Musing on Apple September 2013

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by frahse

Surely you see things are not strictly dichotomies.

Spoiler:

Those who can, use Android -- those who can't, use Apple

[49Kat]

Re: the discussion on 'brand loyalty'...I'm loyal to myself and my wallet. If a brand isn't working for me, in the future I will make a different choice.

I ended up with Apple quite by chance, actually. A couple of years ago, I very much wanted a Blackberry as a smartphone. DH and I went with LG's instead. His was a Windows smartphone, and had its good points, but in many respects not so user friendly. Mine was a dumbphone. Anyway, I stray off topic...

As you can see, my first reader was a Sony with no wifi. Which I loved at the time, but when I heard of the Vox, I wanted that and once you get used to the convenience of acquiring books without having to be physically tethered to a PC, it's hard to go back.

The Vox...well, it was OK for a while, I put up with its shortcomings. I did what I could to make it work and at the time I enjoyed it. I did use it a lot. I have an opinion on the whole issue of the Kobo Vox and its unfortunate end ...let's just say that I won't be buying Kobo hardware again, although I do purchase ebooks from Kobo if the price is right. I did a data wipe on the Vox today and it has been put in storage.

I wouldn't have gone to Apple, but we happened to receive an iPad2 as a bonus gift from a company from whom we had made some purchases. And wow, I took to that right away. I have really come to enjoy it. I use it every day and it just works. The Vox, by comparison slow and buggy and awkward, got left behind and the iPad became my main reader. Once in a while I would resurrect the Sony, like if we were on a camping trip and I wanted to read outside. But using the Sony takes some prep work to get the reading list up to date. And of course I can't read my Kindle books on it. But iPad gets hot in the sun, not a good thing. iPad even got slipped into my purse and came along with me many places, but it's heavy. I wished it had the portability of the Vox...and then the Mini came along.

And the same company gave us one of those. At the same time, we were in need of phones, and by this time I was quite used to the Apple platform and I find it easy to work with. So this household went all Apple, other than the Windows laptops. We chose the iPhone 5 due to availability and we've heard they are a little more durable than the 5s or 5c. (And the Vox taught me not to jump at the newest thing.) Our phones see some rough usage.

So I've been happily setting up the Mini, and I love the feel and lightness of it and that is going to be my portable/'slip into my purse' reader.

As for those of you who have chosen Android products, Windows products... We all have a choice, we all make choices based on personal preferences and the process by which we come to make our choices may vary. I suppose one could say I was led to it by clever marketing on the part of Apple--no doubt large companies make bulk purchases of these Apple products at a huge discount (I don't know that, though) and Apple products are given away to people like me who otherwise may not necessarily have chosen that brand. In our case, it worked for Apple. That being said, if the product that had been given to me had not functioned to my liking, I would not have been making future purchases of the brand. Coulda gone either way.

Anyway, for me, these devices are tools, and whatever is easy, enjoyable, user friendly, and kept supported and up to date, that's what I'll go with.

Edited to add: Of course quality is key, as well.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by frahse

I see your point, Prestidigitweeze, and I also see Forsooths.

I think the trap you have fallen into is to only have 2 categories. . . .
Some brands I admire. Others I stay away from. Surely you see things are not strictly dichotomies.

The trap into which you yourself seem to have fallen is this: Conflating a description of a pathology for the mindset of the person who describes it. You might as well call an argument boolean because the syntax uses parallel phrases.

Seeing brands as polarizing is the condition being described, not the position being advocated.

The first mistake is to see brands as boolean dichotomies. The second is to form factions around the idea. My description is of boolean factions that arise from thinking of brands as antipodal categories. It is certainly not a description of all possible categories because the fault lies with the idea of Us/Them opposition.

Nowhere have I suggested that boolean thinking about brands is a good idea. I've only pointed out some of the symptoms and effects.

In my original essay on this subject on head-fi, I suggested that one way to be relatively free of marketing concerns is to choose to buy new products only when necessary. Thus, the person who buys a non-Apple tablet years before their iPad dies or becomes impractical is more of a marketing victim than someone who simply waits and makes a more practical choice next time (unless of course the next iPad is perfect for their specific needs).

The idea is to recognize the usefulness of what you own already, and to choose your next device empirically regardless of branding.

Obviously, the person who has money to burn and wants something faster or more flexible might have their own reasons for upgrading.

Get it? The point is not to create inflexible categories. The point is to find ways to arrive at other options -- to avoid being stuck with choices which are predetermined by arbitrary conflicts.

It can't just be the powerful and the weak or there wouldn't be these splits.

Brand battles tend to occur among the relatively disempowered, not between the wealthy and the poor. Anti-loyalists who identify an opposed brand with characteristics associated with the wealthy (or, more recently, with the socially elite) are another matter.

Historically, the situation reminds me of certain 19th century riots in New York, in which poor Irish American immigrants chased down poor African Americans, vilifying the latter for stealing jobs. Of course, neither group had stolen jobs from the other. It was all a form of scapegoating over large-scale events and decisions made at much higher levels.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by 49Kat

Re: the discussion on 'brand loyalty' . . . [i]f a brand isn't working for me, in the future I will make a different choice. . . . Anyway, for me, these devices are tools, and whatever is easy, enjoyable, user friendly, and kept supported and up to date, that's what I'll go with.

Sticking to that idea -- even when friends on the internet consider it indefensible -- and expressing it without anger or defensiveness seems the calmest and least marketing-enslaved position during a brand war. If a device still works for you, sobeit. If not, look elsewhere when the time comes.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The trap into which you yourself seem to have fallen is this: Conflating a description of a pathology for the mindset of the person who describes it. You might as well call an argument boolean because the syntax uses parallel phrases.

Seeing brands as polarizing is the condition being described, not the position being advocated.

The first mistake is to see brands as boolean dichotomies. The second is to form factions around the idea. My description is of boolean factions that arise from thinking of brands as antipodal categories. It is certainly not a description of all possible categories because the fault lies with the idea of Us/Them opposition.

Nowhere have I suggested that boolean thinking about brands is a good idea. I've only pointed out some of the symptoms and effects.

In my original essay on this subject on head-fi, I suggested that one way to be relatively free of marketing concerns is to choose to buy new products only when necessary. Thus, the person who buys a non-Apple tablet years before their iPad dies or becomes impractical is more of a marketing victim than someone who simply waits and makes a more practical choice next time (unless of course the next iPad is perfect for their specific needs).

The idea is to recognize the usefulness of what you own already, and to choose your next device empirically regardless of branding.

Obviously, the person who has money to burn and wants something faster or more flexible might have their own reasons for upgrading.

Get it? The point is not to create inflexible categories. The point is to find ways to arrive at other options -- to avoid being stuck with choices which are predetermined by arbitrary conflicts.



Brand battles tend to occur among the relatively disempowered, not between the wealthy and the poor. Anti-loyalists who identify an opposed brand with characteristics associated with the wealthy (or, more recently, with the socially elite) are another matter.

Historically, the situation reminds me of certain 19th century riots in New York, in which poor Irish American immigrants chased down poor African Americans, vilifying the latter for stealing jobs. Of course, neither group had stolen jobs from the other. It was all a form of scapegoating over large-scale events and decisions made at much higher levels.

Prestidigitweeze,
just to inform others of the technique you are using:

from Wikipedia:
Straw man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the logical fallacy. For other uses, see Straw man (disambiguation).
"Man of straw" redirects here. For the novel by Heinrich Mann, see Der Untertan.

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.

I also feel it would be useful to you to know that though my formal training in Modern ("abstract") Algebra is dated just like my ΠΜΕ certificate, I still frequently use some elements when programming control solutions,

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by frahse

Prestidigitweeze,
just to inform others of the technique you are using: (link to Wikipedia definition of straw man)

Of course, in order for your assertion about the "technique" I'm "using" to be debated (let alone proved), you'd have to argue specific examples of my application of the technique rather than simply link to a Wikipedia article.

You originally wrote:

I think the trap you have fallen into is to only have 2 categories. . . . Some brands I admire. Others I stay away from. Surely you see things are not strictly dichotomies.

To which I responded:

The trap into which you yourself seem to have fallen is this: Conflating a description of a pathology for the mindset of the person who describes it.

I went on to describe not a mistake which I attributed to you but one that is made frequently when anyone decides to have yet another brand war:

The first mistake is to see brands as boolean dichotomies. The second is to form factions around the idea. My description is of boolean factions that arise from thinking of brands as antipodal categories when brand choices are categorized as antipodal. This is certainly not a description of all possible categories because the fault lies with the idea of Us/Them opposition.

So to sum:

1. I explained that, in my initial post, I didn't "see things" as "strictly dichotomies," but instead pointed out that brand wars themselves are predicated on the idea that consumer choices are Boolean.

2. My response to you suggested that you yourself "seemed to" have mistaken my description of a condition for brand wars (a commitment either to one brand or to others -- i.e., a boolean choice) for my actual mindset (in your words, the way I actually "see things").

3. This was followed by a description of the above predicament (mentioned in my previous post) which was certainly not intended as a rewording of your ideas stated or otherwise.

I certainly didn't intend to cast any aspersions on you or suggest that you entertained delusional beliefs.

Did you have any other concerns?

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Of course, in order for your assertion about the "technique" I'm "using" to be debated (let alone proved), you'd have to argue specific examples of my application of the technique rather than simply link to a Wikipedia article.

You originally wrote:

(problem with site not bringing over quotes)

To which I responded:

(same)

I went on to describe not a mistake which I attributed to you but one that is made frequently when anyone decides to have yet another brand war:



So to sum:

1. I explained that, in my initial post, I didn't "see things" as "strictly dichotomies," but instead pointed out that brand wars themselves are predicated on the idea that consumer choices are Boolean.

2. My response to you suggested that you yourself "seemed to" have mistaken my description of a condition for brand wars (a commitment either to one brand or to others -- i.e., a boolean choice) for my actual mindset (in your words, the way I actually "see things").

3. This was followed by a description of the above predicament (mentioned in my previous post) which was certainly not intended as a rewording of your ideas stated or otherwise.

I certainly didn't intend to cast any aspersions on you or suggest that you entertained delusional beliefs.

Did you have any other concerns?

Simply,
1. Maybe I shouldn't have used that word "dichotomies." Perhaps it exacerbated your reaction.
2. My younger son is quite the "polemicist" and I find that dealing with one of those is all I stand.

[forsooth]

Hillman with fire hardened sharp stick, looks at invaders with cannon.

"We be friends. OK?"

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by frahse

Simply,
1. Maybe I shouldn't have used that word "dichotomies." Perhaps it exacerbated your reaction.

My response was not a "reaction" any more than it can be said to have been "exacerbated" (made worse) by your use of dichotomies. A polite and reasonable answer is not made shrill by someone else's desire to discredit it. It remains the same regardless.

2. My younger son is quite the "polemicist" and I find that dealing with one of those is all I stand.

My response would have had to be strongly critical and likely political in order to be construed as "polemical." In fact, I suggested that fighting over brands is pointless and acrimonious.

So to sum:

The posts to which you refer do not seem polemical to me, nor were they "made worse" by anything you said. In fact, they argued for a return to a dialog predicated on mutual respect.

Analyzing what someone says is not the same as being impacted by it negatively.

It seems to me that people often complain of what they fail to recognize in themselves, and that this is to be expected -- self-examination can be nearly impossible.

That said, if the tone of this thread seems exacerbated or polemical, then why not examine all of the posts on it and not simply mine?

[frahse]

Originally Posted by forsooth

Hillman with fire hardened sharp stick, looks at invaders with cannon.

"We be friends. OK?"

Yes friends!

We do notice you could use better armament and we are willing to trade you old cannon and cheap rifles for things that you do have.

Soon you won't have to be friends with anyone!