The Apple Fetish

Consider the above "advertisement." What is obviously a parody on one of today's most popular companies, Apple, has quite a bit to tell us about how we take in advertising, what we like to see in our products, and what we value as a society. A few years ago, Steve Jobs, in discussing Apple's design philosophy, stated that they were going for "simple and elegant." Think of any Apple products you know. All of them are sleek, modern, and contribute to a certain sub-culture. In this image, we get a pretty good idea of a more farcical interpretation of Apple's message. One could say that Apple is about fluffy statements that make their products look more high-tech or elegant. They take things that are not necessarily revolutionary in and of themselves, and try to make them look Apple-unique and important.

Last semester, in one of my larger courses on campus, my professor told students that she encouraged students to bring their computers to take notes during class. While I preferred to stick to the ancient method of writing on a stone tablet, I was shocked by how many of my peers showed up boasting their MacBook Pros. What was really surprising to me, however, was what ensued when these people began talking about their machines. They brought up the superior computing abilities, resistance to viruses, window-jumping abilities, etc. One of the guys I spoke with, after finding out that I used a P.C. laughed, stating that I paid a bunch of money for an inferior machine. However, when I brought up the fact that my computer had twice as much RAM, a stronger processor, a better graphics card, and longer battery lifer than his MacBook, and for hundreds of dollars less, he still asserted that his Mac was better than my P.C.

You might be thinking "So what? Some kid didn't like your computer." That is not the point, however.This guy refused to believe something other than what he had been programmed by Apple to believe about computers. The advertising and culture support he received all supported the idea that this MacBook was a superior machine, which justified his purchase. He has so completely sunk in to this image of Apple the company, Apple the logo, that he rejected the idea of the product itself being something different.

In his work, The Fetishism of the Commodity and Its Secret, Karl Marx questions determines the "worth" or "value" of something. He contends that this"exchange value" is derived, in part, from human labor. While this might certainly be true to some extent for Apple, I would assert that in terms of the Mac, the price is directly related to the "image" or "logo" of Apple.

In No Logo, Naomi Klein discusses a push in the marketing world towards a new strategy. Rather than marketing a product, many companies are now trying to push some monolithic image upon the masses. Companies like Nike try to impress the "Just Do It" image through a number of different platforms. When we think of Nike, we don't first think of shirts or shoes or equipment. We think of celebrities like Tiger Woods. We think of the Nike Swoosh. Most importantly, however, we think of sports. Nike embodies sports. Because of this, Nike has been very successful.

Apple does the same thing. By pushing this idea of sleek and elegant, yet super-powerful technology, Apple is working to create an image. Through the "virus free" propaganda, they enhance this idea. But is a MacBook fundamentally better than any other computer? In terms of the parts that go into it, the cost for labor, etc. is there anything all that special about a Mac? I would contend that really, what constitutes the huge discrepancy in price between a Mac and an identically performing P.C. is the image. To some extent, Apple is allowed to jack up its prices because of the image that it projects. Because of this "logo inflation," Apple makes people think that their parts are superior to those of competitors. Perhaps the fact that Macs are so expensive even allows them to be expensive. We ascribe a certain sense of quality to things that are expensive. If a MacBook costs more than a similar P.C. then it must be better, right? It's a vicious cycle.

It might seem as if I were trying to champion the cause of the P.C. and say that Macs are terrible. On the contrary, I think that both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I really have little preference. What is important, however, is to note that the fundamental difference between the two platforms stems not from the quality of the machine, but of the way that we perceive the companies who make them. Apple has managed to completely "fetishize" their product. By creating an image within our society about their products, they have altered the way we think about the product itself, how much we are willing to pay for it, and how we think about similar products made by other companies. I think that as a whole, we need to strive to see through what marketers want us to see in order to look with clearer eyes at what we want for ourselves.