Apple Inc. spent decades building a cult-like following in the education sector. From grade school, through college and into professional life, young people around the world feel a kinship with the company’s Macbooks, iPhones and iPads.

They also rally behind social responsibility causes far faster, and with more commitment, than older adults. Which is why Apple is playing with fire by not immediately and convincingly speaking with kids about the disturbing allegations in a New York Times article last week about sweatshop-like conditions at manufacturing facilities that make Apple products in China.

Granted, many middle schoolers do not read The New York Times. We still receive a hard copy at the house every day, but it wasn’t until my youngest daughter, Libby, 13, got to school Thursday that she heard about the Apple article — during a gathering of Model UN.

Thursday was the day Apple got knocked off a pedestal for Libby, who wrote the letter below and posted it on her blog. Today, she started asking me whether it was time to sell our Apple stock. All this from an eighth grader.

Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote an email to staff about the Times piece.  In the letter, a copy of which was reprinted by 9to5mac.com, the new chief executive said Apple cares about all of its employees and those involved in the supply chain.  He pointed to the Supplier Responsibility page on Apple’s web site for details on what’s happening in China and other places where Apple products are made.

It’s going to be hard work to get that message to every school kid using Apple products.

-0-
From the “Being a Student in NYC” blog of Libby Armon, 13:

I sent a letter to Apple expressing my deep dislike for their factory in China. The letter is displayed below:

Dear Apple,

Have you ever considered having your Apple factory in the United States rather than in China?

If you relocated your factory to the US you would help create tons of jobs for Americans in a time where jobs are hard to find. Yes you would have to pay higher wages. However, I think that Apple would be benefited by the increase in respect that you would earn by relocating.

I thought that you not only designed your products in California but made them there too. In Model UN our teacher had us talk to Siri and ask her where she was manufactured or put together. Siri responded that she could not tell us and that the information we wanted was classified.

We then watched the film by the New York Times, “Made in China.” This video explained how Apple makes its products in China in a sweatshop. I know you think that it is okay to use this cheep labor because other companies might, but it isn’t.

People who buy your products do not want to know where they are getting their electronics because they know they will feel guilty. It seems your company feels shame also because you have Siri cover up for you. If you feel bad then maybe you should do the right thing and move your factory somewhere where you aren’t taking advantage of someone else.

Yes, I know you can do what you want and that Apple is more powerful than me but I can only hope you help improve your company morally. I am writing on an Apple computer right now, this shows how I do admire your craftsmanship with your products. Apple has been a key factor in positively connecting our global society. All I ask from Apple now is that you relocate your factory!

Sincerely,

Libby Armon

BMW seems well on the path to getting homered.

With its eye on a California law requiring automakers to offer zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) by 2012, BMW is loading incongruous and, frankly, bizarre features into its  electric car — dubbed Project i — and getting feedback in focus groups of green-minded, tech-savvy consumers.

If the reaction of one focus group is any gauge, BMW will be challenged to make a go of this quirky, overstyled hatchback, which our facilitator hinted could be sold under as a BMW, Cooper Mini or under a new name.  There’s  industry speculation the company’s “luxury micro car segment” could make use of dormant BMW-owned nameplates like Triumph and Riley, or the just-registered trademark “ActiveE.”.

The scenario laid out by our opinionated moderator, Veronica, was that eco-minded residents of sprawling metropolitan areas would gladly plunk down their money to lease the car for a day, week, month, year — any increment of time.  (Did someone say ZipCar?)  They might be able to park for free, due to deals negotiated for ZEVs, and pop open the hatch to remove an optional fold-up mini bicycle, which is battery-assisted for those unable to pump their own pedals.

For some odd reason, the vision of the plug-in car and its two-wheeled offspring made me think of TV cartoon oaf Homer Simpson’s unsuccessful attempt to design an auto with bubble domes, shag carpeting, tail fins and cup holders large enough to hold the largest slurpees from the Kwik-E-Mart.  Because Homer was uncompromising on the design elements for his “regular guy’s car,” it was so expensive and ugly that it bankrupt the car company owned by Homer’s brother.

The range of the car would only be 100 miles on a single charge, and re-topping the battery would take up to six hours unless the owner purchased an optional speed charger, which reduces the time to an hour.  Those who want to spend more money could upgrade to a hybrid version, which includes a small engine capable of recharging the battery, which Car and Driver described as a water-cooled lithium-ion power pack.

Not one member of our two-women, four-man focus group was enthusiastic enough to buy the car.  One extremely thoughtful man — a 40-something guy who customizes cars — said he would rent a BMW City but only wanted to own performance cars.  Others commented on cramped interior space and expressed comfort and durability concerns if it was driven in a pothole-pocked New York City.

Despite billing the four-seater as a major advancement in technology, most of the tools touted in the car we discussed are already available on other models:

• iPod docking station

• Enhanced GPS to steer clear of traffic backups (TomTom, Magellan, Navigon, others)

• Solar roof panel to assist in powering electronics (2009 Toyota Prius)

• Ability to self-drive at very slow speeds  without crashing (Volvo and others)

• Bud vase (VW Beetle)

• Trunk in front (VW Beetle)

• Center-opening, B-pillarless doors (Nissan Foria & Lincoln Navicross concepts)

The carmaker’s stern employees, who policed the showroom floor inside New York’s Javits convention center, would not let us touch the car. (One focus group member later remarked the staffers guarding the car convinced her it was  made by a German company).  Yet the optional throw pillows in the back seat and expansive center console work desk were supposed to conjure up feelings of softness and driving around the city in your own living room.

Our group was shown boards touting items a network of Ikea and other designers.  A plan under consideration would give buyers very limited choices to pimp their ride at the point of purchase.  Instead, the automaker would stand behind a network of after-market suppliers of snap-in accessories — from seats contoured to various body sizes to Bang & Olufson speakers.  We laughed when one participant reminded us Ikea furniture breaks the first time you move it; another said Apple is the brand that would get this car sold.

Does BMW really plan to sell any of these cars in New York City, where mass transit is excellent and parking meter revenues are big business?  My guess is no.  Amplifying that is the curious timing of our focus group — Friday at 6:30 p.m. — when any of New York’s hundreds of thousands of observant Jews would be having their sabbath dinner.

If the BMW City is truly targeted for California’s cities, it might find a niche among affluent, brand-conscious greenies willing to trade their “Pious” for a new ZEV.  But the solar panel would be eclipsed by a surf board, bikes or snowboards,  and a trip north to San Francisco would require a three-day weekend with the base model’s 100-mile electric driving range.

Those material drawbacks in mind, I recalled a quote from the 2008 presidential campaign when our group was asked to comment on inconsequential accessories like throw pillows and green shag carpet samples. Despite the fact that they were made with recycled materials, they are simply lipstick on a pig.

(Shout out to Car & Driver, Fox for illustrations)

I’m in awe of the tens of thousands of games and widgets that are now part of Apple’s App Store.

This touch-screen ecosystem doesn’t net big bucks for most developers. Many apps are free; most sell for under $10. But the fact that more than 10 million miniature applications – with quirky names like Midomi and ShoZu — have been downloaded thus far means that it can add up quickly.

The phenomenon is not limited to the consumer space. Salesforce.com has been encouraging developers to post their zany inventions in its AppExchange so there’s more stickiness with subscribers, some of whom might be tempted to leave for a cheaper software-as-a-service sales automation tool.

What has been less apparent, both in the B2C and B2B marketplaces, is a burgeoning service industry surrounding many of these large software innovations or online communities.

Just as Joseph Jaffe and his pals created the agency Crayon a few years back to monetize the frenzy around those setting up communities and businesses in Second Life, a number of PR pros and marketers are specializing in Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook.

Few argue that experimentation and innovation are not vital to keeping brands relevant in today’s business world, so there is strong demand for a helping hand to prevent potentially highly visible online missteps.

The one category of service business we’ve seen and heard about the most is monitoring and gisting services. Corporations and agencies gladly pay services like Techrigy and Radian6 to learn what is being said about them and competitors online. (see Dan Schwabel’s list of players here.)

But monitoring alone does not give companies a voice in the conversation. That’s where England’s Twit4Hire.com, Australia’s Twitter Agency and similar outsourced service models pop up, along with Twitter practices inside traditional PR firms and ad agencies.

It remains to be seen whether this model will scale. Just as there are dangers of not being on Twitter, it is equally risky to task third parties with the upkeep of a brand – especially in an environment where authenticity and trust are such precious attributes.

Another service model that is flourishing, at least on Facebook, guarantees at least a million views of videos to audiences that can be targeted by age, gender and other demographics. Involver.com appears to be the Typhoid Mary of viral video.

While most of the world is in a recession, the stimulus package for risk-taking service providers is just a mouse click away.

Drivers and pedestrians bitched about workmen unloading delivery trucks on East 40th Street near Bryant Park last night.  They don’t know how good they have it.

Fashion Week, opens Feb. 13 for its final run at the midtown Manhattan park.  When it leaves for a new home at Lincoln Center, so will millions in hotel room and restaurant revenue (though models don’t eat very much) at nearby establishments.  Two chic W hotels on East 39th Street, the Tuscany and Court, are already on the sale block.

On the surface, it appears Fashion Week’s owner,  IMG, is simply trading one location for another.  Beneath the catwalk, though, looms the more ominous truth that the business model for event organizers is beginning to break.

Two top designers, Vera Wang and Betsey Johnson, will not be displaying their latest creations on the runways in Bryant Park.  Instead, each will attract a throng of media and celebrities to events at their own New York flagship stores.

In another highly publicized case of the middleman being eliminated, Apple decided against future participation in IDG’s MacWorld tradeshow.   Whether Apple goes it alone in publicizing new iProducts or cozies up with the not-for-profit Consumer Electonics Association, which operates the massive Consumer Electronics Show, remains to be seen.

What’s clear is that disintermediation is not just an online phenomenon.  Conventional wisdom is that “face-to-face” would prosper even as marketers moved their spend online and away from print and broadcast.  In-person events are indeed happening, but brand owners are choosing to rewrite the rules and control their own gatherings rather than spending their budgets with organizers who cannot swear allegiance to a single brand.