Posted on 03/21/2015 1:33:07 AM PDT by Swordmaker
Apple zealots are one thing, but Apple doomsayers might be worse. This week, on The Network: John Moltz wonders why we ever mixed church and tech.
Stop me if you've heard this one: Apple is just like a relig—
STOP.
Yeah, you've heard it. Apple is just like a religion. And its customers are acolytes, steeped in the heady lore of the Church of Jobs blah blah blah. For certain pundits and commentators, this explains away everything they don't understand about Apple. Why it does so fabulously well, why its customers are so loyal, why the company is able to charge more for its devices... it explains everything!
A little too neatly.
See, if I could add an addendum to Occam's Razor it would go like this: The simplest explanation is usually the right one... unless it involves magic. Frankly, I think that it's much more valid to apply this argument to Apple's critics than its supporters.
Take, for example, those who continuously proclaim that Apple's doom is nigh. You don't have to look far for them: They literally use the word "doom" in their headlines.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying belief in imminent Apple doom is a religion. I don't think it is. You know what is religion? Religion. Words have meaning, that's what they're for. Most of these people who proclaim Apple doom don't even believe it themselves — they're just selling something.
No, I'm just saying one could make a better case that the Apple Doomsday Cult is a religion than making the argument that Apple itself is. Consider it a thought experiment.
The church of Apple
For starters, let's look at the argument that Apple is a religion. We know this is true because researchers in Britain hooked one Apple fan up to a machine and found his reaction to the brand was stimulating the same centers of the brain that religion stimulates.
Oh, you can argue that one is not a statistically large sample or that even if Apple does stimulate the same brain centers as religion that doesn't mean much because lots of things — our loved ones, playing sports, or the rich, creamy taste of Litehouse Ranch Dressing — could do the same thing, that doesn't make them religions. But now you're just hating on science, hater.
Still there is the generic argument about the canonical "Apple zealot". Do these people who think Apple is perfect in every way all the time and will buy whatever product Apple ships actually exist? Probably. When I invented "Artie MacStrawman" nine years ago, it was not without its basis in fact. But here's the difference: The only place the Arties of the world write is in comments or forums or on the restroom wall of the Applebee's they walked into confusedly thinking it had something to do with Apple. They don't write for supposedly serious publications like Forbes, Fortune, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal. They don't have positions as big-time Wall Street analysts. They certainly don't get invited on television to make their case and they definitely do not get book deals.
The altar of facts
Are there Apple fans who will take any opportunity to point and laugh and make snarky remarks about Apple's competitors? Haha, oh, yeah. Oh, my god, so many. Most of these people also criticize Apple, too. While we prefer Apple's products and their business model, we're not idiots. But pointing out that Apple makes good stuff and makes a ton of money for doing so — in other words, pointing out facts — does not mean you're a religious nut.
Maybe Apple doom is a thing because our culture loves stories that run counter to what everyone thinks. If you can come up with some kind of evidence that donuts are actually good for you, it'd be a big traffic day on Huffington Post. But this dogged adherence to the idea that Apple will fail runs back to the mid-1990s when it was actually failing. In other words, when Apple was failing, no one was getting cushy gigs telling people how it was actually succeeding. Which is good because it wasn't, but you can't explain the Church of Apple Doom away as simply the novelty of being contrarian.
The sweet smell of success
Now, Apple is so much more of a success story than a failure story that it seems almost impossible on a quantum mechanical level. That's really the only thing you need to know to make my case: Apple's not just successful, it's incredibly, dramatically, wildly, record-breakingly successful. So demonstrably successful that saying it's doomed has gone light years past "not even funny anymore" and wrapped all the way around the universe to "thigh-slappingly hysterical" again.
And yet people still believe it's on the edge of going out of business. Well, as I said, they either believe that or they're just selling that idea to get attention. Which, of course, also goes on in religion. QED.
Is Apple always a success? No. Will it always be a success? Given what we presume is the infinite nature of time, probably not. Some time before the sun burns out, Apple will probably again get the kind of managers it had in the mid-1990s, an assortment of clotted meat products in suits who believe that market share is incredibly important and that chasing the lowest common denominator is a sure-fire way to win.
But we're nowhere close to that point yet. So to buy into the idea that it's happening right now, you have to take a lot on faith. Certainly a lot more than believing Apple is a success.
I posted it on the other thread where you flipped out on me, so I’m really doubting this whole, “I didn’t know” bit...
Oops - now I’m the liar. I didn’t post it on the thread. I sent it to another Freeper in Freepmail who was willing to have a “normal” discussion about Apple vs [Anything Else].
I should have remembered it wasn’t on the thread because the discussion was... you know... *reasonable* and objective.
Sorry for the confusion.
No, it isn't. What if your product has no competition? You are merely trying to get attention of the customers for your product. For example, the California Milk Board promotes the consumption of milk. . . and milk producers are prohibited from advertising their individual makes. When the phone company was a monopoly, they still promoted their services.
When a new product is introduced, totally unique, such as a new drug with no comparative treatment, they will advertise to let patients and doctors know about the treatment.
Your conclusion is erroneous. There is informative commercials. . . and promotion that is not "competitive."
You are accepting the sobriquet, it seems. You are one of the prime examples.
Apple understands exactly how their are advertising and to whom. They are not competing "against" any company but rather "to" their customers. Don't you see the difference in those two statements? The competition is obsessed with beating the competition. . . Apple is not. Apple is obsessed with pleasing the customer.
You, like most anti-Apple complainers, will latch onto anything to argue. You cannot comprehend why Apple is different, and that difference is why Apple is where it is today. . . not because of nefarious activities, or the delusional hyper-loyalty of a crazed fan base.
I have never "flipped out on you," bolobaby. There is just another one of your attempts to belittle me and make me out to be an insane fanatic who "goes off" on people for no reason. You are the irrational one who comes into Apple threads and spreads your bile. You never posted anything of the kind to me. . . I do not lie, but you prefer to call me a liar.
Apology accepted.
Apple is competing with every company that sells something for the money in your pocket. Nuancing "competing" to make it something unrecognizable by most people, and then complaining about being misunderstood is simply fabricating an argument.
You start your discussion with an insult.
NO, Apple is not competing with an Operating system. Apple is selling a user experience. Apple is not selling an operating system!
Again you Anti-Apple haters miss the point. Apple doesn't sell an operating system to buyers. The consumers cannot buy it and install it on their computers. Sorry.
You still miss the point.
Apple doesn't ever mention Microsoft in their ads. . . they refer to PC. . . and Mac. The customers they are directing their ads to are their future customers.
I am beginning to think you anti-Apple haters will always miss the point. . . you are that dense.
Look man - I don’t spread bile. I simply question “the party line” on Apple. For some reason, you take that very personally and think that makes me an “Apple Hater.” If you actually go back and read my posts, you’ll find that I’m usually being pretty objective. I also continue to reiterate that I don’t *hate* Apple, I just think that they make missteps which cost them *market share*. I’ve said many times that I actually have had Apple products, but I *prefer* my Note 3. Again, you lob irrational accusations at me that - because I prefer my Samsung - I’m some kind of “hater.”
I *prefer* apple pie. Does that make me part of the Pumpkin Pie Haters club? You start to sound like those liberals throwing around words like “homophobic” just because someone doesn’t want gay sex thrust in their face on prime time TV.
You do yourself a horrible disservice by freaking out like this on anyone who joins an Apple-based thread to... you know... actually *discuss* the topic. I’ve been pinged by a number of Freepers who sort of view it as a running gag on the forum.
I know, I know... you get pinged by other Freepers who commiserate with you about the Apple Haters Club(tm).
The funny thing is, I’d like to assume we’re more alike than NOT since we are both on FreeRepublic. I had a hard time figuring that out last time I looked through your posting history because all I saw was Apple related posts - for, like, NINE pages before I finally gave up. That’s when I wondered, “Holy crap - is this guy a social marketer or what???”
Let’s assume your not. Let’s assume - like me - your a conservative. Let’s assume - like me - you might be a veteran. Let’s assume - like me - you may value life.
Then why do you allow this ONE THING - your love for Apple products - to turn you into a rabid fiend who will call for his entire Ping List to attack someone just because they dare to question the almighty Apple? People who will post such lovely sentiments as “Stop your anal bleeding,” amongst other pleasantries?
It’s unbecoming.
Let’s get along as conservatives (if you really are one) and dare to... *gasp*... actually have reasoned debate when it interests both parties.
If reasoned debate doesn’t interest you - fine. Simply don’t respond to posters expressing a contrarian view instead of devolving into puerile tactics. Bear in mind, however, that Apple dissenters actually have a right to post on those threads until Jim Robinson decides they don’t. I think it’s absolutely ridiculous, however, that you and your ping list have decided that dissenting views on your threads are to be attacked and shooed away. If that’s how you really feel, don’t post on FR, but post in a forum where everyone loves Apple!
If you look at the title and premise of the article you'll see that the author is telling us that all criticism needs to be leveled in one direction only. If you're being objective, you're not doing it right.
That is not competing against other computer makes, that is just doing business. You do not understand what we are talking about. . . and deliberately obfuscating the issues. What you just described is what we were saying.
AGAIN YOU START WITH INSULTS.
I have not ignored any evidence. It is you anti-Apple hecklers who are ignoring the evidence right in front of your faces. I told you exactly what Apple was doing but you choose to ignore it. I am not going to respond to your screed but I am going to say this one more time. Apple is NOT marketing against Microsoft or any particular of the one or even a group of Windows computer manufacturers. Apple was marketing about USER EXPERIENCE. . . and it was against the whole USER EXPERIENCE of the combined PC ecosystem. . . the whole non-working together widget. Apple was offering a system that worked. They were offering the users an alternative to the pain of the PC computer, the whole thing, that people were VERY FAMILIAR WITH, not an OS, not a machine, not the software, the whole bleeping thing. . . with all the cruft that went along with it.
The rest of your sophomoric screed is merely an attempt to make me look ignorant of things I have posted on FR about for over 10 years. You cannot do that, so give it a rest. YOU are the Apple-hater and you are not going to re-define that. TROLL!
You are helping make the argument of the article quite nicely. Thank you.
If I'm the one deliberately obfuscating, why is it not just me but "most people" that don't understand what you're saying?
Let me see, remember “DOS isn't done, until Lotus won't run”, or “Choke off Netscapes airsupply”, or the famous AARD code in Windows 3.1? MS has NEVER liked competition, they have gone out of the way to be non-competitive.
And don't forget MS invented vaporware.
Samsung has been following Apple for many years, Swordmaker has posted all the evidence about Samsung trying to copy everything about the iPhone. Apple sued and won.
Like I have said before Apple isn't trying to compete with any one, they are simply building a better product and letting the market decide.
I didn't "forget", I just didn't let you change the subject.
MS and Samsung are trying to compete, Apple IS NOT!!
By your account they're not. But also by your own account just about everyone else doesn't see it that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.