Comment by nika | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nika | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I switched from PCs to Macs in the early 1990s because I got tired of dealing with drivers, etc. Since then, on BBSes and not online, in the "technology" media and in advertising, I've seen no end of derogatory characterizations of apple users.

I am sure they don't think we're going to switch by insulting us. (A lesson Apple probably learned right after the original 1984 commercial.)

So, why is this still so popular? I think it is a form of ideological immunization. IF you characterize your opponents derogatorily (extreme example: comparing jews to rats by the nazis) you rally your troops with feelings of superiority.

Once Apple users are seen as inferior, all their arguments immediately become null and void. Political parties do this too- conservatives are characterized by liberals as rejecting science, liberals are characterized by conservatives as being irresponsible or pot smokers.

I don't think this is good for society. I much prefer (no surprise given I'm an apple fan) the "I'm a Mac" ads that apple did. Though I think PC users missed out that the PC was the most sympathetic of the characters, because they expected it to be derogatory to PC users and so that's how they saw it. (illustrated by Microsofts "I'm a PC" campaign which was a response to the ads they thought Apple was making, not the ads apple was actually making.)

So, when Motorola says Apple is Big Brother who are they kidding? Nobody. They're just spreading rationalizations.

Agreed.

There is a company that creates something new, like the "ipad" or the "iphone" and every competitor starts insulting their users but when it becomes a success, they copy it!!; Like the xoom, so you are insulting yourself.

Apple success is seen as magic or as a religion cult or whatever because they don't understand what Apple does. If they realized it they could learn and compete, but no, they want to give excuses to their selves.

Human psychology works in a very simple way, you can't learn from someone you despise. Companies that see what works and despise it as "luck",or a "cult" are doomed to fail, being eternal followers.

Apple people care about design,and of course aesthetics and functionality,and the more important thing, they have guts to risk with new products. I would love other companies caring the same but nobody else do.

BTW, the ad is stupid, having Motorola give me lessons about freedom when all of their phones I had were about control by the carriers is no good. They only could give you freedom because they are in desperate state.

You're illustrating your own point. You complain about a world where people only see things from their own viewpoint, and tend to filter things to only strengthen their viewpoint.

As illustration, you believe that those super insulting "I'm a Mac" ads aren't insulting.

I'm sorry, sorting into tribes is a part of human nature put thrtr by evolution itself, and you can't escape it.

Rather than those idealistic "we shouldn't do this" type speeches, recognize those base influences, moderate them and harness them.

That's why both regulated capitalism and constitutional democracies have been so successful. They moderate and harness base influences such as greed.

The Mac ads are insulting to the PC, perhaps, but not the PC users. It's one thing to say "hey, there's a better way" and another thing to say "you're stupid for picking your way".

There are lots of ways to point out the superiority of a product without insulting people. Anthropomorphizing computers is obviously designed to lead people to connect the machine to the person, making the step from "choosing a PC is stupid" to "people choosing a PC are stupid" very short.

Because he believes himself superior to mac users, the act of saying "hey, there's a better way" is another way of saying "you're stupid for picking your way (because there's a better way)" The ideological immune response ties self esteem to the product choice. Note the comment about "regulated capitalism" and the reference to "greed" as being a "base" instinct. In his world view, he is unable to conceive of the possibility that people in government might be greedy and that their "regulation" is simply a protection racket.

Finally, I never complained that ideology was an effective marketing strategy. Clearly it is. But I do think it is bad for society because it is anti-intellectual.

Of course I'm superior to Mac users, I'm a Linux User. (Yes, this is sarcasm). I do think I made a better choice, that's all.

I highly doubt that I'm unable to conceive of the possibility that people in government are greedy. I just finished saying that greed is a base instinct that nobody is immune to. Which is why regulated capitalism and constitutional democracies are such nice compliments -- you get a chance to boot the crooks out every 4 years or so. It's far from perfect, but better than the alternatives.

  Political parties do this too- conservatives are characterized by liberals as rejecting science, liberals are characterized by conservatives as being irresponsible or pot smokers.

The trouble with this argument is that sometimes the characterizations are true. For instance, the neo-conservative movement in the United States is rather well characterized by a rejection of science, including evolution, climate change, and sex education (that is, abstinence-only sex ed has been shown empirically to be useless). It is completely valid to point this rejection of science out, and moreover, it is useful and constructive to do so. By demonstrating that neo-conservative politics deviate from that which can be demonstrated scientifically, we as a society can move more towards policies which are well-supported by reality.

I don't mean to focus too much on a single example, but rather, I'm trying to use that example to make a point: presenting accurate, if inflammatory, characterizations of one's opponents is not harmful to society, but is in fact part of how we engage in constructive discourse.

By the same token, as I pointed out in a comment below, Apple has taken actions which are strikingly similar to those warned about in an exaggerated manner by the novel 1984; to wit, they have built an architecture for censorship and have applied it to restrict the ability of adults to use their iOS devices to partake of pornography or even of more mildly sexual applications. To point out the irony in Apple taking these actions, given their ad campaign back in 1984, is not to "ideologically immunize" consumers, but rather to make a valid and useful point. I do think that point is beyond the immediate goals of Motorola, however, and that their current campaign is riding on the bandwagon of valid criticisms, using them for short-term profit. That is not a destructive thing to do, however, insofar as the original criticisms are well-founded.

I don't see how this as insulting to Apple users (and I own a Mac, iPhone and iPad). The allusion to 1984 is one of people having no choice. Just as people had no choice but to follow Big Brother or people had no choice but to use a DOS based system in the year 1984. So the point of the ad is to say there is now an alternative.

Agreed. I always liked Apple's Mac vs PC ads, and back then I was a PC user.

That was my first thought as well, do you really think insulting me is going to make me want your product? If anything that puts people on the defensive/reactive mode.

They should try making me envious, not insulting me. Also, I have both PC/Mac products. I like Macs for personal use and Windows for work.

They're not trying to convert you, they're trying to convert the millions of people who haven't invested in an iPad yet (the vast majority of the population really).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com