Microsoft is Right About the Cost of Macs
There are apologists galore on both sides of this argument. The problem with Microsoft vs. Apple arguments is that they are too often emotional. There is such a long history between the two companies that leaves much to be desired. And even though Bill Gates and Steve Jobs appeared to make up during their WSJ interview a year or so ago (a must see) us Mac users are still, well, pissed.
Mac users are pissed at their very core because the understand the one single truth PC users do not understand. And that is that Windows users are ostensibly using a Mac. That same feeling some of us had when we fell in love with the first Mac is felt, in a much watered down form, by those Windows users excited about the power of a GUI interface.
And after-all, this is what this is all about, really. It is about a mouse, a keyboard, and a screen that has the metaphor of What You See Is What You Get. It is what lit up Job's passion when he visited Xerox, it is what lit us up when we first used a Mac, and it is what Window's users get. The reaction to the GUI interface is almost instinctive.
Now, there are many different flavors of this interface and Apple Matters readers know that the Macintosh version of this interface is better. OS X is more stable, more powerful and more flexible than Vista (although Windows 7 is creeping up).
But the differences have become inherently subtle. The original Macintosh revolutionized many industries, but particularly graphic design. With a DOS prompt you couldn't design a book cover, with a Mac and PageMaker you could. But, and this is important, all the tasks that you can now do on a Mac you can do on Windows. Maybe not as elegantly, or as powerfully (although many would argue even that point) but you still can.
Which leads us to the question in front of us, why are Macs more expensive? If it isn't the operating system that is so different to Windows then maybe the hardware is a hint?
In the days of PowerPC, when Apple sold us the tired and incorrect story that the PowerPC processor was better we could have pointed towards the processor. But that is no longer the case. Same with SSCI, and firewire. If you look at a Dell today and a Macbook you will notice they have:
- the same processor
- the same ram
- the same hard drive
- the same video card
- the same screen
So what are we left with? Well, nothing.
This is where folks tend to get riled up. Build quality, and the genius bar (forget the fact that you shouldn't be there in the first place, it means something is wrong) are cited as reasons why the Mac is more expensive.
But I say BS. If all these different companies are able to make a laptop that sells for $500 then Apple should. To make this point unbelievable clear lets compare a Dell to a MacBook:
Dell Inspiron 15 ($554)
- Intel Core 2 Duo T6400 (2.00GHz/800Mhz FSB/2MB cache)
- 3 GB Ram
- 250GB SATA HD @5400 rpm
- 4 Cell Battery
- 15.6 inch screen 1366x768
MacBook (the white cheaper one, $999)
- Intel Core 2 Duo, 1066MHz frontside bus, 3MB shared L2 cache
- 2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
- 120GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
- 13.3 inch screen 1280 x 800
Now apologists will get very detail-oriented. They will note that the Dell does not include Bluetooth, has a smaller battery, and that the processor has slightly more frontside power on the Macbook. Yes, but the Dell has 1GB more ram and a hard drive over twice the size and a bigger screen. Of course Windows users will have to buy an Anti-virus tool (around 30-40 bucks) and don't have iLife (iTunes is free, Picassa is as good as iPhoto and free, not sure about iMovie).
The point here is that for machines with remarkably similar specs the MacBook is almost double the price.
And there are countless other examples of this up and down the Apple product line, whether it is XServes, Macbook Pro's, Mini's, etc. The whole Apple computing line is over-priced by at least 33%.
Unlike Microsoft I am not trying to attack Apple, or drive people to buy more PCs. I love Apple products and it is because of this I want to drive home this point. As the recession increases, and Windows 7 comes out these differences are going to be more and more glaring. At some point the extra revenue Apple makes with higher margins will get lost in reduced sales.
I have no doubt that Apple is working very hard right now on a NetBook that they may think is a solution to this problem. But it isn't. As long as I can very easily find machines that cost far less across Apple's product line that have similar hardware Apple has a big problem. And relying on the allure of OS X isn't going to cut it much longer (and I won't even get into the Hackintosh phenomenon here).
Apple, take a long hard look at your product line, and tell me why a Macbook costs almost double the equivalent specced PC product?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
UrbanBard said “
The studies are clear; many independent sources have verified this. You may simply have not counted up the costs. Small business owners say that Mac users are 20% more productive than PC’s users, because they don’t have to spend as much time maintaining their computers.
Of course, there are condition when a person would never notice this fact. Mostly, it is where they don’t place high demands or long hours on a computer and trade it in very often. These are the equivalent of low millage car. Low milage cars tend to have fewer maintenance costs.’
The Microsoft campaign, and the majority of Apple computer sales, are not about small businesses. They’re for home users. For home users there is no difference in TCO. Indeed, as Beeblebrox pointed out, the cost of repairing a Mac when it does go wrong is ridiculously high, as is the cost of buying standard memory from Apple. This is nothing to do with “low mileage” (where do you dream up this nonsense?). The inside of a current Mac is fundamentally no different from that of a PC. Same chipset, same memory manufacturer, same CPU, same disk manufacturer, same motherboard and assembly factory in Taiwan and same graphics chip.
And for all this rhetoric about “quality”, I had to replace my original iMac G5 20” *three* times and my iMac Intel 2.8GHz 24” once. Thank God for Apple Care - did you factor the cost of Apple Care into the cost of an Apple? I never needed an extended warranty for my PC’s as it was so easy to source and replace components. (This last statement may sound at odds with my original statement about Apple components being the same as PC components, but the difference is that Apple make subtle differences - like using EFI instead of BIOS, integrated graphics, customer motherboard shapes, etc that mean it is impossible to do anything more than replace the memory and disk drive).
In any event, I remain highly skeptical of the “independent studies” showing major TCO differences between Mac and PC use in the Enterprise. Frankly, the fact that you *cannot* use a Mac in the Enterprise in the same way as you can a PC (due to a total lack of Enterprise software) inevitably means that there will be less work to do. I also doubt the studies are ever independent - who would fund such a study unless they had a point to prove?
“I was naking a point which went over your head.”
You called PC users the “ignorant masses” and Mac users “discriminating.” Your point was not a subtle one. You’re an elitist who thinks that purchasing one giant corporation’s product makes you better than someone who buys a different corporation’s product.
“That is, non-Apple Mac would match a Mac and better it, but Apple isn’t about to let that be proved, are they?”
Excellent point, sir. To all the blah blah blah TCO integrated hardware/software nonsense peddlers, why then are you and Apple so vehemently against hackintoshes or Mac clones? If no PC can go head-to-head against a Mac, if they REALLY are competitive feature-for-feature, then you’d think that Apple would WELCOME hackintoshes/clones to prove that point.
But they don’t. Because the fact is that a feature-for-feature clone would be CHEAPER and everyone knows it. Maybe the case design wouldn’t be as slick, but let’s see just how many people are willing to pay for coolness when it comes down to it.
Paul Howland said: “Did you factor the cost of Apple Care into the cost of an Apple?”
Damn right. My G5 arrived DOA and I was very upset at having put down $6,000 for a computer with a duff PSU. The nice lady at Apple extended the 90 days warranty to a full three years for free—the equivalent of AppleCare.
That busted G5 was the best thing that could happen, because last year, 2.5 years after it arrived, my Mac began to overheat. One of the two G5 chips was boiling 10 degrees higher than it should, while the other was 10 degrees lower than it should be. The fans were all blasting at 3,500rpm and my electricity bill was huge.
Head in hands, I priced up a PC workstation and called Apple, knowing it was going to cost me. I’d forgotten all about the extended warranty. Turned out the sensor in the processor module was faulty and the only way to fix it was to put in a new module. As I say, I was very lucky. Welovemacs.com sells Apple service parts to the public, and they price a Quad G5 at $1,800. The logic board is available for $930.
The lesson? Get AppleCare. It’s worth it. Factor it into the TCO of your Mac!
Brockway said:
“
At the same time Macs should cost less. Yes, the R&D;that makes Macs so great does cost money and I am willing to pay a bit more for a Mac, but It’s really difficult for me to afford the prices that Apple charges. So while I have an iMac, unfortunately my laptop is a Gateway (but it has a 17” screen and I payed $499 for it (refurbished) from Tiger Direct). I’d love to have a Macbook.”
Why should Macs cost less? Every company positions itself to serve a particular part of the market and succeeds or fails as a result. No company can serve all the market, because their customers demand different things.
The people who shop at Walmart and Neiman-Marcus are in different demographics. You could say that one group has more money than the other. Or that one group is willing to pay more because of some perceived need. But, there is that great group of people in middle incomes who must choose one or the other. Sometimes, for specific items, they will look at both stores before deciding.
Both companies are departments stores, so there are many similarities. Neither are manufacturers, so identical products or services can appear at either. There is no guarantee as to which product will be higher priced at either store. Neither Walmart nor Neiman Marcus are unnecessary. The existence of both means that the needs of different market segments are met.
Neiman Marcus, in the main, is more expensive, but there may be differences which make the higher price worth it. Both companies differentiate themselves in order to make themselves seem unique. Some people could fail to perceive those differences or declare that there is none but price. But that opinion could be prejudicial.
Apple and WinTel have very different marketing plans. Microsoft tries to position Wintel as being all things to all people, but Apple and Linux customers would say that Microsoft fails miserably at that.
The Wintel customers could say that Apple is too high priced. But to say that, they must ignore the qualities and services which make a Macintosh worth more to an Apple customer. Apple does not service the very inexpensive computer market, so it’s computers are often compared unfavorably to computers which have similar components.
An Apple customer will say that the comparison is illegitimate, because there are other issues which makes a PC unacceptable to them. I, for one, don’t like using Microsoft Windows. Not even $500 would make up the difference in being forced to use it. But that’s my preference; one that you may not feel is valid.
Often, Linux hackers want to destroy both business plans. That is, they take the very inexpensive hardware from Wintel and install the Mac OSX operating system on it.
You could say, Brockway, that you WISH Apple product were less expensive. But what qualities and services do you want Apple to give up to make it so?
It could be that you insufficiently value what Apple can give you. Like the people in the Microsoft ads, you could be ignorant of the underlying qualities which make a Mac worth more. Or you could fixate on some issue, such as screen size and ignore anything else. That’s okay with me. That merely indicates why Apple is not right for you, now. It may become so, later.
The problem is that most people have insufficient knowledge about Apple. They don’t know why Apple customers gladly pay more. So, they could, like the people in the Microsoft Ads, think that only price and a component checklist is important. An Apple customer would consider that foolish.
I agree with most of your previous statement, Chris Howard.
Where I disagree is that Apple and Wintel customers often have very different viewpoints and values. We Apple customers don’t tend to tinker with our machines, because we are focused on getting things done, rather than how they are done. We tend to be non-technical or anti-technical. Microsoft Windows drives me nuts, because it tries to help me too much. It gets in my way and frustrates me.
I would also add a point Number 5 that Microsoft markets Vista and Windows 7 in six different levels. You don’t get the full Vista Areo experience unless you pay more for the upgraded OS software and the hardware necessary to run it. This point is often ignored. Apple has only one OS, which gives you the full Mac Aqua experience. If you buy a cheap PC, you may not get Areo and be too ignorant to know what you are missing. The Microsoft Ads, thus, do not make a true comparison.
Chris said:
“And finally, to say “nothing matches it at any price.” is a major furphy, because Apple hasn’t given anyone the opportunity. That is, non-Apple Mac would match a Mac and better it, but Apple isn’t about to let that be proved, are they? “
Of course, nothing can match that Macintosh experience at any price, because with a PC, you must put up with the Linux or Windows OS. You may not value that difference, but we Apple customers were once Windows or linux users and we know the difference.
Apple gives people the opportunity. Apple is fighting against a headwind of ancient FUD. Apple’s market share came from almost nothing, twelve years ago, until now it has almost ten percent of the American market place and sells 60% of the laptops costing more than $999. It sells none below that price point. There must be some valid reason for that market share increase. It is more than the fact that Microsoft has been screwing up.
What you are asking, Chris, is for Apple to sabotage its marketing plan by placing the Mac OS on cheaper PC hardware. Apple is a hardware company which differentiates itself by offering a better operating system. It could not make enough money by selling the Mac OS for PC hardware. Apple cannot directly compete with Microsoft. It almost went bankrupt trying to do that 15 years ago.
Paul Howard said:
“UrbanBard said “
The studies are clear; many independent sources have verified this. You may simply have not counted up the costs. Small business owners say that Mac users are 20% more productive than PC’s users, because they don’t have to spend as much time maintaining their computers.
Of course, there are condition when a person would never notice this fact. Mostly, it is where they don’t place high demands or long hours on a computer and trade it in very often. These are the equivalent of low millage car. Low milage cars tend to have fewer maintenance costs.’
The Microsoft campaign, and the majority of Apple computer sales, are not about small businesses. They’re for home users. “
Well, Duh, Paul. These Advertisements are a direct attack on Apple’s customer base. Apple markets to the upper end of the consumer, creative and Small to Medium sized business marketplace.
Are you saying that home users don’t care about quality, durability and life expectancy? I’d say that you are wrong. Mac owners keep their computers about twice as long as PC owners. Then, they sell them on Ebay, because old Macs have a residual value. PCs are junk after two year. You can hardly give them away.
“For home users there is no difference in TCO. “
Of course there is, because we Mac users tend to keep our computers longer. Every year longer, we keep them, lowers its cost of ownership. I kept my last computer, a 800 MHz goosenecked flat screen iMac, for over six years. It still worked fine and never gave me any trouble, but was getting a little slow. I couldn’t install Mac OSX 10.5 on it, so I got a 24 inch iMac.
I gave the old Mac to a friend and she will be using it for another three to five years. If all you use a computer for is the internet, why should speed matter? Four years from now that Mac will still be worth some money on Ebay. Your average PC is in a land fill after two years.
“Indeed, as Beeblebrox pointed out, the cost of repairing a Mac when it does go wrong is ridiculously high, as is the cost of buying standard memory from Apple. “
But, very little goes wrong with a Mac; much less than your junky PC.
There are plenty of places to buy memory and disk drives from, so why pay Apple’s price? I placed 4 Gigabytes of memory in my 24 inch iMac, a year ago, from Otherworld computing for less than $120.
Besides, how do you avoid the accusation of “anecdotal evidence” except by comparing to the cost of ownership of organizations with hundreds of computers of each type? The fact that it cost those organizations two to three times as much money to maintain a PC for the same total life expectancy as a Mac is important.
A home user may not calculate the time, effort and money to keep their machine running, but businesses must. Often, a home PC becomes so bogged down after a few years that it is not worth the money to pay an expert to clean it out and fix it up, so you junk it and state anew. But that adds to the cost of ownership of the PC, because the Mac is still useful.
“This is nothing to do with “low mileage” (where do you dream up this nonsense?). “
I was describing his situation. Placing few demands on a computer can lengthen its life expectancy, just like for a car.
“The inside of a current Mac is fundamentally no different from that of a PC. Same chipset, same memory manufacturer, same CPU, same disk manufacturer, same motherboard and assembly factory in Taiwan and same graphics chip.”
Yes, and no. There is a much wider variation on the PC side in quality, durability and mean times to repair. There are levels of junk that you can’t believe there. Yes, you can sometimes get bargains, but only at the price of becoming an expert. I have better uses for my time than that. It does not make me enough money.
“And for all this rhetoric about “quality”, I had to replace my original iMac G5 20” *three* times and my iMac Intel 2.8GHz 24” once. Thank God for Apple Care - did you factor the cost of Apple Care into the cost of an Apple? “
I tried Apple Care on my goosenecked flat screen iMac, six years ago, but never had any problem with it. I decided to forgo it on my new 24 inch iMac. Right now, I’m not considering that cost. So far, I heard of no major issues with this computer. I don’t know if my decision is wise or not.
““I never needed an extended warranty for my PC’s as it was so easy to source and replace components.
Are you saying that the hardware problems you had on your PC were inconsequential? And the time, effort and money you spent to keep it repaired was worth nothing, right? The time needed to make yourself into an expert is worth nothing, right?
” (This last statement may sound at odds with my original statement about Apple components being the same as PC components, but the difference is that Apple make subtle differences - like using EFI instead of BIOS, integrated graphics, customer motherboard shapes, etc that mean it is impossible to do anything more than replace the memory and disk drive).”
The EFI issue is Microsoft’s fault. BIOS is antiquated—twenty-five years old, but Microsoft won’t offer you the choice. No—wait, I’m wrong. Vista has EFI, right? System 7 certainly will. Who knows if System 7 will be good enough to persuade PC users to move on from Windows XP which is stuck on BIOS.
I hardly think that this issue reflects well on Microsoft. BIOS forces a really screwed up file management system. Apple is slowly moving on toward using Sun’s “Zettabyte file system” as standard. It has a number of advantages and will be standard on Snow Leopard 10.6 server. It will become the desktop’s boot file system in one or two years.
“In any event, I remain highly skeptical of the “independent studies” showing major TCO differences between Mac and PC use in the Enterprise. “
There are many independent sources, besides firms. School boards and Universities have published their cost of maintenance—before and after they switched vendors. PC’s always cost them more to maintain; more than enough to make up for a lower initial PC hardware price. But, if you are blind, nothing will persuade you.
“Frankly, the fact that you *cannot* use a Mac in the Enterprise in the same way as you can a PC (due to a total lack of Enterprise software) inevitably means that there will be less work to do. “
Where did you get that idea? That is old data, Paul.
There are only a few software items, mostly they are from Microsoft, like Outlook software, which has no replacement on the Mac.
Microsoft’s Exchange software is on the iPhone now and will be in Snow Leopard 10.6 due out in two to five months. Even AutoCad has moved to the Mac. The Real estate listing programs, which had been Windows only, are now ported.
When Apple has 10% and growing of the US computer market that is enough reason for the good Windows programs to be ported. The bad Windows programs can stay where they are.
Besides, I never cited Enterprise as an example. I used the Small to Medium sized business market which has 58% of American employees. Not the big companies which have more than 200 employees and IT departments which have special purchasing demands. Apple is not directly catering to them.
“I also doubt the studies are ever independent - who would fund such a study unless they had a point to prove?”
One can have a point to prove and still be honest. Gardner publishes this information to sell you their business solutions. My problem with much of the Microsoft advocates is that they aren’t honest.
Certainly, none of your arguments make sense or can be backed up with hard evidence.
Beeblebrox said”
You’re an elitist who thinks that purchasing one giant corporation’s product makes you better than someone who buys a different corporation’s product.”
No, I don’t think Apple owners are better, but that they have different views and values from computer owners who choose to buy the cheapest PC’s.
Most of us Macintosh owners have extensive experience on Linux and Microsoft Windows computers and have rejected them. What make a person a discriminating shopper is that you know why something is better, even when it costs more.
The people in the Microsoft Advertisements cannot be considered discriminating shoppers. The qualities which say they want cannot be found on what they purchased. They were fools who were misguided by surface appearances. They set themselves up for failure or they are too ignorant to tell the difference. Which are you?
beeblebrox said”
“But they don’t. Because the fact is that a feature-for-feature clone would be CHEAPER and everyone knows it. Maybe the case design wouldn’t be as slick, but let’s see just how many people are willing to pay for coolness when it comes down to it.”
Of course, it would be cheaper. But how is a cheaper Mac in Apple’s interest when it would destroy Apple’s business plan for selling hardware?
Mac OSX operating system is an enticement to sell Apple hardware. The Clone era almost bankrupted Apple. How is it in your interest to bankrupt Apple? Where would the money come from to improve the Mac OS if Apple cannot sell its hardware, because of competition from illegal hackintoshes?
“The people in the Microsoft Advertisements cannot be considered discriminating shoppers. The qualities which say they want cannot be found on what they purchased. They were fools who were misguided by surface appearances.”
So not having enough money to buy a Mac makes one a “fool”? Sorry, but that’s classist, elitist bullshit.
What’s funny is you accuse others of distorting the facts. The idea that a cheap PC costs TWICE as much as a Mac in TCO is completely fabricated nonsense. As is the idea that PCs are all “junk.” You also accuse Hadley of all people of “pretending to be a Mac user” and of being a “PC pundit” because he dares dissent against Apple.
And of course, your view of PC users as the “ignorant masses” versus you, the “discriminating shopper,” all because you can afford a BMW and they can’t.
What kind of car do you drive, btw, UrbanBard? I hope it’s a BMW. I’d hate for people to look down on you because you’re anything less than a discriminating shopper. BMW’s mean you’re not one of the unwashed ignorant masses, don’t you know.
No, beeblebrox, what makes a person a fool is that they don’t know what they want or how to get it. Often, we have to settle for less than what we want, but we should admit that or we are not honest with ourselves.
We don’t fool ourselves that we need what is flashy and cheap. Size isn’t everything. There is skill and pleasure in using what we have effectively.
“The idea that a cheap PC costs TWICE as much as a Mac in TCO is completely fabricated nonsense.”
No, it isn’t. There are many examples from people who have no ax to grind. The problem is that is no point in arguing with a bigot, so let’s drop it.
“As is the idea that PCs are all “junk.” “
I never said that. I said that the variations in quality on the PC side is very wide, so you must become an expert to tell the difference. Most of us are not, and will never be, experts so we get stuck with lemons. That is the value of a Brand Name. You pay more, but there is safety in a brand. When you compare a Mac to a comparable quality HP or Dell, the price differences are miniscule.
Do you want the cheap price that a white box gives you, but you still want the safety? Tough luck.
“You also accuse Hadley of all people of “pretending to be a Mac user” and of being a “PC pundit” because he dares dissent against Apple. “
I don’t care if you knock Apple if you only make sense and not repeat Microsoft FUD. You spout enough nonsense and you get branded as biased. No amount of posturing that you are really love Apple will overcome that. Do you think that we Apple customers are gulls? That is a very old trick.
How old are you, beeblebrox? Twelve? That is the way you act. If the shoe doesn’t fit, ignore it. Pass off anything that doesn’t apply to you as irrelevant. If you get upset, it merely confirms the other person’s argument.
Don’t come to a discussion unless you have your wits engaged, your prejudices in firm control, your humor intact and your good will in evidence. The point is that you should be focused on determining what the other person means. If you make this discussion about your feelings, you come off like a jerk.
It is all about what you can build a good case for. I pointed out where Hadey’s evidence or logic were lacking. His points betrayed the typical patterns of Microsoft FUD, so,I decried that.
If you don’t like my illustrations, then suggest an alternative. Since you objected to using cars I used a different illustration of Walmart and Neiman Marcus. I have no love for any of these companies. I was pointing out the differences between them.
Don’t focus so much on the illustrations that the point I was making escapes you.
UB, the irony of YOU accusing anyone of being prejudiced after accusing those who can’t afford Macs of being “fools” and “ignorant masses” is hypocrisy at its finest.
I currently use BOTH machines, and in fact have twice as many Macs as PCs. You, on the other hand, think that people who don’t buy the mass-produced widget that you’re shilling for are “ignorant fools.” I leave it to others to decide who has the axe to grind, which of us is the biased nonsense peddler.
To call the rest of your comments “projection” would be an understatement.
UrbanBard, the clone one is interesting. On the one hand, yes clones damage both Mac hardware sales and OS X’s image of stability and security.
But on the other hand, clones mean greater marketshare for OS X, including better access to enterprise.
Which is better for Apple? It’s hard to know for sure. We can’t look at the previous experience of clones, because they were launched from a position of desperation. Clones now we be from a position of strength. Clones then were from many manufacturers. This time Apple would limit it to one or two.
Imagine OS X on HPs, Sonys and Dells.
What does it do to MS’s latest ads?
Lauren, Giampaolo and the kid would then say “Well, this is the hardware I want, and this is the price, but can I get OS X with that?”
All three of MS’s heroes so far didn’t buy their PC because it had Windows on it. All of them were quite prepared to buy Macs.
So MS are actually proving Windows is not part of the equation! How insane of them!
So MS’s ads demonstrate ppl not wanting to pay Apple’s price for hardware, but being open to OS X.
Those ads are telling us that ppl would buy Macs if they could afford them. That’s microsoft telling us that!
That’s a big opportunity for Apple. If it doesn’t want to build cheaper Macs, it could licence others to. OS X on HP, Sony and Dell could cut swathes thru Windows’ marketshare.
“All three of MS’s heroes so far didn’t buy their PC because it had Windows on it. All of them were quite prepared to buy Macs.”
But according to UB, that didn’t happen. They didn’t shop around, they weren’t discriminating shoppers. They skipped a Mac, not because it was out of their price range, but because they are fools who were misled and set themselves up for failure and were stupid ignoramuses.
Nevermind that their budget wouldn’t have allowed for a Mac no matter how much they wanted one. No, they’re idiots for not being able to afford a high-end computer. End of story.
“Those ads are telling us that ppl would buy Macs if they could afford them. That’s microsoft telling us that!”
I think they’re saying that people would consider Macs if they could afford them, which is true. I don’t think they’re saying that everyone who CAN afford a Mac buys one, because that’s obviously not the case.
heheh - yeah, i did stretch that one a bit. It was just that in MS’s sample-set, so far, 100% of buyers would have seriously considered a Mac if it was in their budget (in reality it’s probably 3 in 10 at best). And every ad is going to show that 100%.
Which sends out a msg to *all* PC buyers that they should consider a Mac. Interesting. And risky.