On Monsters

On Apple:

The user base of Apple has been labeled recently as more liberal, and diversity tolerant than the national average.

Which poses an uncomfortable question… how on earth did this happen?

As I said previously, Apple’s philosophy cannot get its hands dirty with the poor the way Microsoft or Linux does. Or more to the point: it hasn’t. You would think this would be a great concern to its user base, but oddly it isn’t.

Their great philanthropy push is the one that had potential, but ultimately they are slaves to fashion. I’m referring of course, to the (red) label. The idea behind the (red) label is clothing and accessories that, after manufacturing and other associated costs, a small portion of money is given to the Aids fund.

This fails for several reasons. The first is that it doesn’t work. At the Gap, which has also embraced the label… much of the clothing is marked down to clearance. It was initially more expensive. Most of it is butt ugly. It costs more in general. The crass pricing shows that Gap still wanted their profit, and failing that, was willing to liquidate in search of profitability.

The (red) label is the laziest and greediest form of charity in modern times. And Apple has signed up with the (red) iPod shuffle. This is lazy beyond lazy.

True charity comes at the expense of profit or margin. Tying most of the products down to a specific color, as many do, means that the popularity (and profits) of silver and black will never be in jeopardy. This sort of philanthropy is nutless.

Microsoft’s philanthropy is personal and also company-based. You can say that the company’s charity is publicity; its owners charity is decidedly not going to mark away years of hostile moves. It makes inroads that could be argued to lead to profit, and this is true. Every saved life that is later educated on a cheap Windows version may be a customer someday. The key here is the maybe. The key here is that something is being done.

Linux makes inroads because they are cheap, but their mission is also genuine, and also a form of marketing. Even Linus Torvalds admits that the system must make a profit SOMEDAY. But it is inroads such as this that are not cool, but will end up making fans the world over. It will help educate the uneducated. It will bring technology to parts of the earth that are as close to hell as you can imagine. You will NOT find the Macbook Air, clean and sleek and pure as snow, near such people. Linux is the antithesis of cool; geek may be in, but searching for the right wireless drivers is not.

I’m beyond caring about the fiscal reasons, the fact is that something substantial is being done. And those efforts eclipse those by (red). And thus, by Apple. The program itself is not a bad idea, but by the time companies have implemented it, it lacks any real tooth, relying solely on niche cache. The problem being that ultimately if people don’t like the product, they won’t be moved to buy it. And money isn’t given.

Apple loves to gloat and be abrasive and smug, but when it involves things that truly matter, they have zero bragging rights.

This is embarrassing. What concerns me is that so many people of a certain view turn a deaf ear, white ear buds in. Is this the price of cool?

It’s fine if Apple wants to run with the big dogs. It is fine if they want to compete aggressively. But this is the big issue for the next 20 years of computing, and they have been unwilling to step up to the plate. Ultimately, we vote with our money. And millions are voting against their ideals in favor of white shiny. And that makes me red.

Cloverfield confounds me. People complain about the shaky cam, but we are rarely spoiled by this good a shaky cam. The first thing about most shaky cam work is that it involves violent cuts. The action on Cloverfield is mostly seamless, so it is easier to focus. Watch the Bourne series’ car chase scenes- the effect of a bouncing camera and multiple split second cuts is jarring. In Blair Witch, you were talking about a low grade camera. This makes it harder to focus. No hand camera is as good as the one they filmed Cloverfield with, and few are as focused and stable.

My reaction to this movie is the most disturbed I have been by a movie ever. Ever. It got to me where I couldn’t sleep. It depressed me. And I never want to see it again. The only time I want to bear witness sheer terror like that again is if I’m actually there. The feeling of helplessness coupled by immersiveness of the story and camera work… it’s something that wasn’t enjoyable. But it was still good.

The creature is… hell. Whomever conjured this deserves an Oscar and a punch to the face. They have created an abomination, which no matter how impressive still offends me. I will never imagine anything like this, and I’m really, really proud of that. The spores it gives off are less frightening, but what they do to a cute girl is an image I can’t erase out of my head. My senses were offended. I am glad I saw the movie, but I will never, ever see it again. It will not sit in my bookshelf, and I will leave the room if it is on. There are just some things I have no desire to see.