Umberto Eco in 1994:

The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counter-reformist and has been influenced by the ratio studiorum of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory; it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach -- if not the kingdom of Heaven -- the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: The essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation.

DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can achieve salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: Far away from the baroque community of revelers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment.

You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counter-reformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions: When it comes down to it, you can decide to ordain women and gays if you want to.

Naturally, the Catholicism and Protestantism of the two systems have nothing to do with the cultural and religious positions of their users. One may wonder whether, as time goes by, the use of one system rather than another leads to profound inner changes. Can you use DOS and be a Vande supporter? And more: Would Celine have written using Word, WordPerfect, or Wordstar? Would Descartes have programmed in Pascal?

And machine code, which lies beneath and decides the destiny of both systems (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that belongs to the Old Testament, and is talmudic and cabalistic. The Jewish lobby, as always....

This is why, in a nutshell, I avoid Apple products. I have never been a church-going guy, nor have I ever believed in infallibility. Zealots give me the heebie-jeebies, and people who queue up outside the deliberately religious architecture of an Apple Store to be the first to get the latest holy relic are just scary.

Personally, I think Apple is stifling innovation in technology, both through their deliberately restrictive policies and action, and through the culture they've created among tech writers who now believe that "no one will ever improve on an Apple product." An Apple tablet will be nice, but it will destroy any serious innovation, as corporate boards will insist that R&D be devoted to the pointless task of replicating the device's success. A pointless endeavor, anyway, as Apple zealots rarely consider the possibility of truth from the mouth of a heathen, let alone converting to another faith. A Windows-based tablet computing device could cure cancer and increase the user's sexual prowess and Apple choirboys would still belittle it.

But this is also a by-product of basing your company less on your product and more on your marketing. There can be no denying the brilliance and success of Apple's marketing: building a church on a foundation of empty words may have been easy a thousand years ago, but it is considerably more difficult now. Fortunately, successful marketing rarely involves thought, relying instead on appeals to emotions and belonging.

This methodology also leads me to the conclusion that were Apple a political organization, it would clearly be the Republican Party. The marketing tactics are the same: claim inherent superiority; ignore or belittle conflicting evidence; offer comfort through conformity to the group; stifle internal dissent; debate via personal attacks; and where possible use weak tokens to "represent" the other side.* It is a highly successful strategy, if one I find morally reprehensible.

I should point out, however, that not every fan of Apple products falls afoul of this. I have even known a few to break free of the programming and leave the flock to strike out on their own, moving to whatever software or hardware best serves them. Unfortunately — much like reasonable Republicans — their voices are overpowered by the lockstep rhythm of the marching white plastic jackboots.

*Something which troubles me about the "I'm a Mac/PC" ads is their use of John Hodgman as the "PC" character. Hodgman — a writer and raconteur for whom I have a great deal of respect — is a very vocal Apple supporter. For me, casting an avowed Apple zealot as the dimwitted, inept, and congenitally uncool representative of the Windows world carries certain uncomfortable echoes of white performers in blackface shuckin' and jivin' for the entertainment of the in-crowd.