At some point an economist on the pro-china said (I paraphrase horribly):
"China pump out more Ph.D grads then any other country in the world.... and STEM grads, not ones in media studies. "
As part of his response, Zakaria made this quip:
"In terms of R&D Apple spends in a decade what Microsoft spends in a year and is now bigger then Microsoft."
"Perhaps that's what a Ph.D in media studies buys you"
t I was surprised by the R&D spending. It's true that Microsoft tries to be a lot more things at the same time then Apple, but even then. This lead me to ponder how Apple got to be so successful.
Some argue that they are better( highly debatable but I disgress), but even then that doesn't account for most of Apple's success.
nVidia graphic cards are objectively better then their main competitors in most aspects except price, but I don't think anyone identifies with nVidia the same way Apple fanboys identify with Apple.
Then there's this:
I have an acquaintance who thought that buying Apple was making a social statement. He was quite passionate about it too but upon further probing, he wasn't quite able to say which social statement was that. Not being particularly tech savy, he could not explain why Mac were the superior choice either.
How strange. How can you be so passionate about something and not understand what you're passionate about?
Somehow, Jobs succeeded in creating an identity centered around a computer for people who don't like computers.
I often wonder why it is so difficult to change individuals by logical persuasion one-on-one but why it is relatively easy for people to change opinions if they think the rest of their tribe have changed opinion.
Ironically, it might be easier to change a whole culture then it is to change a single individual.