Over the last few months, I've been forced to use Exchange/Outlook a lot, and for the life of me I don't get the big deal.
I don't think it is a very big deal. I've supported Exchange servers in companies of various size, and it's really not doing anything astoundingly complicated, and what it does it doesn't do all that well. But still it does a bunch of things that other solutions haven't done an even worse job at, and does them all together. Things like "I can send a meeting invitation to my boss and his assistant can check his mail, accept his invitation, and reply on his behalf without actually logging in as him."
I know, it doesn't sound like that sort of thing would be all that important, and it's not even clear all the time that it makes a lot of sense, but there are companies that run on this sort of procedure. So there are a bunch of random things like shared calendars and push-email to phones that people don't want to live without, and unless you can provide a seamless replacement, you're stuck with Exchange.
I, for one, am eager to see a suitable Exchange alternative. I have a real love/hate relationship with Exchange. There are some options out there, but none of the options I've tried have worked out.
If I claim fish are water users and you point at a poor fish flopping around on land, about to expire, you can't legitimately say "clearly there are fish who are land users". That's absurd, the fish in question may in fact be on land, but it belongs in the water.
Weird metaphor. Here's a weirder one. If I claim no one is a lava user and you point to a fish being destroyed by lava and say, "Nope, see, lave is only bad for fish," then.... well we have a whole lot of nonsense going on here.
That cool yoga instructor is our poor gasping fish; she's clearly not in her element.
Yeah, well it doesn't seem like anyone is in their element when dealing with PC. It's not like they show a bunch of geeky business users getting along famously with PC. There is one ad where they show a whole bunch of broken PCs, while in another ad Mac gets all dressed up in a suit to go to a business meeting.
I'm sorry, what's your point again?
The ads suggest that cheap-suit nerdy petty cubicle dwellers are suited to windows.
Ok, when? When does it ever suggest that even nerdy petty cubicle dwellers would do well to buy a PC? In fact, I can't remember a single instance of anyone particularly liking PC in the commercials, except maybe for Mac.
Yeah, I'm often doubtful about these sorts of psychology stories, but this one actually makes a certain sort of sense to me. In the traditional meaning of the word, being "conservative" means that you dislike quick and drastic changes. The idea that there would be a connection between disliking change quick changes (moving from the known to the unknown) and being generally more fearful and easily startled doesn't seem strange or surprising.
Also, the connections between being more fearful, wanting a strong army, and wanting to be "tough on crime" seem pretty clear. You could have convinced me without research.
On the other hand, none of this necessarily means that these opinions are wrong. Even if they're more fearful, it's not clear that it means they're "too fearful". I'm not trying to argue that they are or that they aren't, but just suggesting that we all try to avoid jumping to conclusions. (I'm also not accusing the parent post of claiming that it means they're wrong)
I'll hold out judgement until we see more than "the possibility of trying to quash competition". Like, maybe an actual attempt to quash the competition.
Nope. Sorry. Bzzt. Wrong. No one would say don't hate the player if this were Microsoft or SCO
Nope. Sorry. Bzzt. Wrong. I would be saying "don't hate the player" if this were Microsoft. I don't hold it against Microsoft that they file for patents, even if they're silly patents. There may be plenty of reasons to hate Microsoft, but that's not one of them. It's something that, given their position, they *have to* do.
Oh, right, because companies like Google, IBM, Novell, and Redhat don't ever patent anything.
In case you're fixated on the idea that someone came up with it first, it's not really Apple's job to go around researching to make sure that none of the patents they're pursuing are similar to other people's ideas.
Now, if you can prove that the people within Apple who filed this patent were aware of existing products already using those techniques, you might have a point. If Apple starts aggressively pursuing the enforcement of all their patents, you would also have grounds to complain. But complaining because Apple filed for a stupid patent only demonstrates that you don't understand what's going on with today's patent system.
Most Coke commercials for example, contrary to what you claimed, generally carry a different message. (The Polar Bear campaign, for example...)
Those polar bears looked pretty cool to me.
They are trying to build subconscious mental associations... but its not usualy "If you drink Coke, you'll be happy and cool and have lots of friends." (That would be true of Pepsi or most beer ads...)
OK, so I'm not even going to bother with Coke even though I'm sure I could dig up some ads that prove my point, since it you seem to agree with me that creating subconscious associations, including associations with "coolness", is extremely common.
However, I think its equally clear to anyone with half a brain that the stereotype extends to the users
Only if you're shocking bad at understanding how metaphors work, but I'll grant you that most people are shockingly bad at understanding metaphors.
and that you are supposed to think "I'm cool like Mac, I should use a Mac."
In about the same way that whenever ads use celebrity spokespeople you're supposed to think, "I'm cool like that spokesman, so I should use that product."
And? Clearly, according to the ad she was using the wrong type of computer.
Yes, so clearly there are PC users who are cool (according to these ads). So the commercials aren't supposed to be saying that PC users are dull and stupid and boring, but just that the computers are. Which was what I was saying, and you were disagreeing with.
And *of course* the commercial is trying to argue that, if you aren't using a Mac you're using the wrong computer. It's a commercial for Macs. I mean, WTF? You think they should put out commercials saying, "You shouldn't use our computer!"?
She was a businesswoman and a yoga instructor who was frustrated with her computer, and the "entire message" was that she would be less frustrated if she had chosen to use a Mac.
I agree that the characters are clearly literally the computers not the users, but you'd have to be pretty close minded not to agree that the characters are also metaphor for the type of users suited to each OS too.
On the contrary, I think the message of the ads are that no users are suited to Windows, because Windows isn't very good in general and the Vista is a pain to use. Now, you might want to argue that the ads' claim isn't true, that Windows is very good and Vista isn't a pain to use, but that's another discussion entirely.
Ok, but just for clarification, there's no claim here that the characters "Mac" and "PC" came from that show, but just the actors who played those characters in one country also played other characters on a show from that country?
Because what confused the hell out of me was "And for anyone who ever used to watch the British TV show in which these characters appeared together (before they turned into computers)".
And yes, Americans miss out on some fine British television. For some reason, the only British show I can think of that we get on a major channel is Dr. Who.
I'm sick of software patents, but I'm not sure it makes sense to blame Apple. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
And in case I have to spell that out more, any big company these days who has anything to do with software are going to file software patents whenever they think they might possibly be able to get one. If for no other reason, collecting a large number of patents can be used defensively. So when Microsoft comes to Apple and says, "You're using a lot of our silly patents, so we're going to sue you," Apple can respond, "Well you're using our silly patents too, so we'll countersue." And vice versa.
So whether it's Apple or Microsoft or IBM, I don't blame these companies for patenting everything they can, whether it makes sense or not. I only blame them if they start using those patents offensively (in both senses of the word "offensive"). However, I do take serious issue with the patent system, and think it should be reformed.
Right, lots of people don't pay a lot of attention to ads. I could watch the Microsoft ad and think it's about people claiming to be "PC", i.e. politically correct. People not-watching ads can come up with all sorts of random conclusions.
But on the other hand, I agree that Microsoft's ad people may be relying on lots of people having misunderstood Apple's ads in a similar way. It might work too, because you generally don't lose money betting on the general public to be stupid or poorly informed.
You sound like you're very sensitive about your choice in computers.
Yeah, I guess it's true that *every* product is trying to create some kind of a subconscious association. "If you drink Coke, you'll be happy and cool and have lots of friends." Or maybe, "If your kids use MS Windows, they'll grow up to be famous." So if you want to argue that Apple is trying to make their product have an association with being cool, then I won't argue against you.
On the other hand, it's very clear to anyone with even half a brain that the characters represent the computers themselves, and not the people using those computers. In the only depiction of a user I can think of, they have a yoga instructor being a dissatisfied PC user.
So no, the subtext isn't that PC users are uptight businessmen, but rather that Windows users are dissatisfied with their dysfunctional PCs.
Errr... no. The creative OS isn't used by the the cool guy, the creative OS is the cool guy. And the stale OS is the boring one, not the person using it. Now if you want to claim that advertising that your product is cool works because people think owning cool products will make them cool, I won't disagree. But the straight-up literal meaning of the commercials is that PCs running Windows are metaphorically comparable to lame, neurotic geeks that are difficult to work with.
I'd modify by having diverse people representing Linux/BSD variants come out, and have PC (Hodgman) refuse to work with them or talk to them because he was on a power trip. And then have Mac work well with them, talking about how they used the same formats/protocols. "Hey, we can talk with SSH without installing any additional software!"
On the other hand, most people wouldn't understand what the hell all that meant, since loads of people still don't even know what Linux is.
And the tagline is absolutely perfect: "Life Without Walls". That's a direct hit on the most obnoxious characteristic of the Apple world -- the lock-in.
Yeah, sure, because there's no lock-in with Windows.</sarcasm>
And what lock-in is there with Apple, really? If you want to use their OS, you have to use it on their computer.... and that's pretty much it. You're free to not use their OS, and mostly Apple uses open protocols and formats. They even use a lot of open source software, and release some of their own software under open source licenses.
People who complain about Apple's lock-in with Macintoshes (in comparison to Windows, at least) generally have very little idea of what they're talking about. You can present some arguments about iTunes DRM, but Windows Media DRM locks you in just as badly to devices and operating systems that support that DRM. Apple, on the other hand, at least uses AAC and H264, which means they're using real standards when you drop the DRM out.</tangential rant>
You mention Gates/Jobs, and I've always found it noteworthy that the PC character looks a bit like Gates and Mac looks a bit like Jobs. So yes, the commercial is literally displaying anthropomorphized computers talking about their respective qualities. If you want to talk about the subtext, the subtext isn't about the users, but rather about the two companies (Apple and Microsoft) and their respective leadership.
You can't be timid with parody; there's no half way. Half way parody only reinforces what you want to fight.
A good example of this is the whole controversy with the New Yorker cover showing the Obamas and their "terrorist fist jab". It was meant to parody the right-wing characterization of Michelle and Barack Obama by showing an absurd representation of them. The problem was, the representation wasn't any more absurd that the right-wing characterization, and so people weren't sure how serious the cover was.
If you're going to parody something, you have to be far more absurd than the original. Otherwise, it's just not parody.
Right, because some PCs have beards, have rings, and are scared while shark-diving.
The ads end with some guy saying, "I'm a PC, and a human being. Not a human doing; not a human thinking. A human being." And you're arguing that he's an anthropomorphized computer?
Um... what British TV show where the characters appeared together? There was a British sitcom where anthropomorphized computers were roommates or something? Sounds like a show I want to watch.
Anyway, no, it's quite clear that Justin Long is a Macintosh computer and John Hodgeman is a PC. When the "Mac" character gets Time Machine, there are lots of copies of him. John Hodgeman crashes and needs to be repaired. They talk about Mac and PC getting sold and having features.
Now, you can argue that lots of people misunderstand the ads and think that they're supposed to be a Mac user and a PC user. However, if you think they are users and not the machines themselves, then you either aren't paying attention or don't understand concepts like "metaphor".
I think you're missing the point of what AKAImBatman. He's not a stereotype of PC *users*. He is a personification of the PC itself. His character is supposed to be the computer, not the person using the computer.
So the commercial isn't saying PC users are boring and inept, but rather that most computers are boring and inept, and people using boring and inept users should switch to using computers that are cool, sleek, and competent.
So yeah, I guess that's a stereotype, but a stereotype about Dell computers and HP computers, and not about the people who use them. That's why the end of Microsoft's commercial, "I'm a PC, and a human being" is retarded. No, you're not a PC at all, you just happen to use one.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I hadn't really thought about that, but... then why doesn't someone fork it and drop the restriction altogether?
Over the last few months, I've been forced to use Exchange/Outlook a lot, and for the life of me I don't get the big deal.
I don't think it is a very big deal. I've supported Exchange servers in companies of various size, and it's really not doing anything astoundingly complicated, and what it does it doesn't do all that well. But still it does a bunch of things that other solutions haven't done an even worse job at, and does them all together. Things like "I can send a meeting invitation to my boss and his assistant can check his mail, accept his invitation, and reply on his behalf without actually logging in as him."
I know, it doesn't sound like that sort of thing would be all that important, and it's not even clear all the time that it makes a lot of sense, but there are companies that run on this sort of procedure. So there are a bunch of random things like shared calendars and push-email to phones that people don't want to live without, and unless you can provide a seamless replacement, you're stuck with Exchange.
I, for one, am eager to see a suitable Exchange alternative. I have a real love/hate relationship with Exchange. There are some options out there, but none of the options I've tried have worked out.
Yes, that's not at all unlikely.
If I claim fish are water users and you point at a poor fish flopping around on land, about to expire, you can't legitimately say "clearly there are fish who are land users". That's absurd, the fish in question may in fact be on land, but it belongs in the water.
Weird metaphor. Here's a weirder one. If I claim no one is a lava user and you point to a fish being destroyed by lava and say, "Nope, see, lave is only bad for fish," then.... well we have a whole lot of nonsense going on here.
That cool yoga instructor is our poor gasping fish; she's clearly not in her element.
Yeah, well it doesn't seem like anyone is in their element when dealing with PC. It's not like they show a bunch of geeky business users getting along famously with PC. There is one ad where they show a whole bunch of broken PCs, while in another ad Mac gets all dressed up in a suit to go to a business meeting.
I'm sorry, what's your point again?
The ads suggest that cheap-suit nerdy petty cubicle dwellers are suited to windows.
Ok, when? When does it ever suggest that even nerdy petty cubicle dwellers would do well to buy a PC? In fact, I can't remember a single instance of anyone particularly liking PC in the commercials, except maybe for Mac.
Yeah, I'm often doubtful about these sorts of psychology stories, but this one actually makes a certain sort of sense to me. In the traditional meaning of the word, being "conservative" means that you dislike quick and drastic changes. The idea that there would be a connection between disliking change quick changes (moving from the known to the unknown) and being generally more fearful and easily startled doesn't seem strange or surprising.
Also, the connections between being more fearful, wanting a strong army, and wanting to be "tough on crime" seem pretty clear. You could have convinced me without research.
On the other hand, none of this necessarily means that these opinions are wrong. Even if they're more fearful, it's not clear that it means they're "too fearful". I'm not trying to argue that they are or that they aren't, but just suggesting that we all try to avoid jumping to conclusions. (I'm also not accusing the parent post of claiming that it means they're wrong)
I'll hold out judgement until we see more than "the possibility of trying to quash competition". Like, maybe an actual attempt to quash the competition.
Nope. Sorry. Bzzt. Wrong. No one would say don't hate the player if this were Microsoft or SCO
Nope. Sorry. Bzzt. Wrong. I would be saying "don't hate the player" if this were Microsoft. I don't hold it against Microsoft that they file for patents, even if they're silly patents. There may be plenty of reasons to hate Microsoft, but that's not one of them. It's something that, given their position, they *have to* do.
Oh, right, because companies like Google, IBM, Novell, and Redhat don't ever patent anything.
In case you're fixated on the idea that someone came up with it first, it's not really Apple's job to go around researching to make sure that none of the patents they're pursuing are similar to other people's ideas.
Now, if you can prove that the people within Apple who filed this patent were aware of existing products already using those techniques, you might have a point. If Apple starts aggressively pursuing the enforcement of all their patents, you would also have grounds to complain. But complaining because Apple filed for a stupid patent only demonstrates that you don't understand what's going on with today's patent system.
Most Coke commercials for example, contrary to what you claimed, generally carry a different message. (The Polar Bear campaign, for example...)
Those polar bears looked pretty cool to me.
They are trying to build subconscious mental associations... but its not usualy "If you drink Coke, you'll be happy and cool and have lots of friends." (That would be true of Pepsi or most beer ads...)
OK, so I'm not even going to bother with Coke even though I'm sure I could dig up some ads that prove my point, since it you seem to agree with me that creating subconscious associations, including associations with "coolness", is extremely common.
However, I think its equally clear to anyone with half a brain that the stereotype extends to the users
Only if you're shocking bad at understanding how metaphors work, but I'll grant you that most people are shockingly bad at understanding metaphors.
and that you are supposed to think "I'm cool like Mac, I should use a Mac."
In about the same way that whenever ads use celebrity spokespeople you're supposed to think, "I'm cool like that spokesman, so I should use that product."
And? Clearly, according to the ad she was using the wrong type of computer.
Yes, so clearly there are PC users who are cool (according to these ads). So the commercials aren't supposed to be saying that PC users are dull and stupid and boring, but just that the computers are. Which was what I was saying, and you were disagreeing with.
And *of course* the commercial is trying to argue that, if you aren't using a Mac you're using the wrong computer. It's a commercial for Macs. I mean, WTF? You think they should put out commercials saying, "You shouldn't use our computer!"?
She was a businesswoman and a yoga instructor who was frustrated with her computer, and the "entire message" was that she would be less frustrated if she had chosen to use a Mac.
I agree that the characters are clearly literally the computers not the users, but you'd have to be pretty close minded not to agree that the characters are also metaphor for the type of users suited to each OS too.
On the contrary, I think the message of the ads are that no users are suited to Windows, because Windows isn't very good in general and the Vista is a pain to use. Now, you might want to argue that the ads' claim isn't true, that Windows is very good and Vista isn't a pain to use, but that's another discussion entirely.
Or to give an alternate summary: Apple engages in a business practice that every major software developer does, including FOSS developers.
Ok, but just for clarification, there's no claim here that the characters "Mac" and "PC" came from that show, but just the actors who played those characters in one country also played other characters on a show from that country?
Because what confused the hell out of me was "And for anyone who ever used to watch the British TV show in which these characters appeared together (before they turned into computers)".
And yes, Americans miss out on some fine British television. For some reason, the only British show I can think of that we get on a major channel is Dr. Who.
I'm sick of software patents, but I'm not sure it makes sense to blame Apple. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
And in case I have to spell that out more, any big company these days who has anything to do with software are going to file software patents whenever they think they might possibly be able to get one. If for no other reason, collecting a large number of patents can be used defensively. So when Microsoft comes to Apple and says, "You're using a lot of our silly patents, so we're going to sue you," Apple can respond, "Well you're using our silly patents too, so we'll countersue." And vice versa.
So whether it's Apple or Microsoft or IBM, I don't blame these companies for patenting everything they can, whether it makes sense or not. I only blame them if they start using those patents offensively (in both senses of the word "offensive"). However, I do take serious issue with the patent system, and think it should be reformed.
Right, lots of people don't pay a lot of attention to ads. I could watch the Microsoft ad and think it's about people claiming to be "PC", i.e. politically correct. People not-watching ads can come up with all sorts of random conclusions.
But on the other hand, I agree that Microsoft's ad people may be relying on lots of people having misunderstood Apple's ads in a similar way. It might work too, because you generally don't lose money betting on the general public to be stupid or poorly informed.
You sound like you're very sensitive about your choice in computers.
Yeah, I guess it's true that *every* product is trying to create some kind of a subconscious association. "If you drink Coke, you'll be happy and cool and have lots of friends." Or maybe, "If your kids use MS Windows, they'll grow up to be famous." So if you want to argue that Apple is trying to make their product have an association with being cool, then I won't argue against you.
On the other hand, it's very clear to anyone with even half a brain that the characters represent the computers themselves, and not the people using those computers. In the only depiction of a user I can think of, they have a yoga instructor being a dissatisfied PC user.
So no, the subtext isn't that PC users are uptight businessmen, but rather that Windows users are dissatisfied with their dysfunctional PCs.
Errr... no. The creative OS isn't used by the the cool guy, the creative OS is the cool guy. And the stale OS is the boring one, not the person using it. Now if you want to claim that advertising that your product is cool works because people think owning cool products will make them cool, I won't disagree. But the straight-up literal meaning of the commercials is that PCs running Windows are metaphorically comparable to lame, neurotic geeks that are difficult to work with.
Oh, so that show is about anthropomorphized computers?
I'd modify by having diverse people representing Linux/BSD variants come out, and have PC (Hodgman) refuse to work with them or talk to them because he was on a power trip. And then have Mac work well with them, talking about how they used the same formats/protocols. "Hey, we can talk with SSH without installing any additional software!"
On the other hand, most people wouldn't understand what the hell all that meant, since loads of people still don't even know what Linux is.
And the tagline is absolutely perfect: "Life Without Walls". That's a direct hit on the most obnoxious characteristic of the Apple world -- the lock-in.
Yeah, sure, because there's no lock-in with Windows.</sarcasm>
And what lock-in is there with Apple, really? If you want to use their OS, you have to use it on their computer.... and that's pretty much it. You're free to not use their OS, and mostly Apple uses open protocols and formats. They even use a lot of open source software, and release some of their own software under open source licenses.
People who complain about Apple's lock-in with Macintoshes (in comparison to Windows, at least) generally have very little idea of what they're talking about. You can present some arguments about iTunes DRM, but Windows Media DRM locks you in just as badly to devices and operating systems that support that DRM. Apple, on the other hand, at least uses AAC and H264, which means they're using real standards when you drop the DRM out.</tangential rant>
Oh, the world is better served by not even having to contemplate the celebrity sex tape involving Bill Gates.
Rule 34?
You mention Gates/Jobs, and I've always found it noteworthy that the PC character looks a bit like Gates and Mac looks a bit like Jobs. So yes, the commercial is literally displaying anthropomorphized computers talking about their respective qualities. If you want to talk about the subtext, the subtext isn't about the users, but rather about the two companies (Apple and Microsoft) and their respective leadership.
You can't be timid with parody; there's no half way. Half way parody only reinforces what you want to fight.
A good example of this is the whole controversy with the New Yorker cover showing the Obamas and their "terrorist fist jab". It was meant to parody the right-wing characterization of Michelle and Barack Obama by showing an absurd representation of them. The problem was, the representation wasn't any more absurd that the right-wing characterization, and so people weren't sure how serious the cover was.
If you're going to parody something, you have to be far more absurd than the original. Otherwise, it's just not parody.
Right, because some PCs have beards, have rings, and are scared while shark-diving.
The ads end with some guy saying, "I'm a PC, and a human being. Not a human doing; not a human thinking. A human being." And you're arguing that he's an anthropomorphized computer?
Damn, this post is full of mistakes. In case there's any confusion, a couple fixes:
Anyway, hope everyone understood what I was trying to say.
Um... what British TV show where the characters appeared together? There was a British sitcom where anthropomorphized computers were roommates or something? Sounds like a show I want to watch.
Anyway, no, it's quite clear that Justin Long is a Macintosh computer and John Hodgeman is a PC. When the "Mac" character gets Time Machine, there are lots of copies of him. John Hodgeman crashes and needs to be repaired. They talk about Mac and PC getting sold and having features.
Now, you can argue that lots of people misunderstand the ads and think that they're supposed to be a Mac user and a PC user. However, if you think they are users and not the machines themselves, then you either aren't paying attention or don't understand concepts like "metaphor".
I think you're missing the point of what AKAImBatman. He's not a stereotype of PC *users*. He is a personification of the PC itself. His character is supposed to be the computer, not the person using the computer.
So the commercial isn't saying PC users are boring and inept, but rather that most computers are boring and inept, and people using boring and inept users should switch to using computers that are cool, sleek, and competent.
So yeah, I guess that's a stereotype, but a stereotype about Dell computers and HP computers, and not about the people who use them. That's why the end of Microsoft's commercial, "I'm a PC, and a human being" is retarded. No, you're not a PC at all, you just happen to use one.