By Caitlin Clevenger, caclevenger@vassar.edu
“Apple is a schizophrenic company: a self-professed revolutionary closely allied with both of the greatest forces of information, the entertainment conglomerates and the telecommunications industry”, writes Tim Wu in The Master Switch (273).
Of Microsoft, he writes, “Even if Windows was never as advanced or well designed as Apple’s operating system, it enjoyed one insuperable advantage: it worked on any computer, supported just about every type of software, and could interface with any printer, modem, or whatever other hardware one could design” (279).
The Microsoft-Apple feud has become a major staple of American culture. More so than your choice of Verizon over AT&T, your choice of cable television over satellite, or even your choice of Pepsi over Coke, your choice of Mac over PC classifies you and tells the world something about your personality.
This is now:
This is then:
Apple started as a revolutionary company- this was not just a marketing strategy. In 1983, IBM (running a Microsoft OS) and Commodore owned the lion’s share of the market, and the Apple II had just 8%. But in 1984, it created the Macintosh and ran this ad during the Super Bowl.
It was the first major computer with a desktop interface- the icons and mouse we’ve come to know and love. Apple had sacrificed open-source programming and open architecture for user-friendliness. This has been its policy ever since. But what this has meant for Apple has been vertical integration. No one but Apple can make a Mac OS compatible computer, and there are severe limitations on how much you can alter the code on any Apple product. This is why there are no Mac viruses, and also why there are companies who make a profit off of “jailbreaking” iPhones.
It’s also why by the 1990’s, Apple products were failing. I would go into my elementary school computer class, filled with Macintoshes, and groan in frustration when I couldn’t right-click, or bring in the PC game that had come with my cereal box.
In 1997, Macintoshes accounted for just 3% of all computers sold, and PC’s accounted for the other 97%. Apple was close to failing when, at a conference, Steve Jobs revealed a groundbreaking partnership.
Had Apple failed, Microsoft would have held a monopoly and likely been broken up by antitrust laws. By adding an infusion of capital to Apple, Microsoft saved its own majority status. Apple, in order to save its company, stopped fighting Microsoft, but instead welcomed it.
PCs still account for the majority share in personal computers, but Apple owns the market in MP3 players (75% in 2008, versus Microsoft’s 3%). Apple has almost triple Microsoft’s share in the Smartphone market. Macs have a huge share among young consumers, too, so much so that Vassar students with PCs stand out and in effect become rebels. It seems as if Microsoft and Apple, as the only remaining players in the computer game, have entered into a cycle in which they will inevitably reverse roles. Is Apple’s 25 year marketing strategy as a rebel company expiring?
The first “Mac vs. PC” commercial in the collection hinges on the fact that Macs are the best computers, regardless of the money spent. What the commercial intentionally implies is that Macs are better than computers that cost more than they do–the idea that they are better than lower priced computers, i.e. most PCs, is implicit in every one of those commercials–but the unspoken subtext is a reflection of class, as well. Macs are being advertised to a niche market: young, well-off people. PCs have a wide ranging market, and therefore have to appeal not only to the few wealthy buyers, but also to the middle- and working-classes for whom a computer is suddenly a necessity but also for whom the higher-end models are out of their price-range.
Although the commercials use the stereotype of the young, hip, knowledgeable tech-wiz and the stodgy, boring, out-of-touch office drone as metaphors for Macs vs. the competition, the stereotype that serves as the metaphor for a Mac is someone with money and opportunities, as well as the surface “rebellion” (which you will at least emulate by buying a Mac) as opposed to someone middle-aged and stuck in their jobs and ways (which you project by having a PC). The “rebellious” branding that Macs seem to have is a function of pitting their brand against the brand of a corporate giant (which is a misnomer these days, as the two companies–regardless of their computer divisions–aren’t all that different), even a large part of PCs’ huge revenue comes from people who need a $500 computer because Macs and the few higher-end PCs are just too expensive.
What I found most striking about the videos was how the Mac 1984 commercial was reflected at the end of Jobs’s speech: an attentive audience of interchangeable individuals rapt under the influence of corporate ideology, listening to their ruler under the glow of mediated symbols and images projected onto a screen. Has Jobs crafted an ideology of “corporate creativity and culture?” If so, how does this ideology compare to others found in Wu’s book?
In response to Jessie and Gretchen’s comments about different computers for different users, we have to remember an important factor in computing: servicing. What are computer programmers who go on to troubleshooting and repairwork more familiar with?
As a diehard PC owner, it’s nearly impossible to find someone at Vassar who can help me when I’m having a hardware or software problem. We even have a computer store on campus that caters largely to Macs–when any of the extremely talented CIS workers encounter a PC issue, they pretty much raise their hands in defeat and tell me to call Dell. That alone for the past 2 years, has made me think about switching to Mac (my hardrive is slowly disintegrating as we speak).
This may be getting completely off-topic, but I wonder what the customer service is like for Macs. I haven’t had a lot of luck and helpful responses from Dell (luckily, my dad is a software engineer so he can usually help me over the phone), and if Mac troubleshooters are more user-friendly, I could definitely be swayed. What PC and Mac should keep in mind is that no matter how many computer users there are, they will still look to the professionals for advice. That’s just as important as the type of computer we use, and could be an important factor in trying to maintain a good product.
So…I’m not really sure what that had to do with our discussion but I’m really fascinated by the whole PC vs Mac debate. I really should be concerned with more important things. Anyway, what do you think are the implications of this competition for our “computer culture?” It’s more of a comical thing than anything when I talk to a Mac user. We are so illiterate when it comes to working on the opposite machine, which keeps us loyal to what we already own.
I agree with Jessie in that both Apple and Windows have such polarized consumer groups that a merger seems almost impossible. The software for both is incompatible, to name one practical impediment. For Windows users, switching to Apple software would be like transitioning from VHS to DVDs: a complete (and very expensive) replacement of a system. As the most recent commercial emphasizes, PCs and Macs have completely different cultural followings, and while they are artificial, they may be difficult to abandon all the same.
Speaking of culture, Jobs talks about “bringing culture into the product” in the older video. Advertising uses this method explicitly (i.e. the 1984 reference in the Apple advertisement) and implicitly by portraying actors in the commercials as using the product in their everyday lives (think of every cell phone commercial you’ve ever seen). By associating a product with culture, the inescapability and necessity of culture becomes synonymous with the inescapability and necessity of the product: an artificial notion of dependence is exploited to graft the product onto our existing identities. Can you imagine yourself without a computer? I don’t mean refraining from ownership—I mean never going to an internet café, never using a friend’s computer to look things up, never using an iPhone. Your lifestyle would seem irrational and anachronistic, and completely out-of-keeping with current culture to the point of inconvenience. Why is that?
I think that Apple’s 25 year marketing strategy as a rebel company may be expiring, but I think that PC’s will remain popular. Macs and PC’s are marketed toward different users. As the first video shows, Macs are better for video, music, photos, etc. and PC’s are better for graphs and documents (although Macs are pretty good at that, too). I think that Apple may not be viewed as a “rebel company” much longer, but I do not think that it will completely take over the market. I think it will maintain its hold on the MP3 player market but not in the computer market. People in the business world will probably continue to use PC’s and people in the music and entertainment worlds will probably continue to use Macs. One company will not take over completely because each computer is better for different groups and people.
Aldren’s comment, “If I have learned anything from Wu’s book, I have found that technological progress is far from linear,” nicely summarizes one of his main points, as he provides multiple examples of different technological paths. The comment reminded me, however, of Deacon’s book that we read in the beginning of the year. Deacon’s writing emphasized the fact that evolution is not a linear process and is not a straight progression from less sophisticated to more sophisticated. Instead, evolution parallels more of a branching process, where diverging evolutionary niches are developed. The actuality of this process, though, seems to contrast with our perception of progression, which generally tends towards linearity.
Does this perceptual approach to progression stem from a linguistic source? Lakoff asserts the pervasiveness of “master metaphors,” metaphors that emerge in our day to day speech and shape the way we think about the world.
Apple is a very interesting corporate and consumer phenomenon. We see most of our peers with new, shiny $2000 Macbooks and assume that Apple has become a mainstay for reinvention and rebirth. But these products are available to a very small percentage of the population. In many nations, Apple is little seen, so there seems something ripe about the American market that facilitates this giant’s technological whims. Our consumers are so far removed from everyday (and actual) utility, that these products offer illusion and magic, a responsive piece of glass that will weigh small objects.
Whatever the case, we have heralded these technological ‘innovations’ as progress in these industries, without much thought as to where they are coming from (physically and technologically) or where they will end up. If I have learned anything from Wu’s book, I have found that technological progress is far from linear. The motivation behind a smartphone may be purely economic, as a fortuitous marriage of technology (iPhone) and carrier (AT&T). Consumers are given updates in response to their ‘needs’, but these are often (as the case of an unused GPS receiver in the original iPhone due to competition with other smartphones and carrier capacities) externally motivated often not in the interest of the consumer.