Apple as technology, Apple as Brand

Or, Why I hate Apple in 2000 words of less.

I often encourage my students to think about companies in an objective/realistic way, rather than in a branded way.  Modern branding is often based on emotions (and very often is far removed from reality).  But trying to think objectively (which also requires some much empirical investigation) can be useful since it allows us to see these companies more clearly and will help us understand why corporations make certain decisions and develop certain products.  Looking objectively at Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo (and temporarily putting out of our minds such emotional attachments as nostalgia or genre preference) will reveal that these are three very different companies even though they compete against one another in the international videogame market.

For example, Sony released the PS3 in part to nudge the industry in favour of its high definition format for the movie and computer markets.  Microsoft has sunk money in its historically less-than-lucrative games division because it provides badly needed branding amongst the ‘hardcore’ tech crowd and the larger videogame/entertainment consumer market.  Nintendo has focused on maintaining a firm grip on the large and lucrative family market.  Knowing this helps explain why Sony would sink a gazillion dollars into the development of the PS3 (all-the-while knowing it could bank on profits still coming from the PS2, which is now obscenely inexpensive to produce and therefore very profitable) and why Nintendo for the most part ignores the self-described ‘hardcore’ crowd (and is immensely successful because of it).  (Of course, leaving out the branding process entirely is not a good idea either since we might miss why Microsoft was so very unsuccessful with the original Xbox in Japan: they tried to bring in high-concept branding designed for a North American ‘hardcore’ enthusiast to a very different culture… look up ‘the Duke’ controller as a blatant example… but also why they are making inroads by encouraging the release of old and new 2D shooters in Japan.)

And this brings me to why I hate Apple… it’s sort of complex so bear with me.

Many people misunderstand my general opposition to the company and my thoughts on their products.  For me, it is important to separate the two.  I am often very critical of the introduction of Apple products at the place where I work (a small, liberal arts, research and teaching university in Canada).  But I am not completely against their products either.  I do not own an Apple computer at the moment but I do use them occasionally where I work (and have in the past), and I might even buy one sometime in the future.  I am opposed to their use in very specific ways and this is simply because I work at a public university and we receive a lot of public funding (for the record, we also receive a lot of private funding too, from both corporations and individuals).  And because we are supported by tax dollars, we should be as prudent as possible with that money and not indulge in what are brand preferences with respect to an expensive ’boutique’ brand.

While there was a time (many years ago when the ‘big brother’ that Apple ads implicitly referred to was more about IBM than Microsoft), when an Apple computer tended to be quite different from the many other kinds of PCs, but those days are effectively over.  Today, the OS for Macs is based off Unix and the hardware is manufactured by many companies that produce PC components.  In fact, now that Apple has moved away from the PowerPC architecture and moved to the x86, Apple uses the very same Intel processors that show up in a large portion of the home PC market and the very same architecture used for virtually all consumer PCs.  Increasingly, software is available for Mac OS, Windows, or Linux-based operating systems and each has a stable set of drivers available to it.

When it comes to the differences between operating systems, all I can say is that after seeing technicians where I work deal with all manner of different builds and OSs, Macs are no more or no less trouble free than machines running Windows or Linux-based OSs.  The one area where I would definitely give a nod to Mac OS and Linux is in the security department (and that is no doubt important but it can be effectively managed in Windows too).  So, when it comes to PCs, I see relative advantages and disadvantages to using each of the many types and OSs.

But here is where we need to be specific.  When it comes to things like price, maintenance and reliability, then I think that there can be major disadvantages with Macs.  They are expensive (as boutique brands are) and in many important ways, more difficult to maintain.  There is no argument about the price, I recently priced out low level workstations and building my own machine cost me approx. $2000 less than buying a Mac (and about $1000 less than a Dell) with identical hardware specifications.  From an institutional and even an individual perspective, that extra money can buy a lot of software (or tuition or rent and groceries) or other hardware.

The  whole issue of quality or ‘ease of use’ really depends on personal preferences and levels of proficiency.  One reason that Macs are considered easy to use is that the computer hardware and software is highly controlled.  But while such rigidity is good for tech-newbies or those that just don’t want to spend too much time maintaining a computer, it also presents many issues, especially in terms of flexibility, repair and even maintenance.  In addition, proprietary interfaces (which Apple is famous for) adds unnecessary complexity and cost, as does the fact that many models are made so that if one component fails, the whole machine has to be sent for repair.  (And yes, Apple hardware does fail, it is made at the same Chinese factories that produce parts for all kinds of other PC vendors.)

So, while I recognize that Macs are great for people who don’t mind spending more on a computer, I am against them being used more and more in public institutions.

And it is here where I really begin to hate Apple.  For it is their marketing (which is amazingly effective but which also adds to the hefty price tag) that has really changed things.  Apple marketing has convinced many that Macs are not PCs (essentially making it a false choice between Apple and that-which-is-not-Apple) and, especially annoying and dangerous, that Macs are superior computers for every individual and in every situation.  I see this all the time where I work.  Now that technology is becoming’ mass-consumerified’, I increasingly see upper management types using Macs and then making the above assumptions and more.  Of course, in the privileged halls of academia, this technology is all free (bought with tax-payer money) and supported by an army of technicians.  Combine that with the fact that most administrators (and many faculty and staff) are extreme newbies or, worse, they think they know more about computer-based technology and the computer market than they actually do, then that is when it starts to become (budgetarily) dangerous.

I came across a post from what I would call a realistic Apple fan who has put this phenomenon very well:

I have already mentioned before what I love about Apple – their hardware design is phenomenal.

Now I would like to point out what I truly loathe about Apple.

I usually call it “look-it-has-wheels” syndrome.  This comes from my allegory that Apple acts like a car company advertising things like “Our cars have wheels!”.  The stereotypical computer-inept Mac disciple, will then misunderstand this and think that everyone elses cars have no wheels. Or that they do, but that Apple Cars innovated The Wheel.  Fortunately, the unix based Mac OS X have attracted a good deal of real computer nerds, diluting the stupid-pool a bit, but there are still more of them than I would care for (I would care for none at all). This is one of the reasons why I took the plunge and bought a PowerBook.

Now if you take that attitude and combine it the context where I work (a public institution where those who work there don’t have to pay for the hardware/software they use and, especially when it comes to administrators, have many technicians at their beck and call ensuring that those Macs ‘just work’… and those technicians are badly needed let me tell you), then you know where I am coming from and why I loath Apple marketing.

If a person wants to buy a Mac or some other boutique PC like Alienware, then that is fine by me.  If they like their machine and are developing a healthy interest in computer technology, that is great.  They can brag about it too, I don’t mind.  (Although, morally I think there is a very good case to be made about using open source such as Linux-based OSs.)

But when it comes to spending public money, I think it is highly unethical to buy Apple computers when equally good (often more flexible) and far cheaper alternatives exist.  It really galls me when I see someone demand to have a Mac to do little more than word processing, normal video editing, some work in spreadsheets and “some photoshop” but assume they need to have a $3000 Mac that in reality only has $1000 worth of specifications.

The fanboys and girls will no doubt argue with me but again, that is primarily the emotional ‘branded’ sides of our brains talking.  I can understand that too as I have ‘branded’ preferences of my own: for instance, I discriminate against some of the many ‘distros’ of Linux-based operating systems and these preferences are often made on ultimately-meaningless-but-oh-so-meaningful characteristics such as the time it takes to boot or whether its aesthetic appearance matches my particular sensibilities.

And sure, the lower end models indeed are really good computers for newbies (essentially those who want a computer to ‘just work’).  But if you were to supply them with a Mac, you pay a hefty price for that, it reduces flexibility (which is bad for an institution) and there is a great deal of technical support provided at universities so newbie users don’t worry about this anyway.  Besides, any operating system is ‘easy’ if you spend enough time with it and there are a few Linux-based distributions that are coming extremely close to becoming suitable for the casual and/or newbie market.  I don’t even buy the argument that Macs are better for higher end applications unless a piece of software or hardware is absolutely not available on another platform (and, increasingly, that is becoming less common too).

The insidious nature of Apple marketing is that it is for a boutique brand which, for now, has a successful branded image.  In this era of badly needed fiscal responsibility, there is the added ethical dilemma of wants and needs to think about, and how to separate the genuine need for technology from the desire for fashion and trends.  I don’t even really blame the people I work with because it does take a fair amount of technical knowledge to see through the marketing BS.  Again, that is testament to the success of that marketing since these people are often very surprised to learn that Apple still has only 9-ish% percent of the PC market (it fluctuates) and that for many people, they do not want or simply can’t spend a great deal of money on a personal computer… or, that in many cases the inflexibility of a Mac (high end or low end) simply does not allow them to make that choice.  They simply look at the ubiquity of Apple marketing and look at many people around them (who, of course, tend to be in higher socio-economic brackets) using Apple gadgets and assume that is the way for everybody… and that everyone’s computing needs are as simple or streamlined as their needs.

At any rate, that is why I hate Apple (or, at least, some of its effects), but not really Apple products.

.

PS. I updated this post to fix many stream-of-consciousness grammatical and spelling mistakes (I doubt I fixed them all) but also to add this final thought.  Today, while interviewing candidates for a ‘techie’ position, I was reminded of another ‘Apple effect’ and that is the tendency to censor comments.  I noticed this recently when Jon Stewart critiqued Apple and even its products while excessively pandering to Apple users (at the end of the Daily Show piece, Stewart acknowledged the  ‘heresy’ of being critical about the company since his main demographic tends to be fans and users).  Today, I noticed that when candidates made reference, from a technical and budgetary standpoint, to the unsuitability of Macs in an institutional setting (basically the points I am making here), they would do the same thing as Jon Stewart and make another pandering or positive remark (of course, there were Apple products on the table which were owned by some of the interviewers… so go figure.)  It is interesting too since I think another feature of this many assume that the Apple vs. PC debate also includes non-computer-related Apple products like the iPod and iPad.*  At any rate, that is another ‘Apple effect’ too.

*And, yes people, the iPad is not a full computer or tablet… in the previous sense of that term.  Sure, it is a very cool device but it is not a computer… it is more like a well-designed media consumption device or, as I like to think of it, a direct link between your bank account and iTunes

.