I think I have to disagree somewhat with your characterization, Chris, of the “cult of Mac” becoming like the plebes submitting to “Big Brother”. Blank faced submissiveness to authority and capitulation to the thought police is what the 1984 ad was all about. I think the “cult of Mac” is more akin to rock star adulation: folks start to think that Mick Jagger is the Rolling Stones, for example.

Underlying this cult-like worship of Jobs is a problem answering this question: what differentiates an Apple product from others in the market? I guess the easiest answer would be something like “a refined and consistent design ethic”. Or maybe a “vision” of how the products should be, including packaging, advertising, chassis design, OS, and applications.

And where does that differentiation come from? I think it is safe to say that it started with a single, forceful, and uncompromising visionary. No committees, no revisions based on marketing studies- a pure design ethic. But where the “cult” seems to fail is that it assigns all of the responsibility for the products that result to a single individual. I think Jobs got Apple to where it is to a large extent as a result of force of personality, but I think his intolerance for “design by committee” and disdain for complex systems full of feature creep is more or less part of the culture he has created. The actual designs themselves and how they were built, how the technical problems were solved, and how they ultimately were marketed and supported has really been the result of other peoples effort. Take Steve away and there may be a vacuum, but it isn’t going to cause collapse of the rest of Apple.

A really good example of the difference between “design by committee” and “design by vision/fiat” can be found in this video:

It is worth noting that this was a Microsoft internal “educational” video produced by their packaging/marketing group to point out their problems. And this is exactly what the Mac cultists fear: that the loss of Steve Jobs will result in exactly this kind of horror being foisted off on their beloved “pure” products. Somehow, Apple is able to leave out features in a way that makes their product better.

And you know, I don’t entirely blame them for the fear: I look at my MacBook, iPod or Apple TV, and purely based on bullet point features they are inferior to, say, an HP laptop, Zune, or HP MediaPC. Yet they work well and with tremendous “harmony” of purpose compared to those competitive products. Even more confusing, I can easily point out obvious and vexing missing features or outright flaws: things like non-removable batteries, lack of hard drive or memory upgrade options, and missing interfaces.

I, as a skilled technical person, can’t clearly explain why the Apple versions are better, but can only wave my arms and say “because they are better”. I don’t have to figure them out every time I use them. They fit comfortably into how I do things and respond to my choices quickly and reliably. This is true throughout the Apple product families during the last decade. Jobs and Apple really are more like a major clothing designer: a Gucci, or Versace as opposed to an IBM or HP.

Design “magic” like this is decidedly scary to most business people. You can’t quantify it, define it with a series of bullet points, or outsource it to China, and so folks are afraid it will disappear in the absence of the obvious driving force: Steve Jobs. Although I respect what Mr. Jobs and Apple have built, I don’t think it is that fragile of a thing.