Macs: Round Pegs in Square Holes
The new trend in the PC world to make PCs appear better than Macs is to spec the PCs such that the Mac can't be considered, whether it's on price or features or both.
Firstly we had Microsoft with its commercials featuring first Lauren and now Giampaolo (who both seem to make hasty and uninformed decisions), which were all about speccing the Macs out of the picture. And now I read in one of my local papers, The Age, a rather interesting article comparing souped up laptops.
Interesting on two counts:
First off, they recommend a 15" screen as providing the best value. Might want to tell Lauren about that. That again reinforces what many other bloggers have demonstrated, that both Lauren and Giampaolo were suitably uneducated before spending. To buy a computer after a couple of hours of looking is foolish. Okay, so it's all in the name of making an ad, but it just proves the folly of rushing in. One of our readers, AlaskaBoy, made the salient observation that both were hung up on screen size without taking into consideration the actual resolution.
Secondly, the article sets up a specification requirement that Apple can never match with any computer in its range, be it desktop or laptop. This is an advantage non-Macs have. You can spec something up to virtually any configuration you'd like. As another of our readers, Sterling North, insightfully said, this "choice" is the real push of Microsoft's latest ad campaign.
And so it is with that article. How about these demands:
- 15 inch display (no mention of resolution...)
- Wireless-N networking
- Very large hard drive
- eSATA and HDMI connections
- BluRay DVD player
- Fingerprint and/or face recognition security
- Style
- Ergonomics
As you can see, they've created a square hole that Apple's round peg fits in but can't fill. Apple gets around these missing corners somewhat by including an ExpressCard/34 slot. And you could argue - until you're blue in the face - the real value or usefulness of some of those things. But, it's their choice, and their spec, and it squeezes out the Mac.
Interesting that they want 15" screens when you consider the resolution of each of their suggested laptops. Looking at each, we see:
HP Pavilion DV5: 1280x800
Lenovo Ideapad Y530-400: 1280x800
Dell Studio 15: 1366x768
Fujitsu Lifebook E8420: 1680x1050
And why not throw in a 15" MacBook Pro, which has 1440x900 resolution, the same as most 17" PC laptops.
This is notable because Apple and Fujitsu are giving you a significant bonus, essentially allowing you to buy a smaller footprint laptop but still with the bigger screen real estate. That is, you can get 17" equivalent in a smaller laptop. Lauren should take note. What's more, if you wanted, you can get a 13" MacBook with a screen resolution that matches the HP and Lenovo (although it again couldn't match the required specs.)
As AlaskaBoy also said, screen size is the becoming the new megahertz myth.
You can argue the pros and cons of Macs and PCs all day long. PCs give you more choice; Macs give you equal or better value for equivalent specs; PCs let you set your own budget; Macs have better TCO; etc etc.
It doesn't matter how you look at it, trying to fit a round peg Mac into a square peg PC hole is always going to make the PC look better. That's what Microsoft is doing, and that's what The Age article did, and even I did it a few weeks back with my own article about fitting Macs into a budget.
Computers are often compared to cars as an analogy, but in this case, the analogy fails. If PCs are Chryslers and Fords, and Macs are Mercedes and BMWs, then the Chryslers and Fords should have more features. But that's not the case (cup holders excepted). If you want the latest features, you buy a luxury car. In the computer world, the supposed luxury vendor, i.e Apple, is not the one you go to for all the latest whizz-bangetry. Instead, Apple's goal (along with its "less is more" approach) is to make the things it does include equal to or superior to its competition.
You're a Mac user so you probably like it that way, but do you ever wish for Apple to fill a bit more of that square hole?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
In the end the arguments are similar to: left brain/right brain, red/blue states, left handedness/right handedness, etc., ad nauseum. The choice is personal and not always rational.
“The new trend in the PC world to make PCs appear better than Macs is to spec the PCs such that the Mac can’t be considered, whether it’s on price or features or both.”
I’d guess that not everything the PC world does revolves around Apple. The new trend in the PC world seems to be netbooks and cheap laptops, and netbooks especially have nothing at all to do with Apple. Their cheapest thing that could quality as a netbook is 6x more expensive than the average.
I also think that the square peg analogy is actually less appropriate than the car one, as weak as the car analogy can be. BMWs are not, after all, square pegs in the budget-conscious consumer’s round hole. They are round pegs for round holes that simply cost more than all the other round pegs.
Apple is just one company with a very limited choice of products, very few configurations, and high prices. It’s a luxury product. In most cases, the budget consumer can’t get a Mac, regardless of specs, because they are simply too expensive. If I can only afford under $1K laptop, then I’m not getting a Mac, period.
I think too many Mac fans are hung up on screen size and specs in that commercial. This misses the point entirely. Yes, you can get more resolution on a Mac (and on more expensive PCs). But when you can’t spend more than $1K, that spec is IRRELEVANT. The question is “What can I get at this price point.” The answer is “Not a Mac, but on the PC there are several hundred options.”
I agree with Beeblebrox. These kinds of arguments always leave out the obvious. Some people buy a computer based solely on price.
I had a friend in college that’s a good example of this. She was a communications major. (she did not use computers on a daily basis) When it came time for her to buy a computer she only looked for a laptop that costs $600 or less. She’s the type of person that doesn’t know what 802.11n is, nor does she care. She wants to be able to access YouTube and write her class assignments. To some people specs do not matter! Price is their only criteria.
Beeb, the car analogy though is the other way round. That is, BMW etc make the square hole, and the mainstream makers make the round peg (albeit, not necessarily with the quality). So, generally, you get more features with cars the more you spend.
With computers, you get less from Apple, a luxury maker. With cars, you get more when you buy luxury.
I think everybody’s answer to that question is yes. On the technical message board I frequent, there is a running wish for a desktop tower Macintosh in the iMac price range, which they dub the xMac. (Pystar exists because that need is unfilled.) Many of the rumors I see on sites I see as people wishing upon stars for their hoped for system (Tablet Mac, Netbook Mac, an Intel version of the 12” Powerbook [or smaller]).
I think that you’re still slightly missing the point of what I am saying, but you came up with a great metaphor. Let me present it to you like this. There aren’t perfectly round holes or square holes at all that people are looking to fill, but irregularly shaped ones ... round-rects, ovals, ellipses, rectangular, etc. But, from all of the computer manufacturers, all they have to fill those holes with are cylindrical and rectangular pegs. I don’t think there exists a computer that perfectly fits every system requirement one has, so everybody has to prioritize what they want. It’s how everybody shops, PC and Mac users. If you want a Mac, well, you’ve prioritized that requirement. Most people really don’t care about the OS (or don’t think they do… they really do, but only in that the OS is familiar and works. Windows is familiar, and for the most part works. OS X is familiar enough, and again for the most part works. Linux really hasn’t crossed either threshold with consumer systems. Linux proves the OS matters only when the OS doesn’t work.)
The big priorities for computer shoppers are price, and following that are all of the performance metrics. (Being CPU, storage space, screen size, and various extras.) I suspect people when shopping will actually think of it as though it’s on a Libra scale with price/cost on one side and everything else on the other side. There might be one or two thing on the feature side that will make him consider adding dollars to the cost side, but he will more likely take stuff out of the features side until they see a good balance. This is the thing that seems to offend some Mac users like Sean Weintrab, Daniel Eran “Prince McLean” Dilger and others. They seem to prefer that you seek out the best features and compromise on price, or go after the best of each feature you can afford. If you shop like that, Macs stand a better chance (though its not guaranteed). However, most people can’t shop like that. Price is generally a hard limit, and many people will rather have more 2nd best of breed feature at a price than fewer but 1st of breed features. (And I’m granting them the conceit that the PCs are 2nd best. Now, if I wanted a machine with a Blu-Ray drive, or four USB ports, or a 12” screen, well you see where I’m going.)
Now, back to the ads. At first I dismissed speculation that one of the goals was to provoke a reaction in the Mac world, but I am reconsidering, given remarks from the agency. Looking at the tizzy the Mac sphere is in, with Weintraub, Dilger, John Gruber and even you here writing multiple pieces on the campaign, it appears to have worked. And the Mac sphere risks looking mean-spirited with this (given how many people have called Lauren and Giampaolo stupid, and how many dismissed the whole campaign as fraudulent when it turned out Lauren works as an actress), especially given that most people shop the way those two do.
But the point the ads seem to want to get to, is that you can far more easily get a PC that fits your supposed needs on your budget than you can with a Mac. You can choose what you want, and what you don’t with a PC. Those decisions are taken away from you on the Mac. It’s the difference between being able to whittle the peg into the shape you think you need than surrendering to Apple and buying a round peg. The ads are empowering.
Joe Wilcox, who writes both the Apple Watch and Microsoft Watch blogs for eWeek explains (more simply, or more convolutedly) what I was trying to say beforehand in his two pieces.
Now, if Apple wants to counter these new ads, I think they’ll actually have to begin enumerating why Macs and/or OS X is better (and worth the premium). In all of the “I’m a Mac” ads, Apple never enumerates why Macs or OS X are better, leaving the work up to the Apple Store employees or the Apple.com website. In fact, until the last two ads set of ads that attacked Vista (or in an oddly meta twist, attacking Microsoft for making an advertisement campaign) the latest Apple ads have been emphasizing that you can do Windows things (use MS Office), or even install Windows if you need to. Otherwise, “I’m a Mac” has been advertising Macs are cool, so get one and be cool, too. Apple hasn’t needed to advertise its benefits or defend its price because once you’re in the Apple Store, it’s too late to comparison shop and the salesman can work his or her magic on you. The PC ads make thinking about price return to the fore. If it can get the viewer to second-think that trip to the Apple Store, or even just have the commercial play in your mind while you’re there, it’s probably effective. I’m betting that’s why Macs and the Apple Store and the “Apple Mystique” are as big a feature of the ads. That is the translucent foil in the two ads.
“With computers, you get less from Apple, a luxury maker. With cars, you get more when you buy luxury.”
I basically agree with you here, but the thing with Apple is that you get what you get. There’s a little bit of flexibility there in the features if you’re willing to shell out more dough.
But again, the features are a side issue. If you’re on a budget of under $1K, then Macs are out of the picture no matter what they come with or don’t.
Sterling makes a good point. One of the reasons that this riles up the Mac fanatics is that there is no counter-argument to it. Whether Lauren is an actress or not, whether Microsoft is reinforcing the elite status of the Mac or not (which also completely misses the point), the bottom line is that you’re not getting a Mac laptop in that price range.
The Mac fanatic’s only recourse is to make fun of the actress and PC buyers in general (they’re all idiots, don’t ya know?), and then argue why Macs are worth the considerably higher price. Yeah, good luck with that in this economy and after you’ve just insulted the lot of them.
PS: Going slightly off topic, but thanks for the shoutout in the piece, Chris Howard. I want to note that (aside from the occasional spambot that gets through) that the comments are great here. There are so many computer sites where I am tempted to leave a comment, but I’m discouraged by numerous one-paragraph or less nyah-nyah posts. I think it speaks well of the hosts that they can cultivate a good dialog in a blog.
Good job Chris.
Except.. uhhh.. I think I said the New Meghertz Myth part…
Unless I missed Sterling mentioning it in an earlier post…
((in this article’s comments)
http://www.applematters.com/article/giving-microsoft-bad-ideas/
Have a Happy Easter!
Oops!
Sorry, AlaskaBoy, you definitely were the one who proposed “screen size is the new megahertz myth”.
Have fixed that.
Dunno how I messed up that one.