MacHeads: the Cult of Macintosh

reply to post by scientist


Okay, I'm not going to have his conversation anymore. It's jumped the shark. "Deny Ignorance." Maybe you should do some research to back up what you say. I mean, if you really knew, I don't think that you'd say the foolish things that you've said. You don't seem like a foolish person, but you've just said some really dumb things. And I don't take any pleasure in calling you on it.

reply to post by mattguy404


Thanks for that link. It should clear up some things.

Originally posted by mattguy404
All of Apple's source code

There's source there from Mac OS X 10.0 up until the latest 10.5 (Leopard) release.

I believe it's the source code for the ZFS file system that was made open source, not the code that makes up the complete Leopard/Tiger OS.

i do stand corrected though, I was unaware of this, ant apparently it happened less than a year ago, so I'm not sweating it.

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by scientist

 

Okay, I'm not going to have his conversation anymore.

sorry you feel that way. there's no need to get take things personal and start calling people fools. "You've said some foolish things."

well, would you care to point them out, or will you just remain vague as to avoid coming across foolish as well?

Originally posted by scientist
I am interested in whether or not you agree that the Apple demographic contains an abnormally large percentage of people that are not so rational about their fervor?

I think the three platform groups all have equal percentages of fervent fans (in proportion to the overall installed base). I know lots of "PC" people who are still irrational about some of their opinions of the Mac and visa-versa.

Fervent PC-centric people tend to be horsepower-junkies focused on video card performance and what-not... Mac users don't want to be bothered with that.

but only comes into effect when you are using a monitor, and color calibration hardware along with that.

No, not really. My stock iMac's video subsystem is able to be calibrated. The main issue with the difference between Mac and Windows video subsystems is the native gama... a PC is higher (darker) as a throw-back to enhance the contrast of the icons of the first version of Windows because they were stuck using horrible monitors. The Mac gamma is lower (lighter) and more natural.

if you were to tell me that every time you turned your mac on, you got a burst of euphoria, it would be a different story

Dunno... it's always on, and wakes from sleep with an instant response... ready to get things done.

I suppose I do have euphoria, however, when I complete a good deal of work, that looks good, and in an efficient amount of time so that I can pour a nice single malt scotch.

reply to post by scientist


I didn't call you a fool. I said that you do not seem like a foolish person. If you read an implication, well, that's due to your own perception. I didn't say it or intend it. In fact the implication of what I said, as I see it, is that you probably are a resourceful person. For whatever reason you chose to read things otherwise.

And the matter isn't personal, but, how could anyone have a conversation with anybody making claims as if they are fact when they are not? Windows is a completely closed system. Mac OS X is not. The comparison was justified given the post I that I replied to. You took my response and replied to it completely out of context, which in my mind was completely foolish to do. And you agreed with the following statement:

Originally posted by spitefulgod
Did I here someone say OSX was Open source???? Apple is the most closed source and propietary company I know of, well behind sony anywho.

You said in response to that:

Originally posted by scientist
you did in fact read that. clearly, a comment from an uninformed mac user, also a prime example of the mentality this post is all about.

Were you not also uniformed? Pot calling the kettle black? Like I said, doesn't mean that you're a fool. Just foolish things to say.

Sadly, this is why I thought it better to discuss the root of the problem. Since people feel attacked by your statements it has created an air of hostility in the thread. To bad as it is an interesting topic to explore.

Maybe if you started a thread in general conspiracies about psychological manipulation through advertising.

reply to post by Dr_Suess


I agree wholeheartedly that about consumers being psychologically manipulated by advertisers. That's a point that I've tried to stress addressing this "Cult of Mac" issue. I suppose, I did play a role is souring the taste of the thread, I apologize for my part. Words like "foolish" are never popular, even when not meant to be disrespectful.

Scientist, looking over my post, I probably did avoid some of your rhetoric. So I will try to address some of it here.

Playing into people's stupidity is not new in marketing. The Iphone's success was obviously based on people who wanted a new toy and apple has sadly been pandering to the public by giving them a few sub-par devices. The Iphone is extremely subpar functionally to say, my blackberry, but blackberry hasn't fought for the supporters, so they lose in the end. That said, have you ever played with an Iphone? Regardless of their gimmicky interface and lack of amenities, they're still pretty cool.

Budweiser Frogs, Jordan sneakers, Jarod from Subway, Super Mario. All pretty successful at building "cult" followings.

My distaste in your message comes less from you offending my ability to decipher when I am being had, but more from the fact that your argument is a moot point, because its nothing new. Its no more dangerous than the Sony Playstation or Teletubbies.

Eck, I feel like a plug for all those companies. I need a shower.

I'm not sure Apple really does advertise in the traditional sense as much others in the computer world. I can only comment on what I've seen in Australia, (I'd imagine there'd much more Apple ads in the 'States!) but here, a lot of people only think Apple makes iPods. The last Apple TV ad I saw would have been back in... 2000, for the iMac. There's no TV ads for iPods though either, I guess everyone just knows what they are.

I think Apple's marketing is more viral than anything.

BUT... Everyone I know who has owned a hard drive-based iPod has had it fail within a year or so. One guy is even on his 2nd or 3rd iPod. Maybe I just know some really clumsy people, or the iPod breaks if you look at it funny.

reply to post by Areal51


Posting in forums always makes expressing emotion or intent difficult. We pick up so much in conversation from non-verbal communication. Sadly forums lack the ability to transmit that type of communication.

I tried in the beginning to steer the topic towards advertising and the ethics of capitalism, but the OP wanted to stay on the mac angle.

In the larger context, I believe the real problem is connected to the free market and wanting t keep people in debt.
(yes I am a closet socialist)

There were a bunch of scientists who did a study and found out that Steve Jobs is the Supreme Reptoid Commander.

Everyone I know that has mac laptops dislikes them- they are confusing to most people who have been using pc's their whole life...That being said theres nothing wrong with PC's like mac's always stating...unless you've upgraded to vista (or should I say...downgraded )

Mac does offer great software- but theres nothing out there that you can't get on a pc.

I chose easy to use PC over the confusing and frustrating Mac

Originally posted by Dr_Suess
Sadly, this is why I thought it better to discuss the root of the problem. Since people feel attacked by your statements it has created an air of hostility in the thread. To bad as it is an interesting topic to explore.

Maybe if you started a thread in general conspiracies about psychological manipulation through advertising.

i'm still getting used to this place. learning though. next time I have the motivation, I'll put together a post on manipulation through advertising.

I was naive to think I could even mention the word "mac" without being attacked,

Originally posted by SantaClaus
My distaste in your message comes less from you offending my ability to decipher when I am being had, but more from the fact that your argument is a moot point, because its nothing new. Its no more dangerous than the Sony Playstation or Teletubbies.

well then, my distaste is in the implication that just because Sony / Teletubbies do it, Apple can too. Go make your own post on Sony or Teletubbies then see post above to see my disappointment with my own choice of topic.

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by scientist

 

I didn't call you a fool. I said that you do not seem like a foolish person. If you read an implication, well, that's due to your own perception. I didn't say it or intend it. In fact the implication of what I said, as I see it, is that you probably are a resourceful person. For whatever reason you chose to read things otherwise.

actually, I stand corrected. I was completely unaware of the open source side of Mac. further more, I am indeed a fool, for being baited into a technical comparison, when it's clearly off topic, and clearly what I was trying to avoid from the very first post. So yes, I was foolish.

I have been a linux user for a few years now, and I can never see myself really going back to either Mac or Microsoft. I do have a copy of XP on my HD but I rarely use it. Ubuntu is customed to my liking and does everything I need.

I think of it like this, I can purchase a low cost shell from my local uni for about $100 USD, for another $200, I can purchase a decent graphics card, bigger hard drive and RAM. Then after assembling the new hog, I put in my copy of Ubuntu 7.10 and I have an excellent gaming / office combo rig.

Freedom is a choice, Microsoft and MAC are not.

Originally posted by scientist
Just because you can't figure out how to configure a stable machine, doesn't mean Mac is better. It's just a bit more idiot-proof (no offense intended).

and there you have it. if you have hours and hours to tinker under the hood, and the patience to learn how to build your own computer, than a PC is 'just as good'.
i've used both. hate windows from experience(although XP's not bad, if you don't mind waiting ten minutes while it starts). love mac.

it's my experience, dude. i will beat you on the technical issue by being completely non-technical. that's part of the appeal, don't you know. plug and play(for real). INTUITIVE ease of use. no technical knowledge required.
they're stylish. mine looks great sitting here.

it seems like you are on a thinly veiled anti-mac tirade. i don't really get what your point is. it's not a cult. it's business. you know, products? some people switch to PC, some switch to apple. apple's products are SEXY!

people love their macs. get over it. people love their PCs, too. so what?

and to any lurkers reading this on your PCs:

JOIN US!!! STEVE LOVES YOU!! JOIN US!!!! WE'RE SO COOOOOOL!!!!! YOU WOULD LOOK GOOD IN A BLACK TURTLENECK!!! BUY AN IPOD!!! DANCE, DANCE, DANCE!!

I hold the honor of having one of the first production Apple II's, the odd Atari 800, a 286, a 386, the end all be all machine for my time a 486 DX-50 on and on and on....... Since the Atari it has all been MS Dos/IBM PC clones.

However, with my next computer it will be a Mac Pro.

Why? The one program I care to use, Word Perfect, can now be dual booted so that one concern solved.

The other revolves around the design and the technology. The user interface is slick and seems better than VISTA IMHO (I use XP on my main machine at home and my 5 year olds computer uses Vista so Ive played with both)

The box itself is way better than my XPS Dell in terms of ease of use etc.

The downside? Cost, even with academic pricing, I could easily get more PC for the money.

i was surfing a scientology site, and came across this "cult checklist"

1. Does the group use tricks, lies or excuses to get members and to keep them?
2. Does the group say that it is "better than all other groups", and is it organised so that people can't complain, discuss, vote, criticize, or change the group?
3. Does the group claim that the founder knows all the answers, and tolerates no discussion or questioning of his or her teachings?
4. Does the group say that nothing is more important than to get more money, people or anything else into the group, and that this is more important than honesty or friendship or families, maybe because it is such an emergency that the world must be saved right away?
5. Is the money collected used only a few "special people instead of for the members or the general population?

I can see 4/5 as being characteristics of the mentality I am targeting.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by scientist]