Hi. Thanks for the link, but I think it's unfair to say that: read again, and you'll see that the key point is "in the eyes of consumers" (though perhaps it was too subtle). I don't think they are friendly on a whole number of levels, but they foster the *appearance* of friendliness to the people who are giving them money. You don't think so?

So come on then - how should that clause have read then?

I appreciate the difficulty of addressing an issue like this as an aside within the interview framework, Bobbie, but I think it required another sentence, or perhaps a parenthetical phrase to indicate your intention ... perhaps "the appearance - although arguably not the reality - of consumer friendliness" or the like.

And I'm not sure whether Charles requires me to sub-edit the story or explain my point of view, but assuming the latter, my opinion is this:

There's a vast difference between user-friendly design and consumer-friendliness. I would contend that superior design and the ability to extract a premium for it is what is at the heart of Apple, and a public perception of concern for the consumer is completely foreign to its biology.

If Apple gave the slightest toss about friendliness in the eyes of the consumer it would have done something about its quality control and customer service, which are not so much pitiful as contemptuous. It would acknowledge faults quickly and fix them.

It wouldn't comprehensively ignore long threads at, say, Macintouch, detailing the frustration of users with quite serious software and hardware defects.

It wouldn't have ignored complaints about the battery life of iPods until it was forced to do so by a US class action, and having had that decision go against it, if it had the slightest concern about public perceptions, it wouldn't have refused to do anything for iPod owners in Britain, Europe, and Australia, etc. suffering from the same problems.

If it had genuine interest in consumer attitudes, it would have given its retailers realistic margins to provide better support, and not force them to comply with rigid policies that mean the consumer is routinely stuffed around.

Apple isn't friendly to the consumer. It isn't friendly to the media. In this country at least, it isn't even friendly to consumer legislation. It's become increasingly arrogant, perhaps perfectly reflecting Steve Jobs' personality. He's not a friendly person. Brilliant, but anything but friendly.

Well Charles, if I'd had the time to think about it more, I might have made it more explicit. But I didn't, and I'm not getting into stealthily editing my intentions after the fact.

In future, though, there's a lot to be said, and cw goes some of the way. I'm pretty sure this isn't the last time any of us will be writing about Apple and the rights/wrongs of its approach.

I've got to learn to drop that journalistic tendency of mine to deploy the unnecessarily cutting remark.

I take back that "Doesn't have a clue." Unreservedly.