Cult is usually identical to an extreme fanatical devilish practice. The cult followers are easy to spot since they are wearing strange clothes, speaking unlike "normal" people, or behaving very extreme that does not fit into society. They are also small group and having just one or a few leaders whose commands are accepted as divine.
In this information era, cult is apparently not limited to religion area, there is now a cult movement in technology field. Apple Inc could well represent the argument. Their followers are still considerably small and Steve Jobs perfectly fits as the leader of the cult.
The movement is started in 1980's when Mac or Apple launched a computer set to challenge IBM. Back then, it was not as easy as now to operate the computer, one needs to know a set of commands or steps to execute simple task such as opening files. But Apple was the first to launch the idea of using icon/picture to execute commands that changed the way of operating computers. Since then, Apple is seen as the revolutionary movement against the "giant, corrupted, and evil" PC companies like IBM.
Apple also succeeds to create a new lifestyle with its other products like iPod and iPhone, that helps its followers to distinct themselves even more than outsiders. If someday Apple decides to produce its own clothes, kitchenwares, bottled water, car et. al, I would guarantee those Apple geeks would certainly buy them regardless the needs, the qualities, or the price. It is the identity of belonging to an exclusive group that they buy.
If you ever use Mac, you will notice some huge differences compare to regular PC. Mac keyboard does not have delete command. What they call delete is actually a backspace. You can only delete the character on the left of the cursor in Mac.Doesn't it sound inconvenient to have just backspace but not delete? Your can't help to notice there is a key with apple symbol in the keyboard next to alt. In PC, you need to press ctrl key to perform any shortcut command. But in Mac you press apple key instead. The funny thing is, Mac also has a ctrl key that hardly ever use. Why do they put it there if there is no use of it? In the beginning, I thought Mac was just plainly inefficient. They omit the key that should be there (delete) and provide the key that shouldn't be there (ctrl). But, it is actually their marketing strategy. They want to be different more than just efficient. If everybody else in the world pressing ctrl for the shortcut, they press APPLE. If everybody else can conveniently delete the character in the left or right of the cursor, they don't mind to give an extra effort to make a statement that they are different.
One more interesting fact is Apple has a department of evangelism in the company. It is basically a marketing department, but they call it evangelist that is again embracing an idea that apple is not a mere computer sellers, but a way of life.
Now, a little bit of personal stories. I am a PC user. I love PC for its inexpensive price, its fast performance, its varieties of games, its services that are available almost everywhere in the world. It sounds like a winning argument for me for everyone to choose PC instead of Mac. However, if you ever encounter Mac user and have a debate with them, you will notice how fanatic they usually are defending Mac and even trying to convert you to be Mac user. They usually brag about Mac's exclusive design and its virus protection. Sometimes I feel like talking to a cult evangelist who's trying to tell you the truth of the universe and the way of salvation instead of talking about computers.
Nevertheless, I applaud the works of the Apple company, it is a very smart marketing move to present the products more than just what they do, but also what the values they represent. Everyone wants to be seen different. Ironically, if they keep growing in numbers, it will eventually be a self-defeating marketing strategy. They are no longer the revolutionary minority group who wants to change the world but they are now the giant empire that needs to be defeated.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Monday, December 7, 2009
Year 2009: Universal Healthcare
The year 2009 is very interesting. Struggles to get out from the economic crisis dominate the news more than anything else. A change indeed happens just like President Obama promised. The issue of universal healthcare has never been out from the top of national hot topic list since Obama took office. It surely deserves a post in this blog.
Background: many disheartening stories in the national news about those chronical and critical ill patients the insurance companies refused to pay for the treatments or for some the rejections came even earlier during the submission of the applications. In U.S., the insurer is allowed to reject the applications based on the pre-existing health condition. Or, in some other cases, the insurance, through their lawyers probably, tries to find the loop holes in the application to avoid payment. Under the Obama's universal healthcare, the companies are not allowed to use pre-existing health condition to reject applications nor to charge different premiums. The government also mandates everybody to get a healthcare insurance, and provides subsidy for those whose income are considered inadequate.
In the most simplistic version, the universal healthcare reform package would consist of these three points:
1. insurance companies couldn't use pre-existing health situation as the deciding factor to reject or to accept the applications.
2. they also are not allowed to charge different premiums, again, based on the health condition, but based on something more abroad like gender or age.
3. the government mandates everybody to take insurance. Otherwise, only those who are sick show up in the insurance offices and caused the insurance an enourmous loss before they are out of the market. This problem is known as the adverse selection.
Pros: This universal healthcare is believed to eliminate the cases of people died because they don't have money to receive proper treatments due to insurance's rejection to cover. The insurance companies will also set an average premium that would be celebrated by those who need regular expensive treatments. The pro-s are also aware that this also means the premiums for some people will increase, especially those who don't have any health problem history. The consolation for those people would be "hey, I know you are paying a higher premium now, but knowing that it will help other people who really need expensive treatments regularly should comfort you. We shouldn't put any money value on human lives, right?"
Cons: Thus, those who are perfectly healthy and young have to purchase the same insurance coverage as those who are sick. It means the government forces to spend some part of income for unnecessary goods. It means those who are already struggling to manage their income to pay for school tuition, foods, apartment rents, or any other necessity goods and perfectly health are having a tough luck. Alright, one more "it means" sentence and I promise to move on. It means, according to government, some people are allocating too few of their income on healthcare and too much on other goods. Is it true?
My stand: while I disagree that the government decides how I should manage my income, I also have an empathy to those who struggle to save the lives whom they love so dearly but got their hands tied due to financial problems. I am also aware that at any point in time everybody could switch places between those two roles (to be those who feel they overpay the insurance, and to be those who really are thankful to be covered by insurance), well, of course exception for those who died suddenly before receiving any treatment. The other side of the coin, those who already struggle just to get the necessity things available but perfectly healthy will feel that their fights for the today's survival are opposed unfairly. So, in conclusion, I have to say I don't know or have no opinion, let alone solutions to the existing problems regarding the universal healthcare, at least until I get more facts to put into consideration.
Background: many disheartening stories in the national news about those chronical and critical ill patients the insurance companies refused to pay for the treatments or for some the rejections came even earlier during the submission of the applications. In U.S., the insurer is allowed to reject the applications based on the pre-existing health condition. Or, in some other cases, the insurance, through their lawyers probably, tries to find the loop holes in the application to avoid payment. Under the Obama's universal healthcare, the companies are not allowed to use pre-existing health condition to reject applications nor to charge different premiums. The government also mandates everybody to get a healthcare insurance, and provides subsidy for those whose income are considered inadequate.
In the most simplistic version, the universal healthcare reform package would consist of these three points:
1. insurance companies couldn't use pre-existing health situation as the deciding factor to reject or to accept the applications.
2. they also are not allowed to charge different premiums, again, based on the health condition, but based on something more abroad like gender or age.
3. the government mandates everybody to take insurance. Otherwise, only those who are sick show up in the insurance offices and caused the insurance an enourmous loss before they are out of the market. This problem is known as the adverse selection.
Pros: This universal healthcare is believed to eliminate the cases of people died because they don't have money to receive proper treatments due to insurance's rejection to cover. The insurance companies will also set an average premium that would be celebrated by those who need regular expensive treatments. The pro-s are also aware that this also means the premiums for some people will increase, especially those who don't have any health problem history. The consolation for those people would be "hey, I know you are paying a higher premium now, but knowing that it will help other people who really need expensive treatments regularly should comfort you. We shouldn't put any money value on human lives, right?"
Cons: Thus, those who are perfectly healthy and young have to purchase the same insurance coverage as those who are sick. It means the government forces to spend some part of income for unnecessary goods. It means those who are already struggling to manage their income to pay for school tuition, foods, apartment rents, or any other necessity goods and perfectly health are having a tough luck. Alright, one more "it means" sentence and I promise to move on. It means, according to government, some people are allocating too few of their income on healthcare and too much on other goods. Is it true?
My stand: while I disagree that the government decides how I should manage my income, I also have an empathy to those who struggle to save the lives whom they love so dearly but got their hands tied due to financial problems. I am also aware that at any point in time everybody could switch places between those two roles (to be those who feel they overpay the insurance, and to be those who really are thankful to be covered by insurance), well, of course exception for those who died suddenly before receiving any treatment. The other side of the coin, those who already struggle just to get the necessity things available but perfectly healthy will feel that their fights for the today's survival are opposed unfairly. So, in conclusion, I have to say I don't know or have no opinion, let alone solutions to the existing problems regarding the universal healthcare, at least until I get more facts to put into consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)