We have been contemplating the ad campaigns of Apple and Microsoft. They are summarized by two slogans as we all know: "Think Different," and "Where do you Want to Go Today?" Companies adopt slogans to produce certain mental associations in the consumer's minds. They should be positive and/or humorous associations. But after thinking about them, and how, in fact, both companies act in light of their slogans, we are convinced that each assumes a different theory of human freedom. We think this also explains the difference in people's experiences with each platform.

In this essay I will outline the theories of freedom involved, give some examples, and then show how each company assumes one of these theories. Philosophers have long contemplated human freedom and whether we possess it, or at least to what extent we do posses it, if we do at all. "What are the nature and scope of human freedom?" they ask. The answer has repercussions for human dignity and worth, morality and punishment, and the kind of beings we, humans, are. There are basically three different answers.

First, one can deny that we have human freedom. This is called determinism. It is the view that the choices we have are well beyond our control. That is, what you had for breakfast this morning was not up to you. What was it up to? The state of the universe long before you were born determined what, in fact, you chose for breakfast this morning (including your parent's genes, and their parent's genes and so on, things you had no control over, and the laws of nature). If you were to choose freely, then you break a law of nature; but such laws are immutable and cannot be broken. So you are not free. This does not mean you must have Frosted Flakes, since there may be none where you are, but that given a choice between Frosted Flakes and Cheerios, you must choose Cheerios given the state of the universe at that time and your material make up.

Libertarianism or indeterminism is the second view of human freedom. This is the view that determinism is false (obviously). So we have robust human freedom. How robust? All things considered, very robust. Our actions are "uncaused" in the sense they are not caused, in fact, they are spontaneous. Given that you had the option of both Cheerios and Frosted Flakes this morning, which you had was up to you and not the state of the universe before you were born. Philosophers try to capture this intuition by saying you could have done otherwise. Given any choice we are presented with, say between doing A, not doing A or doing B, we can choose one without constraint or compulsion. Because it's up to me I can do otherwise: I have real options stretching out before me at any point in time as I create the future with my choices.

Compatibilism is the third, and final, view of human freedom we will examine. This is the view that determinism may be true, but it's irrelevant to our freedom.. That is, determinism and human freedom are compatible. How can this be? Because, say compatibilists, freedom does not require being able to do otherwise. Philosophers try to capture this intuition by saying freedom requires only being able to do what we want, all else equal. You might not have been able to choose Cheerios over Frosted Flakes this morning; but as long as you WANTED Frosted Flakes then you are free. No one MADE you eat them after all. It does not matter where our wants come from; all we need to know is that we are doing what we want without being forced to it.

We will set aside determinism for now because it does not impact our discussion directly. Concentrating on the other two theories, I want to give a theological example to make them (hopefully) clearer.

Most of you know the problem: God ultimately knows and causes everything. If he ultimately causes everything then he ultimately caused you to have Cheerios too. And if he knew, from eternity, what you would eat this morning, and because God cannot have false beliefs, and you cannot cause him to have false beliefs by your actions, you must eat what you did.

Theologians and philosophers have struggled with this because they do not want to deny either that God causes and knows all or that we possess human freedom. Both are important. Indeterminists then say that because our choices are spontaneous they are not caused by anything, so they cannot be caused by God either. So God causes and knows all and yet we are free. Compatibilists say that God knows and causes all, but this is compatible with human freedom. God might have determined what I had for breakfast, and he might have given me the wants and desires I have. But as long and I am doing what I want and not being coerced to do it, then I am free. So the debate goes on.

It is our contention that Microsoft's ads assume compatibilism and Apple's ads assume indeterminism. And it is really obvious if you think about it. Thinking about is what we will now do . . .

Microsoft Compatibilism

The compatibilists s whole theory rests on the assumption that we need not be able to do otherwise to be free. As long as I am doing is what I want, that is sufficient (or jointly sufficient with other conditions) for freedom. So being able to do otherwise simply is not the issue. Do you see the point? Consider, "Where Do You Want To Go Today?" Microsoft wants to know what your wants are. They will help you do anything you want. They are here to help you achieve what you want in life. That is why they pack their software (sometimes referred to as "bloatware"), with feature upon feature . . .upon feature. No one can really foretell what everyone wants, after all, so why not make a program that can cover every conceivable want people might have? So they add all the bells and whistles. You name it they can do it. (And thus, the inherent conflicts within their own software packages, for people have contrary wants.) I have even heard of people doing greeting cards in Excel! Anyway, as long as you can do what you want then they assume you will happy, and you will be happy with them. And then, they will be happy. And if you are happy, they are happy (part of human happiness if satisfaction of rational wants and desires.), then everyone's happy and world is a better place. Oh, and by the way, just don't ask about being able to do otherwise. Just determine what you want and, they say, we can satisfy you.

This is what a monopoly is all about: Not being able to do otherwise. The Gates gang made a strategic decision when they began Microsoft: If one controls the OS he controls all. And they were right. The OS is foundational. All other programs are built on the OS environment. So if one builds a proprietary OS and it wins the day, then dependency is fostered and being able to do otherwise becomes an illusion. Sure, we can still do what we want. If I want to do desktop publishing in Word I can. If I want to build a database in Office, I can. If I want a presentation with charts, tables and essay, I can do it. I can do it all. I just cannot do otherwise.

I said in Infinite Loop 1 "Speaking the Unspeakable" that some do not choose a Mac because they feel they have no choice . "It's what we use at work so I have to get one," they say. But, I am thinking of smaller things here. Anyone who uses Word knows what I am talking about: Auto Formatting is but one example. "I don't want a numbered list darn it! Stop doing that!! Put that back! Don't turn that URL into a real link!!! And get that stupid cartoon computer off my screen!!!! What an insult." It's the small things. Sure, some of them you can take care of in Preferences and Tools. But it's not easy. In a recent review of a prerelease of Explorer 5, a Mac columnist is annoyed at he called the "lack of user freedon" incorporated into the new version. But assuming I can figure the settings out I might--might--find what satisfies my wants. But not always.

The lack of freedom is found in other dimensions of our life, too. In our philosophy department everyone else has PCs. They can give me disks which I can open on my Mac. But, it is nearly impossible for the reverse to occur. I use DataViz MacLinkPlus, and they need Conversions Plus. Fortunately, I have been able to get by without having to use a PC much there. I can do otherwise, they cannot.

And then there is the university web services. No one knows anything about the Mac. I wanted to upload from home on my Mac. After many failed attempts and talking to some in the theology department who gave up, so did I. Perhaps there is a way to do the things I needed, but as long as we all think they cannot be done that is enough for making it so. I couldn't do otherwise. One administrator even said, years back, that they do not recommend Macs to anyone. I do all my serious work at home now because there I have more freedom. The point of this is that if I have different wants then I am stuck on the outside. I feel doing what I want is not enough. I want to be able to do otherwise. I desire robust libertarian freedom. I wish to "Think Differently."

Apple Libertarianism

And then there is Apple. While watching Steve Jobs at the last MacWorld Expo I began to see how libertarian freedom worked itself out in OSX. "If you don't want the drop shadows on the widows, you can turn it off. If you don't like this then just do this. Or do this." Lots of clear, unobtrusive options. In Steven Levy's book "Insanely Great: The Life and Times of the Macintosh" he talks about the long discussion at Apple trying to decide how many times the menu should blink when one scrolls off of it. It was decided that three is best, but they allowed the user to change this to 1, 2 3, or none. They allowed the user to be able to do otherwise. And think of the new colored Macs ad iBooks. We have six choices (Blueberry, Grape, Lime, Strawberry, Orange and Graphite). These are real options. They appeal to wants of course. If we don't want Blueberry we can buy a Lime. Even KidSafe, Apple's new filtering system for parents, is predicated upon taking freedom away from children, for not allowing them to do otherwise. (And sometimes taking freedom away from children in this sense is a good thing if it teaches them self-control.) We, the parents can do otherwise, though.

Thinking Differently assumes being able to do otherwise. Apple is saying, "Instead of doing what you're doing, do something different. Act otherwise, not just from your own habits but from what others do." There are proprietary elements in Apple's portal strategy. No Mac? No OS 9? No iTools. But think about it: Thinking different and libertarian freedom means that we recognize others will do otherwise. That's what freedom is all about. If one does otherwise, that is, chooses not to join iTools or buys a (God forbid) Compaq, that is to be expected. In fact, it may even be desirable. Why does Apple say that it is happy with its market share (besides for PR reasons)? Because they know people will do otherwise. If not, then why even talk about thinking different? Their proprietary bent assumes doing otherwise.

I have not argued for any theory of freedom here. As a philosopher I have been thinking about it for fifteen years and have not arrived at a conclusion (though I have my hunches about where the truth lies). I don't even argue that Microsoft and Apple have consciously adopted any theory of freedom. Jobs, with his strong background in philosophy, knows what determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism are I am sure. All I have done is applied my craft to this particular case. Philosophy, or philosophical assumptions, underlies most everything we do and say. Many do not realize it, true. It is my job as an educator to get them to realize it. But, once these assumptions are pointed out they have the remarkable quality of reflecting what is in our souls, or even the soul of a company. They seem familiar once they are pointed though we hadn't thought of them before. They seem familiar because they underlie so much of what and who we are. I think it is clear that both ad campaigns assume a theory of freedom, and perhaps even both companies do as well, without realizing it. Once we point this out so much of what the companies do comes into focus and sounds familiar. Think about it . . .

David Schultz