Filed under: Macworld, Analysis / Opinion, Steve Jobs
Thoughts on Apple's last Macworld Expo keynote
Late yesterday, Apple surprised pundits, fans and presumably IDG by announcing that Macworld Expo 2009 would be their last as an official exhibitor. Along with that news came the announcement that Phil Schiller will deliver the keynote address in place of Steve Jobs. People will speculate about the reasons for Apple's move for some time. Here are my thoughts.There must be a financial component. Sure, Apple announced $25 billion in cash reserves and no debt at the end of Q4 in October, but it's very expensive to attend these events, even for Apple. Consider the extent of Apple's presence at Macworld Expo, between machines, people, displays, etc. Even software giant Adobe has dropped out.
Of course, it goes beyond the cost of the show. Nearly every year, Apple's stock dips after the keynote presentation when rumored products or services aren't introduced. It's a silly, unfortunate and routine drop... which brings me to point number two.
The rumors themselves. The current iPod nano model was all but revealed prematurely when photos of a case produced by a 3rd party manufacturer appeared online. When Steve Jobs mentioned it at the official press event a few days later, some attendees laughed. Steve responded by saying, "It's not funny" in a stern tone of voice. He was clearly pissed.
That wasn't the first time Apple had been scooped by the media. In 2002, the Canadian edition of Time Magazine leaked a cover photo of Steve and Jon Ive with the G4 iMac just prior to its introduction at Macworld Expo. You'll also remember that Apple aggressively pursued rumor site Thinksecret last year, and it's currently offline. Not only do rumors hurt the company financially, they take some of the excitement out of product updates, and in turn, the media's enthusiasm. When the media basically knows what's coming, their interest wanes just enough. Apple wants more control.
Control over product schedules outside the constraints of Expo keynotes. Once Apple steps away from the tick-tock of January showcases, it will be able to stage a press event and introduce a product or service when it's actually ready, not when a certain calendar date arrives.
Finally, I've always found the timing to be odd. The first week of January is right after all the major winter holidays. People are tapped out financially and enjoying the loot they picked up the in weeks before from family and friends. Asking them to spend another grand on a computer just then isn't ideal. Alternatively, Apple has consistently released iPod updates in September, just as kids are going back to school.
The inevitable question is one of Steve's health, but I think John Gruber got this one right. If Steve was ill, they'd send in a proxy like Phil but keep the rest of the game intact. The fact that they've abandoned the whole thing says to me that it's a political and financial move more than anything else.
Time Magazine asks the health question right away in their reaction article, quoting an Apple spokesperson as saying, "Phil is giving the keynote because this is Apple's last year in the show, and it doesn't make sense for us to make a major investment in a trade show we will no longer be attending." Even if Steve is as healthy as a horse but still looks thin, his appearance could have an affect on the company's stock. I don't think I've ever seen a company whose financial well being is so closely tied to the health of its CEO.
For now, at least, IDG plans to put on Macworld Expo 2010, with or without Apple. I say more power to them, but as a person who attended two Macworld Expos in Boston without Apple, my faith is waning.
It is a bit sad that Steve won't wrap up the final Macworld Expo; we can hope that he'll make a special appearance as Phil Schiller's One More Thing.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Paul Tigan said 9:31AM on 12-17-2008
Maybe they came to jesus after watching the Simpson's "Mapple" episode.
Reply
Le Big Mac said 9:44AM on 12-17-2008
Or Steve couldn't get the USB sub to undock from his undersea office.
Jash Sayani said 11:06AM on 12-17-2008
May be, there will be another Simpsons episode with MacWorld Expo and new iPhone Nano and next gen Mac mini.... :)
AAPL said 9:39AM on 12-17-2008
Great story, I think they want to set the attention to Apple, not Steve. Now-a-days, Apple = Steve. They want to get rid of that, because one day Steve has to say goodbye to the company. Also I think coming macworld will be big on server side and no new consumer products..that's the reason Phill will do the show.
Reply
Chris McCorkle said 9:41AM on 12-17-2008
A thorough, redeeming article.
Cheers TUAW.
Reply
DrWho said 10:04AM on 12-17-2008
Good picture - it looks like people are watching a Giant Jobs.
Reply
Tim Merrill said 10:10AM on 12-17-2008
Dave, this was a high-quality, thoughtful analysis. You make some excellent points and it's good to see something that isn't a knee-jerk "ITMUSTBESTEVESHEALTH" response to the announcement.
Reply
umijin said 10:12AM on 12-17-2008
Look - it's simple. In the past, MacWorld was vital for Apple's survival. Now, it's the other way around, and Apple isn't going to play that game.
Reply
Matt Radford said 10:37AM on 12-17-2008
“Not only do rumors hurt the company financially, they take some of the excitement out of product updates, and in turn, the media's enthusiasm. When the media basically knows what's coming, their interest wanes just enough.”
Sorry, but this is tosh in an otherwise excellent piece. Rumours do not hurt Apple financially. The stock price may move, but this always see-saws around Apple’s product announcements, and has no significant effect over the long-term. And how is the excitement taken out of product announcements? The level of hyperbole and media attention around Apple’s new devices remains high. Plenty of hacks generate plenty of Apple-related column inches - the rumour mill serves them well.
Matt
www.allaboutiphone.net
Reply
SpinThis! said 12:40PM on 12-17-2008
No way—rumors can easily hurt Apple. When someone posted a rumor about Jobs' having a heart attack on CNN's iReport, nobody questioned it or even fact checked it and the "news" quickly circulated around the Internet. AAPL took a nice drop until Apple announced otherwise. And it's the same thing with the actual announced products not living up to a blogger's rumors.
At least by announcing events on their own time, Apple can mitigate some of the rumors because the announcement dates are moving targets. Everyone gets into a frenzy *months* before Macworld and WWDC about what's being announced and everyone gets let down after the actual products released don't match up to the grandiose rumors.
Tony said 1:22PM on 12-17-2008
I'm pretty sure Matt's referring to PRODUCT rumors. Rumors about Jobs' health are clearly not constructive. However, product rumors are instant free publicity, so I don' t know why Apple would want to put a stop to that.
And stopping Stevenotes isn't going to put an end to rumors. It's not like Apple employees are going to stop leaking info to sources because Steve Jobs isn't gonna gallivant on stage promoting the new product.
Matt Radford said 5:32PM on 12-17-2008
That's absolutely what I meant Tony - thanks for clarifying my comment. The free PR that the rumours generate is priceless.
Travis said 11:02AM on 12-17-2008
I guess I get to sleep in on Monday, January 5th! Don't need to get in line at 4:00 in the morning!
Reply
Marcello said 11:37AM on 12-17-2008
This was really a great article, thanks Dave!
Reply
CoffeeJones said 3:36PM on 12-17-2008
The keynotes in this youtube era are a kind of anachronism. They were a lot of trouble just for a few product unveilings.
If Steve wants to put up a video with a product unveiling, he can do it within a studio.
On the upside it'll give some of those presenters a chance to get their demos running cleanly, though the magic of editing.
Reply
Swimatm said 11:54AM on 12-17-2008
Even as a PC user, I look forward to Stevenotes a lot. I can easily see why Apple would want to pull out of trade shows like this, but no Stevenote? At the last one? I sure hope Jobs makes at least a special apperance. I also think that they will release new products (almost certainly desktops). I think we all know that the Mac desktops are in real need of a refresh. We'll just have to get used to Schiller introducing them.
Reply
Mike said 1:37PM on 12-17-2008
I have to disagree with only the point of product release schedules. If Apple wanted more control of product releases, they would say so and do so. An announcement of Apple abbandoning the "traditional" macworld releases and not announcing new products at macworld would resolve the new product expectation timeline quickly. All apple has to do is say the Steve has nothing to announce, apple is moving to a non-scheduled release cycle to be more competitive. They already laid the foundation with the music event where the new Nanos were released.
Reply
marcus said 1:04PM on 12-17-2008
love the "One More Thing" idea. Would be a nice touch. But I doubt that'll happen
Reply
Tony said 1:15PM on 12-17-2008
I think the end of the Stevenote is 100% related to Steve Jobs' health. Steve could be the janitor at Apple headquarters and still give the keynote at these events because he has charisma and a knack for persuasion (reality distortion fields, anyone?). The rumors and leaks are red herrings, in my opinion, since they're been a regular occurrence for years.
As for Apple pulling out of MacWorld, in this case the show cost is a red herring. This all has to do with cutting IDG out of the picture. Apple started this several years ago after IDG moved the summer MacWorld back to Boston and Apple refused to follow (by the way, thanks for snubbing my town, Steve). Apple instead moved the keynote to the WWDC. Now it's coming full circle by Apple pulling out of the winter MacWorld.
Reply
chesama said 1:50PM on 12-17-2008
just as an fyi -
Affect is a verb (99% of the time). Effect is a noun (99% of the time).
steve's appearance would never have an affect, only an effect.
Reply