16 July 1997

A tale of two Davids

When Brutus slew Caesar, what was his excuse? "It is not that I loved Caesar less, it is that I love Rome more."

With those words were a declaration of the complexity of patriotism and love, that sometimes, one does what one does for a higher cause, even if it means being branded a traitor.

A pair of Davids sit amidst that turmoil right now: David Winer, the technology pundit author of DaveNet and high priest of Frontier (technology on which this site is based on), and David Every, pro-Apple warrior of MacKiDo fame.

To witness firsthand the arguments on either side of the fence, both writers have taken great pains to catalog and display articles on their respective websites. This, if anything, is a great example of the freewheeling anarchy of the net that somehow still manages to muddle through. All are free to express their opinions, all are free to debunk and rebut their detractors.

The issue at hand is the greatest soap opera currently playing in high tech: Apple, the Mac, the future. Winer took Apple to task for allegedly not supporting Mac developers enough, Every believes that Apple is doing its best, and that Winer unnecessarily criticizes Apple at a time when its public image is at an all time low. As a Mac user myself, this issue is also something that I must deal with.

There is a prevailing view that equates Apple with the Mac OS/platform, which is fallacious. Winer makes that point that Apple alone does not define the Mac platform; it requires and depends on developers and users who pledge their allegiance to the platform's concept. Apple, as the lead developer of the OS, is akin to the governmental body that defines the direction of a country. And in hyping Rhapsody while downplaying the current MacOS, Apple is spreading the word that even the mother ship is dropping the platform which held it up, giving in to the winds of opinion which say that the MacOS is at the end of the line. Winer, as other developers do, has pledged his allegiance to the platform first and foremost. He is critical of Apple, not because he loves Apple any less, but that he holds the Mac dearer to his heart. And to this lies the heart of the controversy: if one equates Apple interchangeably with Macintosh, then this dichotomy cannot exist.

But it can, and it does. The Macintosh concept, that amorphous experience that engenders creativity and unmatched loyalty to a platform, was sheltered by Apple, but by no means was the feat Apple's alone. It touched a lot of people, who strove to cultivate the system. In the Mac world, people will do things out of love for the platform and community. It is not a tool, but the bastion of an entire subculture. And lately, Apple has been the greatest hindrance in the evolution of that environment. To the corporate Apple, the Mac is a cash cow, it is a source of their profits. They do not see the people whose lives are changed by it, or the communities that have sprung up around it. They are a profit making machine (and that is not meant as a slight), and by that standard, they are doing poorly.

The licensing of the Mac changed the scenario dramatically. It showed people that someone else can be a better caretaker of the Mac.