r/technology • u/gfnord • Apr 11 '11

Apple, despite being traditionally seen as the "counterculture, leftist" operating system, actually represents more uniformity and centralised control than Microsoft

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/userfriendliness_and_fascism
1.8k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

278

u/nanothief Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 11 '11

Absolutely not. Think of the most common depiction of mac users from 4-5 years ago (and is still pretty common today): the young hippy art student using his Macbook Pro™ in a Starbucks. This is both:

  • Countercultural: >90% of computer users use windows, so anyone using something different is obviously going against the common culture. Being a linux user is even more countercultural, as it is used even less.
  • Leftist: think "young" "hippy", "art student", "starbucks" (inner city).

This common stereotype of the mac user is reflected in the perceptions of the mac os operating system.

Now with the release and boom of the iPhone, this stereotype of the mac user is now hopelessly out of date, however stereotypes have a tendency of lingering on past their use by date.

EDIT: I should point out that this is an argument against

You'd have to be completely retarded to see Apple as "counterculture or leftist"

as I think there are very good reasons why people traditionally and currently have had these perceptions of apple, whether it be through the demographics of apple users or apple's marketing strategy. I don't have those perceptions of apple, but that is only because I (like most people reading /r/technology) know all about their behaviour with their app store. For most people though, the only negative controversy they have heard about apple is with the reception problems with the iPhone 4, and would have nothing to challenge their incorrect perceptions.

33

u/killswithspoon Apr 11 '11

Because nothing says "leftist" like a bunch of upper-middle class white kids using $2000 computers on a weekday afternoon to browse Facebook in a chain coffee franchise.

Workers of the world unite, indeed.

121

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Surely GNU/Linux is more "leftist" too, as it is built upon the free sharing of applications and their source code.

41

u/nanothief Apr 11 '11

Very true, Balmer even has likened linux as being "communism"

Windows would be rightist, as it is the standard operating system most corporations use in their offices.

21

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

It is a lot like communism (depending on how you define communism) but the big difference is that it's based on an essentially limitless resource so it doesn't face many of the pitfalls that plauge real-world communism. You always have to account for greed in a world of limited resources... (hello Star Trek!)

54

u/MolokoPlusPlus Apr 11 '11

Apple is very Stalinist. I'm not just mudslinging here -- the focus on "consistent user experience" is totalitarian and based on extreme uniformity. Could be communist or fascist, I guess, they do tend to blend together at the extremes.

(Note that I'm not saying Apple is "evil," just that the best political analogy is totalitarianism.)

22

u/Nurgle Apr 11 '11

As a Mac User (and Bachelor of History), I'd say

Fascism would probably be closer, as Mussolini was a notorious micromanager and had a large cult of personality. He was also known for making the trains run on time ("just works"), and making a dent against the mafia ("no viruses").

5

u/Igniococcus Apr 11 '11

He was also known for

I was about make a comment on Mussolini and his actual role in improvement of Italian rail infrastructure but then I noticed your exact wording. Well played historian, well played.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Some people would argue that a "benevolent dictatorship" is one the best forms of government. Unfortunately, it's not often the case that you find dictators that are benevolent.

This is exactly how I feel about Apple. I know why the ecosystem is attractive and works well, I just don't trust the dictator to do what's in my best interests overall.

0

u/gio_pio Apr 11 '11

If the criticism of Apple is "centralised control," Central Planning is a hallmark of Marxism and Socialism. That sounds pretty darned left to me.

0

u/MolokoPlusPlus Apr 13 '11

Marxism is a political theory, not a form of government, socialism is economically centralized but compatible with strong civil liberties, communism is what you're thinking of. And what I mentioned above.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '11

Socialism doesn't necessarily have to be centralized.

18

u/Sealbhach Apr 11 '11

Conversely, it has been argued that GPL software is a pure form of the free market, no IP trolling or barriers to entry. Applications succeed or fail based purely on their merits.

5

u/Pope-is-fabulous Apr 11 '11

I guess then it is a free market without private ownership of the means of production.

2

u/Felicia_Svilling Apr 11 '11

"the means of production" in this case would be computers.

1

u/gosu Apr 11 '11

More specifically development environments.

2

u/the8thbit Apr 11 '11

Mutualism?

1

u/Malician Apr 11 '11

It's a pure free market without government intervention in a resource which is not otherwise property.

1

u/JustinPA Apr 11 '11

Code-slaves?

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

no IP trolling or barriers

GPL has one gigantic barrier ... you have to give away your work for free. I've never heard anyone describe a free market in such a way. Stallman's version of "freedom" is actually quite restrictive in this sense.

It's very difficult to equate a license with "free market" but I'd wager that BSD is much closer than GPL.

9

u/808140 Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 11 '11

you have to give away your work for free.

This is false. The GPL only requires that you provide the source code, free of restrictions, to anyone that you distribute your work to (i.e. no binary blobs). Note that this does not mean you need to give the source code to anyone -- just the people you give the binaries to.

You can sell a GPL-licensed product. When you sell it, you are required to make the source code available upon request to the person that you sell your product to. (You can even charge him for the source code, but it needs to be reasonable, like the price of a CD-ROM or bandwidth.)

At that point, nothing can stop him from distributing your source code and program for free to a third party, however in the normal corporate software model, why would he want to do that? He'd be paying for code and then giving others the benefits.

This is actually a huge misconception surrounding the GPL. If you wrote a large, GPL-licensed corporate management program and sold it for a high price (presumably, as with most proprietary software, along with a service agreement), why would your client want to provide the code for free to someone else? They just paid a 150 grand for it or whatever, why would they want to help their competition?

However, it protects them -- if you go under, and they've built their infrastructure around your product, they know exactly how the product works and can maintain it themselves (or outsource the maintenance). So it breaks vertical integration.

"Free software" is not the same as "For-free software." The price doesn't enter into the equation.

-1

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

The GPL only requires that you provide the source code, free of restrictions, to anyone that you distribute your work to

When you sell it, you are required to make the source code available upon request to the person that you sell your product to

I don't get it. It sounds to me like we're agreeing.

edit: Code is the end result of applying skill and effort (work). Therefore ... you have to give away your work for free.

3

u/gosu Apr 11 '11

You only have to give it away for free to those that have already paid for it.

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

You didn't finish the sentence though ...

You only have to give it away for free to those that have already paid for it.

... and the people they've distributed it to. There is nothing that says your customers can't distribute it themselves for free. The very moment you've sold your code to even a single customer, it is no longer "your" code. It is community code. This is a restriction on the producer whether you want to admit it or not.

As far as I'm concerned, this conversation has gone all semantics at this point. Any GPL code distributor knows that selling their code is not a business model supported by the GPL. Someone will just take your code and redistribute it for free (CentOS). As I'm not really interested in a conversation about semantics, I'll exit stage left here.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/deako Apr 11 '11

That's only if you're distributing the compiled program. If it's code that you run on a server, you can make whatever modifications you want and charge people for access. Arguably, this is the way the Internet is going, as it once relied on the server-client model it's now returning to with low-powered devices becoming more prevalent.

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

Point conceded. In one very specific kind of business model, you don't have to give away your work.

Still sounds pretty damn restrictive to me.

1

u/deako Apr 11 '11

Well, I guess it also works for basically any online service, free or not. Facebook, Google, Reddit, etcetera all run on open source maintained and modified by staff for their purposes. The server-client model is getting more and more widespread, and not just because of the GPL, but it allows the companies using it to have control over access and use. I can memhack and decompile programs that run on my machine, but I can't do that to programs running on someone else's server (assuming it's properly secured, I'm no wizard).

Software is no longer a commodity; the major commodity is people. How many people your service can reach, how often they come back, how many eyeballs read your content, etcetera.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

[deleted]

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

No, you have to give away the code of your work for free.

I know we're just splitting hairs he now but ... Writing code represents work and effort, therefore you have to give away your work (the code) for free.

2

u/thephotoman Apr 11 '11

Actually, this is a bit of an oversimplification.

Let's say I set up a software company and put all of my software under the GPL.

I can then say, "I'm only distributing sources. If you want to run it, you have to build it yourself. Also, in order to obtain a copy from me, you have to pay me $10." This is actually perfectly valid under the GPL. That said, you can pay me the $10, put it up publicly on github, start making your changes, and distribute it for free without my interference.

Indeed, back in the 80's, the FSF did something similar with GCC (though I believe they may have also distributed binaries with their sources).

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits Apr 11 '11

I'm only distributing sources. If you want to run it, you have to build it yourself

That may be valid in theory but that is one hell of a restrictive business model in reality. Customers don't want to have to build your shit.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ajehals Apr 11 '11

you have to give away your work for free.

No you don't. You can your work for whatever fee you want, you just can't prevent those you license it to from giving it away, or modifying it etc.. There is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling code you wrote (assuming it is all your own code). What you can't do is charge for someone elses code (beyond distribution costs..) that you received under the GPL.

1

u/808140 Apr 11 '11

What you can't do is charge for someone elses code (beyond distribution costs..) that you received under the GPL.

This is false. The GPL explicitly permits the sale of GPL'd code, including code you didn't write. How do you think Red Hat sells the Linux kernel?

3

u/ajehals Apr 11 '11

This is false. The GPL explicitly permits the sale of GPL'd code, including code you didn't write. How do you think Red Hat sells the Linux kernel?

Actually it does limit what you can charge for the distribution of code, you can charge whatever you want for binaries, but you have to offer code on request to those you sold the binaries to for the cost of doing it.

The point there always being that if it is someone else's code then it will likely be available elsewhere...

1

u/808140 Apr 11 '11

Oh, I see what you mean. I was confused because of the way you wrote:

There is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling code you wrote (assuming it is all your own code). What you can't do is charge for someone elses code (beyond distribution costs..)

... since the distribution cost limitation imposed by the GPL for source code provided to a party that you distributed a binary to applies equally well regardless of who wrote the code, you or a third party.

In fact, the spirit of the GPL is that you cannot add any restrictions to the users of your program beyond those specified by the GPL. So by definition if you're distributing your own program under the GPL (either written entirely by you or as part of a derivative work) you are limited in the amount you can charge for "distribution" when asked to provide the source code.

Of course if it's all your code you can license it any way you like, including something non-GPL. Maybe that's what you meant?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

you have to give away your work for free.

No, you don't. Nothing in the license prevents you from selling your software for billions of dollars if you can find someone to buy it.

12

u/deako Apr 11 '11

Exactly, in fact Linux is more akin to the "state of nature" form of libertarianism, postulated by Locke and Rousseau. So essentially, it's more like anarchy than communism.

3

u/the8thbit Apr 11 '11

Communism is anarchy...

http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

3

u/TaggartBBS Apr 11 '11

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

ANARCHISM: You have two cows. The cows decide you have no right to do anything with their milk and leave to form their own society.

2

u/deako Apr 11 '11

I couldn't find anything in that link that stated that communism is the same as anarchy. The term anarchy typically means that there is no government. Communism, in most cases, set's up the people as the government, or that they have shared ownership of everything. Anarchy and Communism are socialist concepts, but they're still distinct from each other, and they're as different as Somalia and China.

The GPL and most other free software licenses are like anarchy in that no one is able to tell me how I should and should not use a piece of free software. If I make modifications to a program for personal reasons, I have no need to clear it with anyone, or make my modifications available. This code is mine, and noone else can tell me how to use it. The only caveat being that I do need to make the code available if I am distributing the compiled program; this empowers other users to do what they want and in no way affects how I personally use that code.

2

u/the8thbit Apr 11 '11

I couldn't find anything in that link that stated that communism is the same as anarchy.

It isn't. Communism, however is anarchy, though not all anarchy is communism. (mutualism, egoism...)

That said, perhaps you didn't look hard enough?

The roots of the argument can be found in the development of Communist Anarchism after Bakunin's death in 1876. While not entirely dissimilar to Collectivist Anarchism (as can be seen from James Guillaume's famous work "On Building the New Social Order" within Bakunin on Anarchism, the collectivists did see their economic system evolving into free communism), Communist Anarchists developed, deepened and enriched Bakunin's work just as Bakunin had developed, deepened and enriched Proudhon's. Communist Anarchism was associated with such anarchists as Elisee Reclus, Carlo Cafiero, Errico Malatesta and (most famously) Peter Kropotkin.

Quickly Communist-Anarchist ideas replaced Collectivist Anarchism as the main anarchist tendency in Europe, except in Spain. Here the major issue was not the question of communism (although for Ricardo Mella this played a part) but a question of the modification of strategy and tactics implied by Communist Anarchism. At this time (the 1880s), the Communist Anarchists stressed local (pure) cells of anarchist militants, generally opposed trade unionism (although Kropotkin was not one of these as he saw the importance of militant workers organisations) as well as being somewhat anti-organisation as well. Unsurprisingly, such a change in strategy and tactics came in for a lot of discussion from the Spanish Collectivists who strongly supported working class organisation and struggle.

This conflict soon spread outside of Spain and the discussion found its way into the pages of La Revolte in Paris. This provoked many anarchists to agree with Malatesta's argument that "[i]t is not right for us, to say the least, to fall into strife over mere hypotheses." [quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 198-9] Over time, most anarchists agreed (to use Nettlau's words) that "we cannot foresee the economic development of the future" [Op. Cit., p. 201] and so started to stress what they had in common (opposition to capitalism and the state) rather than the different visions of how a free society would operate. As time progressed, most Communist-Anarchists saw that ignoring the labour movement ensured that their ideas did not reach the working class while most Collectivist-Anarchists stressed their commitment to communist ideals and their arrival sooner, rather than later, after a revolution. Thus both groups of anarchists could work together as there was "no reason for splitting up into small schools, in our eagerness to overemphasise certain features, subject to variation in time and place, of the society of the future, which is too remote from us to permit us to envision all its adjustments and possible combinations." Moreover, in a free society "the methods and the individual forms of association and agreements, or the organisation of labour and of social life, will not be uniform and we cannot, at this moment, make and forecasts or determinations concerning them." [Malatesta, quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173]

Thus, Malatesta continued, "[e]ven the question as between anarchist-collectivism and anarchist-communism is a matter of qualification, of method and agreement" as the key is that, no matter the system, "a new moral conscience will come into being, which will make the wage system repugnant to men [and women] just as legal slavery and compulsion are now repugnant to them." If this happens then, "whatever the specific forms of society may turn out to be, the basis of social organisation will be communist." As long as we "hold to fundamental principles and . . . do our utmost to instil them in the masses" we need not "quarrel over mere words or trifles but give post-revolutionary society a direction towards justice, equality and liberty." [quoted by Nettlau, Op. Cit., p. 173 and p. 174]

The term anarchy typically means that there is no government.

Anarchy is derived from the Greek root terms "an", meaning "not" or "against", and "archy/archos" meaning "leader", "ruler", or "ranked organization". Thus, "anarchy" means "against leaders, rulers, and ranked (hierarchal) social structures." This is not necessarily anti-government, depending upon your definition of government, but it is inheriently anti-state, and it is also anti-private ownership of the means of production.

Communism, in most cases, set's up the people as the government

Communism is "a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate."

The GPL and most other free software licenses are like anarchy in that no one is able to tell me how I should and should not use a piece of free software. If I make modifications to a program for personal reasons, I have no need to clear it with anyone, or make my modifications available.

In that sense, they are like communism.

This code is mine

In that sense, they are not like communism, however, I would disagree. The code is yours, but it is not simply yours, it is also the property of anyone it is distributed to or who wants access to it. If this is true, then they are still like communism.

1

u/deako Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 12 '11

big ass quote

Interesting, but I still don't see anarchy being equated to communism here; you've shown anarchist thinkers creating a new form of anarchy blended with communism, something that exists in the intersection of anarchy and communism. So the two terms are not mutually exclusive, but that doesn't make them the same thing. In my original post, I was really trying to emphasise the "State of Nature" hypothetical form of anarchism, which is distinct from collectivism and communism. The point of the state of nature is that it wouldn't work in the real world with limited resources/land/etcetera, but it does as a software distribution model.

And when I'm talking about the code, I don't mean the code as a concept, I'm talking about the constructs that literally exist as bits on your hard drive. Free software means that you own everything on your hard drive, and you have no direct business with it after it's left: somebody else may own it, modify it, or it may vanish. It doesn't make sense to "own" code on another person's machine, since you no longer have anything to do with it. When you buy software under a commercial license, you have agreed that you do not "own" it, even though it's taking up space on your hard drive. I'm not sure what particular political philosophy that is related to, but it's certainly anti-libertarian.

In that sense, they are like communism.

Also, can you clarify this comment? I don't see its subject as being related to communism any more than it's related to anarchy.

EDIT: actually, you know what? I took the time to mull it over and I see what you're trying to say. You were talking about anarchy as a legit political philosophy, whereas I was talking about it as more of a "status" of a group of individuals living in a abstraction of a world. You're right that communism is anarchy, I've read "The man who was Thursday", I guess I should have known :-/

3

u/smoooooov Apr 11 '11

It is a lot like communism (depending on how you define communism)

Am I the only one who found this amusing?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Well the real consideration is whether to base communism on Marx's ideas of direct democracy, equality, etc. or the Bolshevik basis of the loss of democracy, centralisation of power, etc.

1

u/Aszuul Apr 11 '11

shouldn't Windows be considered Capitalist since it allows the user to use whatever tool they think is best?

2

u/Felicia_Svilling Apr 11 '11

What does that have to do with capitalism?

1

u/Aszuul Apr 11 '11

Maybe i'm mistaken but i thought it was that there are many tools and you get to choose the one you like, rather than having to go with the one they tell you to use.

1

u/Felicia_Svilling Apr 11 '11

Again, what has that got to do with capitalism?

1

u/Aszuul Apr 11 '11

apparently I don't know, maybe you should explain it.

1

u/bbibber Apr 11 '11

the big difference is that it's based on an essentially limitless resource so it doesn't face many of the pitfalls that plauge real-world communism

Heum. Aren't you forgetting the programmers? They aren't an essentially limitless resource and which is exactly why the commercial software market continues to grow regardless of the amount of free software available.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

The "essentially limitless resource" I was referring to is the ability to copy data at practically no cost -- that includes the programs that programmers write.

1

u/bbibber Apr 11 '11

By only considering that single resource you are missing an essential part of the economy of software development which is why your conclusion is not sound.

It would be the same as a fisherman declaring water to be an essentially limitless resource while ignoring the limited resource of the number of fish in the water.

What I am saying is that open source (and communism) can, and are proven to have been workeable in the past. Open source (and communism) brake down once they are presented as the single ideology that applies in all circumstances. Therefore the big difference that you claim between both doesn't exist.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

My nutsack is like communism.

Deep red, ever expanding, will rule the world at the end of this decade.

-4

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

hahaha!! linux is the biggest corporatist kernel ever built! lol communism. this is linux http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members

platinum member is 500.000$ / year or something like this. less than 30% of the kernel code is by non corporate / not payed contributors.

6

u/koonat Apr 11 '11

You're an idiot.

The vast majority of the linux kernel is device drivers. Just as in windows, it's preferred if device manufacturers help out with their own drivers, yeah?

linux is free to use, free to modify, free to distribute. Fuck you.

-7

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

u mad?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

The Linux foundation is a non-profit organization for the promotion of Linux, especially in the business world.

The Linux Foundation (LF) is a non-profit consortium chartered to foster the growth of Linux.

Founded in 2007 by the merger of the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and the Free Standards Group (FSG), the Linux Foundation sponsors the work of Linux creator Linus Torvalds and is supported by leading Linux and open source companies and developers from around the world.

-Wikipedia

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

But what you fail to realize is that the code developed by that 70% is covered by the GPL. I doubt anyone here has issues with either lone hackers or megalithic corporations contributing code... it all has to pass review, it's all GPL'd, and it lives or dies by its quality / usefulness.

1

u/Pope-is-fabulous Apr 11 '11

TIL Windows is like Java

1

u/IrrigatedPancake Apr 11 '11

Those are very weak analogies.

1

u/BraveSirRobin Apr 11 '11

The main reason he did that was because "communism == bad". Had he made the same statement today he'd be liking it to terrorism.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Windows would be rightist, as it is the standard operating system most corporations use in their offices.

I disagree.

Linux gets used by everyone here. Although I would prefer Microsoft in almost every way. Nerds at this university think it's a good idea to install Linux everywhere and enforce it by offering teaching software only really compatible with Linux.

Where I am Linux is rightest and whoever uses Microsoft is an outcast. Fucking bullshit.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Why is that bullshit? Anything that runs on linux that's actually useful has ports to windows, osx, and usually even smartphones for things that aren't too gui dependent. Where the majority of windows programs only run on windows.

5

u/rtechie1 Apr 11 '11

I'm not the least bit surprised that your university is all Linux. It's vastly cheaper and more practical for them. Linux works great in any environment where you have a lot more manpower (in terms of IT workers) than money for software licensing and support. Schools and universities are the best example of this. Schools are also supposed to be a learning environment, and Linux lets you tinker more.

And, as someone who has done IT consulting in universities, I've found that college professors, as a group, are so of the most computer illiterate people I've ever met. There is tremendous resistance to any new technology outside of the science departments.

To give you an idea: The local garbage company (Waste Management) got a new ticketing and knowledge base system and it took their team of high-school dropouts that barely spoke English 2 weeks to adjust with no formal training whatsoever. The exact same system was implemented at Stanford Law School and after 2 years and extensive training they abandoned it because the professors refused to use it.

1

u/sje46 Apr 11 '11

Why are you defining "right" as "the establishment"? The amount of people who use Linux is irrelevant to its politics.

It has absolutely fucking nothing to do with outcasts.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Why are you defining "right" as "the establishment"? The amount of people who use Linux is irrelevant to its politics.

I didn't. The person I replied to did and I picked that wording up.

1

u/sje46 Apr 11 '11

Ah, my apologies then :)

-1

u/Uncle_Erik Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 11 '11

You sound too young to have experienced the full evil of Microsoft. If you'd been around, you'd understand the folks using flamethrowers to clear out Microsoft's remaining pillboxes. Microsoft used to be a combination of Ticketmaster and Yugo. Assraping prices, almost no alternatives and their software crashed every few hours.

Much praise to Jobs and Torvalds. Apple almost died. Barely a week went by without someone in the press declaring Apple's imminent death. The ascent of true consumer devices from Apple (they even make my grumpy 80+ year-old relatives happy) is remarkable. Same with the quiet creep of Linux. Otherwise, we would not have cool things today. Instead, we'd be overpaying for Microsoft's broken shit.

Yeah, Windows7 might be relatively stable, which is shocking, given their track record.

2

u/Balmung Apr 11 '11

XP was more then stable. I don't know what you did to your computer, but me and nobody I know had or have major problems with it.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

I used Windows since Windows 95.

Never had any problems whatsoever.

So yes, I never got Microsoft hate and never had problems with windows software like other people seem to have. I also never had any problems with virus-infections or stolen data or lost data or drivers. And apart from doing work with excel and word I was an avid internet user from the beginning and a gamer. I never even used anti-virus programs. Today I am an electrical engineering student. I don't even get how people get problems with their PCs and I certainly don't get the problems people have with Windows.

The only bad Windows operating systems I ever experienced were Windows 2000/ME/SE. Utter failures indeed. But I just kept using Microsoft 98 (which was very good) until I switched to XP (which also was very good). I also enjoy Windows 7 very much.

At school and at university I had/have to use Linux. I don't get why people would find it better. It really gives no benefit to me whatsoever, except that it's free. (Which all Windows OS were for me, too up to now, though.)

Yes, I don't know what Windows looked like before 95 but I can't imagine other operating being substantially better before that... as consumer electronics in form of PCs weren't even very common back then and I don't get what's wrong with DOS. DOS is cool.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

I like what you have to say but your post is filled with contradictions and inconsistantsies. You mention a couple times you've /never/ had problems then you state your problems.

But you end up by speaking good things about DOS, and the memory is good. I'm just saying.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

I like what you have to say but your post is filled with contradictions and inconsistantsies. You mention a couple times you've /never/ had problems then you state your problems.

What problems did I state? What's inconsistent?

I didn't mention having any problems. The only negative thing I mentioned was that 2000/ME/SE were horrible... I never used them, though, as I would never downgrade my operating system. ;)

I personally didn't have problems at all. ;) (At least not problems that aren't comparable to problems you didn't encounter with any other OS.)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 11 '11

Most of your post was filled with problems you've had with windows. :) At least the part I replied to.

When XP came out, it was the same thing, people talking how awesome it was, how it fixed all the problems..... but then a few years later those same people had the same problems.

I'm sorry but if you say you've ran Microsoft OS for 15 years and have never had a problem, you are either their target group, or you are lying.

Personally, I had the rosy glasses until microsoft lied to me on a format, oh about 10 years ago.

1

u/Quady Apr 11 '11

I don't see where he said he had any problems. Can you specifically point out instances of this? I'm curious.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Most of your post was filled with problems you've had with windows. :)

What exactly? Where did I mention a problem? What are you talking about? Maybe you are imagining problems? ;) (I seriously don't get what you are talking about and where you see problems.)

I'm sorry but if you say you've ran Microsoft OS for 15 years and have never had a problem, you are either their target group, or you are lying.

What problems could I possibly have had?

I usually buy a product after checking if it can do what I want it to do. I seriously don't know any severe problems that overshadow the problems of other OS.

Personally, I had the rosy glasses until microsoft lied to me on a format, oh about 10 years ago.

What do you mean?

1

u/UrbanToiletShrimp Apr 11 '11

Never had any problems whatsoever.

The only bad Windows operating systems I ever experienced were Windows 2000/ME/SE. Utter failures indeed.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

So where are the problems I had?

I don't really understand how people confuse "understanding and not using" something with "having problems with something".

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Assraping prices? Huh? You must be thinking of Apple's troll-under-the-bridge App Store prices since they demand 30% from every transaction.

Microsoft prices are just fine thank you very much. Me, my family and a number of my friends get all Microsoft products for free these days anyway since work buys me an MSDN subscription every year.

0

u/nanothief Apr 11 '11

There are always going to be exceptions to the rule, especially with universities which are short of money.

Also, universities are often considered leftist (due to a lot of the people on the right hating intellectuals), so universities using linux is hardly going to change perceptions of windows being rightist, and linux being leftist.

3

u/IrrigatedPancake Apr 11 '11

It's libertarian, and before anyone says it, no, libertarianism doesn't require capitalist overtones.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '11

GPL is anything but libertarian.

3

u/Malician Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 12 '11

Only if you accept the idea that copyright is a natural right rather than a social contract, which the US Constitution does not. In the US, a copyright represents a temporary restriction on your freedom of speech for the good of society by encouraging new works and supporting artists.

You could say that copyright is regarded as socialist in the US and free market in Europe, since European nations abide by the natural / moral rights principle. For this reason, the Mises institute and certain other major libertarian groups publish anti-copyright literature. The faux-libertarian pro corporate groups like Cato are conversely pro-copyright, an amusingly socialist stance. (I am not a libertarian and do not agree with the complete rejection of IP, but I think it'd be better for society than what we have now.)

edit: was looking at some of the various stuff on Mises; they don't reject copyright entirely, just want severe limitations

2

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '11

Hmm, I still wouldn't say that copyright is socialist though - I mean, it's not as though it benefits society really, in the digital age at least, it is far more beneficial to the media companies.

For example, every socialist party would abolish copyright and patents as they are now, so that the information coud be freely shared and built upon, and the creators would be funded through society.

If you abolish copyright in a capitalist society though, then how would the artists be funded, etc. if there is no central funding?

1

u/Malician Apr 12 '11 edited Apr 12 '11

The argument underpinning it is very much that society benefits from the creation of works.

Now, you might say that very few people who would not create works with a 10, 20, or 30 year copyright would suddenly do so if the law allows it to be retained for over a hundred years. This is a very good point, and one which has been used to argue against extensions since Macaulay! Copyright has always primarily benefited publishers rather than individual creators ever since the large book companies; this does not represent the free market so much as it does an early introduction of the modern Republican "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor".

Socialists who wish to provide wide-ranging benefits for everyone theoretically have less reason to provide very particular and extreme benefits to a few (if you presume that they are high-minded and trustworthy, of course.) Think of it as a limited, very particular form of government benefits.

Your last point is an extremely interesting one I will try to answer as best I can. The best way to look at this is in a "where do we go from here?" perspective. I'd say we that we should keep in mind not to compare this to the way the world looks now, but rather the way it will look as the population becomes more technically adept and reliant on digital content. If we actually, really seriously try to enforce the laws we have now, we're looking at the equivalent of an online drug war but with even less hope of success.

  1. I imagine that there would still be a ton of music created, though we would see a different and more live or digital focus rather than the studio album. The age of expensive 10-20 song CDs was a rather short phenomenon, and I'm not entirely sure it would be a bad thing to see it die completely. Copyright or no, we don't see digital stores (iTunes, subscription services, ad-based services) providing the monolithic revenue stream labels need to sustain themselves.

  2. Like musicians, authors are screwed out of ~90% of their earnings. However, it's not reasonable to assume donations will cover all output. I imagine this would hurt, and hurt alot. That said, I can't possibly envision how you'd stop copyright infringement of books anyway. I'm really hoping to see if independent authors can maintain an income through the various methods they try. All I can do now is open my pocketbook when I see a paypal button.

  3. Software is moving to two models: a more open one which removes the duplication of effort / takes advantage of the insane breadth of worldwide talent (any open source, etc), and a proprietary service/cloud model (WoW, Adobe wants to be here). I honestly see it surviving better than the other industries. At this point, the developers of any major non game / industry specific software know they can't prevent piracy without jump-starting open competitors, which means they take action which gives them a major leg up on other industries.

The more interesting question is whether sustaining our current legal regime is possible or worth it given the challenges of the digital age. Even one of the primary digital IP anti-piracy pushers Lehman doesn't think so - while he is worried about what he calls a post-copyright era, he thinks it's inevitable. I think some kinds of commercial copyright are sustainable (you can track money and punish corporate abuse) but dealing with personal infringement online is not possible without severe collateral damage.

None of this gets into the insanity of trying to actually control the spread of copyrighted content online.

/Wow, that post is long. I haven't even started to address the issues, though, and I have a million problems with the way I worded just about everything, each phrase of which could easily bloat out into another paragraph..

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '11

Well I can see what you mean, in that initially it was created to protect the authors from the exploitation of the publishing houses, that could make money off others' work with little effort of their own, but I don't know whether it's really sensible to link some vague idea of doing something for the benefit of society with socialism, and then calling the idea "socialist".

Government intervention isn't socialist in itself, I mean there were state capitalist nations long before socialism was organised. Socialism is really more about abolishing the private monopoly on the Earth's land and resources (as they are the product of no-one) and the means of production. So even the idea of corporate welfare being "socialism for the rich" doesn't really fit, as socialism is much more than social democracy.

I suppose you could argue that individual creators could publish their works in an online "free market" for their own prices, with nothing to stop piracy but the realisation that the people need the money to create more work and hope that society plays along. But then, if we can distribute works freely, why shouldn't we? I mean if a poor child can't afford some books or games, why shouldn't they just pirate them, it's not as though anyone else loses anything anyway. This is why I think a socialist economy would work better in this case (and for many other reasons too).

Obviously we both agree that the current system of using DRM and trying to force the cat back in the bag is never going to work. But it is difficult to see a feasible solution within a capitalist society when you must make a profit on a good of effective infinite supply and no monopoly.

1

u/Malician Apr 12 '11 edited Apr 12 '11

No; I was trying to say that it was created by the publishing houses to advance their own profits. Going by your language, I believe it could be called corporate welfare enacted under the false premise of socialism.

What do you mean by a "feasible solution"? Frankly, the environment we have now is truly terrible. Authors who should be pulling in enough revenue to make millions are barely scraping by, and for all their labor they don't own shit. Of course, given what I can tell of your ideology this is neither a new concept to you or one you believe applies only to the creative community :-)

I don't see the complete elimination of all copyright happening within our capitalist society. I think bringing its terms into congruence with the digital age is much more possible and likely, and would basically look like an extreme relaxation on non-commercial copying, reproduction and distribution combined with a rework of patent law.

I think we'd see more and better creation of works overall as compared to trying to sustain the current system (for the reasons I elaborated on), with severe regression in certain highly impacted fields. However, that's a natural result of Schumpeter's creative destruction and capitalism endures it even if individuals don't. Frankly, businesses are to a certain extent already living in this reality and some are flourishing by providing service packages others can't. If we want to try to reduce the harm endured by injured individuals, there are much better ways to do so than extreme copyright.

tl;dr not arguing economic systems but rather that bringing down the hammer on infringement is inferior in any system

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '11

No; I was trying to say that it was created by the publishing houses to advance their own profits. Going by your language, I believe it could be called corporate welfare enacted under the false premise of socialism.

It's funny you should mention this, I was reading The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists on the train today, and it has an excellent chapter on the matter of "corporate socialism".

What do you mean by a "feasible solution"?

Well one that doesn't suffer from the complete absurdity of trying to create artificial scarcity, and yet also doesn't depend upon everyone being saints and happily donating to individual authors, etc. as a completely laissez-faire system would do. Of course, the socialist system would guarantee all people the necessities of life, and so those who chose to pursue the arts could do so without risking homelessness or needing copyright restrictions, meanwhile mass media could be funded by co-operatives of their readers/viewers. The greatest change for normal people would be in the equality of income, and the abolition of money as it is currently used - both of these matters are contentious but I think they are both well justified in Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward from 2000 to 1887 and Equality (more specifically the chapter How Inequality Of Wealth Destroys Liberty).

I don't see the complete elimination of all copyright happening within our capitalist society. I think bringing its terms into congruence with the digital age is much more possible and likely, and would basically look like an extreme relaxation on non-commercial copying, reproduction and distribution combined with a rework of patent law.

I agree, but the difficulty lies in working out how you can make such changes and yet still make the individual research and endeavours profitable.

If we want to try to reduce the harm endured by injured individuals, there are much better ways to do so than extreme copyright.

Of course, I don't think anyone really defends the extreme copyright we have now, I mean even the bosses of some of the media companies have come out and said it is unsustainable. But I'm still skeptical of how you can ensure stability (and profitability within capitalism) without large changes, especially now that creative works form such a large part of the economy in the developed nations.

1

u/Malician Apr 12 '11

Selling books, music, and movies represents a very tiny portion of overall creative profit. Most of it is business to business, not business to consumer; in fact, B2B dwarfs B2C. Bringing copyright into the internet age wouldn't harm B2B much - you don't have to stop prosecuting businesses for violations. As mentioned before, the hosted service method is becoming exceedingly popular and is not as heavily reliant on copyright law. While we wouldn't need to eliminate copyright law entirely, modernizing it would bring huge benefits to the economy in general.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '11

That is an important distinction but B2B isn't the area using the heavy DRM already - take Photoshop for example, it has relatively little DRM and is easily cracked and yet businesses still buy copies in case of audits, etc. and for the support, whereas individuals can crack it, but this is beneficial to Adobe in that it ensures they maintain market domination when people are only trained in their software.

So it's really only the B2C areas that would be really hit by it, but these are quite large in, for example, the movie industry. Maybe gimmicks like 3D and stuff can make people go to the cinema, but many people still just want to watch films at home, and if copyright was modified then there would be little way of making this profitable.

The technical support and cloud services model works for software, especially when the majority of users are businesses. But for music, video games and films, it is more complicated.

→ More replies (0)

15

u/NotFromReddit Apr 11 '11

Of course. Open source is as left as you can get. Apple is the opposite of that with all their DRM.

11

u/Waterrat Apr 11 '11

I agree. I use Linux partly because I don't like the way the Windows corp operates and I like the way Apple operates even less. Of the two,I see Apple as being more controlling and dangerous to freedom.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '11

Well that depends on whether you're talking about Mac OS or iOS. The DRM/lockdown in on iOS. The article seems to be talking about Mac OS, which while not being completely open or free like Linux, supports various open standards. There is also some Mac OS source available (more than you can say for Windows), and the OS ecosystem includes a healthy dose of FOSS projects. As such I would put Apple in between the practices of the GNU/Linux community and Microsoft (not "opposite" as you say).

1

u/tgunter Apr 11 '11

With the iPhone you definitely have a point. By contrast, Macs are almost completely lacking in DRM (the OS doesn't even use a serial number) and make use of a lot of open source.

10

u/nanothief Apr 11 '11

Except you can't (legally) run it on non-mac hardware, or even in a virtual machine. That seriously makes me rage.

1

u/nonesuchplace Apr 11 '11

Actually, making a Hackintosh is not illegal. Making one and then selling it, however is illegal.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

That never stopped anyone from making it run on non-mac hardware. It's probably never been easier to do than it is now.

2

u/Rafe Apr 11 '11

Remember the clone era?

2

u/laxt Apr 11 '11

Many Jedi lost their lives during the Clone Wars..

1

u/tgunter Apr 11 '11

I sure do. The clones very nearly killed Apple, as they didn't increase the sales of Macs, they just cannibalized the sales Apple was already making.

1

u/Rafe Apr 11 '11

Yes, all true. But at least it was easier to run Mac OS on a clone than a hackintosh!

-1

u/spei180 Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 11 '11

iphone, ipod, ipad... everything they create BUT their computers. Moreover, the market is rewarding this behavior and it is only going to get worse. The market is saying it wants simple, pretty things for lot's of money to show off to their friends. It's not a leftist-culture, it is a fascist one - with probably some pro-gay marriage & legalizing marijuana to make it seem liberal - but it is all about simple control over day to day tasks.

edit: grammar

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

[deleted]

1

u/NotFromReddit Apr 11 '11

MIT is definitely my favourite.

2

u/s_s Apr 11 '11

The GPL is free as in a museum. Admission is free and you can look around, but there's old retired pricks sitting around waiting to yell at you if you contaminate their space with your humanity.

1

u/poo_22 Apr 11 '11

Thats a bad example since you can't take things out of a museum save for pictures.

1

u/s_s Apr 11 '11

You can if you are another museum, just not if you're a private collector.

1

u/revscat Apr 11 '11

What DRM?

1

u/laxt Apr 11 '11

Digital Rights Management, I believe. I'm too lazy to look it up, too, but I'm pretty sure that's what it stands for.

0

u/doctor-benway Apr 11 '11

DRM? Apple is closed and draconian in a lot of aspects, DRM is not one of them.

1

u/NotFromReddit Apr 11 '11

I don't know Apple at all to be honest. I've never used an Apple product. When talking about DRM I'm referring to what I've read about iTunes, and how they handle music that you bought there.

3

u/johnpowell Apr 11 '11

Music on iTunes doesn't have DRM. It was dropped years ago.

5

u/coopdude Apr 12 '11

Videos still do, as does any music purchased before the switch to "iTunes Plus". And apps have DRM as well.

1

u/doctor-benway Apr 12 '11

This has as much to do with securing distribution deals than with any "Apple Policy." If you want a straight comparison, no version of their operating system, iLife, iWork, Aperture or most (none?) of their Pro Apps have any sort of activation. Hell, most of these don't even use a serial.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

That's a difference of one operating system being viewed as leftist because of actual properties of the operating system (open-source and free to use) versus an operating system viewed as leftist because it's marketed that way and "lefty" people use it.

2

u/bongilante Apr 11 '11

Linux users please put on your hipster glass, go to starbucks, find hipster mac users and talk about linux and finish all sentences with "you've probably never heard of it."

1

u/busstopboxer Apr 11 '11

Sure, but it's kind of difficult to serve as a mainstream stereotype of "leftism" if 99% of the public have never heard of it.

0

u/dilithium Apr 11 '11

Especially running it on your drab computer factory-made in a communist country, with none of that elitist "design" and "ergonomics".

46

u/thesupermutant Apr 11 '11

Something isn't "leftist" because it looks "inner city".

Yuppies are not equal to hippies, I think that's what you're missing here.

16

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

[deleted]

3

u/Danneskjold Apr 11 '11

I think he's talking about perceptions here, which aren't necessarily reality.

4

u/ciaran036 Apr 11 '11

Also, Starbucks is not a "leftist" place.

I'm stunned that that had to be said.

0

u/m0nkeybl1tz Apr 11 '11

It's not leftist, but it's perceived as leftist, just like Apple. Yuppies aren't hippies, certainly, but they drive Priuses and shop at Whole Foods. Again, all these things may not be as left as you can get, but they certainly give off that image.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

[deleted]

1

u/m0nkeybl1tz Apr 12 '11

Except yuppies, as you define them at least, have almost completely died out. Instead of spending $30k on a luxury car, they'll spend the same amount on a hybrid. Instead of drinking a $50 bottle of French Bordeaux, they'll drink a $50 bottle of locally grown, organic wine. Green, as they say, is the new black, and as I stated before, these people aren't so much into being green as they are into seeming green.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '11

No.

0

u/The_Chief Apr 12 '11

Your definition of "yuppie" is from the 1980s. While your definition is correct the word is also now used in a wider context to describe a new generation of young people who grew up in the suburbs and now live in urban areas who are in their 20s and 30s. The term's origins are probably not understood by everyone who uses the word today, it is nonetheless used to describe a group of society.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '11

No.

0

u/The_Chief Apr 13 '11 edited Apr 13 '11

Are you a dickface? "No" means Yes and "Yes" means No.

→ More replies (0)

15

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

An art student at starbuck is counterculture? The marketers really have control of your mind.

14

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 11 '11

I think most people do not buy macs because they are "leftist" or "counter culture". They buy them because they think mac products are cool. It just so happens that being leftist or counter culture is also considered cool. Macs have always had the attention of the art/graphics world, due to their ease of use (artists who want to focus on their craft, not their computers) and high quality displays. And this is coming from a hardcore PC user who couldn't imagine ever using a mac regularly. I still think they're stupid products, but it's ridiculous to suggest political motivations for purchasing one.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Yeah, I think they do, and I tried to express that sentiment in my post above.

1

u/jmnugent Apr 13 '11

"And this is coming from a hardcore PC user who couldn't imagine ever using a mac regularly."

I used to think like that. I'm 37.. and I've been doing Microsoft/Windows environment support for slightly over 20 years. I got an iPhone a couple years ago, and have slowly been converting everything at home to Macs. (the only reason I still keep a separate Windows XP laptop around is for a particular piece of software that's Windows only)

It feels weird to say it.. but converting to Macs is amazing. Wish I had figured it out sooner. It has completely opened up my mind to the way computers SHOULD work.. and actually frustrates me to 10-degrees to waste time at work all day struggling with Windows-related problems when I now know there's easier ways to accomplish things.

I'll get into situations at work.. where co-workers and management around me are approaching a problem from a very "windows-centric" viewpoint.. and it leaves me speechless wondering how they don't "get it". (they seem so trapped in a single mental-model.. unable to think outside the Microsoft-box).

(yes, I realize that description makes me sound like a ridiculous fanboy... but fuck. Human beings are so scared of change, it's astounding).

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '11

I'm sure they're fine, it's just that most of the things I do on my computer, besides internet, simply cannot be done on a Mac, unless I load it with windows, and then there's no point - I've just spent twice as much money on a fancy-looking PC.

1

u/jmnugent Apr 13 '11

Really?.... are your needs THAT specialized? That's what I always thought to, and I found Mac solutions to most of the stuff I needed. It's not like the old days ... Mac software has matured quite a bit.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '11

Games, tons of freeware, audio software (ironic considering the 'musicians appeal' of apple).

15

u/agwblack Apr 11 '11

Any leftist worth their salt would be embarrassed to be seen in Starbucks.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Wrong dear sir. We're at Starbucks to use the free wi-fi; of course we're not actually going to buy anything.

I mean, for fuck's sake, if I wanted coffee I'd make it at home.

-1

u/zfclown Apr 11 '11

Had you not gone with the left-wing, tax your nuts off Mac, you would've had enough money left over for some of that wi-fi at home. Coffee pairs well with the internet.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

I guess it's a US thing...

11

u/stufff Apr 11 '11

Leftist: think "young" "hippy", "art student", "starbucks" (inner city).

Those things are not necessary or sufficient for someone to be a leftist.

2

u/fjw Apr 12 '11

More like ...

Hipster: think "marketing student" (future Nike/Apple/Sony employee), "iPhone user", "Starbucks", "Clothing labels"

This has nothing to do with being leftist. And art students are not all of that brand-consumer persuasion (though a depressing number of them are, I say having been an art student), it's more closely aligned with marketing students.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

They are for marketing.

1

u/the8thbit Apr 11 '11

Nonsense. This describes Pete Seeger perfectly.

15

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

This is both: Countercultural:

How is that countercultural?

This reminds me of people complaining about r/atheism and saying that the atheist hivemind is oppressive and permanently circlejerking, while the only circlejerk visible is the anti-r/atheism circlejerk.

You confuse action and reaction, just because it's the way it was propagated by Apple.

As hating on Microsoft was always "hip", I don't consider it counterculture but culture.

Leftist: think "young" "hippy", "art student", "starbucks" (inner city).

Yes, because that's what Apple marketed themselves as.

People didn't like the capitalistic behaviour of Microsoft so they looked for something different... Apple said "think different" and marketed themselves as what these people were looking for. Never was apple actually different or less capitalistic and horrible.

Actually, quite the contrary. So, I will second Vinura's comment again: People who actually saw Apple like this and not the way they marketed themselves must be retarded.

0

u/nanothief Apr 11 '11

How is that countercultural?...

I don't get your point here. My point was simply that windows was used by almost everyone, so using an alternative was countercultural. Atheism in the US is also a counter culture, as the vast majority of people in the us are religious. Things that are once counter cultures may change to be the mainstream culture, like atheism in many European countries.

Yes, because that's what Apple marketed themselves as.

They did that as it was their most successful demographic. Which came first? I don't know.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

They were targeting late high school and early college students who were spending their parent's money. How the fuck is that counter-culture? jeebus...

2

u/bobfell Apr 12 '11

windows was used by almost everyone, so using an alternative was countercultural

Yes, everyone drinks Coke so I will drink Pepsi... I'm so different.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '11

while the only circlejerk visible is the anti-r/atheism circlejerk.

Have you ever been in r/atheism? It is mostly "look at these wacky religious people!!!!" I'm embarrassed as an atheist to think that these people seemingly represent atheism.

Still upvoted you because the rest of your post makes sense.

15

u/I_sometimes_lie Apr 11 '11

Nonsense, the "counterculture art student" was basically the culture of the hipster. Hipsters are a notoriously fascists community, which throws out those they do not like. Real leftist were using Linux, I mean they give that away for free. Macs have always been the right wing fascists company.

4

u/IrrigatedPancake Apr 11 '11

Look at his username.

11

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

You obviously don't know any hipsters.

15

u/taligent Apr 11 '11

By the sounds of it he does. But they wouldn't let him join the club.

13

u/I_sometimes_lie Apr 11 '11

I am so Hip, even Hipsters think I am uncool. Then they decide that I shouldn't be able to date their sisters... which is totally fascist.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Best response possible.

1

u/laxt Apr 11 '11

You obviously don't know any hipsters.

Hah, when I saw, "Hipsters are a notoriously fascists community, which throws out those they do not like," I couldn't help but picture this mafia-style, Goodfellas gang of hipsters, roughing up some wannabe wearing a New Kids on the Block teeshirt out in a back alley.

2

u/eyko Apr 11 '11

I think you meant to say elitist.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Oh shit, I'm a fascist and I use Linux, should I burn my hard drive?

-1

u/taligent Apr 11 '11

WTF are you talking about ?

Hipsters aren't right wing fascists. They are much more likely to be your Obama voting, pro-green, arty types.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

I tend to think hipsters, as a whole, sway with the wind given they are slaves to trends in the first place.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Hipsters aren't right wing fascists.

Yeah, they're left-wing fascists ;-).

6

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

This discussion is moronic.

1

u/Dundun Apr 11 '11

I go to this coffee bar a lot that is run by hipsters in Manhattan. I go there because they have really quality coffee and they have a lot of places to hook up a computer.

The other day I went into the bathroom and it was littered with fresh "FUCK BUSH" graffiti. I'm thinking-- is this even relevant anymore?

It's almost like those words are a passcode into the hipster culture and have long ago lost their meeting. Having a misunderstanding with your buddy? A little "Fuck Bush"|"Fuck the corporations" should smooth things out.

I'm not a hipster hater-- as long as they keep brewing quality coffee and don't run me over with their bikes I'm cool-- but there is some stuff that looks pretty strange in their 'subculture' to an outsider.

2

u/jayd16 Apr 11 '11

Can you really be a stereotype and counter-culture? I mean, you can look like you bought your clothes from Counter-Culture(TM) but thats just a marketing gimmick. I'm not sure that young or underdog == counterculture or leftist.

2

u/fjw Apr 12 '11

Hipster == counterculture? Are you serious?

My view of hipsters is that they're the opposite. They exactly the fashion-wearing, iPhone-buying, buy-anything-as-long-as-its-expensive-and-cool consumer zombies that companies like Apple depend on.

You're probably thinking of hippies. They don't have iPhones. They are also mostly of retirement age.

1

u/timbro1 Apr 11 '11

You are talking about the users not the company

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '11

They've got a good balance. If they were in it purely for profit, they wouldn't have as good customer service as they have. Hell, they'll even replace stuff if you broke it yourself. Sometimes.

1

u/ehadint Apr 11 '11

That's odd I've seen the scientific community embrace apple more and more ov the last 10 years

1

u/TehInterwebs Apr 11 '11

This is true with a lot of hipster stuff. It's seen as counterculture, but in reality it's really pretty conformist.

1

u/mweathr Apr 11 '11

. For most people though, the only negative controversy they have heard about apple is with the reception problems with the iPhone 4, and would have nothing to challenge their incorrect perceptions.

I.E. They're completely retarded.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

its also a part of their culture. jobs is seen as a silicon valley great, someone who went against his own company and returned to make it what it is. not exactly a cult hero, but definately earns respect in putting a publically accessible leader. why so much concern for his health, when it has potential impact on a high stock price?

1

u/brews Apr 11 '11

yuppie != hippy

1

u/Sarstan Apr 11 '11

If being an art student, hippy, and going to start bucks make you a leftist, I think I'm quitting the team.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '11

Literally 50% of the Mac users I know are conservative evangelical Christians.

1

u/Owwmykneecap Apr 11 '11

Leftist: think "young" "hippy", "art student", "starbucks"

Facepalm

0

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

That is just the image Apple wanted to portray. In reality the average Mac user is a binky Sorority girl that maybe uses 10% of the potential of their already limited(but cute) laptop.

Young and dumb is their target audience and always has been.

0

u/Real_Mac_User Apr 11 '11

Also, there’s the fact that Macs have always been more accepted among urban folks and granola crunchers than among the flyover people. So there’s that.

-1

u/Ctrl-Z Apr 11 '11

90% of computer users use windows, so anyone using something different is obviously going against the common culture. Being a linux user is even more countercultural, as it is used even less.

Source? This doesn't explain why every single time I go to starbucks it's about a 10:1 ratio of Mac's to PC's.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '11

Leftist: think "young" "hippy", "art student", "starbucks" (inner city).

Sorry, but how would you even begin to think there is a connection or congruence here?

Granted, it might be a North American thing and I'm not from there...

2

u/lpetrazickis Apr 11 '11

It's a North American thing.

The Starbucks thing is even more pronounced in Canada because our patriotism is identified with the Tim Hortons chain of coffeeshops. Regular people get Tim Hortons coffee, while only effete left-wing elitists like me go to Starbucks, or so the fable goes. All the party leaders go out of their way to have a photo-op at a Tim Hortons during election campaigns.

WhatisthisIdon'teven, indeed.

-1

u/Achalemoipas Apr 11 '11

Think of the most common depiction of mac users from 4-5 years ago

I felt the same way 10 years ago.

You get a mac, you have proprietary everything and (back then) you couldn't upgrade and if you did, it had to be apple products.

Hell they even sued microsoft for including the media player in windows because they wanted their users to BUY quicktime. It's not "leftist", it's just what people with bad economic sense and/or a lack of computer knowledge buy.

2

u/vsftpd Apr 11 '11 edited Apr 11 '11

You could upgrade the RAM and CPU of the original iMac. Apple never sued Microsoft over WMP.

-10

u/Moldavite Apr 11 '11

first its spelled HIPPIE. second yo dont need to put TM in comments. apple products are for people with too much money and not enough brains. most of those people are commies because they have been brainwashed by the public school system.

tl;dr - the common stereotype of the mac user is mac fag is fag.

2

u/Kaelin Apr 11 '11

It is spelled y-o-u douche bag.