A long rant about why Apple has a fanatical following, and the word "design" is only mentioned once?
Good design is strangely lacking in the tech industry. Sony has it (sometimes). In the mp3 player area, IRiver had it (briefly), but it wasn't enough. When looking for a laptop recently, I was dismayed at how plain bad most Windows laptops look (for the record, I ended up choosing between a Dell and a Sony, and went with the Sony because I didn't want to wait 2 weeks). Microsoft is a consistent case study of how NOT to do design. Whatever else Apple might do wrong, design isn't one of them.
Let me put it another way. If the auto world only gave you two choices - '88 Ford Taurus knock-offs and Lexus - I'm willing to bet Lexus owners would be a lot more fanatical.
Perhaps. I just think that design is the reason most people would attribute it to, and it's certainly a part, but it's only a part. There's clearly more to it than that, because lots of industries have only one company with good aesthetic sense, yet almost none have fanboys.
Agreed on iRiver. Their players were so much better than Apple's for one or two generations, and then they degraded rapidly. I can't imagine what went wrong there.
Wow, does that take me back. I had the original Diamond Rio back in the day (though the second, 64mb generation) which I bought from Best Buy for $300. I remember how freaking happy I was with it too. What was that, 1998? 99?
Much of Apple's design aesthetic appeal is in its hardware. Microsoft has no control over the design of most of the hardware people use with its OS. The same goes for other OSes like Debian and FreeBSD. So, while I agree that MS Windows isn't the best-looking OS around, a significant chunk of Apple's advantage in the design arena has nothing to do with any mistakes on Microsoft's part -- unless you think it's a mistake to let one's OS run on other people's hardware. For a closed source shop like Microsoft (or Apple), that might be a reasonable argument, but it doesn't mean bad things about Microsoft's design choices -- just its business choices.
I agree about the hardware design (Microsoft actually made(?) some pretty good peripherals).
I was referring more to software design. I have never encountered so many plain boneheaded interface decisions as in Microsoft products, from roughly Win95 up to and including WinXP. I'm not even talking about ugly (which I can forgive), I'm talking about simply unusable - tiny text areas without scrollbars in which you sometimes have to input a large amount of text, or worse, text inputs instead of text areas. Tabs being used where they really shouldn't, resulting in dialogs with up to 5 rows of tabs, and with extra "Advanced" buttons on some of the tabs that bring up another pop-up. That kind of stuff. Vista and the new Office have been really pleasant surprises so far in this respect.
"Their products, to some significant percentage of their user base, aren’t just computers or phones, they’re a lifestyle. Insult the operating system and you insult the owner."
This is pretty offensive. IF (and that is a very big if), any other manufacturer came out with a phone that had a usable web browser, a laptop that didn't suck, or a decent mp3 player, then I'd buy them. No question.
People really don't just blindly buy Apple stuff because it's Apple. I couldn't care less if it's Apple or not.
People buy MacBooks, iPods and iPhones, because they are unquestionably the market leaders. They are the absolute best by miles in those 3 areas.
If you think there is a better phone/pocket computer than the iPhone you really have to be kidding. Same with the iPod and MacBook.
Why is it offensive? Are you a "fanboy", or are you just a Mac user? If the former, maybe you have a point -- maybe. On the other hand, I think you're probably just unaware of your hangups, considering that from what I've seen of Mac fanboys that commentary was on-target. If you're just a Mac user, on the other hand, the statement doesn't apply to you.
As for the iPhone . . . there may not be a better "smartphone" available right now, but I'm holding out for one anyway. There are just too many usability design flaws with the iPhone (and its competitors) for me to jump into smartphones yet.
Calling people fanboys is saying they are lying. That's why it's offensive.
Only to themselves. If they were lying to others, they'd be shills -- not fanboys.
Also . . . I don't think he was calling all Apple users "fanboys". He was just pointing out that there are a lot of Apple fanboys, and discussing their culture. You don't have to be an Apple fanboy to use Apple products, though. If you truly just use whatever happens to work best for you, and that happens to be Apple products in some cases, that doesn't make you a fanboy.
I'm not really clear on how you think this whole 'fanboy' thing works.
Do you think I have been brainwashed by Apple? You think I only bought an Apple to be in the 'in' crowd?
No. I bought a MacBook, thought it was fantastic compared to all that I had had before, and kept using it. I played with an iPhone in a shop, and for the first time, thought to myself "wow. I would actually use the browser and email on this phone", so I bought one.
I'm not arguing this to persuade you that Apple products are actually good, I'm arguing because by labeling people 'fanboys' you're effectively saying they have no clue. It's offensive.
You obviously don't like Apple. You've made it clear you hate things like font smoothing ;) That's your choice, but labeling people 'fanboys' is just lazy.
Arguing any more is pointless. It's like you calling me a fascist.
Like I said, I think most of their products are good, maybe a couple are even great. I don't dislike them, I just wouldn't recommend their PCs to my aunt. That was more or less the point of my original post, which you found to be trolling, because you disagree with it.
I do dislike fanboys though. I don't know if you are one or not, but I'd guess you are by how offended you get over any implication that you might be. It's the same concept as homophobia. Me simply mentioning the existence of fanboys on my blog constitutes trolling to you.
Every fanboy at some point bought an Apple out of curiosity. Every one of them will say "I didn't want to be part of a club, I just wanted to see if their products were better." That's how marketing works. Nobody says "I bought Budweiser because I like talking frogs." But a lot of people buy Budweiser because they like talking frogs.
So if you agree with me that there are fanboys (and maybe you don't) just trust me when I say, they all think the same way as you. That doesn't mean you are one, of course.It just means that if you were, you wouldn't know it.
Funnily enough, we have just recommended a mac mini to my mum+dad in law. Their current Dell is away being repaired after being infected for the umpteenth time. They are sick of it and just want something that works. Their usage is pretty much web/email/office, which the mac mini does without any issues.
I completely agree there are fanboys. My personal definition would be "Someone who promotes an obviously dud product as being great, out of overzealous brand loyalty".
For example, someone who loves Microsoft who argues about how much better the Zune is than other mp3 players, is quite likely to be a fanboy, because I think the overwhelming evidence is that the Zune is a dud product.
Your mentioning fanboys on the blog wasn't trolling in itself, it was the complete generalizations of all Apple users that was trolling. "Apple has created a club, and the people in it genuinely look down on others for not being a member."
The reason people get offended when you call them a fanboy is because you are effectively saying they are liars. You are accusing them of lying about their review of the product.
I don't think those statements imply that all users of Apple products are fanboys. You're reading into it what isn't there.
Also . . . I think being a "fanboy" isn't dependent on the object of fandom being a "dud". One can just as easily be a "fanboy" for something good as for something bad. It's the attitude that makes a "fanboy", not the product.
If Apple turned out nothing but crap for the next two years and you continued to defend it, you'd be a "fanboy". If it turned out nothing but crap for the next two years and you immediately jumped ship to, say, a Thinkpad running FreeBSD, or just stuck with your two year old better-quality Apple products because you liked what Apple did before it went down the tubes, you wouldn't be an Apple "fanboy".
If the product is a "dud", that makes it easier to identify the "fanboys", but it's not the deciding factor.
Also . . . I think implicit in the label of "fanboy" is that the only lying they do is to themselves. They really believe what they tell everyone else. If someone's lying to others, that's not fanboyism -- it's called being a shill.
I don't think I characterize all Apple users that way. Just a large number, though not a large percentage. Direct quote: "That’s how big Apple has become in the minds of many of their users. Not all, and probably not even a majority, especially if you count people who only own an iPod." You seem to automatically lump yourself into that group even though two days ago I had no idea who you were, and then get offended.
Actually, the Zune v 2. looks pretty good. It's got 4 stars on Amazon and an 8.3 on CNET, which is identical in both cases to the 80GB iPod. Don't you think it's a little disengenuous to say "the overwhelming evidence is that the Zune is a dud product"? Seems the evidence is its as good as an iPod. Doesn't it seem a little Apple fanboyish to write it off as a dud?
This is just wrong and boring. For me, in a nutshell, Apple have extremely good taste. They make very well thought out products.
I first used an Apple 1 1/2 years ago. Before then I'd just assumed they were a load of hype.
Out of all the laptops I've had, (Toshiba, IBM, Sony, Dell, MacBook), the Macbook wins absolutely in terms of design, build quality, and functionality. The others aren't even close. It's a boolean for me... Macbook wins, all the others completely fail. Perhaps this is why you dismiss people like myself as fanboys. But there really is that much of a gap between apple and the rest.
MacBooks are just simple. Nicely designed functional objects. When you then look at a Dell or IBM etc, they are a mess. With grills here, extra buttons here, some ports on the front, some on the side, weird slopes here, it's like the design was an afterthought.
Just a shame I didn't try Apple sooner.
It's the same with the iPhone. Name one other phone that has a usable web browser, and brilliantly thought out keyboard.
With bugs. One thing Apple does consistently is release buggy Rev. A products. Every. Single. Time. It's almost like they try to do it.
Out of all the laptops I've had, (Toshiba, IBM, Sony, Dell, MacBook), the Macbook wins absolutely in terms of design, build quality, and functionality.
In terms of hardware, they're all the same designs from Intel. Apple uses prettier build materials (metal); but Thinkpads are a lot more solid. (Drainage holes under the keyboard, huge hinge connecting the screen to the base, easy to open up to add things, every screw has a part number for easy ordering, etc.)
In the end, I think people like Apple because Apple likes themselves so much. It's very easy to get excited about something when you see other people doing it. When Apple launches a product, it's a work of art. When Lenovo releases a new Thinkpad... it's really fucking boring. "Yay, it looks exactly like last year's model!" That doesn't mean it's not a good computer, though... it just means Apple markets to the ignorant better. There is quite a large market of people that don't know anything :)
Finally, yeah the iPhone and OS X are kind of nice. Unfortunately Apple likes to add cool features to their OS and then cripple them for The Media Companies; the same goes for the iPhone. When I buy something, I want it to work for me, not whoever is paying Apple this week.
So I use Linux on a Thinkpad, and think about what I do with my computer instead of what it looks like.
I actually like the fact that they release their products early. Since everyone knows initial releases can be buggy the bleeding edge early adopters can go ahead and buy it, while the more careful crowd can wait for the bugs found by the early adopters to be fixed in later releases.
Did you happen to notice that jrockway doesn't use MS Windows? Perhaps you should read the last line of jrockway's post before insinuating hypocrisy with a reference to Microsoft.
Just to spell it out a bit: to criticise Microsoft or PC vendors is hardly the same as criticising whoever jrockway is. It certainly doesn't imply he's a hypocrite, since I don't know him/her and cannot, therefore, comment on their morals or integrity. It was merely a flip comment pointing out that yes, Apple do indeed release imperfect products, but so do dozens of other companies and basically we see it as not such a big deal.
Even if I were criticising jrockway as a person, why on earth would you GAS? I'm sure he/she is quite capable of repudiating me him/herself if it were necessary. Fortunately, he/she probably has the good sense to see my offhand comment for what it was: just an offhand comment, not a personal criticism.
Yea, you could never accuse Microsoft and the PC vendors of sloppy work like that.
Oh yeah, they are the collective kings of fucking things up miserably. But Apple has the image that everything they do is perfect; I'm just pointing out that they're not.
Going back to the original article, it appears Apple somehow has a fanbase that will ignore bugs just because they're Apple bugs. Isn't that interesting?
"I think people like Apple because Apple likes themselves so much"
Stop telling me why I like my MacBook. I've told you why I like it. Please try and have some respect.
I ran Linux on a thinkpad for a couple of years. I'd spend a lot of time dealing with idiotic things like hardware issues, compatibility, linux updates etc etc. That's not a good use of my time. Since moving to a MacBook I haven't had any hardware issues, or had to spend ages maintaining the o/s. THAT is why people like Apple.
I don't know what you're talking about crippling for the media companies, obviously region coding is a complete pain in the neck, but I was pretty pleased when I hooked up my mac mini to the home network and could play all my backed up DVDs straight from frontrow without any extra hassles.
As for the DRM things I'm talking about, google PT_DENY_ATTACH and the dtrace equivalent. Basically, if iTunes is running, you can't use dtrace. And the kernel prevents you from attaching debuggers to certain processes. Great.
Finally, using a Mac to play a DVD is incredibly annoying. If I use VLC, the video just starts playing. If I use Apple's program, I get "Prohibited" if I try to stop or skip at certain points. Prohibited!?? Fuck you, Apple. I make the rules on my computer, not you. (The annoying part is that this program auto-starts whenever I insert a DVD, and I can't quit because that's also "Prohibited". After that happened a few times, Apple's DVD player ended up in the trash can.)
I'd spend a lot of time dealing with idiotic things like hardware issues, compatibility, linux updates etc etc. That's not a good use of my time.
But OS X is just as bad. Every three days the machine wants to restart to install iTunes updates. And, there is no sane way to install UNIX-like software. Fink, macports, etc. are all junk compared to real Debian. The annoyances continue; emacs doesn't really work right, Apple breaks their Perl by applying non-approved patches, etc. Their window manager is utter junk. Not only do I have to manually arrange windows, I have to click to focus them, and "maximize" isn't an operation that exists. Arranging windows is a huge waste of time; the computer should do it for me. (So I use xmonad on Linux.) All in all, I really don't see how anyone can get any work done on a Mac. It's nice for Safari and VLC... but not for work.
Look, I don't care if you use Linux or not. But you should realize that OS X and Linux are both unproductive in their own unique ways. (Same for Windows.)
Sure. I agree about idiotic DVD restrictions. Great that you can just install mplayer, vlc, mythtv or a hundred other solutions. I don't think windows media player is that much better to be honest.
As for iTunes, I've only ever used it to play music and rip CDs, and even then make sure it encodes as mp3s. Does sound like a pain if you have to use dtrace a lot.
Every 3 days to install iTunes updates???? That is just absolutely false. Don't make completely untrue statements like that, it doesn't help your argument. I have rebooted my macbook maybe 3 times this year so far, each time to install an update.
Macports works ok, or just install from source.
I agree every O/S has its issues. For me personally, OS X is the most productive and least hassle. Please try to understand and respect that. Don't just dismiss it and assume that I must have an ulterior motive, or must have been brainwashed.
There are 2 things I do really hate about my MacBook:
1. The DVD drive is region coded, and has been region changed the max times, so I can only play half of my DVD collection in it.
2. I can't buy things from the iTunes US store unless I have a US credit card. Hello??? This is the internet!!!
1. The DVD drive is region coded, and has been region changed the max times, so I can only play half of my DVD collection in it.
You should be able to play any DVD with VLC. The region-code is just a flag that Apple's software pays attention to. (Unless it's enforced by hardware now, which would be insane but not surprising.)
It's hardware. The crappy Matsushita drive won't release any data unless the region code matches the code the drive has locked to.
No firmware replacements either.
It's just so ironic that I can burn it to a new DVD as region free, and it'll play fine!
edit: someone downmodded me for stating fact ;) fun fun fun
Ironically, you go into great depth about actual quality versus fanboy-targeted marketing, making a very strong case -- then indicate that you use the "default" fanboy-targeted open source OS family (Linux). Okay, so it's not exactly the same, but I was thinking that your choices sound exactly like mine until you said "I use Linux on a Thinkpad."
Of course, that was me three years ago, so I don't have much room to mock anyone.
Thinkpads are easily as good as Macbooks. In fact, for my purposes, they're better. I'd certainly agree that most Toshiba, Sony, and Dell laptops suck, though -- and that Mac laptops are pretty good, for people whose OS of choice is MacOS X anyway (since Mac laptops are not designed with other OSes in mind). I'm a little annoyed with the insistence on one-button mouse design, the lack of an alternative pointing device interface (I like the trackpoint on my Thinkpad), and the shallow keystroke on the keyboard, for Mac laptops -- but in general the hardware is much better than that of the average Vaio or Inspiron laptop.
The iPhone might rule the market in terms of good design for a "smartphone" (or maybe some lesser-known competitor has caught up or even surpassed it), but there aren't any smartphones that have solved the major usability design flaws that keep me from buying an iPhone. At best, the iPhone is the best of a bad bunch.
I think you missed the "with tactile responses" part. Tactile feedback is very important to me when typing, because I type quickly, often without having to stare at the keyboard to aim my fingers.
it makes a clicking sound and zooms in on the key you press. I think that's pretty good. I find it a little harder to type on the iPhone when it's set to silent. I like to know when I've hit a key.
My grade school had Macs, and they sucked. We used Macs of the same vintage when I was a freshman in high school, because they ran some stupid graphing software my teacher liked. They sucked. When my little sister was in middle school, they started a program to give each kid a laptop (that they couldn't bring home). They were iBooks that ran 10.2 or 10.3. Sucked.
Never had an Apple, had nothing but bad/mediocre experiences with them, had no particular affinity for the company, don't own an iPod. But I bought a PowerBook G4 when I started college in ought-five. Why? Tiger. And it has a good keyboard, no blinking lights, and the hw/sw combo is just ridiculously stable. I've been running this same boot for, like, weeks. It weirds me out when I see someone booting up their laptop. Wait, let me open a new file in TextMate... Yeah, Untitled 135. If Windows 7 and any hardware vendor can top that, I'll switch.
I only have two unsaved files open right now -- Untitled 82 and Untitled 135. It's just that I've had TextMate running continuously since sometime in March.
How's 128 emacs buffers stack up? Granted, not all of them are files, but then again, my computer has only been up a week. And, naturally, they're all saved - you'd be insane to leave that many files unsaved, IMO.
Cool -- so your EmacsOS can do 128 things at the same time! My FreeBSD OS only has 104 open processes right now, according to ps. On the other hand, one of them is Firefox with more than 100 tabs open, so it's not like I'm slacking.
I've read that adults are very loyal to brands they used when young; in the case of an article I'm thinking of, it was the manufacturer of a first car. So I have to agree.
They have a small market share now because their market share shrank to tiny under the bumbling CEOs before Jobs returned. Their market share is growing fast, but tiny x fast growth = small. Wait a few more years.
understood , I just thought it was a very over-generalized comment by stating "they've targeted schools for 30 years and it's worked," when from all appearances, has been decently for the last 10
But isn't Apple's relatively small market share because most companies (big or small) tend toward Windows?
Cost is obviously an issue for the home user, too--why spend (at least) twice as much on a Mac when you can get a perfectly acceptable Windows machine?
No -- they have a small percentage of the market because brand loyalty doesn't overcome perceived savings for many people, and because Apple's falling down on the job when it comes to game support.
true, but as the comment was reffering to schools, all the schools I've been, from grade school through University, only had Apple's computer products, so I believe he inferred the computer market.
I think it's easier than that. Just make consistently superior products, with a consistent, recognizable brand design, and charge 2x for them. Good examples are A&F, BMW, and Starbucks.
You are right to point out that religion and sports are related - they are also examples of a kind of "brand identity", based in our tribal instincts.
... charge 2x for them. Good examples are ... Starbucks.
FWIW, prices are about the same between Starbucks and @LOCAL_COFFEE_SHOPS. I don't think they are charging more because of their brand, they're just charging what people will pay for a cup of coffee.
The startling thing about all this isn't the price of coffee at Starbucks. It's the fact that Starbucks is charging the same amount for coffee that's only half as good and still putting better coffee shops out of business.
On the other hand, the bottled Frappuccino I can get in gas stations is great. It's my caffeine of choice while driving on long road trips. Amazing they can get their prepackaged per-unit retail stuff so right, while getting their in-store freshly made beverages so wrong.
Starbucks does not make superior products. The core product, coffee, is absolutely horrible. When you order an espresso you'll taste that the coffee they use is cheap over-roasted junk provided by the lowest bidder.
I agree though that - like apple - they managed to build a nice trendy facade that appeals to many people. Apple had the good sense to replace their mediocre core product (<= OS 9) with an excellent one (FreeBSD).
Starbucks isn't the only one of the three that doesn't really make superior products. BMW has a heck of a reputation for making superior products, but that reputation doesn't match up to reality so much -- unless you're comparing it to something like Ford. Similar standards apply to A&F, for that matter.
Coffee isn't Starbucks' only product quality problem, by the way. The tea is substandard, too. Hell, even the hot white chocolate is only passable.
. . . and I skipped the commercial middle-man. I'm typing this from a Thinkpad running FreeBSD.
You know, I think I have to grant you that on BMW. They've got some fanboyishness going on too. Not sure as much about the other two. (Starbucks has a number of haters exceeded only by Wal-Mart).
On second though, you're right, Starbucks was a bad pick...
My general intuition is that Apple seems so unique because we're tech-oriented and mostly surrounded by techno-centric people. If we were into fashion, coffee, or cars, there would be other companies which would seem just as fan-boy-ish. It's hard for me to pick companies, because I don't know the first thing about fashion, coffee, or cars :)
No, you were right to pick Starbucks on the strength of its fanboyish customers. The fact that it attracts haters as much as fanboys doesn't change the fact that it has a lot of fans.
but haters usually in regards to their fair trade coffee (or lack there of). Starbucks junkies are fanboys as well -- and I find often coincide with Apple fanboys
Good point -- and one I was going to make, until I saw you beat me to it: there are usually a godawful lot of Macs at Starbucks, in my experience.
I tend to notice this on my way to a local 24/7 coffee shop with better quality beverages, competitive prices, free wireless, and less business, carrying my Thinkpad.
seemingly, Starbucks only competes on "better coffee," which is , of course, subjective. This is why I believe Starbucks is like Apple in that regard, as it seems to be more about the culture and inferred status of the product, than the actual value of the product itself.
Good read. My take would be that Apple is like Nike. In grad school, one of my professors said that Nike isn't actually in the business of making shoes; it's in the business of marketing. Makes sense. Advertising and celebrity athlete endorsements don't really add any value to a pair of sneakers, but paying a celebrity athlete millions of dollars for their endorsement certainly adds to the cost, and ultimately the price, of the final product.
Quote: ". . . if they’re lucky maybe one day they’ll graduate into paying double for their computers."
Interesting commentary about "the club." Indeed does it seem that Apple packages and target-markets in such a way that those who are lulled into paying the premium for the "final product" ultimately end up doing so in order to be part of it (as in "the club").
Then, of course, are there those who are just too poor to pay membership dues to the iCool club.
Also are there those of us who maybe can, but don't necessarily want to pay double for the branded plastic, given the fact that hardware is cheap and operating systems can be free. Even legally free. I think a bunch of us use Linux, or some open-source variation thereof.
A year ago my laptop was due for an upgrade, so I got myself a 2nd hand MacBook Pro. I had never used a Mac, and had been using FreeBSD as a development OS and sometimes a Windows machine when I wanted to play games.
I can honestly say that I was not a Apple fanboy. Sure, I liked the way their things looked, but a fanboy? No.
A year after owning a Mac... I would never want to go back to a PC. It's simply the best OS that I've ever used.
So, how did Apple get me to love their product?
Their products look nice. That makes me want to use them and bring them into my "space." It's the same reason I consider buying anything: shoes, clothes, cars, chairs, anything.
Once I started using their OS it was a pleasant and consistent experience.
Apple fans have always been fervent even during the very long period where the computers very obviously underpowered and overpriced. Apple was putting out 040-based computers at high prices when the PC industry was knee-deep in comparatively cheap Pentium systems. It was only until the Power PC came along that Apple started to release systems where the hardware was hefty enough to match the quality of the interface. I also challenge anybody to argue that the OS, as opposed to interface, was anything but creaky for many years. OS 10 (not OS X) was garbage.
If Apple's marketing relies so heavily on it being a niche, exclusive club rather than the market leader/product of the common man, how do you explain the iPod?
I think they just applied the same marketing there and nobody ever challenged them on it after they achieved ubiquity. That's why I think they're vulnerable to their own tactics there.
Maybe so. The Zune marketing is an interesting case study, since it's in a lot of ways very un-Microsoft. They've tried their best to hit the hipsters with the campaign: launch parties at Stussy stores, commercials featuring trippy video sequences and a song from the Shins, customized engravings from various artists, and a general "too-cool-for-school" vibe. And it's not worked very much at all. Maybe because it's too late?
Maybe the fact that the "trippy video sequences" are pointless and lame, and the fact that the "song from the Shins" is awful, has something to do with it.
I think they just tried aping Apple's marketing (aesthetically) while totally not understanding why it worked. They don't have Microsoft Stores, so they borrowed Stussy. Jet was taken, so they went with the Shins.
They're not building their own cool club, they're just trying to get into Apple's.
If you want fanboys make sure your product confers social status. Concentrate on aesthetics and make sure you're almost always more expensive than the competition. Good aesthetics make your product desirable, an expensive price point means your product will keep its social status.
Yeah I don't think its necessarily easy. Other people have to know that the product you're buying is 'impressive' for it confer some status. Its also about building a brand identity that people want to associate themselves with. So Apple spends a lot of money making sure people know they are the cool Californian company.
Apple does marketing right, like all the good premium brands. But that doesn't lead to fanboyism. In what other arena do you see people taking sides and insulting each other about stuff that pretty much does the same thing, no matter which they choose? American politics.
The fanboy thing happens cuz personal computing is a dual party system. You're either a Mac or a PC. Or you're one of those weird 3rd party candidates who use Linux.
I believe I have the computer you recommended, a work T61, and a Macbook Pro. The keyboard on the MacBook Pro is much better, surprisingly. The idea to use a backlit keyboard is incredibly thoughtful. The screen is much, much better than the one on a T61. The operating system is much better and simpler, with not a single picture or theme of a blue sky that I know of. The T61 wins in... looking Windowish.
In this case, both Windows XP and Vista computers look as unrefined and ancient right now as old Apple computers with 5.25" drives do. When I think of Windows I think of those documentaries about the Silicon Valley from the late 90's.
I don't care that much about how the computer looks, just don't make it ridiculously bulky and keep the lines clean. Although even with such basic concepts, most competitors attempts at duplicating Apple style end up looking ridiculous. There is elegance in simplicity that most people don't understand, yet in many industries the design leader is the one that keeps things simple and clean.
However, I use Macs because of the O/S. I would definitely buy non-Apple hardware if it would run OSX without hacks but you can't.
Microsoft pretty much summed up where they are in innovation and design with the Zune. They are a giant but unless they can turn things around and actually start making devices that people WANT instead of making cheap products with a recognizable name, then they're going to end up more like Ford than Toyota.
the obsessive "apple fanboys" i know don't know much about technology. so i'd say it's half good products, and half marketing. apple's the only company that creates a personification of their product as a marketing tool. it's a great trick because anyone who identifies with the persona burns apple into their souls, but it's uncommon because you can turn a lot of people off that way. most companies don't do this at all, or pick something inoffensive or only remotely human (geico uses a lizard). obviously nobody identifies with generic friendly people or lizards. but some people do identify with justin long, god help them, so apple gets a small but devoted clan who loves it because it "just gets who they are." that said, apple's probably betting that rates of justin-long-ness are trending upwards.
Good design is strangely lacking in the tech industry. Sony has it (sometimes). In the mp3 player area, IRiver had it (briefly), but it wasn't enough. When looking for a laptop recently, I was dismayed at how plain bad most Windows laptops look (for the record, I ended up choosing between a Dell and a Sony, and went with the Sony because I didn't want to wait 2 weeks). Microsoft is a consistent case study of how NOT to do design. Whatever else Apple might do wrong, design isn't one of them.
Let me put it another way. If the auto world only gave you two choices - '88 Ford Taurus knock-offs and Lexus - I'm willing to bet Lexus owners would be a lot more fanatical.