Aug 2009
The Worst Salesman Ever
08/28/09 04:35 PM Filed in: Stories
Last night, Evan,
Jacob, Dave, and I decided to journey to Wal-Mart for
a few things and to conclude our outing with a trip
to PetSmart where we could buy a few fish. Dave
and I still had our fish tank from last year, and
Evan and Jacob were planning on purchasing a new
tank.
Our experience at Wal-Mart was largely uneventful; we got what we needed and headed on to PetSmart. We arrived at PetSmart and our first suspicion was that it was closed. Apparently the chain likes to make their large, sliding, glass doors extremely tinted so customers can barely see inside. Anyway, it wasn't closed (even though the hours on the front door said it closed at 7pm and it was 8:30pm). We received a dirty look from a salesman as we entered, but since the doors were unlocked, we entered without pause and made our way to the fishy section.
Over the summer I had two fish: a Molly and a Platy, tropical fish which need filtration and enjoy warm water. I have a 2.5 gallon tank with filtration, but since my room is always fairly warm and I had a lamp directly above the water, I figured that would be warm enough for them. Considering they lived for over three months (and one of them may potentially still be alive, depending on how well he likes the cows' water tank), I figured another one or two of those fish would be a good buy. Anyway, Dave and I were sick of Bettas. I've had numerous Bettas in my lifetime, and aside from Zapato (whom Dave and I managed to keep alive for over three months ... It would have been longer if he hadn’t a nasty run in with boiling water from the faucet), I've never been able to keep a Betta alive for longer than a week or two. Besides, Bettas are generally pretty lame unless you put them in a tank with other fish which they hate (namely, their own kind).
Demetrius and Bruno, the two fishes I had this summer, were quite active and played hide-and-seek and tag frequently throughout their days. They seemed quite happy.
After about fifteen minutes of debating, we made our decision: we'd get two different Mollies. Together, we wandered the store and summoned Jimmy, an apparent resident expert on all things fish. As we rounded the isle back to the fish section, our conversation with Jimmy went something like this:
Jimmy: “So, what are we looking at here?”
Me: “Well, I think we’re going to go with two Platies.”
Jimmy: “How big is your tank?”
Me: “2.5 gallons.”
Jimmy: “That’s not big enough for Platies.”
*long awkward silence*
Me: “Okay ... Um. Well, how big to Platies get?”
Jimmy: “They’ll grow to be about three or four inches when they’re full size.”
Me: “How long does it take them to grow that much?”
Jimmy: “Two or three months.”
Me: “Okay. Cuz, see, I’ve had Platies before. And Mollies. And they seemed to like my tank just fine.”
Jimmy: “Do you have a heater?”
Me: “No.”
Jimmy: “Well, they need a heater. They’re tropical fish, so the water temperature needs to be around seventy-five degrees.”
*long awkward silence*
It’s worth noting that, during these long awkward silences, Jimmy just stared at us. He didn’t bother offering up any advice to us like, “For a tank that size, I would recommend ...” or, “We actually sell heaters for *insert price* in isle *insert proper isle number*!” No, he just stared at us waiting to shoot down whatever our next decision might be.
Me: “Okay. Well ... Um. How about Mollies? I’ve had those before.”
Jimmy: “They need at least a ten gallon tank.”
Dave and I both looked at the tank which the Mollies were currently being held in, a clearly less than ten gallon tank holding well over thirty pretty, yellow Mollies.
Me: “I guess they probably need a heater too, huh?”
Jimmy: “Pretty much any of the fish on this wall will need a heater, since they’re tropical.”
Me: “They need a heater, or they like a heater?”
Jimmy: “They need a heater.”
Me: “Ok. Fine. What fish would you recommend for my 2.5 gallon, non-heated tank?”
Jimmy: “I mean, pretty much your best bet is going to be a Betta. They’ll live the longest in that environment.”
Dave and I looked at each other, both fairly perturbed at this guy.
Me: “No. Bettas are lame. They’re more expensive, and the Molly and Platy I had lived longer than all of my other Bettas combined, minus Zapato. He was a rare case.”
*long awkward silence*
After shuffling our feat on the floor waiting for Jimmy to recommend something, anything other than what his customer obviously didn’t want, I finally said to Dave in about as exasperated a tone as I could muster, “Alright, well, I guess we aren’t getting any fish then.”
Jimmy didn’t seem too saddened by this. I think he may have actually been happy that we had chosen not to torture the large, tropical fish in our cold, 2.5 gallon tank. It’s worth mentioning that neither the Molly nor the Platy I had grew much past the size they were when I purchased them.
On an unlucky trip, this would be where the story ended. But this wasn’t just an unlucky trip, it was a trip of absolutely no success. Negative success, actually, if you count gas spent. Jimmy turned his attention (after we regained it by force, that is) to Evan and Jacob. They figured they would just get a bunch of goldfish and put them in the 2.5 gallon tank they had grabbed from the shelf. After all, Goldfish are only twenty-seven cents; if one dies, it’s only a quarter!
Evan: “I think we’re going to get a couple of Goldfish.”
Jimmy: “Are you going to put them in that tank there?”
Evan: “Well, yes.”
Jimmy: “That tank isn’t big enough for Goldfish. And, anyway, they need a heater.”
Evan: “Oh. Does this come with a heater?”
Jimmy: “No.”
*long awkward silence*
Evan: “Okay. Well. What fish can we get?”
Jimmy: “For that tank, I’d say you’re going to be best off getting a Betta.”
At this point Dave and I came out from our laughing spot in one of the isles.
Me: “You don’t want to get a Betta. They’re lame.”
Evan: “Yah, we really don’t want a Betta.”
Jimmy: “Well, without a heater that’s really going to be your best bet.”
*long awkward silence*
Jacob: “What if we just got a bowl and put a fish in it? What fish then?”
Jimmy: “A Betta would live best in a bowl, since there’s no filtration or heating.”
The details are a little foggy past this point. If I recall correctly, there was a far too long awkward pause and then Jimmy managed to wander off to mac on some ladies he had seen in another isle (it’s worth noting that the ladies were clearly trying to get away from him). Evan and Jacob ducked into the isle Dave and I had retreated to again.
Evan: “Do we seriously need a heater for a Goldfish?!”
Me: “This guys full of crap. Just put the tank away and we’re coming back another day when there’s somebody here that will actually let us buy what we want.”
We put the 2.5 gallon tank back on its shelf. The one that, according to Jimmy, wasn’t suitable for any fish besides a Betta. The one that also had large words on the front of the box that read, “Goldfish Starter Tank.” And we left the store, never to return (at least not when Jimmy’s working). We’re pretty sure Jimmy must secretly be working for PETA or something. With that in mind, it seems Jimmy has successfully saved a few fish from almost certain chills and ultimate death! Unfortunately, he lost the sales of around $10 worth of fish and a $25 fish tank. Still, I’m sure his manager will be proud.
Our experience at Wal-Mart was largely uneventful; we got what we needed and headed on to PetSmart. We arrived at PetSmart and our first suspicion was that it was closed. Apparently the chain likes to make their large, sliding, glass doors extremely tinted so customers can barely see inside. Anyway, it wasn't closed (even though the hours on the front door said it closed at 7pm and it was 8:30pm). We received a dirty look from a salesman as we entered, but since the doors were unlocked, we entered without pause and made our way to the fishy section.
Over the summer I had two fish: a Molly and a Platy, tropical fish which need filtration and enjoy warm water. I have a 2.5 gallon tank with filtration, but since my room is always fairly warm and I had a lamp directly above the water, I figured that would be warm enough for them. Considering they lived for over three months (and one of them may potentially still be alive, depending on how well he likes the cows' water tank), I figured another one or two of those fish would be a good buy. Anyway, Dave and I were sick of Bettas. I've had numerous Bettas in my lifetime, and aside from Zapato (whom Dave and I managed to keep alive for over three months ... It would have been longer if he hadn’t a nasty run in with boiling water from the faucet), I've never been able to keep a Betta alive for longer than a week or two. Besides, Bettas are generally pretty lame unless you put them in a tank with other fish which they hate (namely, their own kind).
Demetrius and Bruno, the two fishes I had this summer, were quite active and played hide-and-seek and tag frequently throughout their days. They seemed quite happy.
After about fifteen minutes of debating, we made our decision: we'd get two different Mollies. Together, we wandered the store and summoned Jimmy, an apparent resident expert on all things fish. As we rounded the isle back to the fish section, our conversation with Jimmy went something like this:
Jimmy: “So, what are we looking at here?”
Me: “Well, I think we’re going to go with two Platies.”
Jimmy: “How big is your tank?”
Me: “2.5 gallons.”
Jimmy: “That’s not big enough for Platies.”
*long awkward silence*
Me: “Okay ... Um. Well, how big to Platies get?”
Jimmy: “They’ll grow to be about three or four inches when they’re full size.”
Me: “How long does it take them to grow that much?”
Jimmy: “Two or three months.”
Me: “Okay. Cuz, see, I’ve had Platies before. And Mollies. And they seemed to like my tank just fine.”
Jimmy: “Do you have a heater?”
Me: “No.”
Jimmy: “Well, they need a heater. They’re tropical fish, so the water temperature needs to be around seventy-five degrees.”
*long awkward silence*
It’s worth noting that, during these long awkward silences, Jimmy just stared at us. He didn’t bother offering up any advice to us like, “For a tank that size, I would recommend ...” or, “We actually sell heaters for *insert price* in isle *insert proper isle number*!” No, he just stared at us waiting to shoot down whatever our next decision might be.
Me: “Okay. Well ... Um. How about Mollies? I’ve had those before.”
Jimmy: “They need at least a ten gallon tank.”
Dave and I both looked at the tank which the Mollies were currently being held in, a clearly less than ten gallon tank holding well over thirty pretty, yellow Mollies.
Me: “I guess they probably need a heater too, huh?”
Jimmy: “Pretty much any of the fish on this wall will need a heater, since they’re tropical.”
Me: “They need a heater, or they like a heater?”
Jimmy: “They need a heater.”
Me: “Ok. Fine. What fish would you recommend for my 2.5 gallon, non-heated tank?”
Jimmy: “I mean, pretty much your best bet is going to be a Betta. They’ll live the longest in that environment.”
Dave and I looked at each other, both fairly perturbed at this guy.
Me: “No. Bettas are lame. They’re more expensive, and the Molly and Platy I had lived longer than all of my other Bettas combined, minus Zapato. He was a rare case.”
*long awkward silence*
After shuffling our feat on the floor waiting for Jimmy to recommend something, anything other than what his customer obviously didn’t want, I finally said to Dave in about as exasperated a tone as I could muster, “Alright, well, I guess we aren’t getting any fish then.”
Jimmy didn’t seem too saddened by this. I think he may have actually been happy that we had chosen not to torture the large, tropical fish in our cold, 2.5 gallon tank. It’s worth mentioning that neither the Molly nor the Platy I had grew much past the size they were when I purchased them.
On an unlucky trip, this would be where the story ended. But this wasn’t just an unlucky trip, it was a trip of absolutely no success. Negative success, actually, if you count gas spent. Jimmy turned his attention (after we regained it by force, that is) to Evan and Jacob. They figured they would just get a bunch of goldfish and put them in the 2.5 gallon tank they had grabbed from the shelf. After all, Goldfish are only twenty-seven cents; if one dies, it’s only a quarter!
Evan: “I think we’re going to get a couple of Goldfish.”
Jimmy: “Are you going to put them in that tank there?”
Evan: “Well, yes.”
Jimmy: “That tank isn’t big enough for Goldfish. And, anyway, they need a heater.”
Evan: “Oh. Does this come with a heater?”
Jimmy: “No.”
*long awkward silence*
Evan: “Okay. Well. What fish can we get?”
Jimmy: “For that tank, I’d say you’re going to be best off getting a Betta.”
At this point Dave and I came out from our laughing spot in one of the isles.
Me: “You don’t want to get a Betta. They’re lame.”
Evan: “Yah, we really don’t want a Betta.”
Jimmy: “Well, without a heater that’s really going to be your best bet.”
*long awkward silence*
Jacob: “What if we just got a bowl and put a fish in it? What fish then?”
Jimmy: “A Betta would live best in a bowl, since there’s no filtration or heating.”
The details are a little foggy past this point. If I recall correctly, there was a far too long awkward pause and then Jimmy managed to wander off to mac on some ladies he had seen in another isle (it’s worth noting that the ladies were clearly trying to get away from him). Evan and Jacob ducked into the isle Dave and I had retreated to again.
Evan: “Do we seriously need a heater for a Goldfish?!”
Me: “This guys full of crap. Just put the tank away and we’re coming back another day when there’s somebody here that will actually let us buy what we want.”
We put the 2.5 gallon tank back on its shelf. The one that, according to Jimmy, wasn’t suitable for any fish besides a Betta. The one that also had large words on the front of the box that read, “Goldfish Starter Tank.” And we left the store, never to return (at least not when Jimmy’s working). We’re pretty sure Jimmy must secretly be working for PETA or something. With that in mind, it seems Jimmy has successfully saved a few fish from almost certain chills and ultimate death! Unfortunately, he lost the sales of around $10 worth of fish and a $25 fish tank. Still, I’m sure his manager will be proud.
Comments
Apple vs. Microsoft; The Continuing (and Flawed) Debate
08/05/09 02:28 PM Filed in: Technology
This is something I’ve
been mulling over for the last couple of months, but
it wasn’t until hearing the continued “Apple or
Microsoft” arguments at camp this week that I was
finally moved to write this. So, in a manner of
speaking, this one’s for you, Jesse and Joe. Oh, and
Erin, I’ll try to make this as witty as possible so,
well, you know.
Ten years ago, after being introduced to someone and learning that they enjoyed using these things called “computers,” it would have been absurd to ask them such a silly question as, “Do you prefer Mac or PC?” What a silly question. Who used Macs?! Those things were lame! But in this modern age, where Apple actually holds claim to a portion of the market share worth nodding your head at, it’s a reasonable and quite common question. For me, a student in college studying computers and programming, this question is frequently asked in conjunction with, “What are you majoring in?”
“Computer Science.”
“And you have a Mac?”
“Yes.”
“Isn’t that a problem?”
“Why would that be a problem?”
“I don’t know. Can’t you, like, not program on Macs or something?”
“Pretty sure Macs still have applications, which means someone obviously must be programming them.”
“But isn’t it, like, easier to program on a PC or something?”
“When was the last time you wrote a program yourself?”
“Well, I haven’t.”
“Stop talking.”
And here lies the biggest error in our existence: we argue things we have no business arguing. You try to convince me that it’s harder to do sophisticated things like program on a Mac when you yourself have no knowledge of programming! This is a high level issue which I don’t really plan on spending much time on, but let me just make it clear that a large percentage of languages these days are interpreted, and nearly all internet languages are interpreted. This means that if an application is written in an interpreted language, it can be run on any platform that has an interpreter for it installed. Languages that aren’t interpreted, C++ for example, can almost always be compiled natively to any desired platform. So no, it’s not harder to program on a Mac, it’s just different, and you’re most frequently taught (in the classroom) to program in the Windows environment.
But let’s flee from such trivial issues as application development and return to the more prevalent flawed arguments that (apparently) plague the average computer user.
People want to compare Apple and Microsoft, but they fail to understand that Apple and Microsoft are two companies competing on two very different playing fields. Microsoft is, for the most part, a software development firm with a few ties in the hardware industry (namely the Zune and the Xbox, two things unrelated to its operating systems). Apple is, for the most part, a computer manufacturer that has developed a proprietary operating system that runs flawlessly on the hardware it manufactures (or at least uses and claims as its own). If we’re arguing the stupidity of Apple as a company, sure, let’s rag on the fact that the MacBook Air doesn’t have an optical drive; to me, that’s a crucial piece of hardware that Apple has left out of the design. However, if we’re ragging on Apple as a company in comparison to what you think is Microsoft’s superiority, you can’t use this argument. Microsoft doesn’t even make a computer, with or without an optical drive, to defend itself, so who cares if the MacBook Air has an optical drive or not ... At least it’s a computer!
People are quick to point out that Apple overcharges their customers. It’s true, an Apple computer costs more than a Windows-based Dell or Samsung, but you’re paying for an entirely different product. Again, Apple is a computer manufacturer. That means you’re paying more for an operating system and the hardware it runs on--the hardware that it’s ensured to run on--the hardware that the company has insured and will repair or replace, if needed. Conversely, a third-party company such as Sony is responsible for ensuring the computers they manufacture will run Microsoft’s operating system. Since this third-party company is not directly affiliated with the software you put on it, they can’t as easily get away with charging more.
Apple absolutely charges more for their products, much more than many would be willing to pay. If you’re unwilling to pay the additional luxury tax for their hardware/software combinations, you’re entitled to purchasing a Windows-based system and living with that. Of course, that’s yet another perk to an Apple computer: you can install Windows on them. This being the case, there is, in fact, absolutely nothing a Windows-based computer designed by Toshiba can do that an Apple manufactured computer cannot do. In fact, Windows-based computers are less compatible for this reason. Yet another reason you’ll pay more for Apple’s.
Additionally, Apple is known as an elite brand. Like Jordan’s, like Porsche. You may not think they’re elite--I think Jordan’s are silly--but your personal opinion doesn’t define the way things are. Because Apple manufactures its own hardware and writes its own software to run on this hardware, it has more of a proprietary right to charge more for its products. Since people like having a more ensured chance of reliability (hardware and software being designed by the same firm), they’re willing to pay more for this assurance. As long as people keep paying, Apple will keep overcharging. I firmly believe Apple charges more than they reasonably should for their computers. That doesn’t mean I won’t pay that price to own one of their products, which I do believe are superior.
Hardware-based comparisons aren’t really part of the Apple and Microsoft operating systems comparison discussions since Microsoft will always lose. It has no hardware that it has designed to defend itself with. If you honestly want to argue hardware, you have to compare Apple to a computer manufacturer such as Dell. Apple still charges more, but Apple also has more hardware/software compatibility and more support since it can run Windows, OS X, or any Linux distro. (This is, of course, assuming legality; obviously you can get an unlocked copy of OS X and install it on your Dell.)
Finally, there’s my favorite argument: the market share. First I would like to say, “Who cares?” Apple certainly doesn’t. Throw out the small, single-digit numbers that are Apple’s market share if you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that Apple’s first-quarter revenue in 2009 was something like $10 billion, which is a continually growing figure. They have $25 billion in the bank and no debt. The company is more than financially stable, and I’m sure if you tried to emotionally stab Steve Jobs or any of the execs at Apple with the market share argument, they would laugh in their face as they pulled away in their Porsche.
It’s interesting that computer manufacturing market share is such a hot topic. Has anyone ever cared to look at market shares in, say, the automobile industry? Some of the largest and most reliable companies, Honda for instance, have single-digit percenteges of the market share. The elite companies such as BMW and Porsche obviously have significantly less than that. But do you think Honda is hurting? Coincidently, the companies that are hurting are the ones with the significant holds on the market, such as GM (around 30%) and Ford (around 15%). Windows-based products hold the majority of the market share, but this statistics doesn’t take into account that many Apple users, myself included, raise this share because I run Windows on my MacBook Pro. Seems like that statistic may be a little misleading then, eh?
Since you’ve forced me to talk about market shares, let’s add one more key factor into the mix. Market share only promises accuracy on newly bought units, not units active. Apple computers are said to be more reliable and to last longer (though I don’t have a source that actually confirms a statistic like this, it’s just hearsay), thus they are more frequently passed down and not upgraded. If a $300 Dell only lasts you one year and you buy a new one, you increase Dells market share. My MacBook Pro is over three years old and still running perfectly fine, even on this “old” hardware, so though I would love to purchase a new laptop, I have no need to. Thus I’m not helping increase Apple’s market share. Yet I am helping to increase the Windows market share over market share, because I will soon be purchasing Windows 7 to install on my MacBook Pro.
Some says Apple’s just aren’t as intuitive as the company claims in their commercials. They really do get viruses, and their commercials give their users a false sense of security. They aren’t as reliable as the company promises. Well, it’s advertising; every company make exaggerated claims. Microsoft is guilty of misleading commercials. Their Laptop Hunter ads, for example, show a price tag for an Apple product of over $2,000, but they then zoom in on an old MacBook (which is around $1,000). Technically, Macs can get viruses. I’ve never even run in to so much as a security threat in my experience. Having never used anti-virus software and having owned an Apple computer for over three years, I feel pretty comfortable advising my friends that they don’t need virus protection on their Mac, at least for now. (Coincidently, you have Apple’s small share of the market to thank for this.)
“So why does Apple make such negative ads towards Microsoft, but Microsoft, for the most part, doesn’t defend itself? Does this make Microsoft a more mature company?” Not really. These ad campaigns from Apple and lack of ad campaigns from Microsoft are for two main reasons: firstly, Microsoft is huge. They don’t need to spend as much on their advertising because everybody already knows who they are and uses them. Secondly, if you purchase an Apple product, Microsoft most likely won’t lose anything. I still boot into Windows XP (and soon to be Windows 7), and I still run Microsoft Office (on both the Mac and PC side, so Microsoft has actually made two sales from me). However, if you purchase a Windows-based machine, you will not be unable to install OS X on it, therefore Apple will have lost a sale. This is why Apple is so much more aggressive in the advertising campaigns.
In conclusion, are Apple computers better products? Not necessarily. Are Macs virus free? Not necessarily. Does Windows crash more than OS X? Sort of. Windows XP crashed a whole lot more for me than my OS X has, but OS X crashed on me just yesterday. It was low on battery and should have gone into sleep mode--instead, the screen just turned grey and it froze and I was forced to do a hard shutdown. Are Macs easier to use and more intuitive? Well, that’s entirely a personal decision. I’ll tell you this though, if you don’t like the OS X operating system on your Apple computer, all you need do is install the Windows operating system (or any other operating system) that you’re familiar with on your Apple computer. So Macs are more reliable and will never break? Not necessarily. If you throw your laptop at the ground, it will most likely shatter. Just a few months ago, my optical drive quit working. Two days later, it started working again. I have yet to find reasons for either it’s random breaking and miraculous healing.
The fact of the matter is, a decision to buy a Windows-based machine or an Apple computer is an entirely personal decision. If you’re willing to pay more for a computer that’s proven to be more reliable and satisfactory to according to Consumer Reports, that is more compatible because it will run any operating system, and that is more secure (every top security analysts agrees that you don’t need virus protection, and the Unix kernel is proven to be more secure), I’d say go for a Mac. Otherwise, settle for a Toshiba that, in all likelihood, will last you half as long.
But when I hear such staggeringly ironic reports that the initial benchmarks for Windows Vista scored highest on Apple hardware than they did on any computer that was designed to optimally run it, well, you can be the judge of the companies you think are superior and inferior.
Ten years ago, after being introduced to someone and learning that they enjoyed using these things called “computers,” it would have been absurd to ask them such a silly question as, “Do you prefer Mac or PC?” What a silly question. Who used Macs?! Those things were lame! But in this modern age, where Apple actually holds claim to a portion of the market share worth nodding your head at, it’s a reasonable and quite common question. For me, a student in college studying computers and programming, this question is frequently asked in conjunction with, “What are you majoring in?”
“Computer Science.”
“And you have a Mac?”
“Yes.”
“Isn’t that a problem?”
“Why would that be a problem?”
“I don’t know. Can’t you, like, not program on Macs or something?”
“Pretty sure Macs still have applications, which means someone obviously must be programming them.”
“But isn’t it, like, easier to program on a PC or something?”
“When was the last time you wrote a program yourself?”
“Well, I haven’t.”
“Stop talking.”
And here lies the biggest error in our existence: we argue things we have no business arguing. You try to convince me that it’s harder to do sophisticated things like program on a Mac when you yourself have no knowledge of programming! This is a high level issue which I don’t really plan on spending much time on, but let me just make it clear that a large percentage of languages these days are interpreted, and nearly all internet languages are interpreted. This means that if an application is written in an interpreted language, it can be run on any platform that has an interpreter for it installed. Languages that aren’t interpreted, C++ for example, can almost always be compiled natively to any desired platform. So no, it’s not harder to program on a Mac, it’s just different, and you’re most frequently taught (in the classroom) to program in the Windows environment.
But let’s flee from such trivial issues as application development and return to the more prevalent flawed arguments that (apparently) plague the average computer user.
People want to compare Apple and Microsoft, but they fail to understand that Apple and Microsoft are two companies competing on two very different playing fields. Microsoft is, for the most part, a software development firm with a few ties in the hardware industry (namely the Zune and the Xbox, two things unrelated to its operating systems). Apple is, for the most part, a computer manufacturer that has developed a proprietary operating system that runs flawlessly on the hardware it manufactures (or at least uses and claims as its own). If we’re arguing the stupidity of Apple as a company, sure, let’s rag on the fact that the MacBook Air doesn’t have an optical drive; to me, that’s a crucial piece of hardware that Apple has left out of the design. However, if we’re ragging on Apple as a company in comparison to what you think is Microsoft’s superiority, you can’t use this argument. Microsoft doesn’t even make a computer, with or without an optical drive, to defend itself, so who cares if the MacBook Air has an optical drive or not ... At least it’s a computer!
People are quick to point out that Apple overcharges their customers. It’s true, an Apple computer costs more than a Windows-based Dell or Samsung, but you’re paying for an entirely different product. Again, Apple is a computer manufacturer. That means you’re paying more for an operating system and the hardware it runs on--the hardware that it’s ensured to run on--the hardware that the company has insured and will repair or replace, if needed. Conversely, a third-party company such as Sony is responsible for ensuring the computers they manufacture will run Microsoft’s operating system. Since this third-party company is not directly affiliated with the software you put on it, they can’t as easily get away with charging more.
Apple absolutely charges more for their products, much more than many would be willing to pay. If you’re unwilling to pay the additional luxury tax for their hardware/software combinations, you’re entitled to purchasing a Windows-based system and living with that. Of course, that’s yet another perk to an Apple computer: you can install Windows on them. This being the case, there is, in fact, absolutely nothing a Windows-based computer designed by Toshiba can do that an Apple manufactured computer cannot do. In fact, Windows-based computers are less compatible for this reason. Yet another reason you’ll pay more for Apple’s.
Additionally, Apple is known as an elite brand. Like Jordan’s, like Porsche. You may not think they’re elite--I think Jordan’s are silly--but your personal opinion doesn’t define the way things are. Because Apple manufactures its own hardware and writes its own software to run on this hardware, it has more of a proprietary right to charge more for its products. Since people like having a more ensured chance of reliability (hardware and software being designed by the same firm), they’re willing to pay more for this assurance. As long as people keep paying, Apple will keep overcharging. I firmly believe Apple charges more than they reasonably should for their computers. That doesn’t mean I won’t pay that price to own one of their products, which I do believe are superior.
Hardware-based comparisons aren’t really part of the Apple and Microsoft operating systems comparison discussions since Microsoft will always lose. It has no hardware that it has designed to defend itself with. If you honestly want to argue hardware, you have to compare Apple to a computer manufacturer such as Dell. Apple still charges more, but Apple also has more hardware/software compatibility and more support since it can run Windows, OS X, or any Linux distro. (This is, of course, assuming legality; obviously you can get an unlocked copy of OS X and install it on your Dell.)
Finally, there’s my favorite argument: the market share. First I would like to say, “Who cares?” Apple certainly doesn’t. Throw out the small, single-digit numbers that are Apple’s market share if you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that Apple’s first-quarter revenue in 2009 was something like $10 billion, which is a continually growing figure. They have $25 billion in the bank and no debt. The company is more than financially stable, and I’m sure if you tried to emotionally stab Steve Jobs or any of the execs at Apple with the market share argument, they would laugh in their face as they pulled away in their Porsche.
It’s interesting that computer manufacturing market share is such a hot topic. Has anyone ever cared to look at market shares in, say, the automobile industry? Some of the largest and most reliable companies, Honda for instance, have single-digit percenteges of the market share. The elite companies such as BMW and Porsche obviously have significantly less than that. But do you think Honda is hurting? Coincidently, the companies that are hurting are the ones with the significant holds on the market, such as GM (around 30%) and Ford (around 15%). Windows-based products hold the majority of the market share, but this statistics doesn’t take into account that many Apple users, myself included, raise this share because I run Windows on my MacBook Pro. Seems like that statistic may be a little misleading then, eh?
Since you’ve forced me to talk about market shares, let’s add one more key factor into the mix. Market share only promises accuracy on newly bought units, not units active. Apple computers are said to be more reliable and to last longer (though I don’t have a source that actually confirms a statistic like this, it’s just hearsay), thus they are more frequently passed down and not upgraded. If a $300 Dell only lasts you one year and you buy a new one, you increase Dells market share. My MacBook Pro is over three years old and still running perfectly fine, even on this “old” hardware, so though I would love to purchase a new laptop, I have no need to. Thus I’m not helping increase Apple’s market share. Yet I am helping to increase the Windows market share over market share, because I will soon be purchasing Windows 7 to install on my MacBook Pro.
Some says Apple’s just aren’t as intuitive as the company claims in their commercials. They really do get viruses, and their commercials give their users a false sense of security. They aren’t as reliable as the company promises. Well, it’s advertising; every company make exaggerated claims. Microsoft is guilty of misleading commercials. Their Laptop Hunter ads, for example, show a price tag for an Apple product of over $2,000, but they then zoom in on an old MacBook (which is around $1,000). Technically, Macs can get viruses. I’ve never even run in to so much as a security threat in my experience. Having never used anti-virus software and having owned an Apple computer for over three years, I feel pretty comfortable advising my friends that they don’t need virus protection on their Mac, at least for now. (Coincidently, you have Apple’s small share of the market to thank for this.)
“So why does Apple make such negative ads towards Microsoft, but Microsoft, for the most part, doesn’t defend itself? Does this make Microsoft a more mature company?” Not really. These ad campaigns from Apple and lack of ad campaigns from Microsoft are for two main reasons: firstly, Microsoft is huge. They don’t need to spend as much on their advertising because everybody already knows who they are and uses them. Secondly, if you purchase an Apple product, Microsoft most likely won’t lose anything. I still boot into Windows XP (and soon to be Windows 7), and I still run Microsoft Office (on both the Mac and PC side, so Microsoft has actually made two sales from me). However, if you purchase a Windows-based machine, you will not be unable to install OS X on it, therefore Apple will have lost a sale. This is why Apple is so much more aggressive in the advertising campaigns.
In conclusion, are Apple computers better products? Not necessarily. Are Macs virus free? Not necessarily. Does Windows crash more than OS X? Sort of. Windows XP crashed a whole lot more for me than my OS X has, but OS X crashed on me just yesterday. It was low on battery and should have gone into sleep mode--instead, the screen just turned grey and it froze and I was forced to do a hard shutdown. Are Macs easier to use and more intuitive? Well, that’s entirely a personal decision. I’ll tell you this though, if you don’t like the OS X operating system on your Apple computer, all you need do is install the Windows operating system (or any other operating system) that you’re familiar with on your Apple computer. So Macs are more reliable and will never break? Not necessarily. If you throw your laptop at the ground, it will most likely shatter. Just a few months ago, my optical drive quit working. Two days later, it started working again. I have yet to find reasons for either it’s random breaking and miraculous healing.
The fact of the matter is, a decision to buy a Windows-based machine or an Apple computer is an entirely personal decision. If you’re willing to pay more for a computer that’s proven to be more reliable and satisfactory to according to Consumer Reports, that is more compatible because it will run any operating system, and that is more secure (every top security analysts agrees that you don’t need virus protection, and the Unix kernel is proven to be more secure), I’d say go for a Mac. Otherwise, settle for a Toshiba that, in all likelihood, will last you half as long.
But when I hear such staggeringly ironic reports that the initial benchmarks for Windows Vista scored highest on Apple hardware than they did on any computer that was designed to optimally run it, well, you can be the judge of the companies you think are superior and inferior.