I wrote "The Mac Essence Parts I & II" over at MacOS daily.com (before it closed) in order to make one simple point. Okay, so I used almost 3800 words just to say it. But every assumption I make rests on a prior assumption, and I want to make mine clear when I can. So I spent the effort just to say this: "The essence of the Mac as a computer is that it is a Universal Turing Machine; the essence of the Mac as a Mac is that one doesn’t notice its essence as a computer." But it is a very important point and one I wish to expand on here.

I focused on the Mac as a Universal Turing Machine (which is a mathematical model of the computer, or rather computation itself) because I think many have forgotten this is all it is. But I think this is exactly what Apple and Steve Jobs want. They want to design a computer that hides the fact that it is just a computer. That explains, I think, the Mac user experience we all go so nuts over.

"Mac Essence" was very philosophical. But I treat my readers as though they are thoughtful people who, if they must, are willing work to understand what they read. Sometimes I make you work. At any rate I don’t dumb things down or try to be artistic all the time; sometimes, I just do some serious thinking and, by writing anything, invite you to join me if you are on the same path. But within the dialectics and logic of these articles there is a very simple point. It can be summarized by six propositions. I state them here.

First, I needed something to explain. So,

• People love the Mac; this is the "Mac experience" which I simply called "enjoyment."

That is the data, as it were, I was trying to explain. Obviously, I cannot use the user experience in any explanation of it. I took it for granted. So I am asking, "Why do people love the Mac so much?"

• The essence of the Mac as a computer is a Universal Turing Machine (UTM).

This too is obvious, but it has become not obvious. And that is the important point. When I laid down the challenge in Part I none of the attempts at meeting it I received acknowledged this obvious fact. It as if people had forgotten, and they had. This is important, as you will see.

• The "Mac experience" is not explained by its essence as a computer (a UTM).

I gave some serious argument for this point which I will not repeat them all here. You’ve read them. The simple point is that other things have a UTM as their essence and yet we do not experience them in the same way. So it cannot be what is common between these things (a UTM) which explains the Mac experience. Thus, it must be explained by elements other than its essence. So,

• If the Mac experience is not explained by the essence of the Mac as a computer, then it must be explained by something else.

This is obvious. So, what is this "something else"? To get at it I make a distinction between the essence of the Mac as a computer and its essence of a Mac as a Mac. After all, a UTM does capture the essence of the Mac as a computer yet it does not explain the Mac experience. The original question was about the essence of the Mac and not the essence of a computer, which the Mac happens to be. So in one sense saying the Mac is a UTM doesn’t answer the question. So instead of asking what the essence of the Mac as a computer was, I asked what the essence of the Mac itself was. I needed something that, in my mind, would explain the rainbow of wonderful experiences we all have on the Mac. I wanted something that explained the fanaticism, the loyalty and the sheer simplicity and elegance of the Mac. So,

• The essence of the Mac as a Mac is that one does not notice its essence as a computer.

I think this is a very powerful statement. I think this is the Mac mystique, the whole of what we call "this Mac thing of ours." I think, in fact, it captures the essence of Apple. Apple has done the seemingly impossible: It has made a computer that doesn’t seem like a computer. What would it be to make a computer that seemed like a computer? One phrase: Command line interface (CLI).

When you work on a CLI the fact that you are working on a computer is made obvious. What I mean is, first, that its input-output structure is obvious. You enter inputs and gets outputs in a CLI. The same with a calculator. Moreover, the script or program structure of a computer (a computer has four parts: an input, an output, a script of program or set of rules, and an internal processor) is made obvious in a CLI.

This is why people don’t have the same reaction to Windows, as far as I can tell. The fact that you’re working on computer is not hidden well enough. It fights against you, for one thing (as John Martellaro told me once). The use of extensions is another case in point. C drives and such also make the fact that you’re working on a computer obvious. The CLI lies just beneath the surface and you can even go into it, making the fact that you’re working on a computer all too obvious. Of course, UNIX work stations and such make plain their essence, but they are designed for other ends.

It’s quite a trick to hide an essence. It took some brilliant engineering. It still does. I said in "Mac Essence Part I" that how we react to a thing is in a large measure determined by its essence. Apple’s chore was to hide the essence of the Mac as a computer so well that we reacted to it as something else. The amazing thing about the Mac and Apple is the essence lies hidden so well that you in fact forget it. That is, you forget you’re using a computer. Most of this happens in the interface and desktop metaphor. Yet, with the Mac SE down to the G4 and iBooks, the exterior body of this UTM is formed in such a way that the mathematical model the Mac is becomes attractive. When you add the interface to this hardware design you have something we might call "a disguised Turing Machine." And that is the point. That’s what Apple has been after all these years, in my opinion. And it is why Steve Jobs still makes much of the unique position Apple has in the computer industry: It controls both the hardware and software OS. This is essential to the Mac, for it is their combination which hides the essence of the Mac as a UTM. From the smiley face and symphonic sounds that greet you to the curved, shinny, and clear handles of the G4, they are all designed to make you forget. We have a word for it: Magic. A magician makes you think he is sawing a woman in half when he is not; Apple makes you think you’re not using a computer when you are. That’s the Apple magic.

In their attempts to fool you Apple has accreted many things atop a Turing Machine. The "Think Different" campaign is an example. "Think Different"? About a computer? No. And that’s the point. The myth and symbolism that is Apple also works the magic. Freedom, anarchy, creativity, simplicity, elegance, all of these symbols and instances are not the first thing you think of when you think of a Turing Machine. "Apple." What’s that got to do with a computer? Nothing. (But "Microsoft"? Everything.) It's all a kind of a bait-n-switch.

So I conclude,

• Therefore, the essence of a Mac as a Mac explains the Mac user experience.

Simple, and even obvious. But taken together they all say something important.

In a way, then, Apple is always seeking to trick you, it wants to fool you. It wants to trick you into forgetting you’re using a computer; they want to fool you into thinking you’re using something else. It doesn’t matter what really, as long as it’s not a Turing Machine. Thus, as Charles Moore has recently said, the Mac means different things to different people. This is what you get when you hide an essence: The "What is it?" question becomes an open question and meaning becomes vaporous. The human impulse to create kicks in and we make (or constitute) the thing before us. We then give our Mac a name (as Adam gave the animals names in the Garden of Eden), we anthropomorphize the Mac, we become attached to it. We, in effect, become fools. And indeed many millions of people have become fools for the Macintosh. I am a fool for the Mac. You are a fool for Mac. But in the end, being a fool sure is fun.

Postscript: I am just thinking on virtual paper by writing these articles. I hope you find them interesting. We all know the Mac is insanely great. We all know the Mac is special in some way. What these articles represent, in a sense, is a proof of these which you can use in your Mac evangelism. If your Wintel interlocutor ever asks "prove it," now you can do so, I hope. Thanks for reading.

David Schultz