Apple is Building Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
It all started with a “ping” and a buzz. If you’d had a BlackBerry prior to 2007 you knew what it felt like to get a notification when an email arrived or when a meeting was about to occur, but until Apple built the iPhone we didn’t really have a good idea of the level of addiction people have to screens and of the constant dopamine hits delivered by all of those notifications.
If you want to get an idea of what Apple might build next it helps to know where they’ve been. Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs — as seen below displayed in a classic information visualization — is a good clue to that next step. Maslow theorized in 1943 and later in 1952 that we have basic needs as humans that must be met to achieve higher goals (learn more at Wikipedia)
Apple, as a brand, has always aspired to produce self-actualization. We pay the premium Apple charges for products because we both believe (on some level) that the products are well-engineered and effective and that there is a greater benefit to associating with that brand.
Many also feel that there is a “reality distortion effect” around Apple products and that the same foibles they have are treated as features by Apple devotees where they would be decried as bugs by users of other systems. Like the “Apple Fanboy” attitude or not, it’s undeniable that Apple has been phenomenally successful at stating an idea for a brand new ecosystem, building it, and extending that idea through multiple products and services.
The iPhone — precisely because it is branded as “exclusive” and “premium” even though it can be bought in monthly installments by ordinary people — is a device that the manufacturer would have you believe results in self-actualization. By using an iPhone, you “Think Different” as the advertisements have famously stated.
But I think there is something deeper going on here that is being exploited not only by Apple but by other smartphone manufacturers: the desire for love and self-esteem. Apple wants to build all of the layers of Maslow’s hierarchy and create an interactive product or service for each layer, extracting cash all the way down. As the layers of the hierarchy get broader and more general, the individual amounts of money get spread over more people.
The iPhone — or rather the system of interactions it produced, is the key to understanding how Apple has been building this pyramid in reverse. The genius of the iPhone is that using one of these devices gives you sense of love and belonging (people are contacting me — even those I don’t know!); of esteem (the more people who contact me who have heard of me might raise my abilities); and of self-actualization (I can master my capabilities and become a better person through the interactions I have with my phone).
How does this work on an individual product level?
But what kinds of conversations can you have with people through your phone, really? It turns out that although many of the relationships you might have on the internet are one time or just vapid, the way that the iPhone and other smartphones improve your ability to connect over long distances is quite amazing.
Phones used to be about talking. They became a method to send short text messages. They are now about sharing experiences over small and large distances. In a few short years, we’ve gone from sending SMS messages …
to live video.
So what would a hypothetical Apple product look like that went beyond love and belonging?
When we think of Safety, Shelter, and Physiological needs, there are several components. They are all centered around where we live, how we live, and whether we are free from harm. While an Apple product (or any manufacturer’s product) might not be able to give us a new place to live, change the food we eat, and protect us from harm, it could certainly influence those things. (Think of the Apple TV, which has changed the way we consume media even though it hasn’t produced a literal television set … yet).
Apple certainly seems to be moving in the direction of basic needs. With Apple Pay they are trying to make it easier to complete everyday transactions (and get a cut of the proceeds in the process). With the rumored Apple Car (or automotive toolkit), they will influence how people move. And with Apple HealthKit the company will continue to gather health information and other metadata that will influence the entire ecosystem of products (and the ones you use together).
Why wouldn’t Apple aspire to build an Apple Home? If they could own all of your interactions from cradle to grave, it would certainly make sense for some. And that opens the door to a question: should any one company hold this much power?
We have given Apple access to every thought, every transaction, every phone call, and every email. It’s easy to know what bad actors might do with this sort of data, and much harder to think about what generally benign capitalists will do. (Disclosure: I’ve got lots of Apple product in my house, so I think about this too.)
An Apple Ombudsman?
As more and more products and services become intertwined with our transactions, our travels, and even our thoughts, perhaps the next product Apple and others should consider is a kind of ombudsman — an ethical filter for deciding whether a product or feature makes sense. No, I’m not advocating a kind of censorship for the market — rather, I’m suggesting that ethical concerns ought to be considered for new technologies that don’t exist yet.
We don’t and can’t know what future technology will look like, and as we fulfill more and more basic needs in Maslow’s hierarchy with technology, our thoughts and acts may be come even more closely linked.
What will it mean to start or stop a subscription to a service that fulfills basic needs? Should we consider the fact that some of these needs (shelter, safety, adequate food, self-esteem) are basic human rights? What abilities will the Apple Body bring us in the future, and what will it take away?
