Is Apple really unusually cultish? Sure, there's a small number of people who will line up for hours to be the first to get a new Apple product, and that behaviour seems pretty silly to me. But people will also line up for hours to see a new Star Trek film, or get tickets to a concert, or buy a new Harry Potter book, or a new Grand Theft Auto game, or to get a book signed by some minor celebrity, or... well, you get the idea. It's not even unique in the consumer electronics market; there's always people lining up for a new games console every time one is released.
If you read the article, it cites studies done in the US that show some of the behaviors particular to cults. There's a difference between fandom and cultish-ness.
It mentions an article written by a Utah-based "consumer psychologist" which is quoted as saying:
"We find several key sustaining myths, including a creation myth, a messianic myth, a satanic myth, and a resurrection myth"
but I question whether you couldn't identify most of these in damn near any fandom.
Sure, there is indeed a difference between fandom and cultishness, but I think Apple fandom remains well and truly on the "fandom" side. I think it's silly, but it's no sillier than being a Firefly fan, or a Red Sox fan, or a Beatles fan.
This is not the first article I've seen that compared Apple fandom (and employment) to cults. All throughout the 90's I remember seeing similar discussions.
It's amusing that a group that touts themselves as valuing
individuality and creativity all use the same restrictive
devices with very little choice.
It's a common stereotype of a Mac users, but to be frank, I never saw a mac user making such claims. On the other hand,
restriction is what drives creativity and innovation. It's easy when you
have all the resources and freedom, but restricted environment is where
creativity shines. Look no further than a history of Apple itself—just read Woz's story in "Founders at work".
Mac fanboys are like the Goth kids of the adult world - they profess
individual expression, but all act and dress the same.
I found this part interesting:
"Of the 44 films that topped the box office for at least one weekend in the US last year, Apple products were featured in 18 of them, making it the number one brand featured in US blockbuster movies in 2009."
Nevermind, I confused ThinkPad with the Think Different slogan -- I mean, Apple isn't the only company with stylish computer products, but I think they are the most recognized for having stylish computer products on a mainstream popular culture level, which blockbuster movies try to appeal to. So in the question of, "Should we use an Apple product or some stylish computer from relatively obscure brand X?" most movies will go with Apple.
That's a guilt-by-association argument that doesn't really hold water.
In its early days Aljazeera was known for broadcasting dissenting views and was perceived as more objective than state run Middle Eastern media entities. Many of its staff were former BBC. Aljazeer was shut down by the Saudi government because it failed to stick with the party line. It had to relocate to Qatar as a result, where it seems to enjoy more independence.
Yes, when Aljazeera first began broadcasting the American press had nothing but praise for them. It was only when they refused to parrot the party line on Iraq and 9/11 that the media turned against Aljazeera.
I'm finding it really interesting that people are taking my original statement as an attack on Al Jazeera... All I said was it's a media company that exists within the most religious civilisation in the world. If I were to point out that MSNBC is a media company that exists within the most materialistic civilisation in the world, would this be equally considered as an attack?
Have you actually ever watched Al Jazeera, or are you just repeating the blather from Fox News? It's one of the most well rounded international news outlets around.
That doesn't discount my original statement does it? Sincere question, it is a media company and it exists within the structure of the most religious civilisation currently in existence?
Qatar is one of the most liberal Muslim countries in the middle east, and Al Jazeera operates with great autonomy. What exactly do you mean by "exists within the structure of...", and why would that in any way be relevant?
Relevant in the same sense that existance within the structure of a communist country qualifies a person for understanding what is par for the course within a communist country. Or existance within a fascist country qualifies a person for understanding what is par for the course within a fascist country.
I must admit I'm quite baffled at the hair trigger reactions here, I wasn't trying to make anything approaching a controversial statement, saying; these guys ought to know what fanatical adherence to religious principles ought to look like, I don't get why that's debatable.
Agree or disagree, even the most rabid Apple haters must agree that this is not a "new phenomenon." Help me understand why the word "hacker" and/or "news" applies here?
I find it useful from the perspective of analysing a phenomenon that as you mention is intimately familiar, but from an extremely different perspective than I am accustomed to. Not just outside the hacker community, but outside the structure of western civilisation. Without attempting to be too critical; more specifically from the perspective of a civilisation intimately familiar with fanatical religious behaviour from an every day perspective.
I wouldn't have been able to predict what the kind of analysis such an organisation would come up with based on this familiar part of our landscape. Within that context I find it quite interesting.
I'm not sure you can qualify this as a strictly non-western perspective, given that the article is based mainly on the opinions of an Apple employee, a Utahan consumer psychology professor, and a guy who wrote the books "Cult of Mac" and "Cult of iPod". Those last two people would probably have written the article themselves, given half a chance.
The only difference between a "cult" and any other religion is numbers. Rather like how Hobbes pointed out that the only difference between superstition and religion is that the latter is publically endorsed.
I'd dispute the distinction, witness how quickly just the mention of a civilisation as "most religious" is taken as an attack upon that civilisation.
Once upon a time perhaps the difference between a religion and a cult was that a cult was a religion without the good press, but the reaction to even characterising a thing as a religion being classed as an attack by so many people seemingly subconsciously, it seems that they're both negative labels now.
Can't say it particularly bothers me personally, quite the contrary.
Honest question, is it really? In which sense do the nations which make up modern Middle Eastern civilisation not match with the description "the most religious civilisation currently in existence".
Give me an exhaustive list of precisely which nations you consider to make up the Middle East, and a rigorous definition of "civilization", and I'll see what I can do.
You made the statement and provided no basis for it, which I called you on, and you want me to explain why your statement is incorrect? Have you been to the Middle East? Do you have experience or evidence to back your claim that they are what you say?
Side note: there aren't separate civilizations anymore -- it's human civilization, and maybe you can separate out 'Middle Eastern' culture, but that's a very broad term and your statement still doesn't hold up.
bahrain N/A assumes 0 maximum possible of 9.8% (other)
kuwait N/A assumes 0 maximum possible rate of 5% (non islamic)
oman N/A assumes 0 less than 5% (non islamic)
qatar N/A assumes 0 max possible 22.5% (other)
saudi arabia atheism expressly illegal
UAE N/A assumes 0 max possible 15 (other)
yemen n/A assumes 0 max possible 1 (other)
Gaza strip 0
iraq N/a assumes 0 max possible 3 (other)
israel 15-37 (split @ 26% :/)
Jordan N/A assumes 0 max possible 2 (other)
Lebanon N/A assumes 0 max possible 5 (other)
Syria 0 (other)
West Bank N/A assumes 0 max possible 8 (other)
Iran N/A assumes 0 max possible 2 (other)
Cyprus 2%
Egypt < 1%
18 countries
total 3 + 26 + 2 + 1 = 32 / 18 = 1.7%
Excuse uberfast formatting, methodology, just check the wikipedia entries then check the atheism rates, combination of the wiki entries on a per country basis + the religion in x articles + demographics of atheism. Compare 1.7% with the figures for a wide variety of western nations referenced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Distrib....
I'm kind of baffled by the idea that this is controversial.
Why is everyone giving him such a hard time? Ok, he should have used a word other than 'civilization', but is it really that controversial/does it need that much proof to state that the Middle East is the region where religion plays a bigger part in people's lives than elsewhere in the world? Without looking at specific places/occasions, I agreed with the statement right away. C'mon, if he had said that Africa was the poorest region in the world, would everyone be asking for proof?
I think that's the point, not the irony: "we believe in an actual deity who does various things, whereas elite Westerners believe in a manufacturer of gadgets."
I'm not interested in whether the historical Jesus, Moses or Muhammad existed, I'm interested in the much more dubious existence of their boss.
And if Muhammad never told you to kill anybody, he sure wrote a lot of things (or alternatively, transcribed a lot of things dictated by Allah) which are awfully easy to interpret that way: http://www.yoel.info/koranwarpassages.htm . Apple, on the other hand, tends to steer well clear of telling anybody to kill anybody, as far as I know.
Unless you can prove the existence of a Jesus who has been resurrected, a Moses who walked on the sea or a Muhamad who rode a flying horse to Heaven, I doubt your proof would satisfy most people.
Those are things that people said that Jesus/Moses/Muhammad did, and consequentially not what I'm claiming proof for.
My claim is only that they existed. Whether we believe what they said, or what other people say about them, is another question entirely.
Going back to the original point:
"At least I can prove, to a reasonable level of satisfaction, the existence of Apple."
No one is arguing Apple's existence, the debate is whether what Apple says and what is said about Apple is true.
The Bible says Jesus was resurrected. Apple says iPad is magical. Pundits say iPad is the future of computing. Is it true? I don't know. But it's all the same kind of mysticism.
