I think it's demographics-related as well; Apple owners are more likely to be vaguely left-ish, interested in sustainability and fair trade, etc., than a typical Dell owner is. Same reason imo that Starbucks has more image problems with coffee sourcing than Dunkin Donuts does, because Starbucks customers as a demographic care more about things like coffee sourcing, or at least are more sensitive to hearing complaints about it.
I wonder if there's some weird cultural selection bias; like the kind of person who purchases an Apple product is more likely to make a meme about it vs someone who purchases a Dell?
I'm not convinced that that's the source of identification people feel with Apple. There are certainly other organizations that make a bigger and more overt "difference" than Apple, no?
I think the reason people see this is that different groups value different things. Apple perfectly fits many people's values, but the group that have different values can't understand that someone else might other values.
There are people who develop a religious fervour for brands, but I too often see that used as an excuse to dismiss legitimate arguments and preferences. Some people seem to develop an almost religious antipathy to brands and their customers. If Apple fanatics think Jobs or Cook are Jesus-like, the detractors seem to cast them as one rung up from Lucifer.
It's assumed that if you prefer Apple products, it must be because you're brainwashed or ignorant. The possibility that there are rational reasons for preferring Apple and its ecosystem is rejected with no consideration.
I suspect it's because the enviroment and consumers are different. People are no longer okay with you saying you think different. They need you to prove it. They need you to show it.
With Apple, a lot of their advertising focuses on what's different about them but they tell that narrative in a way that conveys that they came to this conclusion (aka the product being sold) by thinking about the problem in a way that hadn't been thought about before. They are still narrative but they have to make it believable in a different way.
A lot of others are doing the same but usually not doing as good a job on the latter, but they still focus on proving what it is they value, by the decisions they make in building the product.
Thanks for engaging me seriously, I appreciate it! I don't mean to be condescending at all. I ask out of a genuine desire to understand the behavior. I apologize if it came off as condescension. If anything, I've always felt sort of handicapped or like I'm missing something that leaves me with an inability to form these sorts of identifications.
If I'm in a tribe, it must be the one that is averse to tribalism.
The product line of reasoning I get and even agree with. I do value Apple as a company, because I agree that they bring a lot of innovation to the table. It's the part where users seem to tie up there identities with the company that was confusing.
But you're saying that the brand represents a certain value system and that's what you identify with? That's interesting. And enlightening.
I don't think Apple is as much of hippie type brand as it used to be, it is very commercial and mainstream. Those opinions are pretty much main stream opinions.
I suspect it is a combination of two factors. First, Apple customers are considered (rightly or wrongly) to be affluent, and therefore the kind of people who can choose to boycott something for ethical reasons (as opposed to the people queueing for 6 hours on Black Friday to buy a TV, who are deemed to be purely price sensitive).
I suspect the other reason is simply the fact that Apple is a market leader (dominant in certain of its segments) and so as a journalist it makes sense to go after them, as your readers are likely to have heard of them or own one of its products. A lot more consumers have an iPod than a Dell computer.
There is also a lot of (vocal) people that like to justify their consumer choice with moral argumentation. I guess when it comes to tech choice, tech minded people can't live with the fact that their reasons are mundane (like the screen better, better contract, or much worse the shape is better, your wife would like you to have the same one)
Apple also makes it hard for tech people. It is a consumer oriented brand, choosing them is like drinking a beer with your meal rather than carefully selecting the appropriate wine.
It is in fact not related in any way to coffee or to Apple. Not even remotely.
Apple sells products which are, in the main, at very similar price points to its competition, and it has won because it simply. makes. better. products. I'm not sure why there is still delusional thinking about this—apparently the last 20 years have not proven the point well enough?
> You don't think it has anything to do with their excellent track record of hardware design, software design, reliability and usability?
Of course. It has to do with Apple's branding of "hardware design, software design, reliability and usability".
Just like G-Star advertises their clothing as "raw", while their jeans are actually quite flimsy and rip or tear easily.
Sure, they look pretty and well-fitted. Just like I would recommend my grandmother an iPad because I know it's well-designed and she'd have less trouble using it.
> >It's no different from how Gucci or Prada owners make sure to prominently display the brand of their handbag when they are in public.
> Yes, because Dell and HP laptops are completely devoid of physical branding...
You're proving his point here: It's not like other brands of handbags (or shoes) are completely devoid of physical branding either. Yet it's not like their owners are even aware of its brand, half the time.
In this context I'd sooner compare Apple products to Nike shoes, rather than the fashion "I have money to spend" signalling Gucci/Prada handbags.
Come on, the evolution of "brands as lifestyle + identity" has been around for at least 30 years now. You should know a thing or two about how it works. It's not really a disputed theory.
And you can't seriously deny that Apple isn't fighting along in the Big Brand mindshare arena just as much as Coca-Cola, Nike, Red Bull and Calvin Klein, in a sense that Dell, Asus or Lenovo are very much not. A quick litmus-test is whether they have a significant brand-identity that can be separated from their products (sometimes even more prominent than their actual core product, especially in the case of Coca-Cola or Red Bull).
> >It's a simple form of signaling your identity, that you belong to a particular group.
> Or it's because Apple products let productive people be productive.
See what you just did? Put Apple product users in the group of "productive people being productive"? :) Would you ever say something as generic about a Lenovo laptop? (which has excellent hardware and lets productive people be very productive) That's because Apple is a brand identity, over just being a brand of laptops. As if they're charged with a kind of "soul".
You don't have to consider it a bad thing, but I think it's important to at least be aware of these very real differences, because they do influence the way people act, behave and feel about their stuff. And it's nothing new, and it's nothing you can or should prevent, everyone is affected by these ideas to some extent, which is again why it's so important to be aware of it. Just don't deny it.
I think it's no secret that one of the reasons Apple products appeal to many people is that Apple promotes a left-wing political worldview.
When I am looking for a product to buy, I don't wish to have a political debate or have someone make any assumptions about where I stand on various political issues.
If you consider that Apple's core business is to sell a belief about themselves and their users, there isn't a conflict.
People don't buy Apple stuff because of what it is -- the identical hardware can be bought for sometimes 50% cheaper from other stores/manufacturers. People buy because of the perception that Apple has values which are aligned with their own.
The most visible value is that Apple challenges the state of normalcy in whatever industry they enter, that they oppose the status quo. This is a perception, it doesn't necessarily align with the reality of their actions (for example, how is it opposing the status quo to pay the labels' extortion fees?)
You don't have to agree with it -- that is, you don't have to believe that Apple actually challenges anything -- but you should at least understand how they sell themselves and how that drives their business. If you simply examine Apple on the basis of the products they sell, you can't develop a consistent theory that explains their success (IMHO).
Look at the commercial for the Playbook, it focuses on what the actual hardware/OS can do: run multiple apps at the same time, browse with Flash, etc. At the same time, the iPad commercial focuses on how amazed you'll be, and how much potential it has to change the future. It's audacious -- could you imagine how ridiculous it would sound if RIM billed the Playbook as "just getting started"? That's not RIM, they're not visionaries and they've never sold themselves as such. They sell themselves as people who sell enterprise solutions -- i.e., they identify themselves with what they make.
You have to consider that Apple primarily sells a belief, and secondarily sells products which demonstrate that they implement those beliefs.
I would modify your initial statement -- companies fail when they are reduced to selling commodities, instead of following their values. Dell and HP sell commodities, but Apple takes that same hardware (laptops, desktops, MP3 players, tablets) and turns it into gold, because they sell users the perception of following their values.
There are conservative folks with plenty of expendable cash... it's not like Apple caters its products to liberals. In many ways Apple tries to position itself as a BMW or Mercedes Benz of the computer market; think of the target for those products.
But it can't be a determining factor for those people who endorse Apple products. Otherwise, they would choose a different product from a more open or responsive company.
I'm not so sure about this -- it would only play out this way if people's perception of size were based on the company's size, rather than their exposure to the company.
For one example: one of my business clients has a couple of die-hard Mac users (who I'm happy to support), and the administrator there is one of those "bah, Macs are toys, why don't they just get a PC like everyone else?" idiots. I mentioned to him one day that Apple had enough cash in the bank to purchase Dell outright. However, this did not at all change his perception of Apple.
It doesn't help that many individuals' exposure to Apple right now is through consumer devices like the iPhone and iPod, and not so much through "serious" computers.
Oh, and also: software. I'd hazard a guess that most of my clients don't think of the stuff on their iPhone as software in the sense of "stuff that runs on a computer". I suspect that they think of it more as "features", so for them, the only Apple software that they know of is iTunes.
...that, or they're simply a diverse company whose fortunes are well-correlated with the economy, whereas Apple makes several fashionable consumer items.
reply