Also , I received a Heart Transplant @ Stanford on Oct, 23 '06. So , I can speak for just what the transplant journey is! Stephen M. Harrelson

Wow, and that on a Jobs-intensive week!

But it may be just a six-sigma coincidence, you never know.

Another big proportion of Apple buyers are “bandwagoners” who are influenced by the free promotion of Apple by the mainstream narrative of the media – as a cool nimble underdog of a company with stylish products that can only succeed and grow exponentially (from a small base, mind you, Apple can not be seen as the dominant bully of a colossus that it really is).

Also, but not connected to the issues above, the number of Apple devices sold is not a good indicator of Apple customers – most people buy more than one device (I remember a blogger that boasted that he bought “untold number of iPods”…another writer bragged that he liked it when an iPod broke down, because it gave him an excuse to buy another Apple gadget).

And judging by the number of “you Sir are an idiot” attacks on any writer with insufficient adulation to Apple, there should be significantly more that “tens of thousands” of “fanatics”.

Successful innovators always get more attention from the press. Mark just highlights the one key difference that accounts for why Apple gets more attention for their innovations than other innovators (who might actually innovate more).

1. NEVER put out spec sheets;

2. NEVER produce ugly looking products, and

3. NEVER put it (whatever it is) in long, rambling techese-nerdy speak

And hey presto, 4 out of 5 articles on CNNfn Technology sub-panel! And the magical Apple-style free promotion/devotion of the media and customers! Man, how come no one thot about it before!?

Now seriously, I did not mean to demean Mark, but the truth is much deeper. Apple does have exceptional products, perhaps the best in their class, but their success since 2001 is due in large part to the mass non-coordianted mobilisation of individuals (including in the mainstream media) who identify NOT with the BRAND, but with the ENTITY of Apple (embodied in a person – Jobs). These individuals feel moral obligation to promote the commercial entity called Apple Inc, including devoting their own monetay resources (buying Apple products and showing their loyalty without direct tangible benefit for them.

No Marc, Apple is a phenomenon that transcends the commercia logic and is closer to a religion or a cult, including having its owm messiah. I wish Sgteven Jobs great health but I can not be a part of any cult, but it is interesting to show cult-members a mirror, they will of course not bother to see thier own reflection an keep on chanthing the cult's mantra!

Don't most liver transplant recipients have a five year survival rate, so it's not like he's going to be dead within the year or next year, so why the urgency about these liver articles? I thought I'd see at least a little pop in share price due to the record iPhone sales, but instead it's downsville and liver for this week.

When many others innovate (and no doubt there are many that do), they often put out spec sheets, hide it in ugly looking products, or put it in long, rambling techese-nerdy speak. So Apple's both real innovations and "copy-cat"-but-improved-catch-ups seem to be the only innovation in both the computer market and cell phone market.

Darryl

Apple: 1 million new iPhones sold

Ads coming to Twitter feeds

Scenes from the iPhone launch

All eyes on Steve Jobs

Apple's iPhone 3G S debuts

The above is a snapshot of the "Technology" sub-panel (or whatever it is called) on CNNMoney main home page.

I want to stress (as usual) that I am not AAPL hater or shorter, but it puzzles me why is it, that 4 out of 5 headlines above are about Apple (and there is even another one at the main "Latest News" panel), and this is not exceptional, usually there are two or three. Does it make sense? Is Apple really 80% of the technology sector? Why does the media feel such devotion and sympathy to such an overwhelmingly dominant player as Apple?