A thirst for Apple juice
Get a bunch of ranting PC fanatic fanboys together, and you'll hear about the famous 'killer' devices that plague the Apple alternative...
You'd have to be living under a rock to be unaware of the ongoing feud between Mac and PC fanboys. Wild claims are made from either camp, such as the famous line "Macs don't get virus'!" to the PC defence "What games are you running? Oh wait, you can't!" In fact, both are very wrong. Macs can be infected with viruses and hacked as easily as any Windows system. They can also play games natively, and for the many games that don't function, the ability to install Windows via Bootcamp solves the issue. But what I'd like to address in this article is the senseless use of the term 'mackiller' and its derivatives. Why do we use it? Should we use it? Is it contradictory?
'iPhone killer', 'iPod killer', 'Mac killer', you name it, it's been used. It so happens that the term is often wielded by those who have a gripe with the Apple camp. And with this in mind, such activists insist on implementing it into any comparison between the two platforms. What makes this so intriguing is how counter-productive this is. Ignoring the fact that arguing in the first place is pretty petty, calling a device an killer is admitting that Apple have produced a superior product in the first place! Why would such a device need to be 'killed' if it posed no thread to the defending platform? The fact is, most of the time the product is a threat, and the PC zealots will find any way to undermine the opposition - even if they're clearly in the wrong.
What bothers me is not that there is feud between the two platforms, but the means of which arguments are constructed. Apple products are not made for top-notch performance. It's not what they're built for. Rather, they're designed to be compact, elegant, high quality, quiet and simple to use. Their target market differs - they're not aimed at enthusiasts. This applies to majority of their offerings. On the other hand, PCs are suited to those who require cost effective, modifiable performance machines. There are exceptions to this, but for the most part, these descriptions typically define each platform.
With this in mind, I find it almost humorous that people still use the 'killer' suffix. To be quite honest, the way the term is used merely draws attention to the silliness of the situation. For instance, "This product is a iPhone killer because it has a faster processor!" So what? Does the iPhone do what its users require? If not, is this the fault of the CPU? Doubt it. The device is perfectly capable of running applications developed for it. You also have to put it into perspective. Does this 'killer' device provide the same attributes, features, ecosystem and software range? It's important to make a decision on the product as a whole, not pin point a select few aspects that trump the opposition and flaunt them like a huge eWang. The only loser in that situation is the one who buys the inferior product, not the one who cops the most baseless tripe.
The same could be said in reverse, in particular with Windows Vista. The amount of rants that contributed to its ungodly reputation was (and still is) uncanny. The sad thing is, most of those people had never used it! Some of it was deserved initially, despite the fact that hardware vendors were too lazy to create compatible drivers. However it does become irritating when people regurgitate claims from its initial release and apply them to the current product. To a professional or informed enthusiast, such accusations immediately flag 'ignorant' in their minds and possible responses. It hardly makes you look any more informed - it achieves the complete opposite.
Then there's the journalists that use the term wherever they can. I asked myself, 'Why would a journalist resort to such a term?' The answer was clear, it's simply because it attracts people. The Apple guild will read it so they have ammo to bitch about it, and rest are there to fuel the flame. The result is a nice influx of hits to the site, which ultimately means an increase of ad revenue. Sneaky.
To conclude, I feel that the term is overused and too commonly wrongly implemented. If anything, even with the best of intentions, it's going to attract people who dedicate their lives to arguing for a side. I hear they call it 'brand loyalty'. But in reality, all these companies want to do is take you cash. They really couldn't care less about you. In short, get what suits your needs, rather than your allegiance.
