“A blues riff is a brief musical phrase that is repeated, sometimes with very subtle variations…”
— Albert Murray, Stomping the Blues
As I sat reading Nick Wingfield’s NYT article today lamenting Wednesday’s sharp decline in Apple’s stock and the subsequent quotes from various financial “experts” and investors whose pessimism over the stock decline has turned “once-euphoric investors” into “nervous” (neurotic?) bunch, I want to scream ENOUGH ALREADY! Apple is a solid company and will be for decades to come.
So, here’s my take:
Apple is an enviable company and will remain so. Apple’s move to provide less expensive products signals market expansion, a meaningful effort to reach out to the next billion consumers at a price point they can afford. The United States can be seen as one big beta test. Apple will also save billions on marketing because US consumers – Western consumers in general – have been an impressive sales and marketing force, buying so many Apple products that even when stock slides, revenue remains solid and sales are up. The rest of the world is now convinced that Apple’s products are reliable and superior.
Nick’s assertion that Apple is moving into “cheaper product categories” is instructive and indicates the hyper consumerism and greed that have gotten us into all kinds of trouble (remember the housing bubble and financial fallout?) The pernicious language gives insight into behaviors that have allowed otherwise smart, savvy financial experts and investors to ignore the fact that Apple’s profits remain sizable and that Apple earns profits beyond US borders. The “nervous” twitches are the result of a gluttonous hunger for fast and furious financial gains. Apple’s success should be valued long term. It’s great that Apple’s financial acceleration was dizzying for so long but expecting constant acceleration is shortsighted, at best. For now, I’ll say this: use different metrics to assess Apple’s viability and value. Apple is not a crash-and-burn type of company. Chill.
How do we monetize Massive Open Online Courses? That’s the essential problem for higher education. Thanks to the Internet and companies like Apple and Google, we are able to give away course content free of charge. The problem is this: universities rely so heavily on tuition as a source of revenue, that MOOCs totally disrupt and simultaneously fascinate higher ed boards, administrators, and wily investors as they devise ways to generate more money. What do we do? It seems to me that the more we democratize knowledge acquisition via the Internet’s open platform, the more we increase the value of face-time. Here are two ideas, let me know what you think:
- Change the education delivery model: Roving professors would create dynamic classrooms where professors and/or traveling educational teams move globally from campus to campus – like jazz musicians on the road – delivering global lectures in person. This is also a powerful diplomatic tool that helps integrate students around the globe, putting them in actual — not just virtual — contact with one another and creating opportunities for increased cultural understanding and innovative ideas. This also has the potential to effectively combat the rising cost of US tuition as – like Apple – we expand our pool of students. Break-out teams can help reach and monetize the next billion students. Creating international campuses on the same stagnant model of delivery is nothing new; same thing, different country. Time for change.
- Change the revenue model: As a knowledge economy, we should place primary value on the transfer of ideas, not the number of butts in a seat.
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates opted out of higher ed. The tuition they might have paid a single university pales in comparison to what they could afford to do as successful businessmen. In the spirit of collaboration via jazz, engage students on a lifetime journey of learning, social responsibility, and associated philanthropy.