 在消费和企业市场的成功，以及它在消费市场的失败，“就是理解科技的关键，仅此而已”。
1. 让 Jobs 回归比开放 Windows 版 iTunes 更重要
Ben 的第一反应是：收购 NeXT、让 Steve Jobs 回归。他认为 Windows 版 iTunes 的论点虽然站得住脚，但最终仍是错的；补充这一点的是 Andrew，而不是 Ben：如果 Jobs 没有回归，Apple 就会“彻底没戏”。
Andrew 表示自己的判断并非高确信度，但他的经历说明了这对用户普及的影响：早期 iPod 对 Windows 用户毫无意义，直到 iTunes 跨平台。按他的说法，这后来成了很多人进入 Apple 生态的入口；如果没有 iTunes，之后 iPhone 的普及可能会更困难。
Ben 承认 Windows 版 iTunes 具有战略象征意义：它代表 Apple 摆脱了单纯 Mac 公司的身份。后来，Apple Computer 在 iPhone 发布会上正式改名为 Apple，这一转变得到进一步确认。
2. Jobs 的残酷与产品同理心是同一套系统的两面
Ben 的核心框架是：没有人像 Jobs 一样理解人类、对人类抱有“同理心”，尽管他并不在乎身边的人，包括同事和家人。Apple 为“我们这些普通人”打造技术，但执行这一标准的领导者，某种程度上又“像个精神变态”。
Jony Ive 曾对 Apple 实习生说，在意同事的感受可能是一种自私：人们害怕激怒他人，于是回避坦诚的批评。Ben 得出的不适结论是，要维持 Apple 级别的质量，就必须有一种非同寻常的意愿，敢于让内部利益相关者感到不快。
Jobs 2.0 的改进，在于搭建系统和层级，“保护其他人不受自己伤害”。Ben 还转述了 John Gruber 的技术批评：Jobs 试图控制一切，走得太远了；他最初反对 Windows 版 iTunes 和 App Store。这些决策都是在其他人的反抗下推进，直到 Jobs 转变想法，随后实际上把结果当成了自己的主意。
3. Apple 最好的广告，让产品自己完成教学
Ben 没有选择大家预期的“Think Different”，而是提到原版 iPhone campaign：一部手机和一根手指演示网页浏览、邮件和通话。这些广告既让人同时感到产品令人震撼，又承担了教程功能，是“一举多得的完美广告”。
Andrew 仍认为“Here’s to the Crazy Ones”在情感上更有说服力，也提到那支由少年拍摄家人的圣诞广告。两位主持人还称 iPad 粉碎广告倒放后成了意外的经典，把平板延展成音乐、艺术和乐器工具。
两人的个人反应并不那么整齐。Ben 很确定自己当时意识到了 iPhone 的重要性，但又无法真正回忆起那个瞬间；他的第1台设备是 iPod Touch。Andrew 则在整整3年半时间里始终是“彻头彻尾的 BlackBerry 用户”，直到 iPhone 好上几个时代才转用。
4. Apple 当前的软件摩擦，已经像极了它当年对 Windows 的批评
Ben 提名了一支旧 Mac 对 PC 广告，内容是嘲讽 Windows Vista 的弹窗；他认为这正是 Apple 高管今天应该回看的广告：“看，这就是我们最后变成的样子。”现代 Mac 已经积累了 Apple 当年用来攻击 Microsoft 的各种打断。
Ben 表示，他不会再买 Mac 运行无头模式，因为设备可能会在有人登录图形界面、批准一个询问是否允许访问网络存储的模态窗口前停止工作——“当然允许啊，这就是你这台无头 Mac 存在的意义。”
Andrew 把矛头对准通知泛滥，包括 Apple TV 推送棒球比分。Ben 又补充了一个荒谬例子：观众已经在看比赛时，设备还弹出“嘿，比赛很胶着”的通知。这些例子与旧广告对 Windows 弹窗的讽刺形成对照。
5. 中国提供了规模，Microsoft 提供了科技的底层范式
Ben 认为，剔除中国的 Apple 几乎是一个“无法成立的反事实”。Apple 进入中国较晚：Steve Jobs 当时坚持美国制造；Ben 记得其中有一家工厂在 Fremont，认为 Texas 可能还有一家，另有爱尔兰 Cork 一家。Apple 最终掌握了中国供应链，中国也成为 iPod 和 iPhone 实现规模化生产的关键。
Ben 认为，如果没有全行业迁往中国，Apple 的相对处境可能反而更好，但他没有断言 Apple 能否以同等速度和产量生产这些产品，更无法确定它能否取得相当的价格优势和市场统治力。
Apple 的工厂问题也与过早自动化有关，类似 Tesla Model 3 当年的困难。Ben 设想，如果当时要求在美国生产数亿部 iPhone，反而可能迫使美国自动化水平大幅跃升。
在科技界“总统山”上，Ben 将 Microsoft 排第1、Apple 排第2。Microsoft 打通了消费与企业计算，建立起平台模式——生态、开发者以及由此产生的网络效应——并称其为“科技中最重要的概念”。预告在揭晓另外2席之前结束。
Hello, and welcome to a free preview of Sharp Tech. Hello, and welcome back to another episode of Sharp Tech. I'm Andrew Sharp, and on the other line, Ben Thompson. Ben, how you doing?
Doing good, Andrew. Feeling young.
Are you? Why?
Well, we’re talking about a 50-year-old today—someone who preceded me in birth. A welcome change of pace from most of our tech discussions.
That’s right. One of the few companies whose lifespan you have not witnessed from beginning to end here. So yes, that’s where we’re going to begin. In honor of Apple’s 50th anniversary, I wanted to put together a couple of rapid-fire questions at the top. You wrote about a big question.
Before you get to this, this was such a good idea.
Questions for you.
I have to be honest: I blatantly stole these questions and used them on Dithering. I did not give my answers on Dithering, though. So listen to that to hear John Gruber’s answers.
Okay.
I kind of cheated because 2 of them we completely agreed on, and 1 of them we mostly agreed on. Actually, I’m going to steal John Gruber’s answer on 1 of them, to be honest, because he had a better answer than I did. But there are at least 2 of them that are going to be fresh to this podcast. So there you go.
I love it. I love it. Well, it’s going to be rewarding for the bundle listeners, the real dedicated bundle listeners.
That’s right.
They can compare your answers. They can compare Gruber’s answers. So it’s all part of the fun here at Stratechery. Number 1 on my list of questions for you: Was putting iTunes on Windows the most important decision in the history of the company? What do you think?
No. The most important decision in the history of the company was acquiring NeXT and getting Steve Jobs back.
Bringing Jobs back. Okay. Fair enough.
Yes. Needless to say, this is 1 where John Gruber and I had the exact same answer and the exact same level of immediacy.
Okay.
It’s a good take. I think you could construct a take around iTunes on Windows being the most important decision in the history of the company, sort of breaking out. It was sort of symbolized by and made formal at the iPhone event, when, at the end of the event, they changed the name from Apple Computer to just Apple. That spoke to what this decision precipitated: We’re not just about the Mac.
Yeah.
It’s a good take. I could probably say yes and make an argument for it. It would be wrong, though.
And to be honest with you, it’s not a high-conviction take from me. I’m just drawing on my own personal experience with Apple because I dated a girl in high school who was from a Mac family. Everybody used Macs over at her house, and she had an iPod very early on. I think she had the first version ever—the brick iPod, back in the day.
With the actual—
And it was cool—exactly, with the wheel. It was really cool technology, but also completely irrelevant to me because it only ever worked with her Mac. My first experience using Mac software outside of elementary school computers was when they put iTunes on Windows, and I bought an iPod. I don’t think the iPod is ever nearly as popular without that change, and that then complicates iPhone adoption later in the decade. It was the on-ramp for a lot of people, or at least it was the on-ramp for me.
Yeah.
So I’m drawing on my own experience there.
No, it’s a good take. It’s a good take. It is wrong, but it is the best take that is defensible and will inspire everyone to get upset about it because it’s wrong, so it’s good.
Right. And Steve Jobs—without Steve Jobs coming back, they’re just dead in the water.
1. Steve Jobs Leadership Flaws
Related to Steve Jobs, what were Steve Jobs’ flaws as a leader? I ask that because there are 25 tech-motivation accounts on Twitter that do nothing but post quotes and interviews with Steve Jobs. I love those accounts, but that’s really the extent of my exposure to him.
Because the quotes and interviews are all really good.
They’re awesome. They’re awesome. So don’t stop, tech influencers. But it does make me wonder: What were the downsides? What were the blind spots? I know he was insane as a boss, but if you had to pinpoint anything, where would you go?
Well, this is interesting. My initial thought here, at the risk of even coming somewhat adjacent to culture-war content—
Oh, boy.
Yeah, well, there’s that meme illustration thing of heat maps of conservatives versus liberals—caring about people close to you versus caring about people far away, or whatever it is. I don’t even know what it is. I try to steer clear of all that stuff.
I’ve seen the culture-war heat maps related to AI, so sure. There are all sorts of different attitudes about everything.
Well, I think the way to think about Steve Jobs is that no one understood and had empathy for humanity like Steve Jobs, to the extent that he didn’t give a single flying fuck about anyone close to him.
Ah.
He was the extreme version of this. Managing Apple—the most empathetic company in tech, the intersection of liberal arts and technology, right? We’re creating computers for the rest of us—
Totally.
They did it at scale. They felt for humanity, and Steve Jobs felt for humanity to such an extreme degree that he did not care about anyone close to him—not just at the Apple level or the executive level, but down to the family-member level. This guy is kind of a psychopath.
Mm-hmm.
But this is a bit of the interview question, “What’s your biggest flaw?” “I care too much.” That’s kind of what you need to deliver the quality Apple delivers, at the scale Apple delivers it, for the length of time they’ve done so. You could critique the post-Steve Jobs era of Apple for actually caring a little too much about internal stakeholders and people’s feelings, and not actually keeping up the standards necessary to deliver the quality of products for everyone.
I’ve talked about that Jony Ive talk that I got when I was an intern there—not me personally; all the interns got all the executives to speak to them. His whole thing in this talk was that the most selfish thing people do is care about other people’s feelings.
Mm.
They’re not honest because they don’t want other people to be mad at them. If you want to make great products—
Yep.
Basically, he was saying you need to be a psychopath. You need to be like Steve Jobs. That is really hard to maintain, and it’s really important for delivering consistent quality over time.
For sure, if you talk to anyone about Steve Jobs’ flaws, that’s where they go. They will point to the family. They will point to the way he dealt with people. I do think 1 of the great things he learned with Steve Jobs 2.0, when he came back to Apple, is that he constructed systems and hierarchies within Apple to protect everyone else from himself. Whereas before, he was this loose cannon taking shots at everyone, from top to bottom.
He sort of knew there’s an aspect of himself that’s not suitable to managing humans.
That’s bad and toxic.
Yes, exactly. I think that was a key thing to his success in 2.0. Again, it’s kind of a cheating answer because I’m saying the flaw is exactly why he was great. But you could say—
That’s okay. I saw an interview with Steve Jobs posted this week where he was asked about his weaknesses. It inspired the question, and Steve Jobs basically completely sidesteps the question and spends the entire answer talking about his strengths and how important his strengths are.
Well, but strengths are—
So—
Strengths are weaknesses. That is always the case.
Well, that’s what he said.
And—
He said, ultimately, it’s indivisible with any human.
That’s right.
And that’s where—
What a smart guy. Yeah. So—
So you and Steve Jobs are aligned 100%. It sounds to me like that’s almost more of a personal failing than a strategic or business failing—
Right. No, exactly.
On Steve Jobs’ part.
So it’s totally cheating on the answer. I think if you want to get technical, John’s answer was about Steve Jobs going too far in terms of Apple controlling everything. So he talked about—
Okay.
How Steve Jobs was opposed to the App Store, for example. iTunes on Windows is another good example. Steve Jobs was completely opposed to that. And if you go to some of Apple’s worst tendencies, they’re downstream from the way Steve Jobs wanted—
Control-freak Steve Jobs.
— to control everything, right?
Yeah.
But again, it sort of speaks to his strength in that he definitely went too far.
Mm-hmm.
Steve Jobs in a political context would have been the guy who said, “Let’s just control everything.” Central planning for the win. But—
Yeah.
He allowed himself to be wrong. He allowed himself to be overruled in certain cases.
I was going to say—
So—
It seemed like Steve Jobs 2.0 was more comfortable pivoting off some of those positions and making decisions in the best interests of the company.
Yeah. The iTunes on Windows example you had is a great example. Some of Apple’s best decisions, like that—like the App Store—were actually made by people in defiance of Steve Jobs until he comes around and says... Then it was sort of his idea.
Perfect. Any great leader has that quality. Number 3: What’s your favorite Apple ad of all time? What do you have for me?
Oh, this is where I definitely kick Gruber’s rear end. Of course he picked, “Well, I guess Think Different.” No, no, come on. Get out of here. The obvious answer—the clear answer, the no-question answer—is the original set of iPhone ads, where all it did was show an iPhone and a finger.
Okay.
This is the web. This is email. This is a call. It was simultaneously mind-blowing because you’d never seen a phone that could do this sort of stuff. So it was a great advertisement to show what the phone was, and Apple was also teaching people how to use it at the exact same time. The entire set was just such a brilliant concept that accomplished so many things at the same time. It was just a perfect set of ads. It can’t be beat.
So if you were to transport yourself back to 2007, when all of this was launched, do you remember how you reacted to the iPhone keynote? In the interview this week, Horace Dediu is talking about the reaction at Nokia. Obviously, the BlackBerry movie depicts the BlackBerry reaction, and it’s pretty hilarious in retrospect. But how did you react in the moment?
Well, yeah, the interview with Horace Dediu was a lot of fun this week, particularly a lot of the historical stuff. Also, we mentioned the BlackBerry movie. Great movie. I think it’s on Netflix now. Is that why people are talking about it?
It was fantastic.
It’s a great story, by the way.
Yes. It’s a great hour and 45 minutes.
It’s been a great movie for ages, but of course—
Yeah.
No one realizes it exists until it’s on Netflix.
It’s a good point.
But no, it’s a great movie. It’s really good. It’s mostly historically accurate. It certainly captures the sense of the time. I highly endorse the BlackBerry movie.
Did you get the iPhone in the moment? Were you swept away the second they announced it?
It’s a good question. I’m pretty sure I was, but it’s—
Okay.
It’s not super crystallized in my head.
Mm-hmm.
I don’t know. That was the peak of being fully native in Taiwan and hanging out.
Yeah.
I wasn’t working in tech. But it’s hard to imagine I wasn’t. Given the time and how many times I’ve watched the keynote, I don’t remember the moment of watching the keynote. Whereas there’s lots of stuff in my life where I have very semantically rich memories that way. I can picture where I was and everything that was going on.
Yeah. Time and place.
I don’t remember that for the iPhone. It’s actually a really good question. I’m sure I was. I helped my brother-in-law smuggle in a jailbroken iPhone to Taiwan.
Oh, wow.
I personally got an iPod Touch. That was my first device, but—
Yeah.
—it’s a good question. I can’t remember.
Interesting, yeah. Well, I didn’t pay attention to iPhones, to the surprise of nobody who’s been listening to this podcast for the last 3 years. It took me 3½ years before I took the iPhone seriously. I was a BlackBerry guy through and through until the bitter end, when the iPhone was just eons better than the BlackBerry and I finally shifted over.
My favorite ad is ultimately a normie answer along the lines of Gruber: “Here’s to the crazy ones.” I watched that last night. Part of the Think Different campaign. Just an incredible piece of advertising. Ben’s yawning here. Goddammit. There’s also the iPhone commercial where the teenager films his family at Christmas.
Oh, that’s a good one.
Watched that last night—
That is an all-timer.
—as well.
That’s a great one.
May have started to tear up.
Yep.
All part of the adventure. I also want to nominate—
What about the squishing creatives with the iPad?
Well, I was going to mention that. The industrial crushing machine crushing paint and pianos and instruments—
Accidentally an all-time ad.
—and everything else.
Not for all the reasons they intended.
Well, and remember the parody afterward where they just reversed the ad, and it takes the iPad, and suddenly you see this expansive universe of music and art and everything else?
Not a parody. Literally just playing the ad backwards.
And that’s actually a great ad. So it deserves mention in this conversation. That’s what the iPad makes possible.
I was also, cheekily, going to nominate—you had the “I’m a Mac” and “I’m a PC,” a very famous set of ads.
Mm-hmm.
But there was one—one of the more famous ones—where they made fun of all the pop-up warnings from Windows Vista and how annoying Windows Vista was compared to a Mac.
Yeah.
I just want to mention it because the Mac’s really freaking annoying with all the pop-ups and all the stuff that you have to deal with today. I would like to shove that ad in front of Apple executives’ eyeballs and say, “Look, this is where we ended up.”
Remember when you knew what people wanted?
Can we have Steve Jobs, totalitarian Steve Jobs, being mean to everybody? And that was him. Look at you.
Oh my God, it is pretty bad. The notifications. I just want to turn every single notification off on my—
No, it’s a problem.
—Apple devices.
I will never buy a Mac to run headless again—
Yeah.
—because stuff just stops working because you have to actually log in to the GUI to see this stupid modal pop-up that asks, “Do you want to access network storage?” Of course I do. That’s why you’re a headless Mac. Ugh.
It’s terrible. And you have to go through app by app and shut off notifications individually.
No, no. You're missing it. I'm not talking about the notifications in the corner of the screen.
No, no. I'm talking about—
The notifications.
Okay. Well, fine.
It's really annoying to me.
Okay.
Apple TV—I never need a notification about baseball scores.
When you're watching a game, it pops up, “Hey, close game.” It's like, “Yeah, I know.”
Oh, my God.
“I'm literally watching on the screen right now.”
It's horrible, man.
Yes.
I've had enough. Number 4 on the list: If Chinese manufacturing never arrives in the 1990s, are we still using Apple products today? What do you think?
This is another one where John and I had the same answer. It's kind of an almost impossible counterfactual.
Mm-hmm.
The reality is Apple actually might have been, relatively speaking, better off.
Okay.
Apple had to go to China because everyone else had gone to China. They were not the first ones there. They were the last ones there.
Mm-hmm.
Steve Jobs in particular was super committed to American manufacturing. They had plants, I believe, in Fremont. They had one—
Fremont.
I think in Texas.
Yeah.
They had one in Cork, Ireland. So they were late to China. Would they have the scale that they do? Would the prices be, relatively speaking, as low as they are? Those are all very, very good questions. Would Apple be as dominant as they are? They were late to China, but they mastered China.
Right.
The whole bit about doing what they do at scale—China is a critical part of that.
That's the piece of it. If I go back to Apple in China by Patrick McGee, my understanding was that the expertise they were able to cultivate in China allowed them to scale products like the iMac, which was a big part of providing the business.
I think the iMac could have survived. I think the iMac originally might have been made in the US. It's really stuff like the iPod and the iPhone.
Mm-hmm.
When we're talking about hundreds of millions of units and the speed and scale, would that have been possible? It's almost an impossible counterfactual.
They were super aggressive in terms of automating factories. That's part of the reason they had so many problems with their factories: they were trying to build them too far in the future. This is very much a Steve Jobs–Elon Musk comparison point.
Mm-hmm.
Tesla really almost got in big trouble trying to get the Model 3 out the door. They pre-automated too many things, and they had to backtrack. You have to get stuff working, then you automate it.
Yeah.
Apple made all the exact same mistakes with the Mac in the early days.
Yeah.
At the same time, Tesla is a great hope for manufacturing in the US.
Mm-hmm.
Maybe the US would be much further ahead, particularly in terms of automation, if there was market pressure to make hundreds of millions of iPhones in the US. Again, it's almost an impossible counterfactual, but it is an interesting question to think about for all those reasons.
Yeah. So much of the progress that we saw from Apple over the last 25 years was downstream of the processes they developed in China. It would be really cool if all of that had happened in the US, but would any of those products have been affordable in that scenario? A good question.
2. Technology's Mount Rushmore
Number 5 here: If we had a tech-company Mount Rushmore, Apple is obviously on there in my eyes, but who gets the other 3 spots, do you think?
I'll start with this: it's the one I stole from John Gruber.
Okay.
The obvious next choice is Microsoft. Apple and Microsoft are the top 2, historically speaking.
Do they have to be, though?
Yes, absolutely.
Come on.
No, there's no question. You saw this in the discussion with Horace. Understanding Microsoft has been the key to understanding technology, period—both consumer and enterprise.
Okay.
They're probably the only company that bridges both: understanding how you win in the consumer space, how you win in the enterprise space, and how you lose in the consumer space.
Yeah.
The importance of that is that they are the ones that instituted the concept of a platform. It was the first real platform, and platforms are the most important concept in technology—in ecosystems, developers, and all these sorts of things. Microsoft is number 1.
Wow.
Apple's number 2. The concept of a platform is the most important concept in technology, and Microsoft was the first platform.
All right, and that is the end of the free preview. If you'd like to hear more from Ben and I, there are links to subscribe in the show notes, or you can also go to sharptech.fm. Either option will get you access to a personalized feed that has all the shows we do every week, plus lots more great content from Stratechery and the Stratechery Plus bundle. Check it out, and if you've got feedback, please email us at email@sharptech.fm.