Hi, I'm A PC. And I'm A Mac. Or The Psychology Of Brands Discussion

Of course no one wants to go there. Compare Disney World with someplace like Storybook Land near Atlantic City. Yes, Disney costs you 4x as much for 1 day's admission, but it's also significantly nicer than the cheaper option.

Believe me, I've had to drive past Storybook Land waaaaay too many times when on travel for work. If my parents tried to take me there instead of Disney as a kid, I wouldn't been quite pissed.

Kimball Kinnison

 

There's actually a just-released TED Talk called How great leaders inspire action, which uses Apple as one example of a company that inspires passion -- both positive and negative (the people who don't like Apple are rarely passionate about specific alternatives, rather they're passionate about their disdain for Apple) -- and explains why that is.

 

I live within an hour and a half of it, so once to twice a year, we'd go for the weekend, drive out on a Friday night, spend the night at a hotel nearby, go saturday and part of Sunday, and come home. It should be noted that with one exception, the longest family vacations I ever had were 3 days, if there was a holiday involved. Which is more of what made Disneyland convenient. One of the few things close enough to be a 2 day vacation.

Well, Disney is all about creating an identity. Far more than what they do to customers is the way they try to mold employees into being Disney-centric, particularly by using scheduling to make it so that you can't have other things going on, it becomes just about working in the park.
Coming from having worked at a different theme park, I've always noticed also how at least with the park, they focus on the happiness too much, or rather, make that a higher priority than it should be. When I worked a theme park as a ride operator, I could really get away with anything under the justification of safety because that was the priority. Disneyland runs with the priority being the presentation of it all (they've got some company rule thing that has the priorities that I can't recall atm) and I think it does lead to safety being not as big of a priority as it should be. Which then fits in with how it is that Disneyland has had something like 4 or 5 mechanical accidents on roller coasters and a large number of ride deaths and injuries in the last, say, 10 years, whereas the park I worked at has more than a dozen roller coasters and no mechanical accidents to my knowledge for years.
Disney's created a thing where they are very much marketing a feeling rather than products, and they bank on that feeling overpowering criticisms and high prices.

 

I got quite a bit of stick in the JCC for my failure to praise Apple and its new iFail tablet PC, so I won't go ranting about how over-rated Apple products tend to be on here.

Not that I think Microsoft are greater by any means. Their products also have had many faults over the years (Vista being one example).

Disney are an example of a good brand I would agree. They have made great effort to change their image over the years and take themselves in new directions. Purchasing Marvel was a good step in expanding the company's appeal.

 

Never been to Disneyland myself.

 

I wouldn't bother now. It's been years since I was there, but my last visit most of the rides didn't work. Which is a shame, as Disneyland was a total blast when I was younger. The ride where you go through Monstro's mouth in particular-I freaking loved that when I was six for some reason.

 

Back to the Mac/PC, Apple/Microsoft debate, they're not really the same thing. As alluded to before, Apple/PC is limited to the computer, while Apple/Microsoft is encompassing the entire company. I'm going to stick simply to Mac/PC because it'll already be a fairly long-winded post.

Now, my take on it is a bit interesting, because I've had plenty of experiences with both computers. I have been exposed to both operating systems and new advances in both operating systems throughout my life, both in and out of my home. My first exposure to either company that I really associated with brand was a Mac in the mid nineties. We used that thing for about five years, and it was generally very good. Really, out of all of the computers my family or I owned, it has still been the most reliable. The problem with the specific Mac, and why we eventually switched to an XP, was the disproportionate amount of memory and RAM on the old computer compared to then current models. I obviously didn't realize this at the time...I was only 10 or 11, but that makes a lot of sense. One also has to factor in that both of my parents worked full time jobs that required work at home, and the XP was better suited for what they needed to do than a new, higher-end Mac. Our family has only been PC ever since. We got a new XP in 2005, which my family uses, and my parents purchased a Vista for me (which is all they could afford to get me, and yeah, it has its problems, but I still use and like it) in late 2007/early 2008. And truth be told, this is the only computer that has ever been rightfully mine.

There are more factors to consider though, when choosing between the two computer types. And these don't have to do with hardware so much as they do with software. The fact of the matter is, business are primarily PCs because it is better in terms of accounting and organizing purposes, and has more structure in the layout, making it more easily accessible. The Microsoft Office products are especially important in these decisions, and it can be argued that the three most commonplace Office programs purchased in suites are Word, Excel, and Powerpoint. The fact that Internet Explorer is very easily accessible to most people is also a factor in the decision. Although I only use Firefox unless it isn't available, for all intents and purposes, the PC meets most of my basic needs. The only problem with PCs are the fact that viruses are more prominent, but there are multiple sources of legal freeware that get the job done nicely in multiple areas.

But, still, one has to weigh the pros of the Mac as well. Once again, it boils down to software. Independent creative professionals often use primarily Macs because the Mac is better suited to these kinds of programs. Sure, PCs have Photoshop and Flash, but those are primarily used by non-professionals (except in the case of the written news industry, where photoshop is very important). It's especially helpful to have a Mac if one is in the film industry. Programs like Final Cut are only offered on Macs, and Avid, while arguably better in quality, is significantly more expensive all by itself, so unless they're investing with someone else, it isn't worth it, especially if they're just getting their start.

So, I use a Vista now (I'll probably keep it for several more years and just get more add-ons and modifications) but I do eventually intend to get a Mac as well, especially for creative purposes. Still, the PC has my preferred layout and it meets my primary needs better, so I am, while sort of neutral, leaning towards the PC as my primary computer.

 

Um...thanks?

 

Friendly mod reminder to note the topic of this thread before jumping in

 

Anyone remember the Sega/Nintendo war? It was all about insulting Nintendo users. (The Genesis did very well in the market, but the Sega CD and 32X did not.) Of course, revisionist history would have that all that never happened, now that Sega makes games for Nintendo.

It's not just an American thing: According to Snopes, in Israel, Pepsi and Coke is far worse. Because Pepsi wouldn't open a plant in Israel and because Coke's logo coincidentally looks something like "No to Muhammad, no to Mecca" in Arabic backward, soda is a holy war. Coke produced Fanta in Germany to avoid Aryanization, and IBM carefully avoided Aryanization with Dehomag.

As for Apple, I like Apple products (I'm an OG here, buying a used Apple II in 1997. Oddly enough, I got a lot of work out of that.), but I acknowledge that some applications require Windows or Linux.

 

Off topic, I had stated earlier in the forum that Apple products really don't break... mine did. Only about five years old, my ibook G4 had a malfunction and began to shut down randomly without any obvious cause. I had only recently pinpointed exactly what component was the problem and replaced it... at very great difficulty in opening up the machine. Now that it's installed and running normally, I'm still uneasy about the possibility of another failure. Maybe in a week or two of use, my feelings will change; but this is the first time I've ever really had something of Apple's wear out and break.

Does this change my perception of the company? I'd be lying if I say it didn't matter, but I have had plenty of experience with old machines which still work very well. If my ibook were more like seven years old when this happened, I might not have given it a second thought. But this is Apple we're talking about. And when I consider that their hardware easily has a lifespan greater than five years, it goes to the credit of the company.

 

Any five-year old computer is old.

 

Still, Apple computers typically don't wear out in only five years. It's one of the things about the hardware that I appreciate. Until recently, I hadn't even thought about replacing my ibook for at least another five years. I've never had a computer that I liked more than this last-generation G4 laptop. And since it does most everything that I would want of a laptop, I'm not ready to get rid of it just yet. My sister's powerbook is even older and it's still almost in like-new condition. Virtually all the computers in our family are at least five years old and still we have no plans to replace any of them.

Still it's not exactly a money-saving practice, as I've spent almost half the computer's original value in upgrades and one repair job. Still I would rather spend another $500 on upgrades than twice as much for a more modern low-end Apple laptop with features I don't need.

 

Another example that comes to mind offhand, at least in how it's advertised, is Ford/Holden in Australia. Although, I'm basing that indirectly, but is another case where you get some element of identification with it.

 

That's a very good point and I don't understand why it exists, but I would buy neither.

Actually, not true; I do like the Focus.

ES

 

I don't typically think much about cars, as I'm not currently searching for one, but I regret not getting a diesel Jetta at my father's advisement. He had one and said that 1999-2005 models of the Jetta was notorious for several interior problems, such as sound system and door panels. Instead, I went with a used '97 Subaru Impreza, which had proven very reliable to my sister. I figured that the poor mileage in comparison to the Jetta was not as important as the car's reliability. Shortly after buying it, the transmission gives out. Again, my sister's car had many more miles, suffered through three accidents, neglect... not like I knew my own car's history outside of the fact the owner drove it in Georgia for most of its life.

My family also has a loyalty to the Subaru to a certain extent. These cars typically have good mileage, handling, and have a long lifespan. I think that my father would rather keep his Jetta forever if it would last that long. He never lets me drive it, so I never had the opportunity to see what it could do. Otherwise I would have set my sights on a Jetta and not given what I chose a second thought.

When it comes to cars, I see one of two choices that depend on what you're looking for. For performance, reliability, mileage... that's where Subaru, Ford, Toyota, and Chevy usually fall into. Their name brand value typically aren't worth that much. When it comes to Honda and BMW, these cars typically are bought for the little hood icon in front. Although they may have well-engineered vehicles with excellent performance, it's usually the brand name which people go for. It's a good show of success for a manager to own a luxury car, whatever its specifications.

 

Apple certainly have become the brand to have, if perhaps more for the name than the quality of their product. Even my friend at work who has an iPhone when I questioned why he had one when better phones were available said "because it's an iPhone, it's a brand thing".

Microsoft get a lot of stick, but I still think they offer more for everyone. Apple can be rather limited and often over-priced.

Regarding cars - I think certain car brands have always carried a certain respect and desire for ownership. German brands are generally very reliable and Italian models very fast and fancy-looking.
Unfortunately Toyota's great reputation for reliability has been tarnished by them having to recall hundreds of their cars due to manufacturing errors.

 

Italian cars aspire to that flashy, sexy, speedy image but realistically, they will do one of two things. One, is sit there looking pretty and not driving much. The second is spend time steaming intently from the bonnet on the side of a motorway whilst their owner weeps and curses. I suspect in fact that the entire business plan for Alfa-Romeo is to have every customer break down at least twice a year.

I think you are right about the branding though. An Aston-Martin is handcrafted English elegance, especially now it's free of the Ford influence. Porsche is a much more egalitarian racing marque next to its Italian rivals in Lamborghini and Ferrari. Lamborghini offers a certain grunt to it (with the exception of the Gallardo, which is aimed at the US market, comes in V8, and is more forgiving that most cars from that marque) and Ferrari is the epitome of class, style and performance.

None of these cars, which have elegant aspirations, should be sold to rappers.

ES

 

It is worth noting though that in some cases redisigning a car model or having it owned by a supposedly good brand does not neccessarily make it better.

The modern Mini now owned and produced by BMW is not as good as the original smaller British-made Mini. Even though BMW are a German car-maker and therefore known to make efficient cars.

VW's Beetle car has not been as good since it was redesigned to be more conventional and have a front engine.

 

Define your comments re the Mini, Ritchie? Certainly build quality wise I would disagree - same for the New Beetle. They have however failed to capture the spirit of the originals, which might be what you mean?

ES

 

I've not read much to suggest the new Mini is that big on reliability despite being a German-made car now. Plus it seems to have less space despite it being noticeably larger than the original Mini (in which case, is it actually a Mini anymore?).
It does certainly seem to handle well though.

Not really up on the new Beetle, I do think that didn't capture the spirit of the original even if it is built better.

I'm not really a fan of what I see as people getting products more for the name or design over the practicality or superiority of the product itself.
I find a lot of people do that these days.

 

I'm a fan of people doing whatever they please with their own money.

 

Of course, but they could save a lot if they made better decisions.