[sterling]

"The most plausible theory, though, is that Google’s Android phone software is a more open and hackable operating system than the proprietary software on the iPhone, BlackBerry or Palm. Therefore, Android appeals to precisely the sort of frustrated, anti-establishment people who have no trouble writing abusive notes. It brings them out of the woodwork, gives them a new counterculture champion."

I agree with Pogue. It is absolutely baffling how something as ephemeral as a technical solution tickles our religious reflexes.

[sophacles]

I don't know about the religious thing -- other than it is important to people -- but:

I can see how people get attached to thier tools. We make our living from wielding and manipulating those tools. Further, there is this wierd western culture thing of "you are what you do", meaning if I do android development, I AM an android developer. This attaches identity to tool choice. Furhter, there is a certain passion for doing well with ourselves in the geek communities. Combining all that, if you insult the tool, it is no different than insulting the people.

I don't really agree with this being a good idea, just observing the things in play that seem related to reactions. Similarly see how old scientists react to their theorys being overturned (most observable in soft sciences, where data is more interpretable/has more confounding variables).

[jimbokun]

"It is absolutely baffling how something as ephemeral as a technical solution tickles our religious reflexes."

Maybe not surprising when you consider how watching guys dressed up in matching uniforms engage in some kind of competition involving a ball can elicit the same response.

[fnid]

Empathy for athletes during competition is an evolved phenomenon that aids the assimilation of useful hunting and fighting skills for the audience.

[jsz0]

It's a topic worthy of a full scale sociological study. I feel like the historic lack of competition & choice for consumers when it comes to (mainstream) operating systems plays a big role. Maybe it has been passed on through the generations of techies. If your platform of choice wasn't hugely popular it had little chance of surviving long term so people seem to develop fierce loyalty. Microsoft's influence of dominating the OS market seems to be the goal everyone wants. We're always talking about how "X is going to kill Y" or "X is going to DOMINATE the market" You rarely see someone say "X could carve out a good 20% of the market and I would be happy" The ironic part is these people never seem to understand that competition is good for everyone. In a huge market there's nothing wrong with having a small market share. It still equates to many millions of users.

[bmj]

Agreed.

I find the critical comments interesting, too, as they are the sorts of things we programmers say when someone points out the issues in our products.

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

"The problem is clearly between the keyboard and the chair."