Apple rant.
I visited the Apple Store yesterday, and it inspired me, aided by my desire to procrastinate, to rant about everything I've ever loved and hated about the company.
Their store
The store itself was just very inviting and pleasant to be in. In contrast, I went to compusa for about 5 minutes afterwards, and it was suffocating, somehow--i just wanted to leave. It kind of felt like the difference between being in Ikea versus being in a 1 dollar store, with all these gaudy products and advertisements jumping out at you, vying for your attention.
I think part of this also had to do with the fact that apple generally builds their products (even their software packaging) to look more like art pieces than fancy techo-gadgets, which I think is really cool, as long as the aesthetics don't get in the way of cost and usability, which is sometimes the case with Apple. (It is never the case with Ikea.)
Their iPod
I saw the iPod for the first time when I went to the Apple Store, and it is friggin' awesome. It looks cool, it's tiny, and it's got a really cool oldsk00L user interface (Apple's use of their old Chicago font from the 1980's definitely adds to the nostalgia). If only it didn't cost $300-500... Of course, the only time I ever need a portable music device smaller than my laptop is when I go running, so I'll be sticking to my minidisc player, unless the iPod's price tag comes down to about $20.
It also works with Windows, which rox0rz.
Their operating system
It is really, really cool that OSX is unix-based. The old Mac OS was cutting-edge revolutionary in 1984, but by 1999, in all honesty, it was an aging piece of shit. All in all, their newest OS is what I imagine many desktop Linux users (ok, RedHat Linux users) wish their distros could look like someday--it seems to have most of the benefits of other unix-based OS's, except it actually has a consistent UI, is fairly idiot-proof, and is backed by industry leaders who have never supported Linux (and probably never will), like Adobe, Macromedia, and Blizzard Entertainment. It's basically the first unix-based OS that I feel is actually viable as a general-purpose desktop computing platform.
But as much as I want to like Macs, there's just something about their operating system that doesn't suit me. I just don't feel like I have the freedom to do what I want with the computer. The reasons for this are pretty complex and would take way too long to explain in detail, suffice to say that there's a fine line when it comes to human-computer interaction, and each person probably draws it a different way: in general, making a user interface too simple makes it cumbersome and inflexible, which for me has historically been the case with Macs (granted, it has been improved tremendously in OSX), and making it too complex renders it inconsistent and confusing, which has been my experience with most of the Linux window managers I've used. I've found that the Windows UI has a pretty good balance in this respect, although it definitely has lots of annoying-as-fuck downsides, such as the damn Start menu. God, whoever invented that needs to be severely beaten.
The only other thing I was disappointed with in OSX was the fact that you can't turn off the functionally useless embellishments, like the shadows, fading, translucent menus, and so forth. With my dual-processing 450 mhz G4, all that stuff--although it does look really pretty--slows down the OS enough to the point that it's noticeably less responsive than Windows 2000 running on my laptop of similar worth (this may not sound like a big deal, but it definitely contributes to the relief I feel when switching from the Mac to the PC). Windows XP has its embellishments too, but the key feature that makes Windows XP superior in this regard is the fact that you can turn them off. This was an extremely poor design decision on Apple's part, though I imagine it was motivated partially so that they could get users to buy new, more powerful computers.
Their advertising
So I've had my disappointments with Apple, but there hasn't been anything I've actually hated about them--except for their advertising strategy. This is because their mission has always been to prove that Macs are superior to Windows PCs in all respects, which is frustrating, because in reality Macs are better for only certain kinds of tasks compared to PCs, and vice versa. In fact, in the long run, they can both do very similar things and it mostly boils down to user preference and specific use contexts, and many of the things people say in Apple's most recent Switch ads are blatantly misleading.
Most frustrating, though, is the elitist attitude this strategy promotes, as virtually all Apple's advertisements--ever since their seminal 1984 super bowl promo--have always been fundamentally saturated with a kind of "we're nicer and more creative than you boring PC people" mentality, as though anyone who uses a Mac must be doing it because they utterly despise Windows and everything it "stands for" (whatever that is). In these ads, Apple characterizes Windows and its users as soulless and mundane, while it prescribes equally irrelevant ideological labels and personalities to its own products and users--words like "creativity" and "individuality" and "freedom" and "think different", dead people like Gandhi and Einstein and Hitchcock--which are all somehow supposed to suggest that by buying the underdog over the mainstream, you are going to be a more creative, individualistic, free, unique, and profound individual.
I'll admit that I was tempted by this philosophy for some time, and to some extent I still am, because part of it is actually pretty cool. That is, I like the way the company actively encourages the use of their products as tools for creative expression. But what I don't like is the fact that they define this image in opposition to PC's, as though Windows users can't use their computers in creative or exciting ways, and Macs are the only remedy.
And to be honest, I do tend to hold resentment towards some Mac users I meet, but it hasn't been rooted in the fact that they use Macs--as I said, the two platforms are actually very similar and it's really a matter of personal preference--it's more the fact that some of them think that the platform I prefer to use is fundamentally inferior, and look down on me because of it, shaking their heads in pity. And I'm not saying I've never done the same thing to them in retaliation. But the whole attitude is surprisingly similar to the way that the more extreme forms of some religions patronizingly preach their dogma to convert "the misguided"; apparently Apple has been influenced by this strategy, as they even go so far as to call their representatives evangelists, sending them out to show PC users "the light". In both the case of religion and computer choice, this kind of elitism simply fosters a lot of animosity between members of all parties involved, and it's an animosity that really doesn't need to exist. The bottom line is that people should choose a platform based on how well it satisfies their needs and preferences--and they should be cognizant of the fact that their choice may not fulfill someone else's needs and preferences in the same way.
Speaking of this Switch crap, this is a satire of the ad that perfectly illustrates my opinion on any kind of snobby-ass, unilaterally comparative "Switch" advertising strategy, whether it happens to be pro-Mac, pro-Windows, or pro-Linux.
Their store
The store itself was just very inviting and pleasant to be in. In contrast, I went to compusa for about 5 minutes afterwards, and it was suffocating, somehow--i just wanted to leave. It kind of felt like the difference between being in Ikea versus being in a 1 dollar store, with all these gaudy products and advertisements jumping out at you, vying for your attention.
I think part of this also had to do with the fact that apple generally builds their products (even their software packaging) to look more like art pieces than fancy techo-gadgets, which I think is really cool, as long as the aesthetics don't get in the way of cost and usability, which is sometimes the case with Apple. (It is never the case with Ikea.)
Their iPod
I saw the iPod for the first time when I went to the Apple Store, and it is friggin' awesome. It looks cool, it's tiny, and it's got a really cool oldsk00L user interface (Apple's use of their old Chicago font from the 1980's definitely adds to the nostalgia). If only it didn't cost $300-500... Of course, the only time I ever need a portable music device smaller than my laptop is when I go running, so I'll be sticking to my minidisc player, unless the iPod's price tag comes down to about $20.
It also works with Windows, which rox0rz.
Their operating system
It is really, really cool that OSX is unix-based. The old Mac OS was cutting-edge revolutionary in 1984, but by 1999, in all honesty, it was an aging piece of shit. All in all, their newest OS is what I imagine many desktop Linux users (ok, RedHat Linux users) wish their distros could look like someday--it seems to have most of the benefits of other unix-based OS's, except it actually has a consistent UI, is fairly idiot-proof, and is backed by industry leaders who have never supported Linux (and probably never will), like Adobe, Macromedia, and Blizzard Entertainment. It's basically the first unix-based OS that I feel is actually viable as a general-purpose desktop computing platform.
But as much as I want to like Macs, there's just something about their operating system that doesn't suit me. I just don't feel like I have the freedom to do what I want with the computer. The reasons for this are pretty complex and would take way too long to explain in detail, suffice to say that there's a fine line when it comes to human-computer interaction, and each person probably draws it a different way: in general, making a user interface too simple makes it cumbersome and inflexible, which for me has historically been the case with Macs (granted, it has been improved tremendously in OSX), and making it too complex renders it inconsistent and confusing, which has been my experience with most of the Linux window managers I've used. I've found that the Windows UI has a pretty good balance in this respect, although it definitely has lots of annoying-as-fuck downsides, such as the damn Start menu. God, whoever invented that needs to be severely beaten.
The only other thing I was disappointed with in OSX was the fact that you can't turn off the functionally useless embellishments, like the shadows, fading, translucent menus, and so forth. With my dual-processing 450 mhz G4, all that stuff--although it does look really pretty--slows down the OS enough to the point that it's noticeably less responsive than Windows 2000 running on my laptop of similar worth (this may not sound like a big deal, but it definitely contributes to the relief I feel when switching from the Mac to the PC). Windows XP has its embellishments too, but the key feature that makes Windows XP superior in this regard is the fact that you can turn them off. This was an extremely poor design decision on Apple's part, though I imagine it was motivated partially so that they could get users to buy new, more powerful computers.
Their advertising
So I've had my disappointments with Apple, but there hasn't been anything I've actually hated about them--except for their advertising strategy. This is because their mission has always been to prove that Macs are superior to Windows PCs in all respects, which is frustrating, because in reality Macs are better for only certain kinds of tasks compared to PCs, and vice versa. In fact, in the long run, they can both do very similar things and it mostly boils down to user preference and specific use contexts, and many of the things people say in Apple's most recent Switch ads are blatantly misleading.
Most frustrating, though, is the elitist attitude this strategy promotes, as virtually all Apple's advertisements--ever since their seminal 1984 super bowl promo--have always been fundamentally saturated with a kind of "we're nicer and more creative than you boring PC people" mentality, as though anyone who uses a Mac must be doing it because they utterly despise Windows and everything it "stands for" (whatever that is). In these ads, Apple characterizes Windows and its users as soulless and mundane, while it prescribes equally irrelevant ideological labels and personalities to its own products and users--words like "creativity" and "individuality" and "freedom" and "think different", dead people like Gandhi and Einstein and Hitchcock--which are all somehow supposed to suggest that by buying the underdog over the mainstream, you are going to be a more creative, individualistic, free, unique, and profound individual.
I'll admit that I was tempted by this philosophy for some time, and to some extent I still am, because part of it is actually pretty cool. That is, I like the way the company actively encourages the use of their products as tools for creative expression. But what I don't like is the fact that they define this image in opposition to PC's, as though Windows users can't use their computers in creative or exciting ways, and Macs are the only remedy.
And to be honest, I do tend to hold resentment towards some Mac users I meet, but it hasn't been rooted in the fact that they use Macs--as I said, the two platforms are actually very similar and it's really a matter of personal preference--it's more the fact that some of them think that the platform I prefer to use is fundamentally inferior, and look down on me because of it, shaking their heads in pity. And I'm not saying I've never done the same thing to them in retaliation. But the whole attitude is surprisingly similar to the way that the more extreme forms of some religions patronizingly preach their dogma to convert "the misguided"; apparently Apple has been influenced by this strategy, as they even go so far as to call their representatives evangelists, sending them out to show PC users "the light". In both the case of religion and computer choice, this kind of elitism simply fosters a lot of animosity between members of all parties involved, and it's an animosity that really doesn't need to exist. The bottom line is that people should choose a platform based on how well it satisfies their needs and preferences--and they should be cognizant of the fact that their choice may not fulfill someone else's needs and preferences in the same way.
Speaking of this Switch crap, this is a satire of the ad that perfectly illustrates my opinion on any kind of snobby-ass, unilaterally comparative "Switch" advertising strategy, whether it happens to be pro-Mac, pro-Windows, or pro-Linux.