Which of the following best describes your ideal computer culture:

A:  Sure, the technology doesn’t work all that well, but it’s cheap, easily accessible, and doesn’t demand a lot of time or expertise.  Sure, it’s run by a corrupt company with monopolistic tendencies a lot better at marketing than programming, but who cares?  It’s inexpensive and ubiquitous.  That’s what counts.

B:  You wouldn’t be caught dead using anything but the fastest and most cutting-edge machine.  Sure, it costs several times what others do, but let’s face it, you’re a bit of a snob and you like having the best and showing it off.  It doesn’t bother you in the least that the company you use is highly proprietary and more than a little cultish–in fact, you think Steve Jobs is God’s gift to computers (if not a divine being himself), and you like being part of an elite.  People don’t know what’s good for them anyway.

C:  You get upset when people tell you there are only two options that are both bad.  You’re a bit unconventional, don’t mind taking personal responsibility for how to tweak and fix your computer, and you like open-source.  You disdain either monopolies or proprietary cults, and like the somewhat anarchic flow of programs without a great concern for either marketing or image.  You just want what works the best without getting wrapped up in overpriced cults of personality.

If you answered A, you’re a PC.  If you answered B, you’re a Mac.  If you answered C, you’re a Linux box.

In pondering the technology wars between Apple and PC, I have been struck by the general lack of understanding that there are more than two options.  I have also been struck by the implications of technology and larger cultural issues such as politics and religion that intersect with one’s technology as part of a worldview.  It is in light of those considerations that I would like to discuss this issue today.

Microsoft appears to show the triumph of marketing over content.  PCs provide the illusion of choice but all have the same sort of software running it (a Microsoft OS that is probably bloated with lots of security issues).  For decades it has produced substandard software and gotten away with it because it was inexpensive or even free (and often bundled with the OS for maximum monopolistic tendencies).  The illusion of choice represents a tendency that is common in our world.  For example, if you buy a pair of sunglasses at the store, no matter the brand they are probably all from one company ultimately.  If you buy cereal, you’re probably buying from one or two companies.  There are a lot of monopolies that like to preserve the illusion of choice so that they do not appear to be so threatening.

Apple, on the other hand, seems to relish in its relative unpopularity.  Despite cutting edge technology (including personal computers and laptops, and now cellular phones and other devices as well), Apple has usually lagged behind other companies as a result of its proprietary culture, which likes to keep everything internal, lacks transparency, and fosters a cultist and elitist mindset.  Apple seems to be a designer computer model, more of a status symbol than a genuinely accessible technological model, reveling in its exclusivity even as it occasionally produces something of genuine and lasting value (like itunes, for example).

In contrast to these two, Linux and other opensource computers definitely lag in popularity.  In many ways, they provide the reality of choice that Microsoft only provides the illusion of, and all the features one can want, if one is willing to take the responsibility of helping make it work.  While both Microsoft and Apple provide ready-made solutions in a box, the best of Linux requires personal involvement, study into fixes and workarounds, and that responsibility scares a lot of people off.  You can’t have freedom–both inexpensive software and the features one wants, without accepting some sort of personal responsibility, though.  To make things even worse, the kind of people that you will be popular with by being a big fan of opensource are rather nerdy people, rather than the “cool” people who like Apple or the run-of-the-mill people who use PCs.

Computers are a surprisingly social world, despite the solitary nature of much computer behavior.  Since computer technology is a fairly reliable portion of one’s worldview, it is one of the areas where one’s underlying quirks of personality become evident.  For example, I own a Linux box, despite not being a particularly tech savvy person, use Mozilla Firebox (as opposed to Internet Explorer), type my documents in Open Office, and so on.  Despite my lack of deep knowledge about computer programming, my tendency to prefer what is obscure and of high quality rather than what is based on either marketing or image has led me to become an open source supporter.  Life is strange that way–our inclinations and personalities and quirks lead us to make choices and commitments in our technological worldview.  Life is funny like that.

If you have never given any thought to technology–why do you support the companies you do?  What do your own choices say about you?