Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Apple Pro Underwear · Jul 22, 2002, 02:32 AM

Also, don't let those Wired articles stereotype all Mac users.

I'm into Macs. I have never been to Thinksecret or Spymac in my life. I own no t-shirts or anything else Mac related except for my Mac and Ipod.

glorfindel · Jul 22, 2002, 02:33 AM

And no Pro Underwear, the quality in nothing I've said has diminished.

Previously I focused sincerely on common business practices, which are completely objective and all managers know them and use the strategic dynamics of their indusry to maximize profits. yawn.

Now I am raising the issue of Apple marketing and I was equally sincere in stating that I became susceptible to it (and not very I might point out -- Italy's not Zimbabwe), and gave some examples. Naturally you rushed to use my honesty in a grotesque attempt to discredit the substance of what I was saying.

All marketing involves psychology and it therefore lacks the severe and mathematical impartiallity of the switching costs analysis that dominates the pc industry. In my judgment that is no reason to consider marketing less real than money.

Marketing involves two things: 1) Creating a brand identity in line with a market segment; and 2) Creating a high level of customer involvement with the brand.

I am saying that this is a very caluclated mind game that Apple uses and that it is so effective it has the effect of obssessing people. All of the data in my previous posts, the fact points I outlined support this and no one can adequetly explain them.

Apple Pro Underwear · Jul 22, 2002, 02:41 AM

Effective advertising does not only apply to Apple.

Other brands have been sucessful in building community within it's users.

Why do you insist calling it an "obsession"?

glorfindel · Jul 22, 2002, 02:46 AM

Starman,

I do very much agree with your previous comment that all companies do this. That is spot on in my judgment. But I have never, ever seen or heard of anything like what I consider to be a phenomenon -- Apple.

I find it incredible.

By the way, I can tell that occassionaly things are stated here in certain ways, there are tones to things, shadings. Please keep in mind I am not here to trade insults or jockey verbally with people, and sometimes nuances doesn't come across so cleanly in typing (I'm not Hemingway!!). I am really interested in elaborating the issues as I see them and I hope no one takes any offence. That is not my purpose.

glorfindel · Jul 22, 2002, 03:01 AM

I call it obsession because my experience since buying my Imac has been unique in that I went to rumor sites and tuned into keynotes to hear THE LEADER.

I had a 3 series BMW. Never went to a single website, don't know who the CEO is, don't care about it at all. Germans.

I have a Piaget watch. Don't know anything about the company.

I have an Omega watch. Don't know anything about the company -- Swiss I think.

I have some designer clothing (not many to be honest) but don't know much about the designers.

I have a Sony TV -- it's from Japan. That's all I know.

I have some other worthless crap I overpaid for and I don't know anything about anyof it either.

Apple is the only company where I actually became involved a little in it, and I can see that a LOT of other people are a LOT more involved that I ever was.

That's all I'm saying as per Apple's brilliant marketing.

FINIS

Face Ache · Jul 22, 2002, 03:43 AM

Steve Jobs is Willy Wonka. I thought everyone knew that. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

<img src="http://www.applelinks.net/sailbad/willywonka.jpg" alt=" - " />

ford prefect · Jul 22, 2002, 05:11 AM

I like the idea of exploring our seemingly irrational loyaty to apple. Why do I care when new hardware comes out. It's not like I'm going to buy one. I've got all kinds or stuff that is more important in my life, but I'm here reading these forums, mostly to get information about new stuff, or new ideas on how to use the old stuff.

Apple has been able to create loyalty because it makes its users feel like they belong to an elite community. I like the Mac community, I think the people here are more interested in the aspects of computing that I like. (As opposed to the PC hardware nuts, or linux code-heads)

I definately think that the community has a lot to do with it. We want to feel like we're better than the average computer user. Celebrities use Macs. We normally can't afford to dress like the rich and famous, or drive the same cars, but computers are a little different, because we CAN get the same brand of computer. Maybe not the newest, with dual 23' cinema displays, but we can get the TiBook. Of course I don't see Moby posting here at macnn, but we like the idea that he might be. We like to converse with other Mac users. We like to have people to bash on MS with. Do PC users have forums where they talk about Bill Gates, and guess what new features are coming the next version of Windows?

I must say that the obsession you discuss is am currently experiencing. I was just sitting here earlier today thinking that I need to get some new interests because Apple has been pretty disappointing lately as a hobby (to me, hobbies are pretty much the same thing as obsessions). When I first got into this stuff, they were just coming out with G4's, and I thought those were really cool. I bought into the G4-P3 bakeoffs, and was really feeling good, but over the past 3 years things have gotten much less exciting. I keep hoping that there will be some real excitement right around the corner, but really does it matter? I'm not in the market for an upgrade.

I think it all comes down to non-conformism, and eliteism. We don't like Microsoft, and Linux is a drag, sorry to say it, but it is. So what do we have left? There is no way I will go to Windows. I realize that Jobs and Co. know this, and want to profit off that, but I don't have to keep the newest hardware. I'd like something that wasn't so slow GUI-wise, though.

So to wrap it up, sorry this was a little un-organized, I know what you're talking about with the whole obsession thing, and I'd like to figure out what it is that makes us think about this stuff so much. I don't think it has anything to do with Phil Schiller, though.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 22, 2002, 09:22 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by glorfindel:
Marketing involves two things: 1) Creating a brand identity in line with a market segment; and 2) Creating a high level of customer involvement with the brand.

I am saying that this is a very caluclated mind game that Apple uses and that it is so effective it has the effect of obssessing people. All of the data in my previous posts, the fact points I outlined support this and no one can adequetly explain them.<hr /></blockquote>Very, very good posts, glorfindel. Thank you.

My take:

I think that part of the psychology behind Apple marketing is the feeling of being years ahead of everybody else.

Using stuff NOW that the unwashed masses using Windows machines won't even *hear* of (and then think Dell invented it) until two years later, so to speak. We're getting a sneak preview of the FUTURE, and we're paying premium to be there now.

The gap has got much smaller since Apple waffled about for years with Copland, wasting time, but with the right kind of spin, it's still there.

The GUI (Six years ahead of the rest of the world, and then all they got was Windows 3.1).
3-1/2-inch floppies.
SCSI.
Multiple monitor support.
The PDA (five years ahead of the rest of the world).
Notebook computers.
USB.
Firewire.
Wireless LAN - Airport.
FireWire.
Gigabit ethernet.
A bunch of "next-generation" stuff in Jaguar.

Some of these did not come from Apple, but they were all adopted for wide-spread use first on the Mac - eventually becoming standards.

The other aspect was, for a long time, that of the faster/better machine. We all know that Apple has been losing the edge on this. So the spin focuses more on the above.

Combine that with the fact that these solutions usually are implemented better/more elegantly than pretty much all competitors' (witness the iPod), and you have the perfect breeding-ground for fanatics.

It is only recently, since Apple is, for the first time, widely perceived as being behind on hardware tech, and since it has become clear that Apple is a business like most others, and in times of economic turndown must see to its revenue, that you start to hear louder disgruntled voices from within the "community".

-spheric*

Apple Pro Underwear · Jul 22, 2002, 10:23 AM

glorfindel,

The fact of the matter is that fanclubs do exist for the products you mentioned. It's just that some products lend itself better to having community.

With a car, you can only wait for so much news. However, communities do exist, Cash$ in this forum loves his neon and participates in other websites about Neons.

A Mac falls into a bunch of categories. Hardware. Software. Computer technology in general. It lends itself to having news updates on daily basis.

The Mac User Interface is ubiquitous. It's omnipresent on my screen. I'm always "aware" that i'm on a Mac. It's only natural to check out MacNN if any developments happen. Some people check out the rumor sites. But certainly not all.

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> ob�ses�sion ��Pronunciation Key��(b-sshn, b-)
n.
1. Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.
2. A compulsive, often unreasonable idea or emotion.
</pre><hr /></blockquote>Yes indeed, this describes a small minority some people in here. But the recent "emotion" that was shown was due to Agitation more than obsession due to the Jaguar and .Mac pricing.

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> com�mu�ni�ty ��Pronunciation Key��(k-myn-t)
n. pl. com�mu�ni�ties
1.
a. A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government.
b. The district or locality in which such a group lives.

2.
a. A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community.
b. A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the community of color.

3.
a. Similarity or identity: a community of interests.
b. Sharing, participation, and fellowship.</pre><hr /></blockquote>I believe, like spheric harlot suggested, This is a better description. I could visit a hundred billion rumor sites and own high resolution pictures of the G5 Powermac and it would mean nothing if i didn't have anybody to share it with.

thunderous_funker · Jul 22, 2002, 02:25 PM

Glorfindal is carefully and eloquently pointing out that the Mac faithful have been repeatedly fleeced in the past and the trend is accelerating because they've been convinced that they are doing something "different", "not being a sheep", mistaking brand loyalty for "community" and uncomfortable with the realization that they have deep emotional involvement with Apple.

Many of you are trying to refute that by pointing out that you are doing something "different", "not being a sheep", have brand loyalty because you like the "community" and have a deep emotional involvement with Apple for "good reasons".

Am I the only one that thinks this is funny?

Substitute any brand instead of Apple and people will probably be more willing to accept the truth about an unhealthy feeling of loyalty to a corporation that has no part of your best interests at heart. Such is the genius of marketing and the downfall of civilazation.

Now that Glorfindal's observations about Apple's branding coup over it's over-paying faithful has been perfectly demonstrated, I'm more intersted in continuing the other part of this converstation:

Would the best thing in the world for Mac users be the total abandonment of brand loyalty and a return to a healthy buyer/seller relationship? Or is Apple's business strategy completely dependant on the 'faithful' and it could never survive if the spell wore off?

starman · Jul 22, 2002, 02:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Many of you are trying to refute that by pointing out that you are doing something "different", "not being a sheep", have brand loyalty because you like the "community" and have a deep emotional involvement with Apple for "good reasons".

Am I the only one that thinks this is funny?
<hr /></blockquote>So you're saying we can't think for ourselves? We can't buy a product based on need rather than "being sheep"?

What I think is that this guy found himself all ga-ga over Apple and could figure out why. Like a guy hooked on cocaine, he was trolling the web sites looking for Apple news. Is that my problem? Are all Apple owners like this? No. Are Star Trek fans fanatics because they go to conventions? Baseball card collectors? DeLorean owners? Chevy owners? Dodge owners?

I'm so sick of this "it's not a community, it's a cult" bullsh*t, because that's what it is - bullsh*t.

One man's addiction is not a community's cult status.

Mike

thunderous_funker · Jul 22, 2002, 02:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by starman:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />
Many of you are trying to refute that by pointing out that you are doing something "different", "not being a sheep", have brand loyalty because you like the "community" and have a deep emotional involvement with Apple for "good reasons".

Am I the only one that thinks this is funny?
<hr /></blockquote>So you're saying we can't think for ourselves? We can't buy a product based on need rather than "being sheep"?

What I think is that this guy found himself all ga-ga over Apple and could figure out why. Like a guy hooked on cocaine, he was trolling the web sites looking for Apple news. Is that my problem? Are all Apple owners like this? No. Are Star Trek fans fanatics because they go to conventions? Baseball card collectors? DeLorean owners? Chevy owners? Dodge owners?

I'm so sick of this "it's not a community, it's a cult" bullsh*t, because that's what it is - bullsh*t.

One man's addiction is not a community's cult status.

Mike<hr /></blockquote>You missed it entirely. It has nothing to do with "fanatics". I never mentioned the word, in fact.

It has to do with the phenomenon of brand loyalty. The very fact that people assosiate a product with a lifestyle or a form of expression.

You yourself expressed the sentiment that it was "arduous" to go against the mainstream and NOT buy Windows. If you've convinced yourself that it's good to give Apple money out of some sense of protest against what 'everyone esle' is doing is exactly the point. You've created for yourself some emotional connection to the Apple brand. You feel that it defines you in some way.

First off, that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing. I can be, and for many people it becomes a bad thing, but it's not inherently bad.

Glorfindal has suggested (and i happen to agree) that in the case of Apple, brand loyalty has made people willing to put up with business tactics that are quite anti-loyalist while projecting an image of exactly the opposite.

starman · Jul 22, 2002, 02:53 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
You yourself expressed the sentiment that it was "arduous" to go against the mainstream and NOT buy Windows.
<hr /></blockquote>Where did I say that? I bought my first Mac as a logical transition from the Atari ST. DOS was sh*t, Windows 1.0 was sh*t, Windows 2.0 was sh*t. It wasn't until Windows 95 came out that I was even REMOTELY interested in Windows. In fact, when I bought my first PC from parts, it was for Linux. I installed Windows 95 after Linux completely pissed me off and I had to do SOMETHING with the PC I had.

Mike

Apple Pro Underwear · Jul 22, 2002, 02:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Would the best thing in the world for Mac users be the total abandonment of brand loyalty and a return to a healthy buyer/seller relationship? Or is Apple's business strategy completely dependant on the 'faithful' and it could never survive if the spell wore off?<hr /></blockquote>I just want to say that i find glorfindel's posts interesting and i don't mind him voicing his opinions, because he does do it eloquently.

Now to respond to the question put forth. What makes you think Mac buyers don't buy out of necessity in a healthy buyer/seller relationship?

I like the Apple computer i bought. I also like very much the Ipod that i bought as well. I made the choice to buy Apple 4 years ago. I bought it as a "switcher" and based my decision on which computer satisfied my needs. I had no loyalty to Apple, yet i still chose it. I bought my newest Mac with Apple in mind but i still chose it because it still satisfies my needs.

I think your question should be changed to:
When Apple no longer satisfies your needs, will you still be faithful to the platform?

Because right now, i still think they offer great computing solutions. Not perfect and not the solution for everybody but pretty damn good.

starman · Jul 22, 2002, 03:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
When Apple no longer satisfies your needs, will you still be faithful to the platform?
<hr /></blockquote>Apple no longer satisfies my needs. I moved to Windows. I still have my Mac because I have yet to find a DVD Authoring solution for Windows that's as good as Apple's. I bought an iPod because when I sold my Nomad Jukebox it took SEVEN HOURS to transfer my MP3s back to my computer, so a Firewire based MP3 player was a practical choice, and it doubled as a hard drive. It was a PRACTICAL decision, not a decision based on being part of a 'cult'.

Some people just can't seem to understand that.

Mike

thunderous_funker · Jul 22, 2002, 03:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Would the best thing in the world for Mac users be the total abandonment of brand loyalty and a return to a healthy buyer/seller relationship? Or is Apple's business strategy completely dependant on the 'faithful' and it could never survive if the spell wore off?<hr /></blockquote>I just want to say that i find glorfindel's posts interesting and i don't mind him voicing his opinions, because he does do it eloquently.

Now to respond to the question put forth. What makes you think Mac buyers don't buy out of necessity in a healthy buyer/seller relationship?

I like the Apple computer i bought. I also like very much the Ipod that i bought as well. I made the choice to buy Apple 4 years ago. I bought it as a "switcher" and based my decision on which computer satisfied my needs. I had no loyalty to Apple, yet i still chose it. I bought my newest Mac with Apple in mind but i still chose it because it still satisfies my needs.

I think your question should be changed to:
When Apple no longer satisfies your needs, will you still be faithful to the platform?

Because right now, i still think they offer great computing solutions. Not perfect and not the solution for everybody but pretty damn good.<hr /></blockquote>Point taken. My question was poorly worded in that context.

My reference to the healthy buyer/seller relationship was based on the noted observations that Brand Loyalty greatly colors the decisions that buyers make. They subject themselves to abuse in the relationship in order to "support" what they see as something more than a product or company.

For example, it's often purported in reference to Apple's uniquely high margins on hardware that they build better quality. You get what you pay for. On the surface that seems like a reasonable argument except that it ignores the fact that we're not talking about higher costs with narrow margins of profit, but very HIGH profit margins. The cost of quality has NOTHING to do with the profit margin. The cost of quality should only affect the cost of production. I'll accept that Apple makes better hardware and that they charge more for their hardware, but why are their profit margins larger than other computer makers? Because they're customers are willing to do it. Because of brand loyalty. Perceptions of community, coolness, uniqueness, or just not "selling out" to Dell.

It's ok to charge higher prices for higher quality. It's not ok (IMO) to have inflated profit margins based on these perceptions. It's unhealthy as a consumer.

starman · Jul 22, 2002, 03:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
It's ok to charge higher prices for higher quality. It's not ok (IMO) to have inflated profit margins based on these perceptions. It's unhealthy as a consumer.
<hr /></blockquote>Agree 100%. That's been Apple's biggest problem is their perception. I think that they still believe that they're the revolutionary company they were in the 70's and early 80's.

I still don't belive that all Mac owners are cultists.

You know who I think are worse than Apple owners? Star Trek collectors. Not the fans, the COLLECTORS? Have you ever seen these rabid mofos at a Star Trek con?

Mike

Apple Pro Underwear · Jul 22, 2002, 03:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The cost of quality should only affect the cost of production. I'll accept that Apple makes better hardware and that they charge more for their hardware, but why are their profit margins larger than other computer makers? Because they're customers are willing to do it. Because of brand loyalty. Perceptions of community, coolness, uniqueness, or just not "selling out" to Dell.
It's ok to charge higher prices for higher quality. It's not ok (IMO) to have inflated profit margins based on these perceptions. It's unhealthy as a consumer. <hr /></blockquote>I think you're right in that it would be wrong for Apple to charge higher prices simply to fleece their "loyal community".

However, it's pure speculation as to why Apple hardware is priced as it is. No matter how high a percentage it is, it's still "profit". I can accept the fact that a company is trying to make a profit.

Apple charges what it charges. As a consumer, i see the price and i determine if the cost/productive ratio is worth it. Last time i bought a Mac was in Feb 2001. It was a good deal for both of us. Apple got my money and i have been extremely happy entertainment wise and Work wise.

Starman determined it was not worth it and decided to move on. He did it because he felt he had to do so. Whatever reason, as a educated human being he made a decision and it was the right decision for him.

Current and potential Apple Computer buyers need to take into consideration many factors. Price/Value is one of those considerations.

IMHO, ibook, imac lines are priced well in terms of Price/Value. Because i have owned Powermac and a Powerbook and have experience with it, IMHO i believe that they are well priced too.

ringo · Jul 22, 2002, 03:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
However, it's pure speculation as to why Apple hardware is priced as it is. No matter how high a percentage it is, it's still "profit". I can accept the fact that a company is trying to make a profit.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed about the hardware profit speculation...Apple isn't just selling the hardware, they're developing the OS and iApps, renting retail space, doing R&D, providing paid online services, etc.

With all of that going on, it's hard to say how much profit one part of the Apple machine generates. You're kind of stuck looking at the whole widget, which is probably the way Apple likes it.

PC buyers know where their money is going....xx% to Microsoft yy% to an OEM, etc. Apple buyers just know what they're spending and what they're getting in return.

[ 07-22-2002, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: ringo ]

glorfindel · Jul 22, 2002, 05:43 PM

here are my marketing observations:

Apple has positioned itself as a counter-culture company. There are specific segments of the US population who feel they "don't fit in" not mainstream types, the sort of people who don't want to work in a nameless, faceless cubilcle and these people are Apple's core demographic. They are generaly the "outsiders" and include the following: leftists, ex hippies, potheads, creative people, ethnics (blacks), gays, feminists, professors, rebels, etc.

All of the above people feel that the dominant culture is not sufficiently making space for them, that the dominant ethic is not expressing their voice, and that they are different; hence "Think Different"

Corporations look to tag people according to their likely mental identities, and then build up a product line that appeals and satisfies it. Hence, if you are an outsider, buy our outside product. It expresses what you feel, what you are. If you want to be loyal to what you are, or support what you feel, then buy our product, become involved with our product. YOU ARE OUR PRODUCT.

Apple is the master company at doing this. And Steve Jobs is the ringLEADER, because he himself from his early origins was an outsider, doing drugs, fu`ck the power, etc, etc. That is why many people on these boards post that he is Apple. They are inseparable, and perhaps they may very well be.

Hence everybody who indentifies a portion of themselves in this psychology begins to identify themselves with Apple. They become Apple loyalits, they want the company to succeed and crush the Redmond dragon because Redmond symbolizes everything opposite of what Apple is symbolizing. Microsoft is nameless, faceless, corporate, greedy, standarizing, conformist, souless. Support Apple and you are supporting the opposite of these things, and this is why people become Apple fanatics, why they want the company to do well, why they take such a great interst in future products.

No one reallly needs to wonder over the future specfications of a G5, as I was doing. Everyone has identified a portion of themselves with Apple and wants Apple (here insert freedom, counter culture, rebel, soulful) to best the evil Redmond dragon. Hence the language used that Microsoft is "evil".

Apple is not just a company, and I challenge anyone who posts here to deny the real truth of everything I have just stated. It's a cause.

Except that it isn't. It really is just a company. Or rather it's a company masquerading as cause! And this is why it has followers and loyalists. Why people are genuinely devoted to Apple. It isn't Apple they are really loyal to but rather what Apple represents; hence the cult like and obsessive way peope think and care so much about one Fortune 500 company's doings, goings, on, and future.

Apple isn't any of those things that we at one point may have thought or hoped or identified it as being. It pretends to be them in order to get money. It is a huge deception, because buying a computer and worrying over computers and wanting to advance the cause of a computer company can never really address the the underlying issues.

There are problems in society, it is too souless, people are stupid lemmings, people aren't creative at all, but how is buying overpriced Apple hardware going to do anything to improve the situation? It's not. Apple knows this but they play on people's identity, and craft clever marketing campaigns 1984, Think Different, to get the moolah.

scottiB · Jul 22, 2002, 06:01 PM

I've following all that you've written thus far--not necessarily agreeing with it, but keeping out of the way. Progressively, the posts have disintegrated to this last one: paranoia; stereotyping; presumption; misanthropy.

glorfindel · Jul 22, 2002, 06:13 PM

The "deterioration" you speak of reflects the increasing quantum of truth in what I am saying. Obviously you don't want to hear it so you call it "deterioration".

Hence your unintelligent and childish use of meaningless psychobabble words to dismiss the veracity of what I am saying.

Instead of stupidly dismissing the truth of what I have said,you would be better advised to meditate on it.

[ 07-22-2002, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: glorfindel ]

ford prefect · Jul 22, 2002, 06:13 PM

I like that reasoning.

Apple may be the lesser of two evils, (Open source, being the only truly noble platform, too bad it's such a pain in the rear), but if we want to think of a coporation as a cause, I don't think that is necessarily such a bad thing.

Yes Apple is a corporation whose #1 goal is to get as much money as possible from it's customers. BUT, how they are currently going about it is a much better way than the alternative. Apple is delivering products (supposedly free, but more like built in to the price of the hardware) that people like to use (iTunes, iMovie, etc.). Microsoft bundles a bunch of crap that no one wants, but they do it to enhance their monopoly, get people to use MSN, or not to use AOL or whatever. Apple may do it to gain marketshare or $$$, so the means might not be noble, but the end is that we get good, fun products that make us glad to use our computers.

So for MS, the means are malevolent, and so are the ends. With apple only the former is the case.

I personally get so involved with the platform because I dont' want it to go away. That would either mean going to MS, or leaving computing altogether (either of which makes me nervous to think about) so I check the boards, news, etc, for good news that will assure me that my preferred platform will be around for another year.

For some people it is a cause. The cause is to keep the platform going so it will be around, and we'll have an alternative to Redmond crap, so we'll have iMovie, and Final Cut Pro, and not be stuck with MyMovie composistion wizards, dialogs asking if need help importing that clip, or any of the other stuff that annoys us about the windows platform. If there was no Apple would we even be doing digital video? or would we stillbe using dos?

starman · Jul 22, 2002, 07:14 PM

glorfindel,

I asked you this twice and you have yet to answer.

You keep bringing up SJ as the "ringLEADER". There was a long time when there were Apple fans and SJ wasn't at the helm.

Your statement that SJ is some kind of cult leader doesn't hold water because of that. Was Sculley a cult leader? Amelio (gag!).

Stop this sh*t about SJ. Yes, he has a much better PRESENCE than Scully or Amelio, but he's not the reason why people buy Macs.

Why do you refer to SJ as the ringLEADER when you have nothing to back it up except speculation and your own inability to prevent yourself from going to thinksecret.com?

Mike

starman · Jul 22, 2002, 07:17 PM

ford,
You make a VERY GOOD POINT. One that hasn't been touched on yet. Wanting to keep Apple around just to be sure that there's something OTHER than MS around makes very good sense. That's probably one of the best statments made in this thread so far.

Mike

glorfindel · Jul 23, 2002, 12:13 AM

[ 07-23-2002, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: glorfindel ]

glorfindel · Jul 23, 2002, 12:14 AM

Starman, those comments about LEADER are obviously satire. A joke. I hope you didn't think I was really equating Apple to Heaven's Gate (remember them -- the spaceship's coming so let's die people in California) because it just wouldn't make any sense if you did.

I'm grandly overstating -- that is one source of humor.

Steve Jobs is clearly the CEO of a large company, not the leader of a real cult. That is so obvious it does not need to be stated.

That was a humorous portrayal -- or at least an attempt -- and based on the fact that there is a kernel of truth to it.

Like the photo above of SPJ dressed as a clown holding some drugs (read addictive substance). The photo proves I am not the only one to come up with this observation.

If you don't like it, it's not my fault.

Anyway, good luck and good bye.

Face Ache · Jul 23, 2002, 01:03 AM

Who was that masked man?

Apple Pro Underwear · Jul 23, 2002, 01:07 AM

vmarks · Jul 23, 2002, 01:45 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by glorfindel:

Again, Apple could build a webcam into the iMac to interface with Quicktime 6 and work with Ichat. No PC maker could do this since the PC makers are simply assemblers of components, and the software manufactures don't know anything very much about hardware engineering.
<hr /></blockquote>While everything else you posted was on the mark, I have to correct this statement:

Sony, a manufacturer of PC systems, made the Vaio laptop as early as 1998, with a camera built in. It had it's own software that Sony bundled, making it useful as a web-cam, movie camera, and it also worked as a video-phone.

<a href="http://www.supervideo.com/fosa.htm" target="_blank">http://www.supervideo.com/fosa.htm</a> is a more current version of the same laptop.

<a href="http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1027-404-9390554.html" target="_blank">http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1027-404-9390554.html</a> has a 2002 review of it.

zigzag · Jul 23, 2002, 03:04 PM

I think that the truth is, as usual, somewhere in between. Glorfindle is correct that corporations, including Apple, exploit the fact that consumers are vulnerable to all sorts of devious marketing and pricing strategies, and make many decisions on an emotional basis. That's basic modern business practice. But starman and Apple pro Underwear are correct that this doesn't mean that every, or even most, Mac fans are hopelessly irrational cultists. Some are, and precisely because they are so passionate, they tend to be over-represented on the web. But I think that most Mac fans just prefer the company's products and design values and are willing to pay the freight.

I think that where glorfindle's analysis falls short is in assigning a negative value to the fact that a lot of people just enjoy Apple-watching. It is, as APU said, like a hobby. So what? Apple is something of a cultural phenomenon. It is also a leader in the field of industrial design. Why shouldn't we be interested, or even fascinated? It's fun and enriching. There's an emotional component to it, but again, so what? Life is about more than financial analysis.

Like any company, Apple has to walk a difficult line between serving its shareholders and serving its customers. Sometimes the interests are aligned, sometimes they're not. But I think it's overstatement to suggest that Apple only serves its shareholders - after all, if it didn't serve its customers, the shareholders would soon go broke. It's a symbiotic relationship. I think that what distinguishes Apple is that it really does have an exciting vision. In other words, there's a good reason why so many people are emotionally attached to Apple. If only there were more technology companies that had such vision and inspired such loyalty.

I once read that Steve Jobs rejected a circuit board design because it looked inelegant, even though no consumer would ever see it. I don't know if the story is true, but it's illustrative. Rejecting a hidden circuit board might be overkill, but at least he gives a s*** about what his company puts its name on.

As for being overcharged, I suppose it's arguable if you look strictly at basic functionality. But there's more to technology than basic functionality, which is one reason we buy Macs. They are in many cases easier to use, more reliable, more elegant, more interesting, etc. I don't think it's irrational to pay a premium for that, and the fact that Apple's coffers are already full doesn't make me feel exploited. I'm happy to see the company do well, because I like what the company represents - leading-edge technology and design.

Sure, some people go overboard and lose sleep over every software update and spend money without thinking, even in a misguided effort to show support for the company, but that's their problem. I'm not interested in banding together and putting the screws to Apple just to protect those people from their obsessions.

As for switching costs: yeah, sure it's a factor, and sure Apple exploits it to a degree. But it isn't the only factor. Many of us just like the products.

As for marketing, I suppose I've been influenced by Apple's ads insofar as they provide superficial information about new products, but I don't think I've ever been induced to buy something just because of an ad. For me, the products usually sell themselves. Indeed, the consistent complaint about Apple is that they never seem to be able to come up with a really effective advertising strategy.

glorfindle, I can appreciate your feeling that you might have gone overboard in your emotional attachment to Apple - as we know from some of the web sites, too many people do. But you may have gone a little overboard in the other direction as well. You've tried to apply bone-dry analysis in a context where it doesn't necessarily serve. Apple really isn't like any other company.