Fri 7 Oct 2011
Johnny Appleseed
Posted by anaglyph under Gadgets, Geek, In The News, Love, Nostalgia, Sad, Technology
[95] Comments

I hate computers. I hate them in the same way as I hate audio equipment. For me, gadgets have always been a means to an end. My idea of the perfect audio system is one with no wires, no speakers, no knobs and no disks. All that stuff is ugly and distracting. I would be happy if I could just go into my favourite room and hear the music without any need for the accompanying paraphernalia.
And my idea of a perfect computer is one with no hard drives, no interfaces, no file systems, no processors. I don’t really care that something has 3 terabytes of RAM or a 16GHz processor. And the big humming boxes that house such things are ugly, distracting and hot. My idea of a perfect computing environment is one with nothing more than a screen, a sketchpad, and a keyboard ((I still like typing over writing, and for the short term at least I don’t see any alternative to a keyboard. When voice recognition becomes MUCH better, maybe it will be nice to speak things to your computer, but as long as we read, I think there will be writing of some kind. Perhaps that will change when direct neural interaction becomes possible…)) and where I can do stuff and get results without having to think about file management or disk fragmentation or syntax or communications protocols.
The last few days have seen a lot of discussion about the sad passing of Steve Jobs and the legacy he has left the world. There can be little doubt, even among the detractors, that his vision did change our modern lives in a most profound way. To deny it is to be trivially contrarian. For me, the greatest thing for which Steve ((It’s funny how I feel quite comfortable calling him Steve. In my circles it’s always been the way. I think he has been such a big influence in our daily lives that I feel, like a lot of people I guess, that I kinda knew him personally.)) is responsible is not the Mac, nor the iPod, the iPad or the iPhone, ((I’ve always detested that pretentious and irksome ‘i’ prefix…)) but the wondrous behind-the-scenes tech of the operating systems in all those gadgets.
Some of you are probably old enough to remember the kinds of computing devices that existed before the Apple Macintosh came along and changed the computing world forever. I had two of them: a Commodore 64 and an Atari ST. You communicated with the Commodore via BASIC ((The C64 had no operating system as such, hard as that is to comprehend these days. When you booted it, it was just a dumb blank brain until you loaded something into its RAM.)) and with the Atari via Atari DOS, neither of which were what you could remotely consider ‘intuitive’. Each of these devices required a significant amount of figurin’ if you wanted to get something useful done with them. There certainly wasn’t much need to own one unless you intended to do something that was, in those days, fairly obscure, like music sequencing or database building.
I believe that Steve Jobs greatest gift to us was to make the ‘computeriness’ of computers go away (well, at least to start making it go away – it’s still not as invisible yet as I would like personally). I think that Jobs understood in his bones that most people don’t have the remotest desire to want to tangle with computers. They just want to do stuff. They just want to have their whole music collection to choose from when they’re taking a walk. They just want a little game to play while they’re waiting for the train. They just want to snap pictures and send them to a friend – or make them into a photo album. They just want to be able to lie in bed and browse the web.
And, when they work, they just want to be able to write a letter, prepare a report, record a song, edit a movie or hold a video conference without having to understand what C+ or printer drivers or ROM or RAM or SCSI or serial ports are. Mr Jobs took us a long way along the path to never having to think about this kind of ephemera and to just getting on with doing the things we needed (and wanted) to do.
I admit, quite proudly, to being what is derogatorily known these days as an Apple fanboy. I bought my first Apple product, a Mac Plus, in 1988, and not long that after switched up to an SE. After the Atari it was like upgrading from a badly-tuned 2 cylinder motor scooter to a Rolls Royce. I was initially only interested in having a computer solely as a music tool, but with the Macintosh, suddenly I could do all this other stuff as well. It was truly an enlightening experience. The thing that captured my imagination most of all with those early Macs was that for my mind, at least, they just felt right. It was like there was someone sensible in the design process who was thinking more about me and how I might want to use the machine, than whether it had the latest chipset or the fastest clock speed. That someone was Steve Jobs. In short, I felt an immediate affinity with the Macintosh because it didn’t get in the way of what I wanted to do with it.
Advocates of PCs and the Microsoft Windows way of doing things (and to a lesser extent aficionados of worthy alternatives like Linux), can’t understand why we Apple disciples love our Apple environments so much. They look on the Apple culture as something like a fashion trend, believing us to have all been sucked in by the slick design and the tinker-toy simplicity of the computers themselves. They frequently proclaim that we have ‘drunk the Cool Aid’. What they fail to understand is that people like me simply don’t care that there are faster, cheaper, more efficient, cleverer ways to do computer things out there; ((Consider these two options: 1. An ugly car that has a theoretical speed of 300 mph, has a super-efficient engine, an optimized drive-train and is technically superior to every other car on the road – as long as you fully understood the complicated procedure for driving it; 2. A nicely designed car that reliably gets you to the shops and back without any thought on your part about how that’s achieved. Some people will undoubtedly choose the first option. People whose main concern is just getting the shopping done will be the same people who buy a Mac.)) to us, computers are necessary annoyances, and the simpler it is to get something done with them, and the less they force you to think ‘like a computer’, the better. ((In this respect, Apple’s ‘Think Different’ campaign is not so much about how people think about the world, but about how the world was thinking about computers. Apple was truly thinking different(ly).)) This was the critical insight of Steve Jobs – an insight that went on to inform the Apple music players, the phones, the tablets and the online stores. We love Apple, and we loved Steve, because he made our lives richer by giving us the power of computers without needing to be part of the arcane secret societies that had previously been the sole interlocutors for the mysterious digital magicks. This, I believe, is what the PC (and IT) crowd hate most about Apple – that it has given the peasants the keys to the church.
One of the criticisms you hear most from Apple critics is that Jobs pushed ‘style-over-substance’. This is mostly a cry of ‘How come we can’t make OUR things so neat?’, because if you think about it, how can anyone celebrate a lack of style? The real implication of this complaint is, of course, that if there is style there must necessarily be little substance. Such a deprecation indicates the profound absence of acumen of the prosaic mind. As any thinking person should realise, style is not just an outer layer in which something is cloaked, but is an integral part of its very being. To quote Jean-Luc Godard:
To me style is just the outside of content, and content the inside of style, like the outside and the inside of the human body. Both go together, they can’t be separated.
The style with which Jobs imbued Apple products is not surface deep, but reaches down into the core of the Apple brand. It is his personal philosophy that we engage with every day when we use our iPods and iPhones, our iPads and iMacs. We believe that Steve understood exactly how to allow us to engage with the world in a way that felt stylish and empowering and fun and, well, yes, insanely great.
It is for this reason, I believe, that even though we didn’t know him personally, many of us long-time and dedicated Apple users feel very deeply that with his untimely death we’ve lost a dear friend. And we fear that the people who are now taking over the reins at Apple might not truly understand what Steve Jobs seemed to embody intuitively as a driving force. Certainly, there is currently no-one else in the tech world who does, even including the very closely philosophically aligned Sergey Brin and Larry Page.
Perhaps that’s the way it happens. I guess that’s for history to judge. For now, Steve Jobs has planted the seeds of great ideas. We can only hope that they continue to grow into beautiful trees without him to tend them.
Rest in peace Steve. I, for one, am richer for having had my life illuminated by the tools and creative philosophies which you brought us.
A lovely tribute
Agreed.
Today, the web is awash in gooey, “we love ya, Steve” sentiment.”
But I think you have nudged me a little further towards “macinisation.”
Nice one Rev. Spot on.
We don’t hate Apple for their innovation. It is trivial to make my linux machine look like a Mac, or nicer. Until very recently, when Apple stuff decided to play on standard hardware from ATI and PNY (rather than Foxcomm, among others), that first car was the cheaper by a decimation. Even now, the second grocery getter still costs twice as much, just to get the groceries. You don’t need to optimize a PC to run like a mac, and you can buy the PC for a fraction of the price, even this very day. You can buy a laptop from any major brand for $300 that accomplishes all the basic functions you are describing, but you can’t buy the cheapest MacBook Air for under $1000. You don’t need to understand all the underpinings (and you could pay someone the leftover $700 to explain it to you, or even just to show you how to do the basic things – Best Buy and other retailers are glad to do it for those sort of prices, too. They will literally hook up your AV equipment (pc, consoles, etc) to your television (monitor, screen) in your house for around $150 – that is, hook up the HDMI and Power) to do all the basic stuff you are saying the Mac does exceptionally well, and to avoid all those messy cables.
It comes down to, if I can charge you $350 or $1200 to do exactly the same thing, and you tell me you are going to elect the $1200 option because it is shinier, that strikes me as mildly unethical.
Macs are leagues above the other two options for multimedia editing. It is a bit far-fetched, however, to claim that one runs their office software, or Firefox (or IE or Safari or what have you), or that iTunes is somehow magically better on a Mac than a PC (or Amarok on Linux, for example). Mac does have the simplest layout and the least likelihood of the user screwing it up, but I am not sure it warrants the extra cost, even today, to do what you are admitting are the same tasks, the basics.
Apple has a reasonable hold on the mobile market, but we aren’t discussing that. I could point out that, if you really just want your music, the Sansa mp3 players are around $25 and play your music just as easily and well as an iPod which costs a fair factor more. The actual mobile market is more complex, because the early touch stuff was a neat copy of what Palm tried to do several years prior to the release of the iPod touch or the iPad. That was a good bit of marketing, and that brings me round to my point. Steve Jobs was an excellent marketer. He points out that Microsoft stole many artifacts early on in the 3.1 and prior development, but he fails to mention that those were stolen from the old Bell unix things, and that OSX is essentially a simplified version of Free-BSD (that he is effectively charging $300 for every few months). Again, he was an excellent salesman and marketer, but even the true innovation of Apple doesn’t come entirely from him. People keep forgetting about the other Steve that made so much of Apple possible, for example. Jobs is the front man, an excellent businessman, but he isn’t the entire show.
RIP Steve Jobs. We will miss you.
*foxconn. The M and N keys are too close together some nights.
You still don’t get it. I don’t CARE about having it explained to me. Go back and read my first sentence again.
And you don’t need it explained to you. As you pointed out in your analogy, you only need it explained if you want to do the fancy stuff. The same is true of Mac, the difference is that you are getting different parts explained. It becomes about Photoshop or Fruity Loops instead of how to make the machine faster.
In your car analogy, both cars will get you to the store. The first car is cheaper, and will go faster, but the second one has a nice coat of paint and just one button to control everything. You don’t need to be told how to make it go faster for getting to the store. If both can be used like a Chevy Cobalt, why would I pay the Lotus Elise price to do less day to day?
Now I know you have no clue what I’m talking about. Fair enough. It’s pointless me attempting to explain a concept that you don’t even want to try to understand. If you’re happy with your system, then that’s fine, I’m happy for you. Please note that I haven’t claimed anywhere in this post that Macs are ‘better’ than PCs. It’s all about what suits your sensibilities. I work with both PCs and Macs in various capacities and for me, there is no contest for which I find the least annoying and the most productive. And if I have to pay more money to get that utility, I will gladly do so.
Just consider this: many of us like Macs. And we like them a real lot. What you are trying to tell us is that we are spendthrift wastrels who have been easily duped by some marketing ploy. You are suggesting in your replies (using arguments that I’ve heard numerous times, by the way) that people who like Macs are in some way stupid, or at the very least foolish. It’s an arrogant point of view, in my opinion, and goes directly to my argument about technical people fearing that the peasants will get into the church. You ignore the fact that many very smart people use and prefer Macs. How do you explain that? Aren’t you at all curious as to why we are so fond of our Apple experience?
I’mn afraid he’s right, Reverend. Windows does have the advantage.
Many of those smart people are doing things that Mac is excellent at, and assuming that Windows or Linux are worse by default, because they don’t use the same fancy graphics or sounds.
One can spend copious amounts of money on bottled water, and it does indeed have a simpler interface. No need to turn on the faucet and get those complex handles figured out. No need to open the soap bottle, get out a rag and wash the cup you put the water in every once in a while, because hey, no cup. You can take the bottled water anywhere and not have to worry about inconveniencing someone about a glass. And since you are comfortable paying more for those utilities, that is great.
The point here is, as you point out, the Mac Experience. Again, if you are talking about basic functions of the computer for the everyman (they just want to do stuff, as you put it in the article.), then you don’t have to ‘ think about file management or disk fragmentation or syntax or communications protocols.’ I’m not sure about you, but the last time I uploaded some photos or wrote a report or listened to music, I didn’t have to do any of that. That is taking something to an illogical extreme, saying that somehow Macs are more user friendly because they don’t do something other computers don’t do either.
“And, when they work, they just want to be able to write a letter, prepare a report, record a song, edit a movie or hold a video conference without having to understand what C+ or printer drivers or ROM or RAM or SCSI or serial ports are. ”
You don’t need to know any of the latter stuff, on any OS, to do the previous stuff. I can install a fresh copy of Linux (Ubuntu, Fedora, whatever) or Windows, or buy a new Mac, and begin doing any of those things. Most of the time, tech guys make all of that seamless anyway. You don’t need to know that this website is hosted on a Linux-based server with Open-Source blog software which you connect to through Comcast backbone to upload a text entry via FTP from your Mac laptop running OSX in which you type the entry in Safari. That’s just a load of fluff. Most people are never going to need to know that they need a python wrapper to run specialty programs in Windows, and that is fine, because that falls outside the scope of what you are talking about. To imply that you need specialized programming or hardware knowledge to type a paper or edit a video or record a song is quite preposterous. Of course, if you are a musician, you are probably going to understand the basics of Midi connections or USB (or Firewire as it may be), it in no way implies that you have to understand Python to do so on your Mac any more than you need to understand Visual Basic to do the same thing on your Linux/Windows machine. Linux and Windows have had graphics editing programs for as long as Mac, and GUIs to go with them. It isn’t as though we are still cranking stuff out in DOS or Unix Terminal over here, and rasterizing things over the course of days while the magical Apple machines do things with such expediency as to make the primitive Windows machines look like club-wielding neanderthals by comparison.
And then there is the idea of aesthetics. Cords aren’t ugly, you just don’t like them. They are an expression of fundamentalism, the idea of connectedness, and cabling is an artform unto itself, much like the raw nature of muscle cars. Things don’t need to be refined and round and shiny and sterile to be attractive. To the other point, most machines that cost as much as a Mac are not ugly at all, but rather stand par with Mac in form. Alienware and Sony come to mind. The cases are not still in the big, 1990s IBM style with that corrugated plastic look. Macs have one case design for each model, and that is that. As far as form goes, a PC can be put in literally anything, and most of the cases today are not ugly, even on lower-end machines. Back then, yes, the all-in-one machine was something of a novelty, and throwing bright colors on it was new. But this is no longer the case.
And when you consider things like the Kindle or Nook, or Android smartphones, the line is blurred further. Sure, they are similar to the i-equivalents, but even those ideas were taken from smartphones and tablets that came before.
“Now I know you have no clue what I’m talking about.”
What I am trying to get at is, any person with any machine can edit videos or photos or do online things with Flash with no special knowledge of anything. With a Mac, you can’t discuss hardware upgrades because they don’t exist. This is a valid point you make. The problem is, if I want to upgrade in a few years when programs start needing more of that RAM or whatever that you don’t want to talk about, I can’t just take it to someone and have them upgrade it. I have to buy a new one. I don’t have to know the intricacies of the machine to understand this. Again, this point is now diminished by the fact that OSX now runs on hardware previously reserved for PC, and so now Mac users will eventually become aware of it.
For the basics, a Mac is no better than any other machine. For anything above the basics, you must by definition consider the more technical aspects. Grandma doesn’t need a Mac if all she is going to do is check her e-mail and use a web-based CRM at work. If, however, a video producer needs a machine to mix tapes, then he must consider the technical details. It may not be important to him what the specs are, but he knows that Macs are optimized, somehow, to do these functions. There has to be some distinction between Mac and everything else at a somewhat technical level, otherwise how do you sell the things to people? You must sell them on non-technical aspects. Or you can just take the salesman’s word that Macs are better, I suppose.
I know this point is not coming across as succinctly as I would like it to. If you are basing your opinion on your bias either for Apple or against the others, with no real substance other than ‘they run nicer because, well, I like them better and they cost more and are shinier and “more accesible”,’ then perhaps that isn’t the best justification for that point. If I made the same claim of Windows, that is is all the things you claim of Apple because it suits my sensibilities better, then what have I accomplished? You don’t want to discuss the technical aspects, but you want to pick it apart as though we are.
Perhaps Macs really are better, I don’t know, because I have never had a new one, because they are damned expensive. Probably part of the reason I have never encountered this experience is because the nearest Apple store is 50 miles away, but the nearest place to actually buy computers is about 5. I can’t exactly drive to the store and inquire about one, try one out, see what makes them so great. I can try out the iPads if I drive to the nearest big city, about 20 miles away, but they don’t seem to do anything more or better than the available Kindles or Nooks or Archos tablets, and I can buy a Nook and a Kindle Fire or two and still have money for a few books or some music before I even hit the price point of the iPad. Then I can even give the one I don’t like away and still not have spent as much money as the Apple equivalent.
This touches on *some* of the unpleasantness of the Apple Way: but the main part of the unpleasantness as I see it is the exact opposite of what the Rev thinks it is:
“This, I believe, is what the PC (and IT) crowd hate most about Apple – that it has given the peasants the keys to the church.”
Couldn’t be further from the truth. We *are* the peasants. We are the 99%. They are the Church, and we are the Bazaar. We want openness, and freedom, and for these things to be available to everyone: to them, this is antithetical.
Back in the day, everyone used proprietary hardware and there was a range of competing computer models, most of which for some reason began with ‘A’: Amiga, Apple, Amstrad, Archimedes, Atari, Apricot, BBC, Sinclair/Timex… and IBM.
IBM gave the world a spec for a modular computer – an open spec, that anyone could use, anyone could make parts for, without licensing fees or patent worries. And they said “hey, these competing, closed architectures… they’re the dumbest idea ever. Open is better.”
Almost every non-gaming computer company had the good grace to either accept this self-evident truth; or die. Except Apple.
Since then, it has led the way in inventing new ways to link the word “proprietary” with “evil”, spreading from hardware and OS even into software. Bigger DRM innovators than Sony; non-replaceable rechargeable batteries; iPods requiring iTunes; banning Flash (and *any* non-Javascript interpreter) from the iPhone; OSX requiring Mac hardware; proprietary headphones with a licensing fee; and so on ad infinitum.
We don’t hate Apple because it’s somehow cool and accessible: we hate it because it’s considerably less accessible, more closed, and more proprietary than even Microsoft. And remember – unlike Apple buyers, we’re NOT going to proudly claim to be Microsoft fanboys, or Sony fanboys. Everyone hates them, too. They’re just the lesser evil here.
So, sorry, no: I can’t find it in me to feel any sorrier than if Gates died. But it’s also not a “ding dong the witch is dead”: just a “there goes another worthy adversary of openness, shame the hydra will just grow more heads”.
OK, and I’ll say it once again – you’re missing the point. The ‘church’ I’m talking about here is not the Church of Gadgets. It’s the Church of Achieving Things with Gadgets. The peasants are not the people who think they should be able to tinker with computers to their heart’s content, but the people who want to do the things that computers enable you to do – that is, people who have no desire to even think about whether things are open source or moddable or ‘free’. The peasants are people who would happily see computers as ‘things’ disappear from the face of the earth.
It’s why I opened my post with an analogy to audio systems. I don’t care that I can put together an audio system from whatever components I like – for better and maybe even cheaper – if someone can offer me a completely transparent listening experience that feels good and that I don’t need to think too much about. I’ve never cared about the silliness of the hifi audio world and it’s my professional business. It’s not about the process of getting there, it’s about enabling the result in the most elegant and hassle-free manner. The audio scene is FULL of people who claim that you can’t get good off-the-shelf systems, but it’s complete bunk. Sure, if you want a really hotted-up system you need to do it yourself, but achieving an exceptional high-fidelity musical experience is, these days, trivial. And, for most people, that’s all they want: the experience. You could complain if the experience was bad, but it just isn’t. The bottom line is that people who know about audio are basically just miffed that Joe Blow can walk into a store plonk down some money and leave with a damn fine hi-fidelity music system..
Now, your argument is the equivalent of saying that hifi manufacturers who are offering stylish, easy -to-set-up systems that only require you to switch them on are doing something wrong – or, to put it in your terms, are evil.
You need to realise that I acknowledge the drawbacks of such a process. Personally I think Apple has done some extremely stupid things over the years. I was spitting chips when they implemented their draconian DRM in iTunes, and even protested actively to them about it. I think Jobs refusal to pay footsie with Adobe over Flash was ridiculous, and I completely hate Lion so far (well, at least I don’t see that it has any desirability over Snow Leopard anyway). But it seems to me that these are the kinds of trade-offs one must necessarily expect when you get into a complex design process involving computer usability. Whatever system you are using yourself suffers from this problem at some resolution or other – people make decisions at chip level that you can’t effect, and that you possibly wouldn’t agree with. But you accept it because, well, could you be bothered crafting your own chips?
At various times in my life I’ve used Linux & BSD. I’ve used several flavours of Windows. A little while ago sat and listened while a very experienced Linux user talked me through how wonderful it was and all the things you could do with it. I even had it installed on my Mac for a while. The fact is, to get it to do even the basic things I can do with an off-the-shelf Mac means considerable computery thinking on my behalf. To you, and to acce245 this might seem like a trivial or even desirable thing to want to do yourself, but to me it’s just a damn nuisance.
In the real world, I drive a four door Smart car. I have a total lack of interest in its mechanical function. It’s a car. It looks cute and it goes well and gets me from A to B. It’s great fun to drive. If it breaks down, I call the Smart service and they come fix it. I don’t care how it works, and I don’t care that I can’t fix it. I don’t care that I could buy another car for cheaper that I could fix and tune myself. I don’t care that Mercedes has made all the diagnostics completely proprietary. My brother-in-law, a car mechanic and hot-rodder looks on me with disdain for driving such a vehicle. To him, this is not a ‘real’ car. To him, cars like this are ‘ruining’ what he sees as the domain of ‘car-ness’. This is the same disdain I hear from you about computers.
On the fence, Polanski perches.
What to do, with dueling churches?
The sermon from the church pulpit:
U have failed to run with it
Yes, you can walk into any store and get a hi-fi system, but you can’t just walk into any store and buy the nicest Bose system. In this case, yes, you can buy any system and get decent high-quality audio, but again you don’t need the Mac of the audio world to do it. That is the complete counterpoint of your whole argument.
“The fact is, to get it to do even the basic things I can do with an off-the-shelf Mac means considerable computery thinking on my behalf. ”
No. The basics you need no special programs to run. You can type a document in OpenOffice, or now LibreOffice, without knowing what they are, because just like the Mac, they are there brand-new. The basics don’t involve making high-quality videos or editing high-quality photos. The basics are e-mail, solitaire, typing, and listening to music. Linux can be installed by anyone in half an hour (thanks to Ubuntu, Mint, and a slew of others that make the task trivial… this isn’t the Gentoo era where you have to ssh the server with a terminal to do that). I can also do something like this:
~$:sudo apt-get install anything
or
~$:ping
And thus fix your computer from anywhere with you knowing absolutely nothing technical.
“Now, your argument is the equivalent of saying that hifi manufacturers who are offering stylish, easy -to-set-up systems that only require you to switch them on are doing something wrong – or, to put it in your terms, are evil.”
They don’t require you to listen to their own specially formatted CDs to do it. They don’t require you to use their own proprietary Firewire Audio (soon to become a trademark, no doubt) to listen to their stuff. They don’t limit you from connecting other non-Apple equipment to your sound system. You don’t have to use their proprietary speakers to listen to them. That is the point we are making. Sure, your audio system has one dial, but it can’t play my cassettes because they aren’t Apple cassettes. They don’t make you pick up only Apple radio frequencies. They don’t make you upgrade your system every 6 months just to play new music that comes out, or to keep playing the old music. That is the difference.
I do genuinely understand where you’re coming from: it’s the same argument for games consoles.
I was just clarifying what I saw as a misperception about *my* opinions.
I agree completely that the fewer speedbumps between me and getting my job done, the better. Proprietary systems give you that… right up until you hit the edge of the proprietary walled garden, when the compatibility issues become the speedbump.
Thing is: I suspect you don’t love your Mac. I suspect you only love MacOS, and their marketing has successfully conflated the two for you.
But all that “just works” stuff is software. They could have done it with PC hardware – and in the end, they mostly did, but they tweaked it to be closed, so they could keep you suckling on the overpriced, locked-in hardware teat.
The correct sound unit metaphor is that your stereo has proprietary connectors for every audio cable; and requires special chipped headphones. It won’t play or record vinyl, tape, CD, DVD or minidisk, only iDisks. Even the digital inputs aren’t standard, but that’s OK so long as you only connect them to outputs from their hardware.
Strangely, although you claim that’s what you want from your stereo… I doubt your word. I suspect that you also want no speedbumps between your stereo and other people’s. You don’t want to have to convert your iDisk to some other format before you can share it. Because that’s not “just working”, that’s “make-working”. Making you work purely for the sake of vendor lock-in.
How can that NOT make you angry? Artificial speedbumps for you any time you try to leave their walled garden. They’re barricading the door of your Church of Achieving Things!
[Also: Jobs was an absolute ass who made Gates look like an angel. Wozniak, now, there’s a guy I could get behind. But that’s another rant, for another time.]
Yes, you’re almost certainly right – it is mostly the OS that I like about my Apple products. It’s what I said in my post, in fact. But there is also no doubt that the machines themselves are nice. I have yet to pick up a laptop that is anywhere near as well-designed as my Macbook Pro.
I do understand what you’re saying about the proprietary hold that Apple requires on its tech, but in the world of business this is simply not a new thing. Can I point out to you that your argument about proprietary connectors in the audio world is completely void: there ARE about a zillion different types of connectors. Everyone comes up with stupid plugs for their gadgets that don’t fit other peoples’ standards. ALL the time.* That’s why I have a drawer full of adapters in my studio. The fact is that some of those connectors are better than others, and each manufacturer is lobbying to be the one with the standard. That’s no different to Apple championing Firewire (which, by the way, is an excellent protocol and is still unmatchable for data speeds and specs I need for my job). You are firing at Apple for wanting a ‘closed system’ when they would argue that they want a better system. They don’t stop other people from using Firewire.
Also, your analogy of proprietary formats is exaggerated. As I’m sure you must know, Apple supports a LOT of industry standards, and you are making it appear as if they don’t. They’re not stupid, they are just in business.
The thing is, both you and acce245 have jumped on me like I’ve said there shouldn’t be any alternatives to Apple. Which I did not do, and I do not believe. I totally support all kinds of competition. My belief is that the market will keep pressure on people like Apple to make sure they don’t get as draconian as you’re attempting to paint them. That’s why Apple no longer has DRM on iTunes. It’s why they are (much to my absolute annoyance) switching over to USB as the data transfer standard.
I didn’t even make the claim that ‘Apple products are the best’ or ‘You should only use Apple.’ What I said is that I like Apple products and that their sensibility suits me.
As to your assertion that these ‘restrictions’ are ‘barricading the door to the Church of Achieving Things’, well, actually, no, they’re not. Why? Because what I want to achieve on my Macs is currently completely satisfactory. You talk about speed-bumps, but I don’t experience them. They’re a philosophical problem that concerns you, but not me. As I explained in my analogy of an off-the-shelf hifi system: if there was a complaint that my experience was bad, then you could say there was something wrong. But for me, as a person who doesn’t really care that much about computers, I am having an optimal computer experience. I get a lot of great things done with my machines, and I enjoy doing them. Very occasionally I get pissed off that some computer thing or other gets in my way, but not nearly as much as when I attempt to troubleshoot something on my wife’s PC.
__________________________________
*Or let’s talk about the kazillion standards for modern broadcast sound and image. Do you really think we deliver just one final master of a film for the world’s broadcast empire to screen? Hahaha. If only it were so.
Actually, anyone can use USB for free, but Firewire has some fairly extravagant costs associated with, mainly because Apple controls it and puts their name on it. Much like Monster overcharges for their cables, but Monster is overcharging for cables you can buy from anyone else. Apple, on the other hand, is overcharging for cables you can only get from them, because they (used to) charge a royalty for it. If Monster or someone had done the same with HDMI, charging people extra just to use it no matter who made it, we would all be using DVI instead, except for the people who have a bias toward it because all of their equipment supports it when no one else’s does.
For the audio connectors, we can connect to just about anything via composite/digital coaxial or 3.5mm. I don’t need to buy a full 7.1 channel Dolby surround system to get surround sound, and I don’t have to buy the special connectors to connect it to my existing equipment. I do need it for true surround sound, but not for those basics (which again you are saying that Mac does better somehow).
Yes, Mac supports several standards that aren’t created by Mac, but so do all the other options. Linux does anything. Windows does a bit less. Mac does quite a bit less.
Again, they are switching to USB as the industry standard because it is actually not controlled by MS, Apple or Cannonical or any software or hardware company. It has been the standard, it isn’t as though they are taking a revolutionary step and ‘making it standard,’ even if they start using it on all their machines exclusively. Every other computer maker has been using it for the past near-20 years. It is the industry standard, and now Apple is being forced (because their own competitor to it failed) to use it. You can’t make money on royalties for something that only gets used by you, but you won’t lose money by using something that everyone else already does.
Yes, I realize that almost none use ISO connectors anymore, or DIN or Mini-Din or PS/2 or parallel or SCSI ports anymore. My point is, all of those are now covered by USB (and Firewire, but that was a flop just like Betamax or Laserdisc or the one-button mouse). We shouldn’t stay in the past just because it is the past, and that is absolutely right.
Also not sure what you mean about ‘well designed.’ Do you mean the looks (alienware comes to mind), the programming (windows and linux work on almost all hardware), the hardware (Intel and AMD stuff, which Apple now supports), the durability (lenovo/thinkpadsanyone?), or perhaps the OS (Win 7 isn’t terribly different in aesthetics, and Linux was doing that fancy stuff 6 years ago like comiz, not to mention GDE, KDE, XFCE, the dock, etc etc etc).
I still don’t understand what the sensibility part is. I mean, sure, they have that nifty aluminum case on their laptops, and the desktop cases have handles (you can buy a damn nice case for $700). I’m not getting it, obviously.
As far as achieving things, Mac owners spend copious amounts of money on machines, screens, peripherals, mobiles. The achievement is status and looks. You need to make decent money to keep up. The OLPC program gives Linux machines to kids. This isn’t rocket science, if kids in Africa can work one, who have no understanding of what a 110v plug is. Macs don’t make anything simpler, aside from that high-end video/audio editing.
And perhaps I am missing your point. You want people who don’t know about computers to learn about them, but you want to price it out of any realistic market. I would say not that we are presenting a bane against Apple, but that you are making every other option out to be some arcane ritual that none but the users of the most simplified and overpriced options can understand or use with any level of proficiency.
It’s like saying you need an e-book to read books in the future, because old books are ugly, and the effort to turn the pages is so much, and books don’t even use the same typefaces or languages! My goodness, how can anyone learn to read in a world of books, where someone doesn’t simplify everything to shiny oblivion?!
That last bit was sarcasm, by the way. I can still see the point you are trying to make, but Dewi and I simply don’t agree with you.
Obviously.
…is negated by:
You totally can’t see the point I’m trying to make. I don’t want myself or anyone else to have to learn anything about computers. I want to go about my life and not even notice computers. If you go back and actually read my post you might understand that this is the one thing that I am crediting Steve Jobs for trying to achieve.
And once again, I point out to you that you are being condescending by saying things like this:
I will try to be generous here and give you some credit for not actually believing this, but having said it out of petulance. It’s a stupid statement and the kind of thing I’d expect from a troll in a PC vs Mac flame war. For the second time you are saying that people like me who choose to use Macs are somehow motivated by shiny things and intellectually vapid, without trying to even vaguely understand why we do so. As I’ve said above, a LOT of smart people choose to use Macs, and some of those people are probably smarter than you. You are pretentiously asserting that every Mac user is deluded and/or uninformed and/or vain and/or spendthrift.
You are claiming that you do not want to learn about the computers, and yet you want to put one up as being intrinsically simpler than another based on…the stuff you didn’t learn about either one because you don’t want to?
I can buy an Alienware that will outperform, outsmooth, outsimplify, outdo a Mac in any quantitative (and most every qualitative) way, for the same price as a Mac. Straight out of the box, installing the same (or equivalent) programs with nearly the same amount of simplicity (or paying someone the difference to make it so, if I so choose). And yet you still arbitrarily choose the Mac as better somehow.
Yes, in your life, you have probably encountered many Windows and perhaps even a few Linux machines. However, I am supposing here that most of them did not have the same cost, and are naturally going to seem inferior. If I compare a Ford Pinto to a Lamborghini Murciaglo and assume that they are somehow equal because they are both cars, then naturally the Lambo will appear better and something that everyone should have.
Steve understood how the chart really worked.
Nice tribute. 
Do you write books Rev? If not, why not?
Given that I have about 50 regular Cow readers and maybe a few hundred casual browsers, I’m not sure I’d come out ahead on a book :)
Don’t forget me and Joey, your two irregular Cow readers.
The Reverend wrote a book,
Expecting proper credit.
‘Twas then panned by a critic,
Who seems not to have read it.
Since I bought my MacBookPro,
I don’t much use my Presario.
I read Steve’s tribute at your joint
Here’s my reply: I missed the point.
Use a Mac? Why, I just can’t!
My reasoning: some bullshit rant.
I drank the Apple Kool-Aid,
And promptly bought a Mac.
When Microsoft pours bourbon,
I will probably go back.
The peasants got inside the church
And pulled off quite a heist.
Now, you see sold everywhere
Black-market blood of Christ.
Outside Heaven, ol’ Steve Jobs
Just stands and ruminates,
Thinking how to pass beyond
Some other fucking Gates.
Bill Gates was a cunt. The End.
Philanthropy sucks…?
I like Windows.
I like Lion.
I ain’t down with
Steve Jobs dyin’.
Joe, I wish we could have FUN
But Command-Q, I think we’re DONE.
I would simply use Alt for that,
but Apple forgot where that key is at.
Moses left the mountain sporting
All the latest fads:
Ten of God’s commandments on
A couple of iPads.
The Apple first was offered; but not, alas, by Eve.
It seems the first two people really WERE Adam and Steve.
TOP POEM
Your servant, my queen.
The heart of this whole argument seems to be that you think having the ability to tweak a system means it is something you have to do to actually do anything on said system, which is not true in any sense. You can tweak a Mac pretty good and make it look different and run Bootcamp and play Windows games, but you don’t have to. It is like saying that because you can, Macs are somehow less like what you want them to be. In the online Mac store you can even build and tweak the machine just like a real computer, building your own special one with your specs. The difference between the two is nearing null anymore.
And for the record, I don’t fear the peasants. I would love them to join in and learn about this stuff instead of just complaining that it doesn’t work when they forget to plug it in.
However, to them, computers are like science. Why bother to learn the scientific method when you can just use Shoo-Tag science, and pay a hell of a lot more for it?
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
For many years I would meet some friends, who all happened to be PC users, to play music every week. As we were setting up the gear, I would listen to them complain about all the hardware maintenance and software struggles their computers had put them through over the week. They could have all been computer engineeers rather than their actual professions, to hear them speak. As for me, I’d had another productive week on my Mac not even thinking about the computer – just doing my work.
I’m always astounded by people who don’t understand the concept of good design. Good design is not making something ‘shiny’ or ‘fancy’ for fuck’s sake, it’s about re-thinking and re-examining and bringing innovation to the old ways of doing things.
In this, even if they had done nothing else, Apple have changed the world – look at any modern phone or, for that matter, any technical gadget of the last ten years, and you can see how Apple’s insistence on good design wrested interface and industrial design from the engineers and finally made it *usable*, not just ‘fancy’. Computers interacted with you like you were a real person, not an engineer with a membership of a secret club.
To cite an example, I finally chucked our ridiculous Panasonic DVD player the other day. The remote didn’t have a MENU button – to get to a DVD menu you had to push ‘Options’ which brought up an on-screen menu where you had to scroll down to one of two MENU options. I mean, wtf – ? This kind of thick-headed thinking has been a feature of TVs and DVD players for years. By contrast, out new Blu-Ray player has a very Apple-influenced attractive and simple design that is easy to use and a world away from the complex menu-tree mess of the last player. Why is is better? Because thanks to Apple, people now expect better design and companies have to respond (even if it does mean just copying Apple, which so many companies, even huge ones, do).
(If only those companies would get a proper designer at work on their stupid remotes however – what a mess they are.)
Anyway, as far as I’m concerned, if someone does something better than everyone else, they’re entitled to reap the rewards.
Yes, but if you are a musician, your computer is one of your instruments, is it not? You can’t call that basics. And again, Apple is good for exactly that purpose, but that isn’t the basics by any measure, and the basics is what we were supposedly discussing. Most people are not going to be hooking instruments up to their computer as part of their daily routine, but a few are. I am not trying to complain about those folks, because those folks have a legitimate use for the more specialized aspect of the machine, and that I am sure even Dewi doesn’t have a problem with.
This is that 80/20 argument, where 20 percent of the people using Macs might just be using them for multimedia work. The other 80% are not. The other 80% buy them to look a certain way, or as a status symbol. I know only a few people who have Macs, and all of them use them for music.
Although, your computer being one of your instruments, the one that processes everything you play and gives you the finished product, you might not want to be advertising that you are using effectively the autotune of the computer world. If you get into the actual programs (again, above the basic level) then you can do some pretty excellent things. But again, this is not the heart of the argument, because then if you do go into the intricacies of Fruity Loops or another comparable product, then you are no longer eliminating the simplicity you were just advocating.
Bullshit.
Yeah, well, that’s pretty plain.
I gave the wrong inference there – we were getting together to play music with real instruments, not computers. The discussion as we we set up, however, was often about their PCs and how much grief they gave them. As a professional graphic designer (please don’t lump it under the stupid term ‘multimedia’) I’ve been using Macs since about 1989.
Your status symbol comment is utter bollocks btw. People use Macs because they’re well designed and they work, end of story. Anyway, frankly I couldn’t care less what computer you use.
As an afterthought, it was Sony who created the Blu-Ray format, not Apple. Just because they use sharp graphics and the XMB doesn’t mean they stole it from Apple. Again, distros of Linux more closely resemble what went into that, and they have been around longer than the Apple options. Apple is modeled after BSD (nearly a copy), and so it must be only fair to say that they didn’t copy Apple unless Apple copied someone else. Ergo, my point again is that Apple is an excellent marketing company, and Steve Jobs was the king of that, but he didn’t help bring about any of the technical revolutions that people keep attributing him and his company for.
Apple is practical like a racecar. If you are a racecar driver, then they seem pretty damn sweet. If you just need those groceries, however, then the Nascar or F1 seems a bit overkill. In the same way, Apple computers are great in simplifying the needs of the recording artist (in much the same way Autotune can make anyone a ‘singer’), but to just check e-mail or write papers, they are a bit overkill. That is our point, I think.
And I will say it one more time, maybe in a different colour writing so you take notice of it:
I did not, in my post, say that I admired Jobs for any technical innovation. You read that because that’s what you wanted to read. I’m commending Jobs for giving us a philosophical innovation: namely, the beginning of a process for the removal of computeriness from our lives. This is plainly something you have a lot of trouble with: a lot of the world, probably most of it, doesn’t care about computers
The ones who don’t actually care about computers (say, the Amish, as they live around where I do) aren’t going to ever have either. They are not part of this conversation. You aren’t going to give them any reason to ever use any computer, period. You are not talking about those people, because there is no computer to remove from their lives. That is where this argument falls apart, I think. You have a computer because you want to do computery things, not because you want the simplest machine to your ends. You could just as easily record everything on vinyl or VHS and circumvent the entire computer issue, but you don’t, because you do want that computer to do it instead.
You may revise my argument to fit your preconceptions as many times as you like, but all it demonstrates is that you are unable to comprehend what I’m getting at.
This is true, I do not. I do see the Macs from time to time when I go to Best Buy in the bigger cities. I see the sharp design and countours of the MacBooks. I see the quick boot times, the graphically slick interface, the dock hiding along the bottom. I see bright displays and utter thinness of the components. They look cool and sleek, and I don’t have a problem with that. They tend to run fast, just like any computer of that price range. I have even contemplated, many times, even more before OSX (when there were considerably more differences between Mac and the others), about getting one. I cannot, however, bring myself to drop $1200 or more on one, and this article does not convince me either, despite how well written it is.
The 2003 iBook G4 I picked up last year for around $75 is still a pretty slick machine, even though I can’t do much of anything with it anymore. Sure, it can still do e-mail and type up papers, and it can pick up Wireless internet (which was a nice feature back then), but I still don’t understand, even after using one, even after playing around with a brand-new one my friend has (age certainly makes a difference, but I am using Windows XP right now, an OS that has worked without paying for a new version for over 10 years), why I would want to switch. My grandma uses Linux on an old machine I gave her, and she can do everything she needs, for Odin’s sake.
I would love for someone to convince me why I should get one, because they look nice and seem cool, but they don’t seem to do anything more than what I currently have available. Again, I can’t just go down to the Mac store and check them out. I can just go down to Walmart or the local computer guy, however, and check out virtually any other kind of machine I would want.
So, yes. You are correct. I cannot comprehend why, apart from the sleekness or graphical robustness, or simple cool factor, why people prefer these machines. But again, for the same price, I can get the same sleekness and wow factor and accessibility and everything, as far as I can tell, from a Viao or Alienware.
At least the Amish don’t get viruses.
In fact, they are the ones who do just as I described, paying people to handle the driving for them if they actually ever need to use a car, because they don’t want the car in the first place. Half of them don’t even use tractors, because horses and plows are simpler. They don’t want the fancy stuff made simple, because they don’t want the fancy stuff in the first place. On the other hand, they know the ins and outs of every piece of equipment they use, be it a corn husker or a foot pedal sewing machine. They don’t need computers to put together their clothes, to drive their buggies, to heat their water or to listen to their music. I am talking about the old-order Amish here, or anyone in their position, who actually do not want technology. You, I think, are not, but perhaps I am wrong.
Gah.
Well hooray for you
WTF? I’m talking about industrial and interface design, I never said Apple created Blu-Ray. Harp on about technical shit all you want, but I’m talking about QUALITY DESIGN – a concept you appear to have little or no understanding of whatsoever and your point is, sorry, wrong. Good design makes the simplest and the most complex tasks easier, overkill has nothing to do with it.
Quality design… like the ability to use the same hardware and software for years on end? Or the ability to buy the nicest and newest hardware and software every few months? Again, this is not 1989 anymore, but everyone still seems to think the argument here is ‘Well, OSX is better than Windows ME or the Bell Unix kernel, so Mac must be better and that is all there is to it.’
Yes, and again, graphic design is not the work most people do on their job. Video editing is also not the thing most people do on their job. Making music is not the thing most people do on their job. But even before that, they are hardly the basics of computing, which seems to escape the conversation every time. And again I say, for those things (video, audio, and to some extent graphic design, although GIMP will work at the technical levels one needs for that sort of job in the first place, which means you aren’t using it at that point for its simplicity, or lack of being computer like, which is the point Anaglyph was making), Apple is still fairly good at them. Apple isn’t good at them because they happen to be Apple, but rather because Apple has worked exceptionally hard to make you think that Photoshop is somehow magically simpler to use than other comparable editing software. Regardless of which program you use, both have feather brushes and burn marks and blending and all the slew of amazing things that ANY computer can do right now. Video and Audio they definitely hold the mark in, but nothing else. Yes, I agree with you on that point, for a graphic designer, an Apple is a logical choice, because at that point they have to compete with Alienware and other high-end machines, but you are not the majority of computer users any more than we nerds are, we who know more about the machine sitting on your lap than you the enthusiast and advocate do.
And sure, you can go on and on about good design, but if Microsoft got $1200 for every machine they sold with the same specs as an Apple machine of the same price, they would be designed entirely different than the $300 equivalent they can sell. If I paid $1200 for a machine I can buy from anyone else for $600 or less, I would sure as rain expect it to exceed my expectations as well. Therein, since I am expecting it to be good, and it doesn’t come out bad, but my experiences with the less expensive machines that aren’t of the same quality, naturally a bias can occur.
Not to mention, if I am so inclined, I can just buy Photoshop for my machine here, or buy a less-expensive Alienware or Vaio and put it on that, and knock the socks off even your $3200 Mac computers spending no more than that $1200 for the entry-level Macs.
I’ve read the backs and forths (?!) here with quite a bit of fascination and, with the exception of my efforts to induce a little smiling, I’ve kept out of it. I’m really not sure I have a dog in the fight; and if I do, I’m not sure which one. The dogs look quite similar, and they’re all ablurr in the tussle.
I think I understand what the Rev was trying to say in the original post; and, what’s more, I find myself of like mind. But I think the Rev’s been in trouble throughout this comments-section; and part of that, though not all of it, is due to what seem to me to be missteps on his part. Having said that, and before I elaborate, I should also add that there’s something in the nature of the case that I think would tend to put a fellow like the Rev in a little trouble.
Although I think he’s been trying to deny it throughout these comments, the Rev DID “draw battle lines” in his post. He voiced a suspicion that what “the PC (and IT) crowd” most hates about Apple is that Apple has notably advanced the cause of making computering possible for folks lacking an abundance of tech-savvy. He put this in terms which hung a kind of elitist label on the crowd in question. They would, so he suggested, require computer-users either to become members of the elite crowd (i.e., get tech-savvy) or else limp along in their efforts to get things done. Apple, he suggested, would have none of that, and thus should be seen as a champion of the rest of us.
Acce245 and Dewi Morgan brought two corps of battle-ready troops to the fight — as they were entitled to do, the battle-lines having been drawn as they were. Acce seemed initially concerned to dispute the suggestion that basic computering in the present day, whether using Apple technology or any other mainstream tech, required such “initiation” into some elite society of techxperts, thus removing the very terrain on which Apple was supposed to have waged its anti-establishment heroics. Dewi set out to school the Rev on exactly what HE (as a member of the PC / IT crowd?) most hates about Apple — namely, its proprietary exclusivism. Acce also pressed that point, and all along insisted that the differences in Apple-tech for basic computing doesn’t justify its comparatively high cost.
I think these were effective exploitations of what I’m calling the Rev’s missteps. The undeniable misstep, as I see it, was drawing those battle-lines and overgeneralizing and pointedly speculating about the PC / IT crowd. I think it might also have been a misstep to suggest, as the Rev subtly does, that Apple’s alleged heroics were on behalf of computer-users who really use computers only for what Acce repeatedly referred to as “the basics.” This enabled Acce to keep drawing a distinction between specialty-areas, in which Apple-tech may very well exceed other tech, and “the basics,” with respect to which Grandma can make do as well with more affordable, less proprietary products as with the pricey Mac.
I say this last step might have been a misstep on the Rev’s part only because I can’t help but suspect that the Rev’s singing of Apple’s praises was strongly informed by his using his computer for “specialty tasks” and so he might have been thinking his claims were less challengable than they’ve turned out to be. But I’m just speculating here.
And, as I said, I think a lot of the problem the Rev’s facing here is, as I put it, “in the nature of the case.” The Rev’s general tendency here at the Cow is to attempt clear and cogent arguments, and thus to traffic in objectivities. But the point he’s making doesn’t lend itself to that — or, at any rate, does not do so easily. The passage in the post that makes the point worth making — and the one that commands my assent — is this: The thing that captured my imagination most of all with those early Macs was that for my mind, at least, they just felt right. It was like there was someone sensible in the design process who was thinking more about me and how I might want to use the machine, than whether it had the latest chipset or the fastest clock speed. That someone was Steve Jobs. In short, I felt an immediate affinity with the Macintosh because it didn’t get in the way of what I wanted to do with it.
This claim is overtly and emphatically subjective. It’s also murky as heck. But, although I can’t claim experience with early Macs, and my purpose here is not to make any comment about Steve Jobs, I understand concretely the experience that is only abstractly and vaguely conveyed in that passage. I have no tech bona fides at all. If I out-compute Grandma, then she’s about the only one I out-compute. I just bought my first Mac about 2 months ago. Did it “feel right” straightaway? Heck, NO! Windows was my home-planet, and Lion was an alien world. I felt like I could barely breathe the air. But the speed with which I became acclimated and the comfort I’ve come in so short a time to feel when using my MacBook Pro — these are what I think of when I say it just feels right. I’m comfortable working on both of my Compaq Presarios (XP and Vista), but my longing for the Mac when I’m Compaq-ing is greater than my longing for the Compaqs when I’m Mac-ing.
But I like to think I’m reflective enough to be able to step outside myself and recognize that the Mac may be ME-friendly in exactly the way that one of my Compaqs might be especially someone-else-friendly. Different brains work differently, and sometimes those differences are radical, and sometimes mystifying. So I’d not be quick to make Apple out to be a kind of champion of the everyday computer-user generally; and I’m no fanboy. I’m still more or less a disinterested spectator in this dogfight. I’d make the more modest point that Apple has given something valuable for folks of a certain wiring of mind. And that, folks, is I think what the Rev has been saying all along. It’s all a matter of one’s “sensibilities,” as he put it. (And, as Acce rightly countered, someone else could claim the same “immediate affinity” with some non-proprietary tech, and such a claim can’t be gainsaid, and neither side of the dispute is advanced.) I think we’ve fallen into disputations here only because the subjective observation was allowed to become distorted into something suggestive of objective facts and universal truths.
I must agree here, this does appear to be the gist of the difference. Although, the very small other facet of this point I was trying to get across (and I wish I had your succinct observational acuity) was that you can’t make such a distinct claim about the efficacy of the machines with no technical knowledge about either side. It’s fine if you want to stay out of that, it’s fine if you prefer Apple or Windows or Linux, it’s fine if you simply like it because it is shinier. That I don’t care about. The point you made, and I tried to make (damn my roundabout nature, I suppose) is that you can’t simply say that one is better simply because you like it better, with no observation of why. The software and the hardware are the empirical data here, whereas the testimonies and sweeping generalizations are anecdotal, and this kinda goes against the whole thesis of this blog in the first place. Sure, I can claim that bottled water is better because I like it more, or because most people that use it once use it again, or because it comes in a package shinier than your tap, or because it takes away the ugly nature inherent in water and makes it less water-like. It also happens to make water more ‘accessible’ to people who normally wouldn’t get any, and it certainly feels right. And hey, I’ve never gotten sick from bottled water, but damned if that tap doesn’t work sometimes, or the water comes out smelling like sulfur, or the filter wore out, or I got air in the pipes and they make a ferocious noise. It doesn’t mean that more people like it, it simply means that more people are using it.
Anyway, this has been an absolutely interesting conversation, and is apparently on more minds than just anaglyph’s and mine.
What is this ‘distinct claim’ I was making? Please read my post again. Where did I say that Apple did things technically better or faster or cheaper than anyone else? You have an argument in your head that you think I’m making because it’s an argument you want to have. And every time I try and make the point I’m actually making, you turn it back into the argument you think I’m making. Why don’t you just read what I’m writing?
What? What? What?
What testimonies? What sweeping generalizations? Where? These are things that are all in your head. I’m evincing a preference for my Mac environment – it’s YOU who keep making it about irrational claims. Please READ what I write.
Your own testimonial, and your own generalization that Macs take more of the computeriness out of computing somehow better than anything else on the market.
They are not testimonials, they are opinions. I didn’t present them as facts. And my assertion that Macs take the computeriness out of computers is an opinion borne from my not-insignificant experience with using computers. I think that as a computer user I’m allowed to make that assessment. Feel free to disagree with my opinions – I have no problem with that. Just don’t keep changing my argument into something I’m not arguing.
But I am also a computer user. At this point, it is the testimonial that you like them better because you like them better, or because they have performed well for you, and that is fine. I don’t have a problem with that. Dewi and I are saying that, in our experience, we cannot testify to the same thing. Macs are good, but they aren’t better, as far as we can tell. I don’t own one, so I cannot comment on owning one, but I do still have limited experience with the newer ones.
Yes, nicely defined, Joey.
It may be true that I am a little guilty of the ‘Us & Them’ problem, but in my defence I will say that the comments in this post illuminate why that is: I say something such as ‘I like Macs’ and typically anyone who doesn’t use one says I’m an idiot, Macs are crap, Jobs was Satan, and (in respect of ALL IT people I’ve ever had to deal with) treats me like I’m a moron. Well, I think most of you know that I’m not a moron, and that I am probably more technically competent than most people, so I think I deserve at least a little credit for having an intelligent take on this subject. In general, the responses that came from acce245, and to a lesser extent from Dewi, typify what I get from most non-Mac users. What exasperates me is that they make little or no attempt to understand why millions of us actually like using Macs.
At one stage acce245 said:
OK, so he’s never used a Mac, but is quite gung-ho about telling me how I spent too much money on one. How is that? I’ve had experience on PCs running several kinds of OS (and not just in the 1980s as he also tries to infer) so I feel I can make a reasonable appraisal of the landscape from the point of view of a person who doesn’t want to frig around with computers and I can tell you without any doubt – I prefer my Mac.
acce245 obviously thinks that we like the Mac environment because we’re somehow mentally retarded or something – it doesn’t even come into his worldview that there just might be something in the fact that Macs are so popular and defended by their users so fiercely. It has to be because we’re all deluded. And yet he’s never used one ‘because they’re too expensive’. Isn’t that a bit like saying flying First Class must be shit because it costs more than coach and you still end up in the same airport?
And that, my friend, is ALL I’m talking about.
Well, I think most of you know that I’m not a moron…
WHAT!?!?!?
:->
Whatchit pal.
If it were simply a matter of choosing Mac over PC, that would be the end of the conversation, but it is not that simple.
“Some of you are probably old enough to remember the kinds of computing devices that existed before the Apple Macintosh came along and changed the computing world forever. I had two of them: a Commodore 64 and an Atari ST. You communicated with the Commodore via BASIC(iv) and with the Atari via Atari DOS, neither of which were what you could remotely consider ‘intuitive’. Each of these devices required a significant amount of figurin’ if you wanted to get something useful done with them. There certainly wasn’t much need to own one unless you intended to do something that was, in those days, fairly obscure, like music sequencing or database building.”
Yes, back in the day. You were the one who brought it up. It hasn’t run in parallel since then. You are defending something that Apple does well as though Apple is the only thing that can perform those functions well. Windows 7, Ubuntu 11.10, and many other OS can do exactly the same functionality, with the same ease. Those millions of people you keep mentioning aren’t all doing the things we keep agreeing Mac is better at doing, probably most of them are not. And again, for the audio/video stuff, Macs come out ahead on the same hardware, which costs a lot less for anything but Macs. Otherwise, for anything those millions of users aren’t doing that is within that specific realm, the Mac doesn’t hold some special usability nirvana. It isn’t currently simpler to use a Mac for anything other than that A/V stuff, and since I can run Photoshop on my PC, it doesn’t even have that advantage. It runs literally the same office software (which it has purchased from Microsoft, incidentally). It shows movies just as nicely, and as easily (with WMP or VLC or what-have-you). Both support multi-touch inputs. Both support touch screens. Both use icons.
Flying first class doesn’t have the same cost factor compared with flying coach, at least not up here, and you actually get better food and more legroom and actual perks for paying more. You don’t get any of those things from buying a Mac. Anything more gets into a technical discussion, but it is more akin to paying private jet fare for that commercial coach seat. You get the same screen size, the same hardware, and virtually the same software that can do all the same things, for a considerably higher cost when choosing Apple products. Again, this is excluding that specialty niche which you and Universal happen to fall into. You do not represent the majority of Mac users in this respect, but you do perhaps represent the majority of film or music makers, or graphic artists.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say that you do represent them, that the majority of Mac users are also some sort of graphic designers, filmers, artists, et cetera. That serves to strengthen the argument that it is serving that industry, and not the actual computer user base. You want a tool to compose your symphonies and record them, or to easily do basic edits to film without worrying about the technical aspects (like splicing or whatever back in the day that filmmakers actually had to learn whether they liked it or not), or the best ways to record onto a vinyl record. You don’t have to worry about that now, you don’t have to learn any of it, but the folks using anything but Mac do have to learn their equipment. It is part of the art, knowing how to sequence midi or what bitrate is optimal to make your music sound the way you want. You lose this control, to some extent, when a program sets all the parameters for you, and you can just tell it you want it to sound ‘old’ or ‘grainy’ or ‘like a concert hall.’ It saves you the step of actually recording it that way. It is like saying that Autotune is the best option for fixing music because you literally have to do nothing to come out sounding something like a song, it removes the computer from the equation entirely, and makes ‘music’ accessible to anyone who can utter noises.
And you don’t need to ‘frig around’ with computers to use them for the things you are talking about. You do need to know how to use any program on any OS, though, to achieve the maximum effect you are looking for. Even on your Mac, you have to know how to use Photoshop somewhat intimately in order to carry any efficacy, and you can use Photoshop on a PC, and so that means that Mac doesn’t have anything special there. That carries over to almost every aspect of a Mac, from the file menus to the desktop background to just about whatever you can imagine.
And you are the one lumping all the Mac users in as one big userpool.
“One of the criticisms you hear most from Apple critics is that Jobs pushed ‘style-over-substance’. This is mostly a cry of ‘How come we can’t make OUR things so neat?’, because if you think about it, how can anyone celebrate a lack of style? The real implication of this complaint is, of course, that if there is style there must necessarily be little substance.”
We aren’t celebrating a lack of style. We have our own. We can literally style our Windows machine to look like your Mac, but you cannot, no matter how hard you want to try, style your Mac to look like a Windows machine, or even a Linux machine. This is the case in point, that we don’t care about the style, we want the machine to do its job, and we can make the machine do whatever job that is, and we can make it look as good or as crap as we want.
But the important part is the ‘can.’ We can do it, but we don’t have to do a thing to achieve the usability of a Mac. When I want my machine to run faster, I don’t have to buy a new machine. When I want to install the next service pack or OS upgrade, I don’t have to pay $100 or more for it. If I want to edit photos or videos or music, sure it may take a bit longer, but I can do it. The average user of any machine isn’t looking to do what you are doing, they don’t need that precision in their videos. They don’t need Photoshop to clean up their photos when Picasa, Gimp, or a slew of other free programs can do the job. This isn’t a matter of style or usability, because all things equal, the Mac still costs more and does less, especially when you include the Linux and FOSS options. Mac has the Apple store for Apps. Linux has the repositories and the entire internet. Windows has the internet and just about every program out there.
And as I have pointed out, it’s great that you like the Mac. You are free to use whatever you want, obviously (except for things that your government doesn’t like you using, like adult or M rated games, but that is for another day.. perhaps it is something in your culture that breeds Australians to prefer those limits, I don’t know). Liking the Mac environment is fine, but you are doing so based on the belief that it is better. The environment itself is not better, but merely different. KDE and XFCE give it a run for it money, and the new Windows 7 environment isn’t shabby either (mainly because Windows and Mac adopt things a few years after Linux works out the bugs in them, like the Dock or 3D effects for windows). This, however, doesn’t make it any harder to play solitaire or write a paper, which is essentially the crux of your stance.
“What they fail to understand is that people like me simply don’t care that there are faster, cheaper, more efficient, cleverer ways to do computer things out there;(v) to us, computers are necessary annoyances, and the simpler it is to get something done with them, and the less they force you to think ‘like a computer’, the better.”
You don’t have to think like a computer to do things on a Windows or Linux machine any more than you have to on a Mac. You still have to understand how to type in the address of the website you want to go to, or how to search on Google, or know how to use whatever software you want to use. Again, this is thinking from 10 years back, or more, when Win 98 was big and Apple OS 7 was doing things considerably different, to the point where it was arguably simpler to do some of the same tasks. OSX and Windows XP bridge the gap between one another, and now they even run on the same damn hardware (usually Mac overprices these outrageously, and I can provide examples if you wish – and the hardware the OSX runs on is usually lower spec than a comparable Windows machine for the same price… the whole flying coach for private jet prices), and the Macs still cost more and do the same thing. The main point is, you don’t care, even if the point is valid, because you like your Mac and that is apparently the end of the conversation, and many more Mac fans take that stance than the Windows folks compared to the numbers of each. People that are happy with Microsoft products will be just as satisfied with them, the ones who also don’t care about the underlying intricacies and just want to use a machine, as the people who just like Macs and don’t want to worry about those underlying intricacies. There are far fewer Mac users than Windows (and there are about 5 Linux users for every 8 Mac users: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp ). Then again, I can present all of this, and the point remains that you simply don’t care if my point is good, because Macs work and that’s that. It doesn’t matter if there is a better, cheaper, cleverer, faster, more powerful way to do something because your allegiance is apparently fixed to them. Personally, the only reason I am not using Linux right this very moment is because that hard drive died, and this is the other one from my dual boot.
Don’t get me wrong, Windows and Linux do have their shortcomings, but they are not in user friendliness anymore, or the ability to do those basic functions, that environment you keep saying is somehow exclusive to Mac. They are in the more technical aspects which common users don’t deal with day to day any more than you deal with them day to day.
So let me put it another way. You are trying to convince me that Macs are worth the extra money because they have a nicer environment, and because they don’t tend to have problems, and they are extremely simplified in some vague way? You could sell me on the actual tech, but for some reason you don’t want or need to. I am not a graphic designer, nor are most of the users of Macs.
I mean, I have that iBook G4 which I can’t really do anything more than check e-mail or type up a paper with (because I can’t even use most of Apple’s stuff on it because I am unable to update the OS with the broken optical drive), but I have a Thinkpad and a Dell of about the same age that I can boot up and watch Youtube with, or use Gimp on (albeit slowly). Both perform their basic functions adequately. I can buy a new Toshiba for $350 and do just about anything I want, experiment with it, whatever. I can’t buy a Mac for anywhere near that to play around with and see why it is better, or even the same. Similarly, if I were to give you a $1200 Alienware machine, or a $1200 Mac, and told you to do things with them, apart from perhaps video or audio editing, you could perform both equally well, and even outperform the Mac, no question. I mean, I can run the newest version of Firefox on that old Thinkpad, but I can’t run the newest version of Firefox or Safari on the old Apple machine. I would love to just find a stack of reasonably priced Apple laptops and desktops, but realistically this is not an option up here. I can, however, deduce that, because Apple is optimized a certain way on certain hardware that it is only going to run a certain way. I have found this to be true in my brief encounters with them, the newer ones, and they don’t impress me as much as this:
http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-m14x/pd.aspx
or this:
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644768015
or this:
http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/cdetland.to?poid=2000016424
compared to this:
http://www.apple.com/macbookair/specs.html
And on top of that, if I want to go with an AMD chipset instead of an Intel, you can shave another few hundred dollars from those prices. Even someone who doesn’t want to understand computeriness of computers can understand that the same speed and power and everything for a higher price should mean that there is something exceptional about the machine, which you are not conveying to me aside from the experience and the environment, and the fact that the lower quality/price Windows/Linux machines you use are predictably lower quality.
Beautifully summarised, Joey! :D
The Rev has claimed we don’t understand his point: that he doesn’t mind other people using other tools and finding them best for themselves, but for him, the Apple tools are the best, most delightful and elegantly invisible tools for him to get the job done, to achieve an end rather than focus on the process; and he really appreciates the lifetime of care and attention to detail that one man put into those tools; and is sad that this man is gone.
But I get that. And if that had been the whole message, it would have been just a moving and heartfelt tribute.
My problem arises when someone speaks for me in a way that does not represent my opinions, attacking a straw man:
“This, I believe, is what the PC (and IT) crowd hate most about Apple – that it has given the peasants the keys to the church.”
Especially coming from someone I greatly respect, such a belief rankles. Can I honestly be expected not to address it, when I campaign against elitism daily, and my whole career is based around the idea of making it possible for people to do the stuff they want to do?
OK, point taken and accepted, and a humble mea culpa. But in my defence, this is my experience with PC and IT people!
Generalisation I may be guilty of, and for that I humbly take my smack down, but the complete arrogance I face when I try to deal with, for instance, my wife’s school’s PC IT department is galling. And I observe from them an indifference -indeed, a complete disdain – for the teachers’ needs to get things accomplished. They make the school computing environment unpleasant and difficult, and, by and large, the two Mac departments in the school, Music and Art, prefer to avoid consulting the IT department because it’s easier , faster and more pleasant to figure out problems for themselves. For instance; my wife was told only last week that ‘you can’t connect Macs to that printer – it’s not supported’. It took me a mere minute to find that the printer was, indeed, supported by the Macs, and in fact all that was needed to be done was for the printer to be configured by the OS (which takes seconds). That I was able to tell her how to solve the problem so quickly and easily got them so riled up that they filed a memo about ‘staff not fiddling with the computer systems’ Why would you do that, except out of spite?
And it’s not just them – when I used to be a customer of Telstra and needed to phone their help desk, there was a palpable condescension whenever I disclosed that I was using a Mac. I still get this from Optus, who told me in no uncertain terms when my modem was fritzed in a storm a little while back, that ‘Apples are unreliable and cause all kinds of problems.’ (In fact, the problem in this case was that the protocol for connecting to the Optus-supplied modem was so complicated that the IT person had to keep referring to a user guide of some kind and had forgotten to tell me one critical step.) And there are dozens more of these kinds of situations that I could relate.
So, straw man you may think it to be, but it’s a scarecrow that I encounter reliably. What am I to make of this? That I’m unlucky enough to have encountered the worst and most biased IT people in the world? That I am so unapproachable that people take an instant dislike to me and set out to make my life difficult?
Dewi, I am sure you are a man that I’d want on my side. Unfortunately, in my experience, you are a rare gem.
” It took me a mere minute to find that the printer was, indeed, supported by the Macs, and in fact all that was needed to be done was for the printer to be configured by the OS (which takes seconds). That I was able to tell her how to solve the problem so quickly and easily got them so riled up that they filed a memo about ‘staff not fiddling with the computer systems’ Why would you do that, except out of spite?”
Yes, and we on the Windows side have the same encounters with ‘tech’ people who simply know nothing about the tech they are supposed to be presiding over. If the printer in reference didn’t work on my XP laptop (or Linux for sake of argument), because perhaps they don’t know what XP is (or any version of Linux it sounds like), and I fixed it the same way (which is true, under Linux you might have a harder time doing it, but any adequate tech person would be able to address such an issue properly – the people who don’t understand such a thing are the ones for whom computers are too computery, is what I am getting at.). I’ve had internet companies tell me I can’t connect my Linux machines to a network the same way. Even with the proper OS, CenturyLink still can’t connect any router but their own to a DSL line up here. I don’t know who Optus and Telstra are, but they appear to be cell companies, who are notorious for not knowing basic math up here, let alone Tier 1 or 2 tech support:
http://xkcd.com/verizon/
These problems do not exist just for Mac users, and often for Windows users (who are using the ‘right’ OS and hardware). And those people who do complain to the system admins are the ones who feel most threatened by the fact that you know more than they do. I mean, some kids get in trouble for running live CDs and USBs to show their friends at school, or to load programs the school doesn’t have. They are not malicious, and are not breaking any school rules, but the teachers simply don’t like that the kids know more about computers. Let’s see if I can find a link for context here….
I mean, it took the phone company 7 months up here to get me phone and internet service, all because they were too lazy to send out a tech guy in the mean-time to connect the proper wire (landline/DSL- I can’t get cable internet out here, and Satellite is damned expensive like cell). But this doesn’t mean that I call all landline phones evil and just start using the cell phones instead (although, CenturyLink is one of the worst companies for it up here, and it happens to be a typical experience, the telecoms up here are notoriously corrupt.).
Again, I rightly agree with what Dewi and Joey and You are saying, up to the point that it is worse or better (depending on the point) for Mac users, simply because they are Mac users. Back in the day, when I was in Elementary school (so, early-mid nineties), Macs were the thing to have, and most schools had them. Claris Works was pretty sweet, and so was Sim Town. One class assignment we had was to write a short story, and using the Macs and their awesome power at the time, we made books with graphics, and put our pictures in the back. Unfortunately, schools haven’t used Macs since about the Clamshells and Strawberries (except universities where those multimedia disciplines exist, but that is a different paradigm). Maybe people just grow up here knowing what a Mac is.
Although, in defense of real IT guys (I missed my A+ by 15 points on the ’06 cert, and I plan to retake it at some point, when I brush up on some of the stuff I am not as familiar with for the ’09 cert), they are sort of like the scientists of the science world. They aren’t just saying things, they have the technical knowledge to go with it. Sort of like when you don’t like it when people say ‘science is hard, god is much simpler’ and people take the science out of science; folks like Dewi and I don’t like hearing people say ‘darn, anything but what I am using is darned confusing and technical just because I ain’t used to it, so Apple is my answer!’ Again, I understand that for you, because your work (and Universal and folks like you guys), Macs are a good and logical choice. And hey, you already have it, and it does everything else so nicely, who needs any more technical jargon? You don’t need a separate computer just to run those basics, and they run pretty nice, and the inductive reasoning continues.
Just as a separate point, and to cover it: up here, at least, when anyone goes into a store anymore, we aren’t bombarded with those old-fashioned ads that have tech specs as the selling point. If you want to walk into Wal-Mart, Best Buy, K-Mart, Radio Shack, Staples, The Apple Store, or anywhere for that matter, the selling points are what the machines can do. You go in, tell them what you want the machine to do, and they show you the options. The average consumer isn’t talking about that stuff anymore, and neither is the average salesman. I can still remember some of those old print ads (being born in 1986 puts me in a different perspective here than you, I can tell) that advertised in magazines back when I was little. My first machine was one of the later Commodores at home, a hand-me-down that really was good for only a command prompt.
Although, I must say, the prejudice against Mac does seem a bit worse down under, it isn’t any worse than the prejudice against anything that is different from whatever people feel is normal or proper up here.
So, in conclusion, I am primarily agreeing with you. Lots of IT people do hold biases, but it is usually because of their experiences as well. Hell, if I hadn’t messed around with those Macs back in the day, or Linux relatively more recently, I would probably have felt exactly the way you feel now, but about Windows instead. Unfortunately, most people do not have the experience that I do in this realm, and have formed biases for some other reason, usually for the same reasons you gave in your post, that they just seem simpler. Again, it isn’t religion that is bad, it tends to be the people who use it to push their agenda. The same goes with computers on this point. Fans of each OS or manufacturer push theirs as the favorite, without considering those technical aspects, because ‘my experiences were better’ or ‘those guys are always so pushy’ or ‘this is what I happened to grow up with’ or ‘this one happens to fit my argument best’ or some other anecdotal reason, when clear evidence to the contrary is presented. “Oh, so you say gravity isn’t Newtonian (or proven), eh? Then why does this ball still fall to the ground?!” is the same sort of argument, to me.
Truly, I am not trying to argue with you for the sake of arguing. I agree (and don’t even care) what your own opinions are. Like Apples, buy them, share them, support them, testify for them, use them in public. Just don’t extrapolate that, because the users are complete idiots and can’t figure something out, that inductively the OS must be that way, or that it must be complex because of all the bad stuff I have had to deal with. It might just be, as you have pointed out, that those folks have literally no clue what they were talking about, and their bias rubbed you the wrong way.
I apologize for coming off so strong about this, but this debate feels a lot like the last one we had, except you and I have traded places (and I must say, you made some excellent points there as well. Also, having read Penn’s book, I think I agree with you mostly and I must further conclude that I was atheist all along, but this isn’t the place for that. I hope that puts this in perspective. Moving on).
And to the point once more about your experience with those school IT people, most of them work that way (primary schools are worst, but most universities don’t have that issue up here, mostly because most of them use Macs in any of that multimedia coursework) toward anyone not using any machine not sanctioned or owned by that school. And if the admin is as biased against Mac or Linux as you were against the others, it only causes discord among anyone else who isn’t the admin, especially those parent/teacher or student/teacher relationships.
I do understand that anyone’s experiences are going to flavor their perceptions, and I apologize for the mass of ignorance about such things. I realize that you have a more technical grasp on this than most people, but that you don’t have a desire for it. Still, I stand by my point that Mac users don’t have it particularly harder or easier in those regards.
Sorry for the lengthy posts as well, but this is one subject in which I feel quite strongly should be just as ingrained in people as Math or Science or their first language, and for expressly the reasons you stated in your piece, that people should have these keys, anyone who wants to, to learn about anything they want. I just don’t entirely agree that it should be simplified to the point where the calculator does all that math, and the person forgets what the Computer was for in the first place.
Although, Dewi seems to have considerably more disdain for Jobs than I do, I will say that. He and I do seem to agree on everything he just posted, though.
Ever wonder if you expressed yourself more directly Acce, you might fucking weigh less?
What does expression have to do with weight?
Again, this is not my experience. I raise again the example of the Mac users at my wife’s school (this is not my only experience of this situation, but it is an ongoing and current one, just so you know I’m not talking about the 1980s): both the teachers and the students love and prefer the Macs. The kids are given PCs as their work machines. Some of them use Macs in the media departments. Given the choice of accomplishing the same work on a Mac or PC, they will choose the Macs if they are available.
This is just an observation on my part, but it fits with what I’ve seen elsewhere. My wife’s only experience of computers until I met her was with PCs. I gave her my hand-me-down Mac laptop a couple of years back to use at home. Now, she has NO computer training, and virtually no tech chops of any kind. Initially she found the Mac annoying (as you do when learning all new tech). Now, she finds the PCs constantly frustrating when she is using them, and asks me FREQUENTLY, why they are so unintuitive and clumsy.
My two daughters had Macs at their previous school and use PCs at their current school. They are more familiar than me with computing environments of different kinds. They bring their PC laptops home to use for schoolwork, but will ALWAYS choose to work on the Macs by preference, even though they can’t use them in bed or lounge around in the living room, like they can with the PCs. For teenagers, enduring discomfit for utility is pretty persuasive evidence that there’s something preferable about the Macs.
THIS is my experience with Macs. You tell me that the user experience is the same, but that’s not what I encounter in my life, at least. And I hear the same kinds of stories from friends: my late and great friend who used to post here as hewhohears was the technical administrator for a large animation firm, including setting up the render farms and the inter-machine communications. He had comprehensive experience in Mac, NeXT and PC networking for that company and used to say that the Macs won hands-down on all points: easier to configure, easier to troubleshoot, easier to use and more popular with the staff. I wish he could tell you that in his own words.
These are all anecdotal stories, sure, but we’re not talking about a scientific appraisal here, we’re talking about personal preference and user inclinations. In MY experience, among MY friends, and speaking for MYSELF, you are in error about Macs being on an equal footing as far as preference and usability is concerned. In my experience, people who have the choice (that is, normal, untrained non-technical people), and who have no agendas, will gravitate toward the Macs.
When you raise your figure of ‘the other 80%’ of Mac users who you apparently think are deluded, THIS is what you’re failing to take into account. You won’t see it, but people LIKE using Macs. It’s not because they don’t know any different, as much as you might want to push that point. Many of them, like my daughters and my wife, DO know the difference. They CHOOSE Macs.
Interesting approach: that computer literacy is as valuable as written literacy and numeracy.
But even though I’m literate, it’s cool that I can use spellcheckers, grammar checkers, autocorrect, autoindent, autocomplete, autolink, dictation programs, and have rightclick options for thesaurus and definition, can drag-drop paragraphs about to reorganise the concepts, can see what you’ve written in multiline wysiwyg, and so on. Ease of use innovations that make life easier for the literate and illiterate alike.
It’s the same with computer literacy, too, I think. Ease of use is core to UI design.
(…says the guy who often codes in vi.)
to anaglyph: You have, indeed, a different set of experiences by far. I am guessing part of it is cultural, and perhaps therein lies our rift. I certainly am not trying to refute your experiences, for that would be quite daft of me. I am merely proffering that my experiences do not follow that at all. My cousin is using a Linux laptop that I fixed up for him (which had an old, slow Windows install in the first place). I have had people for whom I have put Linux on their old machine, bringing new life to it, and they still end up buying Windows machines because that is what they absolutely like, with the same fervor as most Apple people carry about Apple. The computer labs at the college I went to were entirely windows-based machines (we didn’t have an open source lab like OSU, unfortunately), but the Mac users had no problem using the networks, nor did my personal Linux machines. The only conclusion I can draw thus is that it is a product of our culture.
http://gs.statcounter.com
I do see that there are some differences here to indicate that as well, over the past year, Mac use has decrease in your country, where OSX was only overtaken by 7 (and there were more people using OSX than 7 previously) about a year ago up here. Also, Windows is considerably more popular in your country than in mine, it would appear. I think that has something to do with this disconnect between you and I, but I can’t be sure. The browser stats highlight this difference much more clearly. Mind the differences in percents on the individual graphs.
“In my experience, people who have the choice (that is, normal, untrained non-technical people), and who have no agendas, will gravitate toward the Macs.”
Yes, and people will pick the shiny thing because it is shiny, too. I just don’t see that as being a good indicator of which one is ultimately better. I agree that the basic OS setup, the basic UI, and the nearly paper thin laptops are slick and fast. Given the choice, I think most people would pick a Hayabusa over a Honda, too. Sure, they both go down the highway, but the former almost always looks and drives just a bit nicer than the latter, and it should for that price difference.
But back to the point, I think that this must be a cultural issue more than anything. Up here, people tend to like whatever they are using, unless there is a serious detriment, or unless the system is set up poorly (such as it is at my work, pieced together and infuriatingly backward sometimes). Then again, some folks don’t like when things just don’t work (but you are not one of them) and will blame it on whatever happens to be in front of them. Again, this might be more from my technical perspective, but it is astonishing the amount of people who won’t even read the instructions and then complain because they can’t do some simple task, and then complain further that the computer is somehow at fault, even after being shown numerous times and being given the instructions in writing. Some people don’t know how to right-click, but know with amazing confidence that the machine is stupid, or that the tech is, and by extension know that whatever OS or machine they are using is stupid by extension. Those are my experiences.
And to dewi:
“spellcheckers, grammar checkers, autocorrect, autoindent, autocomplete, autolink, dictation programs, and have rightclick options for thesaurus and definition, can drag-drop paragraphs about to reorganise the concepts, can see what you’ve written in multiline wysiwyg, and so on.”
I must be really old-fashioned, because I don’t use half of that, and the other half is part of the GUI anyway… and WYSIWYG is really dated. That kinda made me laugh. I think that’s older than I am, by just a hair.
Yes, but you’re kind of missing my point here: in the scenario I outlined, the IT people were actually unnecessary. Fixing the issue was achievable easily without them. THAT’s what they were pissed off about.
‘Ultimately better’ is not the issue here, and I emphasise once more than I’m not making this an issue about which kind of machine is ‘better’. ‘Better’ is a purely subjective consideration and it just depends on your criteria for measuring it. In your case, ‘better’ is some yardstick of computer spec which means nothing to me. In my case, ‘better’ means a machine that looks and feels elegant and helps me get on with my work in the best way it can. You keep trying to tell me that your ‘better’ is equal to my ‘better’ but in my experience, that’s not the case.
I believe that you’re being grossly unfair by the continued inference that people who use Macs are somehow taken in by the ‘shiny’ factor. It’s a troubling attitude and I’ve put forward the reasons I think so earlier, but I’ll go through them again: one is that it shows that you think that the style aspect of the Apple products is purely a surface attribute and I assert once more that it is not. The style reaches down through the whole user experience – if you’ve never spent much time on a Mac, you won’t understand what that means. You also continue to infer that Mac users are stupid and cannot see past anything other than a cool box. Now it may be that some people are like this, but it simply cannot explain the immense success of Apple products. Style will only get you so far – the fact is that most people who buy an Apple product – especially a Mac – will go on to buy another one. If the machines were just all glitz, that would NOT happen. To suppose it’s anything other than a preference for using the machines is to invoke some kind of conspiracy theory.
AHA! There we have it. You WANT the computer experience to be about computers. That’s EXACTLY why I put in the paragraph about PC and IT people that Dewi took such exception to. Do you not understand that most people on the planet DO NOT want that? We don’t care about computers. We just want to get stuff done. The computer is not ‘for’ anything at all. The computer is a facilitator for the tools that do stuff. You keep saying that apps are apps right across the platforms these days, and in many cases they are. No problem while you’re in the app. But as soon as you have to go back into the computer that’s where the crummy experience recommences. I don’t want to be continually made aware that I’m using a computer. As I said before, I’d just as soon see the whole idea of computers vanish. But you LIKE the idea that people are aware of the computer and that is, in my opinion, why you don’t understand Macs.
I’m going to resurrect this idea as a proper post – it’s a much more engaging concept than just a spat about Macs vs PCs. Then we can discuss what we really think computers should be doing in our lives, and why I hate robots so much.
“Do you not understand that most people on the planet DO NOT want that?” you ask. But by using a 5% machine, you’re hardly able to speak for the computing desires of the common man. “Most people on the planet” (90+% of them) clearly want a PC, running Windows. A majority also want a Droid rather than an iPhone or Blackberry.
And you can’t blame any of that on us geeks. That’s pure market forces, that is. If [i]we[/i] ran the world, it would’ve been Linux everywhere for at least the last decade!
No no no! MOST people on the planet, including PC users, just want to write a letter, or chat with their friends, or make a photo album.
This is what I’m trying to get at – the ‘computer’ is irrelevant. It’s just an enabling device like a ladder or a hose. You don’t care about the ladder, as long as it efficiently allows you to get up to the attic. You don’t care about the hose as long as it’s getting water onto your garden. You only ever notice those things when their purpose is implemented badly and gets in the way of what you actually want to do. I don’t care that their might be ladder or hose designers out there puzzling about the hinges and the fittings and how people use ladders. I understand they must be doing that, but it’s fundamentally irrelevant to my task of climbing onto the roof, or watering the garden.
I don’t believe people ‘clearly want a PC running Windows’ at all. You ask most people who use a computer and they will tell you ‘I just want to get my invoices done’. They don’t give a toss about the computer – they only use it because it’s better than using a typewriter (or a filing cabinet, or a desk diary -whatever). And that’s what ‘m trying to get at – how much more closely you can get to the achievement of ‘stuff’ without the annoyance of the computer intervention.
I hope to try and make this clearer in my post, but I want to let the Super Hero one run for a bit, so maybe next week.
“No no no! MOST people on the planet, including PC users, just want to write a letter, or chat with their friends, or make a photo album.”
“to us, computers are necessary annoyances, and the simpler it is to get something done with them, and the less they force you to think ‘like a computer’, the better.”
But to the contrary:
“…in the scenario I outlined, the IT people were actually unnecessary. Fixing the issue was achievable easily without them.”
Your wife is one of those people who wants to use the computer and have it just work. You are working, as much as you don’t like it, as one of those tech people. That is what I am getting at. Okay, you don’t want to call yourself a tech person, but that means that those other folks aren’t either, the ones who didn’t know any more about the system than your wife, apparently. Yet you still want to say that the Apple computers are superior because you knew what you were doing, not because your wife, the person you are arguing for in the first place, the one for whom the computer should be nothing more than a shiny fixture upon which to do things (but not technical things). That is where my point lies.
You are arguing the point that people shouldn’t have to do the things you did, but as long as they are Apple folks doing them, then hey, it doesn’t count. That is my issue with this.
“You keep trying to tell me that your ‘better’ is equal to my ‘better’ but in my experience, that’s not the case.”
No, you are telling me that folks like your wife are the ones you are trying to illustrate. Just because you scorned the ‘techs’ on the other side of the fence doesn’t mean the Mac magically worked better.
“And, when they work, they just want to be able to write a letter, prepare a report, record a song, edit a movie or hold a video conference without having to understand what C+ or printer drivers”
But in this example, you admit that you did have to know about those printer drivers (without which your Mac couldn’t connect to the printer, even if the Mac did most of the work… the Windows machines do all that work too, it just isn’t you ‘programming’ it).
“You also continue to infer that Mac users are stupid and cannot see past anything other than a cool box. ”
You are the one who keeps bringing up the stylish and elegant machines, not me. If you are only basing the assertion that Macs are working more splendidly based on those non-technical factors (people who are not trained on computers, as you point out), then we must figure that there is some other reason they are choosing them that isn’t a technical one.
“No problem while you’re in the app. But as soon as you have to go back into the computer that’s where the crummy experience recommences. I don’t want to be continually made aware that I’m using a computer. As I said before, I’d just as soon see the whole idea of computers vanish. But you LIKE the idea that people are aware of the computer and that is, in my opinion, why you don’t understand Macs.”
No. All environments have desktops, whether you want to recognize it as such or not. You are choosing to ignore those components on your own machine while pointing them out on others. You have a file menu and Windows has a start bar. Is it more computer-like because the terminology is less archaic (Filing systems have been around before computers, but Start Bars have not, but they are both the same damned thing)? Are you saying it weakens the whole experience because most computers lack a command key? What, exactly, is less computer-like about the environment of a Mac? The red circle instead of the red x? The lack of icons in favor of putting them on the dock or in the file menu? I don’t get what basic user this is going to appear more computer-like, among those people who just want to type papers or use Skype.
“It’s not because they don’t know any different, as much as you might want to push that point.”
And it certainly isn’t because it is engulfing the 75% or so of your own country’s users who still use Windows machines. Or don’t they have the choice?
“They CHOOSE Macs.”
Yes, and the other 75% don’t. What is the point there, again?
“No no no! MOST people on the planet, including PC users, just want to write a letter, or chat with their friends, or make a photo album.”
Oh? And from where do you draw this data? And that further strengthens the point that, because both can do it equally well, they must be choosing the Mac for some other reason. I posit that because they are buying computers, they don’t want to simply use a typewriter or a phone or write a letter, because they can already do those without any computer. Of course, the only data we have is that people are, in a large proportion, using more Windows than anything else (unless you count the fact that we are all using Linux right now, the whole Internet thing, which I suppose I could then argue that Linux is actually what people like… it is the same argument. The difference is, people actually don’t know they are using Linux here, for the exact reason you point out, because it is completely transparent and people literally don’t know the difference between a Windows-hosted site or a Linux hosted site, but they know right away the difference between Macs and PCs, because all Macs are identifiable by looks. I wonder, if I gave your wife a Linux machine designed to look like a Mac, do you really think she would tell the difference right away? Or if she were using Safari in 7 that she would throw the machine down in rage at the inability to use it, because of the technical wizardry required to do so?).
Sorry, I realized after the fact that I was pulling from several posts there. I am indeed looking forward to debating this at more length, and this narrow column issue is getting hard to read.
And again, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, or to support Windows or Linux or Sparc or what-have-you over Mac. I am simply arguing that Macs are another option, not necessarily a better option (and the same for Windows and Linux, although I personally hold affinity for the latter.)
It’s exasperating having this discussion because you don’t listen to (or don’t want to hear) what I’m saying.
No, I did nothing other than tell my wife that all she needed to do was plug in the printer, and it would probably come up as a useable printer. Which it did. The whole crap about printer drivers and them not working with the Macs was introduced into the conversation by the IT people. There was not technical knowledge required on my part – I just searched on the web literally: ‘Does Mac support an Epson whatever-it-was’. If I’d been at the school, I would probably just have ignored the IT people and plugged in the printer to see what happened. This is what normal people do.
Nope. I want to say that Apple computers suit people like me who don’t want to bother with computers. ‘Superior’, like ‘better’ is a subjective concept.
No I’m not arguing that at all. That’s the way you keep re-phrasing my argument.
Wha? Where DO you get these figures from? What ‘other 75%’? Are you now trying to tell me that it’s now 75% of Mac users who just use Macs because of the ‘shiny’ factor? I don’t know why you keep doing this. Why do you find it so hard to accept that there are a lot of Mac users out there who like using their Macs? It’s a sticking point for you – you seem happy to think that 100% of PC users have ‘chosen’ to use their machines, but oh, no, Mac users are STOOPID, so they wouldn’t know the difference between a good computer and a bowling ball.
I draw that data from my observations of the real world where I live. When I look at my kids deal with computers, when I look at my wife deal with computers, when I look at my mother-in-law and my Dad and my brother and his partner and my relatives-in-law. When I look at my graphic designer friends and my film-making friends. When I look at the people in the stores in the mall. NONE of these people cares about computers. Computers are a prime pain in the ass for most normal people. Somehow you’ve apparently gotten yourself into a rarified place where people are vastly different to most people, if you think any differently.
She’d know as soon as she tried to plug a random printer into it.
Oh, and also, please don’t misrepresent my argument as ‘Apple is the bestest ever and has solved all the computing problems that I have’. They haven’t. My Macs still irritate the crap out of me for numerous reasons whenever, for instance, I find myself having to figure out why I was suddenly disconnected from wifi and now I can’t get back on no matter what I do (or something). My point is simply that the Steve Jobs’ idea of vanishing the computer away as much as possible is pretty much the best thing he came up with. And it IS his idea, at least in the commercial market. So it’s not that Macs are the solution to this problem, they are simply, in my opinion, a better alternative to other things I’ve tried.
The 75% or more are the folks, as Dewi pointed out, who are using anything that isn’t a Mac (although, he put it at 95%). Not 75% of Mac users. 75% or more of computer users are selecting non-Macs. If you are correct that they simply want to do simple things, then 75% of them are not choosing Mac (or rather, are choosing something else) to do it with. That is my point. Just because you (or a minority of computer users) have had success in this way doesn’t mean that the other 75% or more aren’t just as satisfied. As Dewi and Polanski pointed out, you were the one who made (and continues to make) the argument that Apple (and more specifically, Steve Jobs) had a larger role in doing this than anyone else.
With this comment, for example:
“And my idea of a perfect computer is one with no hard drives, no interfaces, no file systems, no processors. I don’t really care that something has 3 terabytes of RAM or a 16GHz processor. And the big humming boxes that house such things are ugly, distracting and hot. My idea of a perfect computing environment is one with nothing more than a screen, a sketchpad, and a keyboard(i) and where I can do stuff and get results without having to think about file management or disk fragmentation or syntax or communications protocols.”
in the same context as comments like this:
“I believe that Steve Jobs greatest gift to us was to make the ‘computeriness’ of computers go away”
leads me to the argument you keep claiming you aren’t making. You keep pushing the idea that Jobs eliminated those nasty tech things on his own, and that Apple somehow did this magically where everyone else is still stuck worrying about how fast their processor is to write a paper. This dynamic alone creates a false dichotomy that one either uses a Mac or one is using something too complex for mere users, because that is your experience, and some of your experiences /i with the technical side of things /i (don’t know HTML, sorry) have been negative (again, you want to eliminate that computeriness, the tech side of it, so I am trying not to argue tech, but you keep bringing technicality into the argument – Steve Jobs didn’t make the Epson printer driver, and he didn’t make it Mac friendly, but hey, since it worked on your Mac and the ill-informed techs told you it wouldn’t, it must be Apple that is good at what they are doing, right?). You aren’t likely to think about when things worked like normal or better, I am getting at. One cannot complain when things are going according to schedule, but one little bump (Bill Gates didn’t cause you that inconvenience, any more than Steve Jobs fixed it, now did he?)…
“This is what normal people do.”
Actually, I would argue that it is exactly the opposite of what normal people would do. My grandma, her friends, the people who don’t know anything about computers are too afraid of messing them up to actually take these actions. There is a reason you did this and not your wife. If my friends, grandma, various clients I have worked with (I tried to do some computer service work once upon a time, but there just isn’t the demand to support it), the ‘average’ user you are trying to portray doesn’t even know where or how to plug it in, or how to actually use it once it is plugged in (I think you still have to select your printer, even on a Mac). Most of these people are terrified that if they click the wrong thing, they will somehow magically destroy the thing in a puff of smoke, no thanks to bad movies and news reports. Opening the e-mail is a risk, if they don’t know the person, because it could be the killer virus that might eat their toaster. If the paper runs out in the printer, they call people like me or you, who understand that printers take paper, because their printer won’t print anything. Those are the people you are talking about, people who don’t use computers for work, and call every text editor Word, and can’t fathom how Firefox can do the same thing as Internet Explorer or Safari. I know these people personally. I had college professors who didn’t know that they could access their webmail from another machine (because, how would it get there?). It isn’t as though the Macs, with their lack of computeriness (whether it exists as such or not) will suddenly make these people understand these basic functions that they are hopeless without in the first place. I can’t imagine a Mac teaching them to type any easier, or explain why they can check their e-mail at home instead of in their office, but maybe you are right, and they do this. Otherwise, I can’t see what computeriness they are taking away that hasn’t already been simplified by everyone else. Yes, I get that it works for you and your 5% of computer users, but everything else works equally well for the other 95% of computer users.
The people who don’t want computeriness in their computers (because they are just typing up papers, or e-mailing, or want to use Skype [video editing is not basic, nor is music composition]) are not opting for the more expensive machine, because they don’t want to play games or run Photoshop, and they can edit their family reunion photos in Picasa or a similar program, or just do it at Wal-Mart at the kiosk when they order the photos, but that is an actual tool for editing photos rather than a computer.
“She’d know as soon as she tried to plug a random printer into it.”
And the printer would, in all likelihood, simply be autoconfigured and work – This isn’t Windows or Mac; it has CUPS and Gutenprint.
Here’s my proposition.
Let “Amen” be your answer.
Let’s agree on one thing:
Fuck pancreatic cancer.
Everyone has different needs
Some Mac and some PC
But worse than either one of them
Is cancer iAgree.
Neither Dewi nor acce245 know the subtext here, so we shouldn’t expect them to understand my empathy with Steve. It’s not relevant to the discussion at hand in any case.
Take the ‘amen’ as a given.
Glad to hear this’ll be a separate post – it’s a worthy topic, if only for the misunderstandings it causes :)
There’s a nice post here on Stu Maschwitz’ blog, basically saying the same thing: http://prolost.com/blog/2011/10/12/the-misfits-the-rebels-the-troublemakers.html
For the record, I spend my work hours on either Linux or Windows machines (where the company-supplied tech support saves me time and frustration), but when I go home I like to relax with a nice warm Mac (where technical issues trouble me not.) I own a Windows box, but I see no reason to turn it on.
I’m going to resurrect this idea as a proper post – it’s a much more engaging concept than just a spat about Macs vs PCs. Then we can discuss what we really think computers should be doing in our lives, and why I hate robots so much.
Maybe we’ll see this on the anniversary of Steve’s passing?
I actually haven’t forgotten about it. There are some notes and I will do this.