There’s going to be an awful lot of talk going around this week about Apple Computers. On Tuesday, the company’s annual Macworld starts off with a Steve Jobs keynote, in which one of the last superstar CEOs is expected to announce the first Apple computer ever to use the Intel processor. No one knows exactly what kind of computer it will be (laptop, desktop, TV top, no top?), but almost everyone is sure it’ll be something. And that something is huge.

Many pundits are saying that the MacIntel era is a new beginning for the computer industry. The folks at BusinessWeek wrote, “With the playing field leveled for the first time in Apple’s history against its PC competitors, expect nothing less than for it to take a huge bite out of the market.”

And if Steve Jobs allows the forthcoming Windows Vista to be booted on the new MacIntel machines, then, as former Intel CEO Craig Barrett said in 2003 [via OSViews.com], “you won’t have to rely on a single OS for everything. So you could have Mac OS and [Windows] on the same system, using [Windows] for business stuff and Mac OS for personal stuff.”

When you add all of this to the unbelievable success of the iPod (and its lack of competition) and to the fact that Apple’s stock price is at the highest point in the company’s history, then you should have a drought of the usual “Apple is doomed” stories in the media.

But of course, those types of stories will never go away. The author of The Innovator’s Dilemma, Clay Christensen, has an interview in BusinessWeek where he prognosticates that Apple’s commitment to proprietary technology will hurt the company’s future, just as it did in the 1980s, when Apple refused to license its operating system to hardware developers.

Christensen said:

Apple may think the proprietary iPod is their competitive advantage, but it’s temporary. In the future, what will matter will be the software inside that lets users find exactly the kind of music they want to listen to, when and where they want to, with minimal effort…If [Apple doesn't] open up the architecture and begin trying to be the iTunes inside all MP3 players, they’re going to have to keep coming up with the next cool thing.

Leaving aside Apple’s proven ability to actually come up with the next cool thing, I have to wonder whether Christensen is right. Does Apple’s present commitment to proprietary technology threaten the future of the company, and by extension, threaten the future technological lifestyle of its customers? As Barrett made clear, this goes beyond the iPod. With the new MacIntel, users have to wonder whether Apple will let them boot more than just Apple’s OS on the Apple machine.

The question here seems to be a little bit deeper than “What makes for a wise business decision?”

In the interview, BusinessWeek said to Christensen, “It’s clear that for Apple, and for Jobs, the product comes first [rather than investors].” Christensen not only agreed with the description, he seemed to, in part, agree with the decision. The theory that the CEO is responsible to the stockholder is no longer the best theory. In the 1960s, when the average investor held a share for six years, it made sense. “But today,” Christensen says, “10% of all shares are owned by hedge funds, and do you know what their average holding period is? It’s just 60 days!”

In such an rapid-turnover environment, the CEO can’t be expected to be responsible to the investors. Instead, Christensen says, “the CEO [is] responsible for maximizing the long-term health of [the] company.”

But where does the loyal customer fit into any of this? For most companies, this is hardly a problem, since very few companies have anything approaching a loyal customer; Apple, however, has what might be the single most devoted customer base on the planet. Isn’t there a case to be made that the CEO of Apple is more than just responsible for the future health of the company? Isn’t he also responsible for the future health of his customers’ technological lifestyle?

This is not a responsibility that Microsoft has accepted. Its history of horrendous user-interfaces has not illustrated a clear promise to its users. Apple, on the other hand, in its development of a “user friendly” interface, implicitly (if not explicitly) declared to its customer base that it would consider their needs in the development of its products. Instead of “efficiency,” Apple would focus on the experience. The development of the Macintosh would not be about getting work done easier, it would be about transforming the very notion of work. It would make work(ing with a computer) feel fun.

As Apple moves into the next era of its history, I think it needs to reconnect with its origins. It shouldn’t “bring back” the old Macintosh interface, but it should “bring forward” the ideals with which it started. Apple does not need to “grow” in order to survive. It simply has to recommit to being “good.”

The user-interface of the iPod showed that Apple still knows more about this than the rest of the field. Regardless of all the talk about DRM, the iPod is, at heart, a good machine. It is more fun to actually use than its competitors.

But Apple’s nod to goodness is contained in more than the iPod. Though it definitely has its flaws, Mac OS X is still more fun to use than Windows. The ease and simplicity of the iLife suite can barely be compared with the “competition.” While one can ask some questions about the guts (though with MacIntel, fewer questions than before), no one can challenge the outer beauty and joyous celebration of industrial design that is Apple’s hardware. This is a company that knows how to please its customers.

But it is also a company that doesn’t always seem like it wants to. Sometimes the beauty of the product outweighs the experience of it. Take the dock, for example. Bruce Toggnazinni, Apple employee #66 and the founder of Apple’s Human Interface Group, has a classic article on the “Top Ten Nine Reasons the Apple Dock Still Sucks.” According to Tog, the motivation behind the dock is not to make things better for the user, but rather “in its improving the Mac’s ‘curb appeal’ and demoability.” The focus here is not on the user, but on the non-user. Sure, the point of the dock is the conversion from non-user to user. But then what?

Again, this is not a business question. This is, in some ways, an ethical one. Should Apple first consider the needs of its users or of its potential users? Should Apple try to attract the potential “switcher” or try to retain its current base?

From a business perspective, this is a non-starter. Apple’s customer base is so loyal, and the competition is so dismal (where “experience” is the qualifier), that the current base isn’t going anywhere.

But doesn’t that suck for an explanation? Is “Because we don’t have to” a good enough reason not to first focus on the loyal customer?

I suggest that Apple needs to revisit the promise it made at the beginning of its storied history. This means developing products that make the user’s experience with computers better. Not better than the competition, but better than it is now. It should not try to be better than Windows Vista, but better than Mac OS X 10.whatever.

Part of that commitment to its original promise may mean relinquishing the Vadar-like grip on the iPod DRM or letting users boot into Windows on the new MacIntel machines (or maybe finding a way to “natively” run Windows-based applications) or revolutionizing the guiding metaphor behind the GUI. But whatever it means, one thing is certain: Apple should make our experience with computers better than it is now.

It owes us that much.