Why Mac and Win aren't better than the other

"Microsoft's grinning robots or the Brotherhood of the Mac. Which is worse?

I admit it: I'm a bigot. A hopeless bigot at that: I know my particular prejudice is absurd, but I just can't control it. It's Apple. I don't like Apple products. And the better-designed and more ubiquitous they become, the more I dislike them. I blame the customers. Awful people. Awful. Stop showing me your iPhone. Stop stroking your Macbook. Stop telling me to get one." Charlie Brooker, The Guardian

I’m most certainly with Brooker C. on the vicarious significance the peasantry of Mac-users get from being associated with the Mac OS as did the serfs of the past at the fanfare greeting the return of a Lord after a successful plunder of the granaries and boudoirs of the serfs of a neighbouring realm. But what’s with the infighting amongst the proles?

Given that the Mac basically uses much PC parts, the holier-than-thou approach by Mac-users cannot be derived from anything but the OS, Leopard or Gazelle or whatever. What Mac-users don’t get is that they are being forced to pay a higher price for PC hardware for an OS. And what defensive Windows users must think about is that they are being forced to buy a rubbish OS because of the cheaper hardware. Both, at the end of the day, are getting it up their respective bench-warmers from Microsoft and Apple.

“Why?”, I’ve often been inclined to ask, “is Mac not producing an OS for Windows-users? Why is Microsoft not producing an OS to truly rival the Snow Wildebeest or whatever so that they might finally be able to put up an argument against Windows pirates who might very well be supplying ‘commie’ versions for free throughout the world so that people might not have to fork out their hard-earned cash for one upgraded rubbish of rubbish?” The way I see it, if Mac and Microsoft aren’t engaging in false competition in fact, it most certainly is in essence. They are both reaping the benefits of not having significant competition amongst general users.

Those who have been taught to think that humanity cannot advance without competition ought to ask why a better product had not been put on the market prior to the product that has to be upgraded with a better product. The logic that is applied in all circumstances is, ‘we need your money for a bad product so that we can use it to produce a better product which will certainly be a bad product thus requiring your money so that……’…I’m sure you get the point. In this, I see Microsoft and Apple and whatnots as abettors of crimes which they purport to rally against. Perhaps it’s their right to carry on giving themselves the excuse to produce profit-generating upgrades that they are after. I’m not justifying software piracy. I’m just wondering if software pirates and their relevant market find a justification in their marketing strategy. Whilst I do own genuine copies of Windows 98, XP and Vista, I cannot but feel that my posture, whilst sitting at the pc typing this out, is not somehow rendered admirably upright by a good stiff one up the seat-end delivered by way of my forking out for ‘genuine’ rubbish. It seems that we can put up with this, not because the solutions provided by these companies are great ones, but because we do whatever we can to afford the time and money to get around the recommended requirements created by such marketing strategies by way of forking out for exorbitantly priced hardware, or a host of software that requires us to abide by those ablutionary rituals required to keep a dodgy OS out of character.

At the end of the day, both Microsoft, Apple, and a myriad of other companies in all arenas seem to form a symbiotic whole in using the common wo/man as hosts for their parasitic and profit-generating endeavours. So long as we stand under flags of various brands, the Corporation can play on a host of consumerist tendencies such as familiarity, being defensive of the familiar, willingness to fork out exorbitant sums for 'better' products, and so on an so forth. The focus of the proles ought not to be on which is better, but how we’re going to get them to better themselves without making victims of us all.



0 thoughts:

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo