I agree with your conclusion. Sometimes the mac “cult” can be a bit snobish, but we have to understand that not everybody feels the same way about a simple “intel inside” sticker. What seems like a dumb question can actually be a brilliant one.

– Javier Sánchez on 10 August 2007 @ 3pm

Great post. I never really noticed the stickers not being on a Mac, I go to the store and play with them often, but now that you’ve mentioned it! Being a pc user, I guess I have just grown accustomed to the crap all over the computer. Maybe that is why Macs always looked so clean and inviting. Hmm…

– Michele on 10 August 2007 @ 3pm

“It all kind of reminds me of Columbo. If you’re too young to remember…”

Sad. Imagine growing up not knowing Columbo!

– Will on 10 August 2007 @ 4pm

Apple isn’t getting a “pass” on the stickers - I’m pretty sure Intel pays PC manufacturers to place those stickers on their devices. I guess Apple decided that no amount of kickback from Intel was worth gunking up their design with tacky (no pun intended) stickers.

– Jay on 10 August 2007 @ 4pm

Just to offer a point of clarification: The “Intel inside” stickers are a branding promotion that nets vendors a slight discount and marketing assistance in exchange for pimping the Intel brand. It’s not that Apple has been given a pass, but rather that they’ve so far been one of only a very few companies (the only company?) to maintain their own brand.

– Colin on 10 August 2007 @ 5pm

It is odd; most of the people defending Bob Keefe are using the, “Well, he *really* was asking why Apple was foregoing “found money” from Intel.” You’re defending it as “Why does Apple get a pass from putting those stupid stickers on their machines?” Both questions require outside knowledge of what the stickers represent (the former, a marketing program Intel pays for, the latter, that most people see the stickers as a requirement); for someone without either piece of knowledge, it *is* a stupid question. And for anyone with knowledge of Apple’s design philosophy, it was a *very* stupid question, especially since the answqer to, “Where is the Intel Inside sticker?” question had already been answered for over a year.

If Keefe had asked either one of those questions, it would have been reasonable, but he didn’t; he asked the question with the obvious answer and is getting deservedly ridiculed for it.

– DDA on 10 August 2007 @ 5pm

DDA - I don’t think you got my post. My point is, yes, fine, it’s a stupid question. But journalism is sometimes about asking the stupid questions, in order to get people to talk. Maybe Keefe is pulling a Columbo, maybe he’s a jackass, but either way I find all the ridicule to be in bad taste, as it just further pigeonholes us Mac users as whiny nutbags.

– Derek Powazek on 10 August 2007 @ 5pm

Bravo, Derek. This is Journalism 101. And it only make the whole blogging community look like they skipped that class but still wanted the street cred from it.

– Matt on 10 August 2007 @ 6pm

I have to say, I thought it was a fantastic question, not for any contextual reason whatsoever - I mean; what kind of pertinent inside info did you think would come out of a Q&A session at an Apple event anyway? I just wish I had been there to see Mr Jobs’ face in the 2 seconds it took him to regain his composure and formulate a cogent answer! Priceless!

– splen on 10 August 2007 @ 7pm

well said. we can all imagine groups of people that are snobs about their thing. they roll their eyes when people ask questions that everyone should know, snicker when you buy the box of wine or ask for the cappuccino without the foam. no one enjoys being around smug folks, and their talk about what they love is tuned out.

I’ll start calling out a macass of the week. person displaying largest amount of smugness about Macs (or maybe not, it’s a bit cheesy).

– dan c. on 10 August 2007 @ 8pm

I still think he was just looking for a quick quote to plug into his “Intel Inside” article and didn’t really care what that quote was as long as it was from Steve Jobs. In fact, I’m sure he pretty much knew what the answer was going to be before he even asked the question. How that constitutes “actual journalists doing actual journalism,” is beyond me.

That sounds more like lazy journalism to me, where the story is written before all the facts are gathered and then the “journalist” cherry-picks the information that best fits his foregone conclusions.

Maybe it’s wrong to bash Keefe for asking a stupid question. But that doesn’t mean that it’s right to defend him.

– LDC on 10 August 2007 @ 8pm

You are simply showing your anti-Apple bias when you slam the mac blogosphere about this issue. It was a stupid question. As Gruber stated, you have a chance to ask one of the most powerful men in the industry a question and you ask him one that was answered two years ago. And it came off as stupid. Ignorant. Dumb. If you are a journalist, you don’s ask stupid questions. Ask ones that matter.

Having written that, I loved Jobs’ answer. We consider ourselves to be consumers, also. How would be feel if our beautiful machine was covered in crappy stickers that will leave a residue when removed? So maybe we mac lovers actually like the question because it reinforces why we like macs. They just work (yes,yes, most of the time).

But it is still a stupid question. Maybe what you really should be stating is that while Keefe asked a mind-numbingly stupid question, Jobs and Schiller answered it brilliantly. Maybe not honestly. “They look like shit” would have been more honest. “We don’t need the money” is probably honest, also. But “We are our own customers” is so refreshing.

Keefe deserves getting ripped. And dan c., I’ll be your first macass. I’m smug, but I’m also a shareholder (since $13/sh!!!) and use macs every day. So I deserve to be smug. Jackass.

– David on 10 August 2007 @ 9pm

Me? Anti-Mac bias? That’s hysterical. If only! Think of all the time I could have saved avoiding conversations like, well, this.

Let’s be clear: I’m not defending Keefe, nor his question. I’m just trying to inject a little sanity into the conversation. Sometimes asking a stupid question is a great way to get a smart answer. And, in this case, that’s exactly what happened.

– Derek Powazek on 10 August 2007 @ 9pm

I agree with your premise, Derek, but I think Bob Keefe phrased his question poorly in any case. Everyone defending him starts their defense by rephrasing his question so it sounds less stupid. If Keefe had rephrased the question in the first place, he wouldn’t have been ridiculed by the Mac community.

Keefe’s big mistake? His question focused on the stickers, and not on the actual program.

If his goal was to get Steve Jobs to laugh or stop and think for a moment, then mission accomplished. But if his goal was to acquire any new information, then he failed miserably.

It reminds me of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, when the press was constantly trying to ask something not covered by the “I can’t answer that because of lawyers” defense. At one point, Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked Clinton an indirect question about what Clinton would do if he were in Lewinsky’s shoes, or something obscure like that. Clinton stuttered for a moment (a rarity in his political career), and then everyone in the press core laughed, because they “got him.” But Clinton eventually said something like, “That’s a great question, but I’m afraid I’m not going to answer that right now.” The press all congratulated Blitzer, and he proudly replayed the clip several times, and everyone felt all “journalistic.” Except for one thing … there was no new information gained. It didn’t give any glimpse into Clinton’s potential guilt or innocence, or anything about his defense strategy, or anything. But it sure made the press feel good about themselves.

At best, this question strikes me as the same thing. He got Steve Jobs to laugh for a minute, but there was no new information gained by asking the question.

– BJ Nemeth on 10 August 2007 @ 11pm

Derek, I think you’ve got a huge point. His question was actually a very clever question, if it got Jobs to comment on why Apple doesn’t participate.

One thing I hate is when mac-fanboys get all defensive and shit on everything that doesn’t have a glossy apple on it. I’m a mac user – developer even, but you gotta be realistic. Steve Jobs is not god, and Cupertino is not heaven.

– Kenneth on 11 August 2007 @ 1am

Thanks for calling Gruber out on this one Derek. I completely agree with your sentiment that often a stupid question is necessary to elicit a great answer. And in this case, this is exactly what happened. Steve Jobs laid out the entire mac philosophy in a quick impromptu speech better than anyone who may have written tomes about Apple, or has been blogging about them for decades.

And all because of 1 “stupid” question!

(P.S. Was there any other question at the Q&A that got a better answer than this one?)

– addicted on 11 August 2007 @ 3am

This is a classic “zealot” reaction from the portion of the Mac community that’s as thick as two short planks.

It doesn’t matter what Bob Keefe thinks he knows, as a journalist he must attribute “the facts” to someone with knowledge of the matter, which he did. If he goes via the Apple PR dept he gets some PR flacks, bleached, pre-packed answer but this way he got Steve Jobs.

Most Mac bloggers wouldn’t last 10 minutes with a real journalist, they’d be lying down on the concrete, cuddling their Macbook, crying like a baby. Gruber (one of the ‘high profile’ zealots stoking this rubbish) has page views. No credibility, no ethics, no f****** clue!

I’m a long time Mac owner and this crap makes me sad, really really sad. Grow up and get with the real world. Nice post Mr Powazek.

– Emma on 11 August 2007 @ 3am

it was a silly question. do people really *deserve* to be ripped or ridiculed?

I also bought Apple stock, at $14, and unfortunately sold it at about half what it is today. my first Mac is on it’s way, and I am giddy about being able to use one every day after copying with XP some time. I’ll try to stay away from being smug, I don’t like the way it feels.

– dan c. on 11 August 2007 @ 5am

I bought a lovely shiny metal digital camera today. It had a garish sticker telling me that it had 8mp capability, anti shake and 3x optical zoom.

Big whoop, I know that because I read the box.

Sticker promptly removed and now it looks nice :)

– Steven Hambleton on 11 August 2007 @ 6am

Derek,
I agree that it was a dumb question, but in order to get a “smart” answer, it needs to illicit a previously unheard response. It didn’t. All it got was a regurgitation of the same response Apple gave last year, as anyone who has followed the transition from PPC to Intel processors knows.

– Chris on 11 August 2007 @ 7am

Nice commentary Derek. But your question, “Why does Apple get a pass when every other PC manufacturer has those awful logos all over their products?” is poorly framed. It’s not a case of Apple “getting a pass,” because joining the Intel Inside program is a marketing choice, and if Apple chooses not to be involved why is there any question? Other manufacturers could do just the same.

– tman on 11 August 2007 @ 11pm

I still think Bob Keefe was a plant by Apple PR.

– John Gaskell on 12 August 2007 @ 12am

As it turns out, Keefe’s question was probably very useful. Because the underlying issue here is: Why is the rest of the computer world putting up with those hideous stickers? Mr. Jobs of course could not answer that one, but it’s now sort of in the air. The most mind-boggling thing, when you think about it, is that lots of PC users (most of the people I know anyway) just leaves the crap hanging there, as if it was part of the PC’s design (there generally isn’t any anyway), or as if it was a criminal offence to simply peel it off. Why? Why?

Why are PCs so ugly? Is it because nobody but Apple have got good designers? Sure, Mr. Ives is brilliant, but even a half decent designer would make a difference. One PC user once told me that the looks of a computer was totally irrelevant, what mattered is how it works. Sure. But would he by his next new car by the same guidelines? Personally I think that more often than not quality outside speaks of quality inside. Or the other way around: If nobody have cared about how an expensive high tech product looks, why would I believe that the function has been given all that much thought?

– Leif Ree-Pedersen on 12 August 2007 @ 5am

The “Columbo” method of questioning may be vaild. But it’s more for a one on one setting, not a press conferernce setting where the reporter is just as “on stage” as the subject is.

– Shawn Levasseur on 12 August 2007 @ 10am