OSNews

It's true that a company as an entity exists purely to generate profit. I don't believe, however, that the engineers and the other staff that choose to work at Apple do it purely with the profit margins in mind. They *do* do it for the philosophy. At least, i'd like to think they do.

emmm, are you aware of a concept called "work" ?

The employees do not pick their employers with some sort of philosophy in mind, they do it for the pay-check.

Plain and simple.

"The employees do not pick their employers with some sort of philosophy in mind, they do it for the pay-check. "

That's not true, I certainly didn't choose the job I have right now based on salary, I chose it because I like working for universities, and actually chose it over a higher paying job. I like the hours, the free courses, the pace is slower.

Salary isn't everything, or even the important thing.

Edited 2008-03-23 16:07 UTC

While it isn't everything it certainly is the important thing. If it wasn't you wouldn't be working at all.

Above one said

"The employees do not pick their employers with some sort of philosophy in mind, they do it for the pay-check. Plain and simple."

That is what is called cynicism plain and simple. Belief that people are only motivated by self-interest. You, Sir, are a cynic.

Edited 2008-03-23 19:18 UTC

Cynical ? Me ? yes, yes I am.
And I am also an employer.

No-one comes to an interview and asks me how the company feels on open source, global warming, world peace, or whatever you young people chat about these days.

First thing they ask about is the wages.. THEN they might ask about the working hours and conditions.

Anyone here who says otherwise is either deluding themselves or they are not working.

No, he's practical. The main reason people work for a company is because they need money. No one goes to work at Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc because they feel they're working for the greater good of man. They do it because they need to make a living.
Why do they need to make a living? Because living isn't free, at least not if you appreciate some minimal level of materialistic standard (you know, like having a computer and having internet access).
This is not to say that you'd make a living at any cost, no matter what the company does. You may chose not to work for certain companies and prefer others.
You may value benefits other than the salary they give you or the company culture etc.
At the end of the day however, you need to make a living. If you didnt you'd be relaxing on the beach with a beer instead of participating in the rat race.

Edited 2008-03-24 05:27 UTC

Man that Farhad Manjoo must really hate sony. How can he be so biased against Sony!

Oh the irony; under an hour since I posted my first message and someone marks down my post; isn't it ironic that the very people here who reply to this story are the same people who mark down posts they don't agree with. This truly is pathetic; I remember years ago Osnews.com used to be a half decent website to visit - now its chocked to the brim with spoilt brats whose OS knowledge extends only as far as Windows ME - and they think that Micrsosoft created the 'PC Revolution'.

Yes, I modded you down, did you actually read the article?

The guy spends most of his time talking about the political situation in the Middle East.

And he is right to focus on Apple Fanaticism, it just so happens that there are a large number of people who have this inferiority complex about Apple's market position and are very vocal in defending themselves. The reasons for this are understandable, but it gets quite tiring for a journalist.

Yes I did. What basis did you make such a value on my post? I personally think that the post I'm replying to is pointless crap - but unlike you, I refrain myself from censoring other peoples opinion. Its called acting like an adult, learn it some time.



Its called creating parallels between one set of circumstances and another - he is using the middle east conflict as an anology for what happens within the IT world.

Again, are you so immature that you can't understand something as basic as an analogy? the fact that the comparison don't necessarily have to have a direct relationship with each other.



There is fanaticism in all quarters - be it Apple, IBM, Sony or some other brand; its just that Apple ones happened to be the most vocal, most web savvy and Apple exploit that factor when pushing their products. Apple know there are legion of lemmings willing to do what Stevo wants them to do.

Ultimately there are rabid Apple fans, but the situation is made worse by Apple exploiting that community as free PR agents - as creators and spreaders of rumours, to create buzz about products and so forth.

Edited 2008-03-23 13:59 UTC

I do not 'make values' on peoples posts, because that phrase makes no sense. However, I disagreed with your original rant, so I clicked on the 'I disagree with this post' button. Simple.



Well, I am not censoring. I am registering disagreement. I wouldn't have modded you down, if you hadn't posted that sniveling whine about being modded-down in the first place. People disagree with you sometimes. Live with it.

This is an interesting statement, and it highlights a lack of understanding on your part.

An analogy is the method of drawing similarities between two fundamentally different situations/systems as a tool for aiding understanding.

What the author of this article used was a reference. He is citing an academic study that was carried out which demonstrates that this type of behaviour existst across the board, and not, as you claim, that 'its a phenomena related only to the IT sector (or Apple for that matter). '

Jesus.
So someone disagreed with you and modded you down, you immediately start to whine about it and then someone even explains to you in a very reasonable post why he modded you down and you immediately start to insult this person?

Wow!

I mean, I can certainly understand not liking when some mods you down, I myself often have a hard time understanding how not everyone on the internets can see the utter brilliance of anything I utter online, but this kind of reaction is simply childish.

Oh, and while we are at it, stestagg is of course absolutely right: It was a reference, not an analogy.

Anyone who's computer is as important to them as politics or religion really does have problems.

You should begin your posts like so...

Hi, My name is Kaiwai. I have Insufficient Adulation.

Anyone who is on this site and doesn't think their computer is more important than politics and religion should go elsewhere

Come on, this is a site about Operating Systems and computing and technology. It's not about religion and politics. Quite frankly I actually would rather pay more attention to my computer than either politics or religion, but then again, most people would consider me a freak.

Politics and religion should stay a personal thing, and shouldn't be shared with other people. They've caused more strife and problems then they have ever helped.

Computers on the other hand have solved a lot more problems then they have ever created. Enough said.

My computer is much more important to my life then religion, and it's not a problem. My computer feeds me, clothes me, puts a roof over my head, and entertains me.

Religion just tells me that I am going to hell for my lifestyle, and so is my common-law GF. Even though my GF is a social worker who has helped hundreds of people.

If I had to choose, I would pick my computer over religion every day of the week, and not feel guilty about it at all.

Who said you're going to hell? Isn't that a town in Texas? < wink >

Edited 2008-03-23 16:55 UTC

No, as far as I know, its a small place about 20 km from Trondheim, Norway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%2C_Norway

I come from Trondheim and have been there a few times - nice place.

The sign shown on Wikipedia is, by the way one of the most photographed train station buildings/signs in the world.

Nalle Berg
./nalle.

i've been to hell in norway

Edited 2008-03-26 13:05 UTC

It's not about guilt. The following isn't directed at you, just in general at people who mis-represent something they know nothing about. Religion won't let me do this, religion won't let me do that. Agh..

You don't go to hell for your lifestyle - not unless you're way out the side of wacko - and you sound like a reasonable guy, so I doubt that.

The reason you would go to hell is because you don't believe in Christ *shrugs*, it's actually that simple. And nobody knows if you're going to hell - I don't, and you don't. If you're a Christian, you know if you're going to heaven (assurance of faith), but for others, it's up to Him.

And for the record, "hell" is defined as "separation from God" - it's not fire and brimstone, it's a place where God is not. To a Christian, that's obviously a bad thing, since we happen to like him.

Anyhow, this isn't Scientology, it's all on public record, a simple wikipedia search would actually tell people what Christian believe.

Cheers,
Victor

My computer is much more important to my life then religion, and it's not a problem. My computer feeds me, clothes me, puts a roof over my head, and entertains me.

Religion just tells me that I am going to hell for my lifestyle, and so is my common-law GF. Even though my GF is a social worker who has helped hundreds of people.

If I had to choose, I would pick my computer over religion every day of the week, and not feel guilty about it at all. "

You've got that right; when you put religion in one corner and the millions died for its 'cause' and those in the computer side of the equation - the only thing that gives people the assumption that 'religion' takes a higher place is the fact that there is an invisible sky daddy which they worship.

Even if you were to say that Microsoft and Apple were religions in their own right, I'm still waiting for there to be suicide bombers from either side trying to wipe each other out. I'm still waiting for political movements to emerge out of these to advocate laws against the other side and stopping their 'computer perversions'.

Although I assume your post was tongue 'n cheek - there was a valid point in reference to computers, religion and politics.

What makes you think that the pro-Israeli letter writers are particularly organized?

I think both groups manage it in an equal way: Mac people and pro-Israelis talk to each other and mention some article, they notice the offending parts and get angry and then independently decide to send the letters. The only organization here is one telling the other, "hey, did you see that article? Those anti-(mac|semitic) bastards!"

Yes, in fact, there are.

He's merely stating that there is a striking resemblance between the findings of the scientific study and the actions of pro/anti (in this case) Apple people. This striking resemblance is difficult to miss, seeing the effects found in the original study have been confirmed in various other studies, which used completely different subject matters than the first study.

Human psychology scales quite well. Whatever psychological processes at work on a 'global' level (in this case, the way people perceive reports in the media on the Israel/Palestine conflict), are most likely also at work on similar issues on a more 'local' level (in this case, Apple).

Hence, it makes perfect sense to extend the findings of the original study to the issue at hand in this article. However, as always, a more detailed study would be required to actually confirm said effects.

Edited 2008-03-23 15:14 UTC

I avoid studies. Especially those studies which may be biased.

For example, the study which says you need three or more full glasses of milk a day to maintain calcium levels. The study is supported by the milk industry.

My take? If you need than much calcium. Go buy a milk cow, climb underneath and suck away at the teet.

Resemblances do not prove facts.

When one looks at the chromosomes of humans and the living great apes, like the orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee, it is immediately apparent there is a great deal of similarity between the number and overall appearance of the chromosomes across the four.

We are actually closer related to the Bonobo ape than a Gorilla. Just because your uncle from America looks like a Silverback gorilla does not prove similarity. It just 'looks' that way as primate development does across the branch of the forest dwelling apes.

I reject political, religious and conflict comparisons as naive and based in pseudo science. These include witchcraft, theocracy and class aggression.

Technology is nothing more than a collection of circuits. How we perceive it and use it is entirely up to the individual ape behind the keyboard.

Edited 2008-03-23 15:52 UTC

If it swims like a duck, eats like a duck, and vocalises like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's most likely a duck.

And not a dinner table.

Edited 2008-03-23 15:59 UTC

Ring-a-ring-a-roses, A pocket full of posies, Hush. hush. hush. hush. We're all tumbled down. -Kate Greenaway, 1881 edition, Mother Goose.

Edited 2008-03-23 16:02 UTC

"How can you compare a so-called conflict with IT? I'm not sure I see the logical connection."

Good thing nobody was doing that, isn't it? The comparison was between two groups of people who share a common disorder: malignant narcissism (wherein their sense of self is replaced by an idea. I'm sure there's a term for that, if anyone cares to point me to it). IT didn't really come up in it.

"How we perceive it and use it is entirely up to the individual ape behind the keyboard."

...that's sort of the whole point of his article: How we relate to technology, and how that parallels with how we relate to other ideas.

The logical connection is, of course, that a psychological cause for one behavior is usually connected to other stupid behaviors as well... Because our society springs from our psychological quirks, most things (be they religion, war, politics, or any other fanatical zeal) are connected in that they have the same root cause (which is simply applied in a different direction).

This expands into other areas too, such as, say, seeing a topic on Mac users and assuming it's about IT and technology rather than people(i.e. seeing what you want to see, rather than reality). There's a natural tendency to assume that things posted to an IT site will be about technology rather than human interaction and psychology. As a result of that some people don't pick up on the change of topic when it happens. I would wager that such people frequently misunderstand other topics of discussion. The fact that it happens in the IT realm does not limit it to area?

How did you miss it, exactly?

"I avoid studies. Especially those studies which may be biased."
Just an FYI... all studies are biased. If there was no bias, the study would not have been done to begin with.

Any Core 2 duo Could run those 3 particular OS's, and my PC can run many more than 3 OSs, and so can your Mini. The only reason that my PC cannot run OS X is because of Apple, not because it cannot not technically run it, but because Apple will not let it. It's that simple. Therefore, your Mini can not do anything mine cannot do, it is OS X that is limited, artificially, by Apple.

I could run OS X on a standard PC. Several students on campus have done this.

For me, installing OS X onto a PC would be as illegal as using a pirated version of Vista. Darn, ethics getting in the way.

BTW, A + B does not always lead to C in logic. ;-)

Edited 2008-03-23 16:47 UTC

Isn't that precisely what he said? Apple holds the copyright on OS X, so only Apple can decide who gets a copy of OS X from them (and thus, who gets a copy legally), and it just so happens that Apple will only give you one installed on a Mac. It is not because of a limitation of non-Apple PCs that you can't install the OS on them, but simply because Apple won't let you.

If I had known you, I could've taught you in about 20 minutse how to remain virus/malware free on Windows, and how to do so while spending $0 on security-related software, so you wouldn't have had to pay a severe premium.

Now, please do not read anything into this that I am not saying. Just because I know how to do the above and you do not, I don't in any way consider myself to be superior. Hell, you could probably do a hundred other things that I can't. But I wouldn't necessarily consider paying a lot more than you had to in order to achieve desired result as something to be proud of. Granted, there are other reasons to use Macs besides security, but that is the primary reason you listed. Security on Windows isn't a problem so long as you know a few basic rules (esp don't use Internet Explorer) and have a little bit of common sense. (Eg - don't download something that promises you nude pics of the latest celebrity of the month). Honestly, it's not that complicated

I disagree 100%. I know (myself included) people who is very competent in Windows world and doesn't spend a dime in security related software and yet have caught some malaware or trojan or something and had to reinstall their os for the sake of efficiency.

Windows XP is an insercure operating system by default, and even with care and attention, it can suffer from stuff. The fact that you think that you're so safe means that youre not "very busy". When you are really busy and working against time, you just want to get things done.

I'm not against windows as I myself use it everyday, but when I'm on a Mac i really have much less to worry about regarding security.

Security on Windows is possible, but not without tweaking things, and being extremely cautious.

Well It may be off topic -- Security, but I do know those reasons and methods to keep windows 'safe'. It is however not something that I desire to do or want to have to do just to use Microsoft Office. I use Windows daily and I do not have many of the issues that plague windows users. Hell I use safe computing practices on the Mac. My general user account is NOT an administrator. And even if I wanted to see nude 19 yr old starlets that should not make my whole system a malware magnet.

Long before Airbags were the law of the land people bought Mercedes, Audi and Volvo and got that type of personal security for a significant premium. It is for me the simple reason that after working with windows (and Mac at work) all day one of the last things I want to do is comb through the windows and pull out all of the malware that comes down the wire.

As a father of two how can I keep them from clicking on a banner or trying to get a 'free' iPod Touch and not having them take windows to fubar land. For me it is all about the Total Cost Of Ownership. First of All the price of Apple products is not so big if you can afford it, second the quality of Apple products SW & HW is worth the price if I do not have to factor in Symmantec or Macaffee. Third my time at home is not billable so I do not want to have to 'work' just to play.

I still go back to the premise that on a slow news week expect poor journalism to select a 'hot' buzzword. Like Apple\ iPod\ iPhone