| Monday, July 8, 2002 |
11:32 - Why do we evangelize Apple?
|
(top)  |
Just look at some of the things they're doing in Jaguar (Mac OS X 10.2). Just look at them.
Who can sit there and be unmoved by the sight of someone writing text into Microsoft Word-- with a pen?
Label text that can be placed below or to the right of icons, at the user's request. Secondary data displayed under the icon's name, for disks and folders and files. A totally redone Mac Help application, that includes tutorials for people used to Windows or to Mac OS 9. Different levels of font antialiasing, tunable to be optimized for CRT or LCD displays-- and which will no doubt auto-detect the kind of display you have upon installation and set itself accordingly. And that's just the new stuff we've recently found out about, above and beyond all the stuff like Rendezvous, Zoom, Ink, minimize-in-place, spring-loaded folders, Quartz Extreme, and so on.
Apple doesn't have to do these things. But they do them.
This goes back throughout Apple's history. They designed all their cables so they would be physically different in shape, so you'd never have to worry about confusing your VGA port with your serial port. They made the mouse hang off the keyboard instead of the machine's case, so the cable wouldn't drag it off the back of your desk. They wrote 24-bit color support into the OS when PCs only had EGA graphics-- even though costs prohibited true-color video cards at the time for either platform, Apple made sure right then and there that the OS would fully support them when they were ready. And they've put things like AirPort, FireWire, DVD burners, and a million other little details into their systems over the years. They made CRT monitors that would automatically recalibrate themselves over time as they aged, and they developed ColorSync to ensure color-matching from machine to machine in a way that it simply does not exist on Windows. They put CD and DVD burning into the OS itself. They made it so you can select any System Folder on your computer to boot from. They designed tower cases that open with a pull of a ring, and mice where you can lock the ball inside so schoolkids can't throw them at each other. They made a flat-panel all-in-one machine with an adjustable screen. They've put ungodly amounts of effort into making Mac OS X a thing of such beauty that-- well, for God's sake, just look at it. They did countless little things that are hard as hell-- they cost tons of money and require huge amounts of development and testing, all so they could deliver a new ability to the customer-- not just a new feature. They did this not because they had to-- but because of the pursuit of a vague chimaeric goal of "being easy to use". They didn't have to do any of these things.
But they did.
Though they keep getting kicked in the face, though they have tears in their eyes and their teeth are clenched so hard they're cracking, they're still doing these things that they don't have to do-- but that they know brings them closer to their ideal and keeps them in the race. They're one of the most underappreciated companies ever seen on this earth, and yet somehow it doesn't discourage them. They're still pressing on.
It's like seeing a Stuart Little car running in the Indianapolis 500-- and, astonishingly, it's keeping up with the big cars. In fact, it's holding out a pretty consistent lead.
Who is so stone-hearted as to kick that underdog out of the way? Who would ban it from the race, just because the competitors can carry more fuel and would suffer less if they crashed?
This is what makes Mac enthusiasts so furiously and doggedly dedicated to Apple. We see people dismissing Apple's accomplishments every day, and it tears us up inside. We want to see Apple's efforts recognized. We see them as a lone guy bailing out the Titanic with a bucket-- no matter how hopeless it may look, he's still pumping away, jaw set, teeth clenched, ignoring the jeering lifeboats full of people who just want to feel more secure in the choice they've made.
You want to know what it's like to be a Mac user? Watch some guys drinking Budweiser and marveling to each other in hushed tones about its bouquet and its body and bite. Or listen to someone who drives a Civic, gushing in rapture at its horsepower and its handling.
Better yet, listen to someone ascribing "moral equivalence" to the Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli forces bulldozing the homes of terrorism suspects, or claiming that 9/11 is no more reprehensible than the bombing of Afghanistan, because such a position is more comfortable for someone trying to fit in with the International Community™, regardless of how such a view might clash with our most deeply-held ideals.
Can you possibly stand by and not comment?
As an engineer who loves elegant solutions to problems, it infuriates me to see Apple's efforts go unrewarded, and even ridiculed, when there is so much to recommend them. And even beyond just the quality of their software and hardware-- just the fact that they've managed to stay alive for twenty years, with all the cards stacked against them, with every reason in the world to give up and admit defeat and doom us all to a world of mediocrity-- they've kept on going. They've excelled. They've pushed themselves to achieve more in less time than anybody ever in the computer industry. They didn't have to write software like iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, and the like, and give it away free with their computers; they didn't have to create FireWire and the iPod and throw their whole weight behind the digital-media revolution, putting the power of creation into the hands of users. They didn't have to write Mac OS X, taking the best parts of FreeBSD and NeXT and merging them into an operating system that's designed to handle multimedia better than anything else on the market, making even Amiga and Be nostalgists weep for joy.
But they did.
With all the odds against them, they've only pursued their ideals all the more aggressively, and they've survived-- they continue to excel. And yet Microsoft, with all the cards stacked in their favor, consistently fail to produce anything compelling. It's taken them twenty years to catch up to within striking distance of Apple-- and just as they get here, Apple leaps out in front again with OS X.
Windows has pretty much caught up with the Mac in terms of usability-- but it's still just a simulation of a Mac. Microsoft can't do custom per-file icons, like the Mac has always been able to do; so instead, they provide a "thumbnail" view, so images and movie files appear as thumbnails of their contents. This is a lot easier for them to engineer than custom file icons-- which on the Mac can be so much more than simple automatic thumbnails of the files' contents. But for most Windows users' purposes, it's good enough. Most users won't feel constrained by the limitations of that solution, half-assed though it is. And that's just one example. Windows can't operate without filename extensions, so they just hide them all globally. Windows can't operate without a Registry, or allow you to place programs anywhere in your filesystem with just a drag-and-drop-- so they've worked on hiding applications in the filesystem entirely, and guided users into the registered Start-menu launch mechanism all the more vehemently. And most Windows users don't care.
Indeed, many engineers who value only efficiency over elegance, or practicality over ideals, will see this as the way it should be. Never look back, these people say. Never redesign anything from the ground up-- if there's a design flaw, just compensate for it and press forward. There's no time to do it right, and you can just as well as make up for it with spackle and grease. That's good enough.
But as an engineer who values ideals of design, such pansy-ass hackery makes my eyes fill with tears.
What infuriates me about Microsoft, and the mentality that they've instilled throughout the software industry, is that "good enough is". They're not motivated to excel, just to satisfy. All that it's in their interests as the monopoly incumbent to do is to provide the bare-bones basic functionality to support the tasks that users demand of it, and that's what they do-- admirably well. But they're under no economic or ideological pressure to innovate, to come up with new functionality for users-- especially not new functionality that doesn't directly benefit the Company. Hence the fact that 99% of Windows XP's material advancements are in the areas of .NET, Passport, ad placement, information gathering, Smart Tags, and the like-- all features designed to further entrench Microsoft's hold on people's identities and wallets, another step towards their becoming the de jure gatekeeper for all our world's digital existence, not just de facto.
"Oh, just give up already," some shout. "Microsoft has won. There's no fighting it. Better just cooperate now, or else it'll go that much harder for you later."
I refuse. I have seen a better way. We have an existence proof, right here in front of us, of how a computer company can do so much better, and can act in the interests of enabling people to do more, not just to pay more. Apple truly cares about innovation, in a way that Microsoft only knows how to crow about it. This may not be a model that can survive in a true laissez-faire economy, but... well, I'm not one of those who believes that laissez-faire is the most admirable of all economic policies.
Those who do promote such a policy look at Microsoft, using its monopoly power to increase its hold on the world, not innovating in any way other than to institutionalize itself into the fabric of our lives, and say that Microsoft deserves to win purely because it has all the resources and the means to do so. By definition, that's what makes a winner. The freedom we give up and the innovation we forgo is immaterial compared to the incrementally-lower crossing-point of the supply and demand curves.
But we've seen, in stark detail, that just because a company has a monopoly share of the market does not mean that it is the company most motivated or best equipped to act in the consumer's interest.
I'm the type of guy who thinks that if a company like Apple is able to keep up for twenty years, with underdog status and no popular respect and all the reasons in the world to fail, and still somehow manages to keep ahead of the pack-- and even to present itself as a powerful ally of the consumer's interest in the face of overwhelming opposition-- then that company is something I'm willing to lay down in front of a train for.
It's not about calling Windows users morons or sheep; it's not about being a rebel; it's not about inventing a new kind of sexual favor called a Steve Job.
This is about a fundamental difference in how Apple and Microsoft are run. Laissez-faire says that companies are just machines, that they will respond to stimuli in the market in a more or less equivalent fashion; that any company in a particular position will act the same as any other company in that position, and if it doesn't, then its stockholders and its board of directors will elect executives who will. By that model, Microsoft is behaving exactly as a company of its assets and position should, and for that matter so is Apple. Such a model predicts that Apple will become increasingly irrelevant, as well it should-- because Microsoft, the incumbent, will do whatever it can to win. There's no such thing as immoral actions in laissez-faire-- there's no way to cheat. The very fact that a company has the resources with which to "cheat" means that it's entitled to the benefits such cheating would earn it.
But I don't believe that. Not entirely. I believe that different companies do have different characters; that Microsoft's actions deserve punishment, and that Apple's deserve reward. I do believe that if their positions were reversed, Apple would behave more like Microsoft does today, and vice versa; but not entirely the way it is today. I believe that the vision driving Apple arms it uniquely with the capacity to innovate like nobody else can, to bring more benefit to the world of the consumer; whereas the vision that drives Microsoft benefits only Microsoft, and would continue to do so even if Microsoft were the underdog.
I believe companies have free will and choice, just like individual humans do. And I believe the respective actions of Microsoft and Apple are not irrelevant side-effects of their positions in the market. I believe their respective actions speak volumes about the companies themselves and their visions. I believe there is such a thing as "good" and "evil", for companies as well as for people; and I believe that for all intents and purposes, without any maudlin or hackneyed posturing, without any juvenile whining or aggrandizement-- that Microsoft is evil, and Apple is good. I feel no shame in that statement, I feel it's backed up with demonstrable fact, and I believe I can prove my case to anybody willing to listen with an open mind. These aren't absolutes-- both companies have mitigating elements that push them away from the poles. But to see Apple working as hard as it does, pursuing such patently admirable goals, adhering to such compelling ideals, consistently going well beyond what any customer would ask them to do in creating new technology, and responding to adversity not by backing down and vanishing, but by pursuing those goals harder than ever-- and to see the vast majority of Windows users dismiss Apple with a sneer and a guffaw... well, that's the picture they put next to "tragedy" in the dictionary, right after the classic Shakespearean citations of the genre.
Almost nobody who has anything bad to say about Apple has any facts to back it up. It's all just paranoia and ignorant sloganeering, and just as we refuse to buy it when protesters burn American flags in Gaza and publish Jew-killing tracts for the exhortation of their neighbors, we Mac fans refuse to sit down and shut up and let it go unchecked.
The sloganeers seldom are interested in facts; but we're going to present those facts anyway, and Apple's tirelessness is the model for our own. If they haven't given up after all this time and after all that's happened, then neither will we. It's the very least we can do.
It's easy to look at that guy determinedly bailing out the Titanic, and call him a fool. Hell, you may be right-- he would be one, except for one tiny little thing: it's working. He's kept this sinking ship afloat for over twenty years, and somehow he's even been making headway at it. That's a superhuman achievement, and it's more than enough to inspire me and a whole lot of other seemingly brainwashed and deluded idealists like me to grab a bucket and chip in.
Wouldn't you have saved the Titanic if you could?
This isn't a fair world. (Indeed, it would be a pretty frightening place if it were.) But if there were some inkling of fairness in the computer industry, we'd see Apple offered a whole helluva lot more respect for what they've done and what they continue to do, than what they get now. All we want is for that to be recognized. All we want is some justice in the world. Just a little.
And that's what goes on in the mind of a Mac evangelist. Or at least one of them.
|
|
