[roc]

> "each and every website, even if it's only remotely related to technology, appears to be populated with people who can't resist the urge to slam Apple for whatever is the popular Apple-fail-du-jour."

Is that because they actually hate Apple, though? Or is it just a function of the emotional attachment Apple creates?

Consider what we'll call "The Oprah Example".

Oprah doesn't remotely write or talk about technology that often. And far more people in Oprah's audience will have Windows PCs and Android phones than Macs and iPhones.

But Oprah is far more justified in talking about Apple. (And she does.) Because those people in her audience who have Apple devices likely have an emotional bond with them. And they will appreciate a story about Apple. Whereas even those people with Android phones and Windows PCs in her audience almost certainly don't give a damn about Microsoft or Samsung. They likely don't even know off-hand who manufactured their devices.

Not that Oprah herself parrots component order stories. But it's the same mechanism in other places that do. People care about Apple. Ergo they will actually read about Apple. Any number of blogs might have a grudge against Sony or Samsung or Microsoft, and repeat negative stories about those companies, but the fact that no-one really cares about those companies means that they necessarily fall flat.

So the "dog pile" on Apple that you perceive doesn't exist because people hate Apple for its success. It's because people have emotional opinions about Apple and thus will actually read stories about Apple.

Indeed what you see as a dog-pile against, many people who dislike Apple see as a mindless cult that gets outsized press because the newspapers and hollywood are full-fledged devotees to the cult.

They're two views on the same mechanism: the emotional reactions Apple generates.

And the proof of this is as simple as looking to the way that Apple has long commanded a slice of the public consciousness that far outweighed its marketplace relevance. It's only fairly recently that their user base was large enough to justify the press they already had.

[GHFigs]

So the "dog pile" on Apple that you perceive doesn't exist because people hate Apple for its success. It's because people have emotional opinions about Apple and thus will actually read stories about Apple.

I don't understand the distinction here. It sounds like you're exempting "hate" from "emotional opinions". Please clarify.

[roc]

The distinction is this: it's not the writers motivations that makes Apple articles different.

A handful of people Hating Apple may well motivate them to write negative things about Apple. A handful of others may reblog it for similar reasons.

But all sorts of people hate all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. And one can easily find examples of similar emotionally-driven negative articles about Sony, Microsoft, Google, etc.

Yet those other articles don't inspire the response an Apple article does. They don't generate huge threads. They don't get reblogged much. They don't often generate many responses.

So Apple can't be different simply because of writers motives.

No, it's different because of the way readers react to it. And, specifically, the very large number of readers (historically out of proportion to Apple's significance) with very strong emotional reactions (both for and against).

[w0utert]

I would even go as far as assuming there are many more reasons why Apple attracts so much criticism, unfounded rumors and hate, besides 'emotional opinions' (which as far as I'm concerned indeed also includes hate). Rational reasons such as trying to make money by manipulating the stock, trying to fit into some kind of peer group that appears to dislike Apple, a general need for attention, a lack of inspiration and creativity when writing blog posts or news articles, etc.

Large successful companies gather mind share, be it positive or negative, which makes them an appropriate subject for all kinds of attention. Just like many people feel Apple gets a disproportionate amount of positive attention (which is probably true), many others feel the get too much bad press (which is also true). Usually hate attracts much more attention though.