Apple Zealots: Fact or Fiction?
When the days begin to shorten and the clock is arbitrarily manipulated you can be sre that the most popular thing in East Tennessee is Volunteer Football. Sports Talk show ratings fly through the roof and the orange found on trees entering winter’s sleep is solidly shouted down by a mass of orange shirts and hats. It comes as no surprise that along with the support comes a fair amount of zealotry. There are fans convinced that there has never been a football game played by the Vols where the refs weren’t actively and consciously helping the opposition win. Other fans are simply never satisfied, the national championship season was a disappointment because there were too many close games.
In football fanaticism is expected, even encouraged, fans buy shirts and tickets after all. In the world of computers, zealotry seems a bit out of place. Computers are not athletes who make public utterances one can empathize with. Computers don’t travel the state talking to large groups of fans in an attempt to build support for next year’s donation goals. Indeed, computers are just a conglomeration of silicon, screens and electrical components that a corporation will put together and sell you for a fee. It is the classic business model.
While the rabid evangelizing might seem out of place when waxing poetic on an inanimate, the reality is that Mac zealotry is alive and well. A cursory examination makes one wonder why there is such a large number of vocal pro Mac people. Apple is more than a little responsible for this mindset, during the dark years the company felt the need to counter what it saw as a coordinated campaign to scare people away from Macs. To fight mass media misconceptions Apple rehired Guy Kawasaki. Guy turned out to be the computer world’s version of James Carville and stayed on top of every FUD eruption and offhand statement that could possibly be interpreted in a negative manner.
The dire straits Apple was in when the Evangelist was being published has now turned into lush green fields where the major crop is the iPod and people crowd around the privacy fence trying to a glimpse of what new varieties Apple is attempting to cultivate. But the iPod isn’t the only thing growing for Apple, the fields devoted to the once lowly Mac have suddenly sprung forth with renewed productivity. Looking at the Apple landscape today one is hard pressed to come up with a legitimate reason Apple needs evangelists to spread the message, Apple seems to be getting the message out fine on its own.
Still, Apple zealots persist and one is forced to wonder what effect they are having. The easiest conclusion to reach is that the exhortations of the faithful can’t hurt, that they are like a cherry on a chocolate sundae, not strictly necessary but far from a bad thing. Just because something seems readily apparent doesn’t mean it is reflective of reality. Some argue, often persuasively, that fervent Mac community is actually hurting Apple.
Commonly this argument arises when individuals feel put off by what they regard as unchecked fanaticism and smugness in Mac fans certainty about the inherent superiority of their choice in computing. For example, if one were to opine that maybe, just maybe a bare bones Windows based machine is substantially cheaper than a Mac and well suited for the average user, they will subsequently be bombarded by arguments that the Mac is actually a better value. Sure, you’ll have to factor in what you get for the money and that will be followed up with reasoning that indicates that even for the most mundane of tasks the Mac is still superior. Were the person to allow that the computer was only going to be used as a doorstop they’d get an earful about how the Mac was still superior because of aesthetic considerations. Those kind of “Mac is always better is every situation no matter what” contentions do get annoying after a time so it is likely the case that few users are out off by the zealous among us. Still, it is equally likely that the net effect on sales is still positive.
On the other hand if powerful industry types are put off by Mac fanaticism, that is a more dangerous thing indeed. Which brings us to Adobe. Recently Mac fans have been castigating Adobe for perceived slowness in bringing native versions of Photoshop et al to market.* An Adobe manager responded with:
Maybe I should, but as a die-hard Mac user I feel like someone has to speak a little truth to the Mac community–or rather, to that vocal little group of zealots and forum trolls. So here’s my message for those folks: You’re hurting the Mac platform. You’re hurting the Mac community. You need to crush a little aluminum foil against those antennae of yours, because you’re hurting everyone concerned. You’re making it harder (and less appealing) for people of goodwill to make the effort to support the Mac.
By now the message is clearer than an artic sunrise (which one assumes would be renowned for its clarity if only people lived at the North Pole): it is time for the zealots to crank their iPod Hi Fi to max volume and shut their collective pie holes. After all, if the zealotry is doing no good and actually angering key software developers, why waste the energy? A sound conclusion given the arguments presented but, as we are about to see, an erroneous one.
The argument is predicated on the fact, taken as a given without critical examination, that Apple zealotry is some how anomalous. The idea being that people don’t get bent out of shape and go all crazy about brands of hamburgers or soft drinks. That notion simply isn’t true. Whether it is an integral part of the human psyche or a symptom of capitalism isn’t clear but any product purchased that costs a substantial amount of money causes a non-trivial level of zealotry in individuals.
Nothing illustrates the notion of frivolous zealotry more aptly than the Honda Pilot/Toyota Highlander debate. To the uninitiated both vehicles seem like large station wagons or mini vans for guys who refuse to drive a minivan. Certainly nothing to get people foaming at the mouth, right? Wrong. The debate over which hunk of glass, plastic and metal is superior rages with a fury usually reserved for politics. If you read the forums for a few days (not recommended) you’ll begin wondering if everyone arguing is independently wealthy because all the seem to do is talk about a couple of overpriced, too large, station wagons.
With that in mind we turn our attention back to the Apple zealots. Why do they seem so prominent, why has everyone run across and Apple zealot while the Pilot/Highlander war to end all wars is relatively unnoticed? The answer is simple on a moments reflection. Those interested in tech are the ones most likely to have opinions, strong ones, about platform choice. In essence, by surfing to sites like Digg, Macitt and Apple Matters you are placing yourself in the area most likely to contain Apple zealots. If you’re an Adobe manager chances are a lot of the stuff you pay attention to is oriented towards graphic designers, a group which relies on the Mac in disproportionate numbers. In the end, it isn’t so much that Apple zealotry runs rampant it, is more a question of where on hangs out. The whole thing is akin to attending a NASCAR race and being surprised that the place has some people who really like Chevys.
* It must be noted that Adobe is being blamed in no small part because Apple completed the transition ahead of schedule. If there were still Macs waiting to go Intel no one would be whining.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
>Points to xwiredtva for actually admitting he’s a zealot, while completely (and not surprisingly) missing the Adobe manager’s point. But of course he missed it. He’s a zealot. <
I can spot an excuse and dodge… When asked about the lack of Intel platform support, that was his answer… An excuse which makes no sense to the question… That’s also a dodge.
I also understand the answer as it makes no money to release an update or sideways update/patch to allow full intel speed on the Mac Platform when they can get everyone to upgrade to CS3 when it’s released. However this makes for some bad PR biz when people realize this.
Being in the Software Business for some 18 years, I’m aware of publishers little tricks to squeeze every ounce of blood from the customers.
When asked about the lack of Intel platform support, that was his answer…
You said that Adobe wasn’t coming out with the Universal version because “people have passion.” Which is patently absurd. It’s not the passion. It’s the misguided loyalty that begins and ends with Apple at the expense of EVERYTHING else, including Adobe products, which brought a great many people to the Mac platform in the first place.
“preventing Beeblebrox from calling people zealots who aren’t”.
I was going to point out how unhinged you’ve become lately, Ben. I don’t even know what you’re on about anymore. I can understand not liking my tone, but double-standards? I’d need an example of that.
But then I see this comment and I THINK I understand your point and I THINK I know how to address it.
We both say I’m going after zealots, which is probably not accurate. What it boils down to is that I’m going after zealotry - manifestations of bias, prejudice, FUD, or blatant hypocrisy. They don’t always come from zealots. And I often label people as zealots who may not be to the degree that others are but who show flashes of that bias.
This is distinguished, btw, from advocacy or preference, which I don’t have a problem with and don’t think I’ve ever complained about, although I may have been caught up in a moment a time or two.
OK. I’ll try and be less unhinged again.
But there are times when I feel your claim to be above all possible hypocrisy is inaccurate. That is not an accusation, I feel that it’s very easy to be hypocritical, or rather very hard not to be, and unless you really honestly consider it an option, I’m very suspicious.
An example of where I begin to get angry after, as I see it, you purposefully misrepresent someone’s excellent, highly illuminating post is at The Mouse Roars, after Paul’s two comments 11 and 12. These try to explain the probably reasons for the design decision.
Your reaction I find quite as “unhinged” as can be - and I’m not entirely sure I know what you’re arguing against. You seem to be attacking him for saying that there *could be any possible justification* for an Apple object.
It is this general point that I find enragingly hypocritical, and in focusing on specific instances I’m not surprised you find what I’ve been saying a little hard to follow. I think your actual, often poorly made attacks on some of the comments with the best message on this site belie your claim to absolute logical honesty. And, as someone who’s defended and complimented you, I’ll say that I think your actual opinions are worthy of better than this.
I well appreciate that in my fervour to tackle you on this issue, I’ve adopted all too many of your own confrontational style, and my own comments have lead to the kind of complete guerrilla degradation of the dialogue that we see for example in The Mouse Roars.
I have become my nemesis. And I hope you can see in yourself the flaws you, and I, have recently seen in me, because they are apparent to “those who have eyes to see”.
(Sorry for all the grammatical errors in that lot.)
your claim to absolute logical honesty
I make no such claim. In the grand scheme of things, it comes down to preference. My objection is in turning preference into a partisan divide between us and them in which “us” can do no wrong and “them” can do no right.
Ironically, that MM thread is a perfect microcosm. It’s a mouse. An expensive and non-intuitive, overly complicated mouse. To the Mac faithful, what would have been greeted with criticism and jeering if it were any other company was embraced as a highlight of design technology from Apple. Again, it’s a mouse - and not a very good one.
I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of the MM, but you may be disappointed to learn that I regret nothing I said in at least the first 11 comments in that thread (I didn’t read the rest). The MM was one of the most egregious examples in recent memory of blind, sycophantic, lapdog fanboyism.
I have become my nemesis. And I hope you can see in yourself the flaws you, and I, have recently seen in me, because they are apparent to “those who have eyes to see”.
Sounds like a Melville quote.
you may be disappointed to learn that I regret nothing I said in at least the first 11 comments in that thread (I didn’t read the rest)
Unfortunate as I was referring to your comment number 14.
To be more specific, I think Paul’s comments do a terrific job of explaining that the Might Mouse is a compromise.
Personally, I would find the MM fine if the fscking scroll ball Just Worked and didn’t fscking clog the whole time.
But then, I’m a sucker for stupid, touch-sensitive gimmicks. I’ve just ordered a Samsung E900. It’s not even compatible with iSync! Dumbass!
Paul sounds like a regurgitating Apple-bot. And in some cases that’s literal as he quotes directly from Apple’s marketing dept press releases.
He is not simply explaining that the MM is a compromise. Clearly it is. That’s kind of the problem with it.
What HE is arguing is that it’s “forward-thinking” and “innovative,” utilizing “clever realism in industrial design” that is “Apple’s way to shut the multi-button proponents up by making them think they’ve “won”. It “is a subversive way for Apple to preserve (and thus reinforce) its one-button philosophy while giving power users their cake, too.”
Need I remind you we are talking about a MOUSE.
It may or may not be revolutionary, but Mighty Mouse is still innovative in that it does not sacrifice simplicity for those users who desire single-button functionality while giving advanced users features multi-button action and the ability to intuitively scrub in video and audio apps (a need that did not exist just a few short years ago).
This doesn’t change the fact that I can’t really find anything to disagree with in his post.
The fact that the MM has its problems doesn’t mean it isn’t an innovative design for the specification he cites, which I feel very likely represents the exact reasoning behind the MM’s form.
I see where you’re coming from though. Has he manipulated the specification to make the MM look good?
Surely if he’s done this then you’re saying that Apple’s industrial design team is so ham-fisted it can’t even design a mouse.
I think that’s unlikely. I’d say if anything Apple’s specification is inappropriately pulling in two incompatible directions. But I do agree with Paul about Apple’s specification, and according to it, the MM is a good compromise (except when it breaks). Not that this makes it a great solution to the specification of working very well for the pro users, though the fact that my dad’s blissfully unaware that it has a 2nd button suggests it’s still a perfectly good 1-button mouse.
That’s not exactly high praise for Apple’s standard mouse though
Has he manipulated the specification to make the MM look good?
The question is whether or not he’s omitted any criticism, exaggerated Apple’s talking points with meaningless praises, and basically spun the features (and lack of features) to make the MM look WAY better than it is. Has he, in other words, uncritically regurgitated Apple’s already formidable marketing dept in order to heap praise on what is basically an unspectacular mouse?
I say yes.
And remember that Paul is heaping these praises on a mouse that, at the time, cost $50!
Surely if he’s done this then you’re saying that Apple’s industrial design team is so ham-fisted it can’t even design a mouse.
I certainly think they’ve concocted an overly complicated solution to a non-existent problem. But again, I don’t want this to be about the MM itself, but rather what constitutes zealotry and when it’s credible to label it as such.
I think you’ve probably picked the worst example on this site. I will certainly concede that I may unfairly jump the gun on occasion, attacking a supposed zealot when I should be attacking the zealotry, but I don’t think this is one of them.
PS: the term “pro-user” is too broad here. I use two high-end programs for work, FCP and Maya. The MM is fine for FCP, but USELESS for Maya. For “pro-users,” the MM is at the very least a mixed bag.
I would find the MM fine if the fscking scroll ball Just Worked
The Mighty Mouse gave me RSI.
Ironically, the scroll ball is the only thing on the MM I really like. The problem is that it doesn’t work as a MMB, which is not worth the trade off IMO.
Also, it’s not removable. I haven’t had a problem yet (and I’ve since given it to my wife on the Mac Mini), but I understand that it’s a bitch and a half to clean.