[spinoza2]

Yeah, and there are those who will gripe about their Scion or BMW, and I have had a couple of run-ins with Sony products (ATRAC?). I know what people say about Bose, but as a musician I believe their amp/speaker systems are among the best. They're expensive ($2000 for the Personal Amplification System), but I've never regretted purchasing a Bose product in terms of quality and user experience. Their follow-up support and customer care is easily on a par, if not even better, than Apple. At least from my own experience with them. I don't live far from Bose headquarters and the company's esprit de corps is just as strong as at Apple. To work for Bose around here is like working for Apple in the Bay Area.

No company is perfect, and there's a lot I could say about how Apple should have designed this or that differently, but the point is that these companies strive to be distinguish themselves by quality products and customer satisfaction, and they are clearly driven by these objectives.

[People_Eater]

Chris Breen said:

>

Quote

As for twaddle, I specifically stated that these points were twaddleicious:

I really think you're missing the nuance and complexity by simply dismissing things, and mischaracterising what people have been saying. Your one sentence summaries don't do justice to the actual situation - because the opposite of these statements is also untrue.

Quote

? Apple has had no part in developing the Cult of Apple.

But the idea that Apple created and directed the "cult of Apple" is also wrong. If anything, the cult is the result of Apple's failures. Particularly in the mid-to-late 90s, the cult was obsessed with doing Apple's marketing, and putting a good face on the company, because Apple couldn't be bothered doing any of that themselves. Apple certainly wasn't nurturing the cult from the top. It was mostly a renegade activity.

Sure, Apple from time to time has promoted its community, but it's much rarer than you'd think. The cult is mostly its own creation. I joined the Apple community not based on any kind of Apple marketing or propaganda - but just by messing around with Apple machines, and talking to other users.

I think what's going on here is that unlike the past, when Apple was often fumbling and incompetent, Apple is now highly disciplined and efficient. This makes things look like they are all directed from the top, and are all intentional. And it makes us look back on past phenomenon that largely arose from chaos (like the "cult") and think that it was part of some "master plan". Especially having the charismatic Jobs as "leader" reinforces this revisionist history.

Quote

? Steve Jobs avoids the limelight.

Well, he's not a media whore, either. He has a complex and very different relationship with the media than most CEOs. So it doesn't fall into this dichotomy.

As for Jobs' public image - the reason for this is simply that he is Steve Jobs, just as Bill Gates is Bill Gates they aren't constructed personalities, they aren't acting (except for Gates' recent foray into the world of acting with Seinfeld). That's just who they are. They are strong personalities in their own ways.

The media interprets this as an "RDF" or Jobs being "god-like" implying that this is a clever manipulation on Jobs part. I disagree - I think he's being pretty straight, it's just that he is a legendary figure, and this created all kinds of positive and negative emotional reactions (fans seeing him as infallible, haters trying to pass off the fiction that he's nobody special or a liar).

Quote

? Apple's perceived failings were, in reality, the fault of users with "hacked hardware, unconventional software, etc."

I must have missed that one. That truly is twaddle. But having not read it in the thread, I'm going to put it aside, as this might be another one of those distorted one-sentence summaries of what was originally written.

Call it twaddle, call it fanboy fantasies, call it anything but late for lunch, it's bunk.

So, what's the reality then? That Jobs is a media whore, and that Apple somehow directly lead the cult? If Apple was leading the cult - then why does the cult tend to viciously turn on Apple from time to time, and not swallow the company line?

I just don't understand why you're seeing this as such a black and white discussion. The nuances are far more fascinating, and closer to the truth.

[Chris Breen]

People_Eater said:

> I just don't understand why you're seeing this as such a black and white discussion. The nuances are far more fascinating, and closer to the truth.

As you indicated, your reading of this thread hasn't been thorough. Read it if you like and I think you'll find more nuances than you currently suspect are there.

Or don't, as this discussion has run its course 3x over.

[People_Eater]

spinoza2 said:

Yeah, and there are those who will gripe about their Scion or BMW, and I have had a couple of run-ins with Sony products (ATRAC?).

Not even in the same category. Those companies make solid products. Bose sells snake oil.

Quote

I know what people say about Bose, but as a musician I believe their amp/speaker systems are among the best. They're expensive ($2000 for the Personal Amplification System),

They absolutely aren't. They are among the worse. You can get better systems for a fraction of the price. Why don't you run a frequency analysis of the sound your Bose system is putting out? You'll find certain frequency ranges are almost entirely missing.

It's not an issue of a minority of users having problems with what is generally a good product - it's the fact that Bose speakers simply don't have what it takes to be a good product in the first place. The way that they are designed makes it impossible to get a high fidelity sound out of them.

Quote

No company is perfect, and there's a lot I could say about how Apple should have designed this or that differently, but the point is that these companies strive to be distinguish themselves by quality products and customer satisfaction, and they are clearly driven by these objectives.

But Bose simply is not driven by quality products. It is driven by deceiving their customers. Their customers remain "satisfied" because they are kept ignorant. It's all a placebo effect - their customers believe that because they paid a high price, then they must be getting top quality. It's completely different to a company that actually delivers higher quality products at a premium price.

Why won't Bose allow their dealers to compare the systems side-by-side with other systems? If they are so customer focused, then surely they would allow customers to compare their products more adequately? If the products are such high quality, then why don't they public proper technical specifications?

See this link if you want to educate yourself about Bose's snake-oil scam.

[RipRagged]

To really understand the 2008 Mac user community, go back and read this whole thread. As a Mac user for over twenty years, I can tell you this is not the way it has always been. We used to be the huddled teeming minority. It was us against the world.

Ten years ago, there weren't enough of us to ever have an internecine squabble like this one. The orthodoxy was once established. The cult is developing sects. The orthodoxy is gone.

The urge here is to find Apple bad or good. Apple is. Good or bad is based on perspective. Apple sells the most intuitive cyber-human interface on the planet. Whether that is bad or good is an individual determination. Perhaps His Steveness skipped the Expo to deliberately foment this civil war. Once the cult implodes Apple's products can be compared objectively with competing devices without cries of "fanboism."

This post and thread should be saved as a testament to the end of a catholic Apple cult. We have protestants.

[KevinMc]

Actually, Apple's behavior is pretty shortsighted when looked at precisely through the filter of maximizing profits. By showing what could be read as disdain for the Apple users as well as the constellation of companies providing add-ons, they risk further cementing the impression that all of the great creative and notions of "community" are total bs to them - whether they are or not. Apple loses credibility, the one thing that can help them weather the downtimes.
Besides, as much as Apple might spend on the show, it is a tiny part of their overall budget, and the press coverage they get is gargantuan. Ultimately, bad choice by the bean counters and strategists.

[dfs]

"Ultimately, bad choice by the bean counters and strategists." I doubt the decision was made by bean counters and strategists. More likely it was made by Steve and top executives, who told themselves "we're sick and tired of running the risk of embarrassing ourselves by putting out less-than-perfect products just to meet the artificial deadlines imposed by trade shows" (I'll leave it to others to decide whether this has actually happened, it may well have). This is especially true for a company that is usually so shy about announcing deadlines or publishing roadmaps (and when it has, it has sometimes gotten in trouble). And it's very difficult to argue with that. The whole concept of "the Mac community" made a lot more sense when the Mac was Apple's single product. I've never heard anybody use the phrases "the iPod community" or "the iPhone community." Now that Apple has millions of customers who are not necessarily Mac owners, its relations with its customer base are bound to change.

[whitedog]

Tonya Engst's article highlights what has been the conventional view of Apple and its customers. That is, in her terms, as a family. Others have characterized it as a community and some even see it as a cult. However you define it, being an Apple aficionado has traditionally imparted a sense of identity associated with both Apple the company and its products.

Macworld Conference and Expo was the annual watering hole where Apple fans (it used to be Mac fans before Apple branched out into other electronic media and changed its name) came to recharge their enthusiasm.

Apple has always nourished that sense of identity with it's advertising - Think Different, Mac vs. PC, etc, as well as its presence at Macworld and other trade shows. It should be noted that Apple has withdrawn from these other Apple centric trade shows as well. Macworld is the last to fall prey to this change in strategy.

By abandoning Macworld Expo, Apple is sending a clear signal that the cult days are, as far as the company is concerned, all but over. No doubt their advertising will continue to play the identity card. But withdrawing support from the Expo means, in a very real sense, that Apple is severing its relationship with the family, Tanya's lament notwithstanding. It now has alternate means of connecting with its customers online and in the Apple Stores. As a business Apple has obviously decided that it no longer needs to invest so much time, effort and expense in sustaining the sense of community that has, heretofore, so often sustained it.

Some see this as a betrayal. They have anthropomorphized Apple, seeing it as a person to whom they have been loyal and who they expect to reward them with loyalty in return. This is a sentimental way of identifying with what is, after all, a business, just like any other business.

True enough, customer loyalty is a corporate asset that has benefitted Apple to a greater extent than is usual in business. But Apple has developed in recent years other ways of cultivating such loyalty which no longer, in their eyes at least, require Macworld Expo.

Apple began weaning itself from the family years ago when it dropped out of the east coast Expo. It has been creating alternate means of nourishment by holding its own product release events.

What has, in fact, happened is that Apple, as a business, has grown up. It can now stand on its own two feet without the need for family and community approval and support. It now defines customer satisfaction in more standard business terms. At the same time, its relationships with the software and hardware developers who support its products has also evolved and now employs more conventional strategies. As Apple has prospered, these developers have grown stronger and, presumably, will be standing up for themselves as well.

Certainly this has come as a shock, if not a surprise, to hard core Apple loyalists. A Macworld Expo without Apple's official presence is hard to imagine. Yet, if the sense of community - and family - is important to those who feel the bond most keenly, they will find a way to preserve their associations in this new environment. It will require perseverance and imagination; it will be up to them to find these resources within themselves - and between and among themselves - to build a new foundation for the Expo.

[spinoza2]

Whitedog, a nice post. As I read it I thought of other similar ?cult? followings such as those that surrounded the Grateful Dead and Phish. In all three cases, the cultures that grew and evolved around the groups (a computer company and two music groups) were organic creations that possessed a life of their own. Though Apple, the Dead, and Phish were as pleasantly surprised as everyone else to see these ?cults? develop (and they certainly embraced them), they kept a healthy distance and did little to directly control them. In fact, they intuitively knew that if they attempted to do this, the phenomenon would quickly whither and die, much like when intrudes into nature and attempts to possess the beauty of a rose and cuts it for a vase.

The very nature of these cults was an alternative independence, a ?counter? culture, that thrived only because they had a life of their own. I'm thinking of that LOL vignette in the new Mac movie where a woman being interviewed states matter-of-factly that she has never slept with a Windows person and never will. What is so striking--and funny--about this scene is that it makes perfect sense to a Mac person, it's a completely logical consequence of living with ?Mac? values, just as Deadheads felt a certain bond, of belonging to a ?family?, by sharing what one perceived as Dead values.

Like the Dead, like Phish, this ?cult? following can't be artificially perpetuated once the original conditions that led to the movement have come and gone. Apple has thrived and has had a Dead-like following only because of its intense focus on imbuing its products with the same values that led to the cult in the first place, just as the Dead knew that it was their music, and their music only, that was the source of the Deadhead phenomenon. If the Mac were the error-prone cheap kludges that currently make up Windows computers I would never own one and certainly would not think of myself as a ?Mac person?. I have no doubt that Apple will continue with the same values that have guided it the past 30 years, even after Jobs himself moves on.

[whitedog]

{quote}Whitedog, a nice post. As I read it I thought of other similar ?cult? followings such as those that surrounded the Grateful Dead and Phish. In all three cases, the cultures that grew and evolved around the groups (a computer company and two music groups) were organic creations that possessed a life of their own.... I have no doubt that Apple will continue with the same values that have guided it the past 30 years, even after Jobs himself moves on.{quote}

Thanks for the props. Certainly there is an organic nature to the "cult" of the Mac. But there was some intent involved in the community's development, too. Macworld and other Mac centric trade shows were developed by commercial enterprises that sought to benefit and profit from the Mac's unique identity. It worked because they, in fact, contributed to that sense of community and enhanced the identity. Apple participated because they thought it was in their business interest to do so (and now they don't).

Of course, the bands you speak of had a commercial interest in the success of their cult followings too, even if they didn't encourage it directly - they sold records and related memorabilia to their fans.

However, I think the bands' live concerts were more central to their cults' existence than Steve Jobs' keynote, or even the Apple booth, is to Macworld. I could be wrong, of course - time will tell. But there is a synergistic relationship between Mac fans and Macworld Expo that is related to, but not necessarily dependent on, Apple. Even without the Apple booth there will be plenty of Macs, iPods and iPhones at Macworld Expo.

Still, IDG will have to find ways to fill the holes the departure of Steve's keynote and the Apple booth will leave behind. They did not succeed in doing so for Macworld Boston. So there is reason to doubt they will succeed here. But they have more incentive this time - there's no fallback position, no other show to sustain them. And I expect the Mac "family" will support them if they come up with some good ideas to maintain interest. It's a challenge, but it's not an impossible one.

As for Apple "values", they are more difficult to describe and define. There are plenty of quality, hip products out there. Apple is not unique in those respects. For years Apple was the valiant underdog battling an arrogant and slothful Goliath, but that badge of honor is fading as Apple grows more successful. Given some of Apple's recent moves - the "dumbed down" iMovie '08, the bungled Mobile Me launch, the absence of a non-glare screen option for the iMac, MacBook and the new 24" Cinema Display, FireWire abandoned on the MacBook - I think it's possible Apple has already lost sight of it's "values" by taking it's customers for granted, with Steve Jobs still at the helm. Steve Jobs is no different than most confident leaders - he is reluctant if not unwilling to admit his mistakes. And he is notoriously slow to correct them. How long have Apple mice been inferior to the competition? As sleek as the Might Mouse is, not only is it far from mighty, it's an ergonomic pain in the wrist.

Certainly everybody makes mistakes - even Steve Jobs. It's not making mistakes that's the problem. The problem is refusing to acknowledge and fix them. So, no, Apple values are not immutable or inevitable. Pride, overconfidence and neglect can, and indeed have eroded them. This, in my opinion, is of greater import to the Mac family than whether or not Macworld Expo survives.

[Chris Breen]

If you haven't listened to my interview with former Apple OS evangelist Tim Holmes, you should. He has a lot of interesting things to say about Apple's culture.

[dfs]

Spinoza2's comparison to rock-band "cults" is very illuminating, if you think about it. In the first place, to have a "cult" you need what feels like a small charmed band of brothers and sisters, and as long as Apple looked like a David in a world full of Goliaths, sort of the electronic equivalent of The Little Engine That Could, this was easy to do. Second, the Cult of Mac was very much a generational phenomenon. In a way I can't explain (but that would be fascinating to study), during the 1980's the counterculture generation of the 1960's and 1970's somehow morphed into being the first generation to explore the possibilities of personal computing (it's no accident that among the ex-counterculture members of this generation were Steve, Woz, and many other computing pioneers of the day). The members of this generation put many of their previous behavior patterns and attitudes behind them (the p. c. movement, for example, has remained remarkably apolitical in the middle of a very politicized society) but they retained their predilection for communal and collective activity. Third, the members of The Cult of Mac tended to be recruited from very identifiable sectors of society: graphic artists and other creative types, and the kind of people who hang around universities (that traditional breeding ground for MUGs). This made it especially easy for them to bond together and develop a spirit of being special kindred souls. But now, I agree, each of these conditions that led to the creation of the Cult of Mac has faded. As Apple's market share grows, iits original "little guy on the block" mystique loses its credibility. A new generation is in the process of displacing that of orignal Mac users, a generation with different values and an ability to take for granted things that struck their predecessors as wonderful and miraculous (and so, I suspect, a lot fewer of them would care to identify themselves as "computer hobbyists"). And, as the Mac becomes a more popular platform, a much wider variety of people use it for a far greater variety of purposes.

[whitedog]

Chris Breen said:

If you haven't listened to my interview with former Apple OS evangelist Tim Holmes, you should. He has a lot of interesting things to say about Apple's culture.

Got it. Much of what Tim Holmes said about Apple culture we already know. The thing that stood out for me was the explanation that Apple culture is more than Steve Jobs. Though this may seem obvious when you look at it, I doubt it's really accepted wisdom outside the company. The knowledge of how deep the culture runs at Apple may give hope to those who worry about what will happen to the business when Steve retires.

What it does not account for, in my mind, is Apple's habitually sluggish response when it comes to learning from its mistakes. It's not that Apple has to answer every little criticism, but some problems are not so little. The routine neglect of major issues makes it seem that the leadership at Apple is too insulated from the company's customers and doesn't take their concerns seriously. This may have few short term consequences, but over time it can undermine Apple's credibility and it's reputation.