Agreed. I wrote a blog post a while back about ways the show could be refreshed and made more relevant, and one of my suggestions (which would probably be too impractical, but hey) would be to turn an entire series into a single big task rather than different weekly ones, with each week focussing on one aspect of setting up a new business from scratch. So, for instance, week one might be about choosing and developing an idea, week two about researching it with consumers to help refine it, week three about creating a prototype, right through to launching it and selling it to consumers/retailers.

It wouldn't be as silly and fun (or, sadly, entertaining) as the current format, but if ever anyone wanted to create a version of The Apprentice that taught real business lessons and showed off business skills other than selling, there's a starting point.

Thing is, of course, that they don't want to teach real business skills, they want to make entertaining TV. Even the task they do where they come closest to real business (the one where their remaining stock counts as an asset) is somewhat confusing and doesn't work as well as other tasks as entertainment.

The randomness is inherent in a lot of tasks - as you say, often with with very little concern about something cheap not working well. . Nasty inedible chocolates = something that can be fixed later. Tasty but too expensive chocolates = not something that can be fixed alter. Chair no one can sit in = minor problem. Grey box = something that can't be made prettier later. Selling something that no one would ever buy twice after eating it, is never a problem (most recently leak and potato soup) - except when it sometimes becomes one (Toms terrible biscuits) .

I fixed your post.

I do understand what you're saying and you're right of course. Just not really with the box and chair. The chair probably could be fixed. The box was complete carp.

I don't think there's ever been a more clear cut firing in recent years of the show.

He took full control of everything, claimed to know it all, had he let Leah go into Dubai Mall they may well have won, he was adamant they didn't. She protested but was overruled by her project manager, not sure what was "indecisive" as LAS put it, had she gone in and they'd still lost she would have been blamed for not being a team player/doing what she was told, she tried and was ultimately overruled, wrongly.

He didn't listen to any reasoning from the others, he lived in Dubai therefore thought he knew it all, and even when presented with information that Oud wasn't a scent, Oudh was the scent, he continued that it was a woody scent everyone wore (except those working in every location they went to of course)

He was part of the cm v inches thing, Kurt may have said it, but if Kurt had said the size was "12 camels by 48 books" he would have spotted it was wrong, and should have also spotted the cm issue. Part of me thinks he did, and he thought would be worth the extra wait if it gave him a bit of a scape goat, however Alan was impressed with Kurts discount and Zee knew Kurt would easily get himself out of being fired so didn't bring him back to the boardroom.

He was an awful team leader, didn't know anything near as much about Dubai as he claimed "We'll get a Candura for 100 Dirham, they'll pay at least 1100 in Dubai Mall" for example, and the task was failed due to his forced control of where the subteam went.

I agree with you. And I think many viewers are bright enough to be able to tell the difference between 'real business' and 'business dressed up as entertainment'.

It's when I see the occasional comment - such as those suggesting that X is a 'strong' candidate because they shout and scream in the boardroom - that I start to despair slightly. Most of us would recognise that such behaviour, which is considered normal on The Apprentice, is unacceptable in real business.

And you're right about the task you mention. It is one of the most realistic tasks because it measures the business set-up as a going concern - but, as you say, at the same time it makes it more difficult for the casual viewer to understand.

What you say is right, but it also depends on the nature of the task. In the flat-pack task, the teams were asked to develop a concept and produce a prototype. So some minor flaws in the product (chair too high, for instance) that can be easily fixed are not a problem. In the real world, prototyping takes place over a longer period and often involves a number of prototypes being gradually refined.

It's tasks where teams are selling a finished good to the general public where I have more of an issue. Shoddy soup, say. Or inedible street food (from last year). Sometimes teams are so determined to keep costs down in order to win the task that they produce an unpalatable product which is simply not fit for sale. And yet in the boardroom such teams often win, which reinforces for future candidates that "never mind the quality, feel the profit" is the way to go.

Without making things too complex, what I'd like to see on such tasks is for there to be some stipulation that, say, food must be at least edible and that if a team receives more than say, X complaints, then Sugar is at liberty to impose a fine to penalise them and potentially cost them the win.

I know that's not a perfect solution either - it would lead to accusations of fixing tasks, for one thing - but it's just one of those things that niggles me. I'm fine with random factors winning the day, it's when that downright, penny-pinching, stuff-the-customers-it's-all-about-winning-the-task attitude carries the day I start to reach for my soapbox.

Rant over.