PCWorld just vindicated me, big time.
I’ve gotten more than a few less-than-happy comments and tweets about how the new Macbook Air that I bought was a waste of time, money, and certainly processing power. I rejected that recently in a post here stating that, for what I specifically need, it’s doing just fine.
But PCWorld went ahead and did a test against other Windows-powered Netbooks and ultraportables and the Air killed it:
You can check out the thumbnail for the results! They also went on to say:
We already know the 2010 MacBook Air models significantly improve on the previous generation in overall performance, but how do they stack up against Windows 7 laptops of similar size?
Judged solely on performance, they dominate.
With Windows 7 running on Appleโs featherweight machines, our test results indicate that the new Airs ran faster than all but one recent netbook or ultraportable from Windows PC vendors.
Win! This was for the 11″ and the 13″ fared just as well.
I’m feeling great today.
๐
Kevin says
Just think…it could have been even faster if Apple didn’t “kill it” in other less helpful ways. ๐ There’s always two sides to everything. With Macs, I like to say “they do exactly what you need them to do as long as they do exactly what you need them to do.”
I am glad that it does exactly what you need it to do though, John. But I am quite curious why an article that says
and
is vindicating especially in a “big time” sense.
Kevin
http://opensourcechurch.com
John Saddington says
i love you man! and your perspective. it keeps me on my toes!
it does do what i need it to do but there’s something i think you’re missing out on and that is the aesthetic value that is very tangible. it might not make a difference to you but it definitely does to me, especially as a creative.
Jared Erickson says
I don’t want to ever be lumped as a fanbio.. BUT..
I buy apple because of the design. just like someone may buy a BMW over a Honda… yes both cars, yes both get you someplace. but there is a quality in the work, and the DESIGN was thought out.. and paid more attention to.
Don’t take this as a “status” thing either. I don’t agree with that.. even though Apple has become that.
0.2
Kevin says
I’ve had this conversation with other fanboi’s…nobody wants to be a fanboi, but that has no bearing on whether you are or not. Saying something about it just reinforces the obvious. In fact, my middle school english teacher always taught me that I could ignore anything that was before a big BUT. ๐
Next, there aren’t just expensive things where design is taken into consideration and cheap things where it is totally ignored. There is a complete spectrum that isn’t linear in it’s modeling. To any successful business, design always has it’s place. Of course, when balancing other factors (price being the more obvious) sometimes design takes a back seat (pun intended). In my experience, really cheap things not only have bad design, but also bad quality and bad lots of things. However, in true Pareto fashion the biggest bang for your buck is in the easiest (and cheapest) part of the equation. That includes design, quality, really, everything. This is why I tend to the middle of the road for things I buy. But you don’t need to go to the complete opposite end of the spectrum to achieve “not cheap” or even good or great design and quality because the spectrum basically goes to diminishing returns for your investment.
Additionally, design isn’t a trump all card just like anything else. I recommend the book “The Life You Can Save” by Peter Singer as a succinct and logical argument for Christians and anyone else for why we should care less about design and more about people that don’t even have the option to pay lots of extra money for a well-thought out design. And no, having a Compassion child isn’t a get out of jail free card. And no, I don’t think that it automatically means you shouldn’t ever buy a Mac (although a BMW is probably pushing it ๐ ). However, I do think it should be a part of your equation of consumerism if it isn’t already.
I’ll go into this more in my response to Michael, however, suffice it to say that design is more about emotional attachment than rational concepts anyway. In general, you aren’t buying the design…you are buying the lifestyle and experience that comes along with it.
Kevin
http://opensourcechurch.com
Michael Novotny says
We could all go on and on and around and around about this forever! I truly believe that there are valid points on both sides. At some point in all of this, can’t we just land on that there is no “right” and “wrong” answer as it really is a personal choice? Don’t get me wrong, I love a healthy debate, but I don’t see either side of this budging from their current view.
What I do think we can agree on is that we are all passionate about each of our perspectives and passion drives us to do what we do and love every minute of it!
Kevin says
I think it’s good to keep going around and around. I learn something new every time I do. I don’t see either side budging either, mainly, because we are more emotional about it than rational (myself included) like I mentioned in my response to you.
On the other hand, this is why I always mention ethics as a part of this conversation. With ethics it is either right or wrong; that’s the nature of ethics. I want to encourage people (including myself) to make ethics more a part of their decision making process and to learn more about how to do that in a digital world. Hopefully our personal choices reflect our ethics (I would say it does whether we’re being purposeful about it to or not). As ethics go though, it is more complex because I could be wrong about what I think is right or wrong ethically. What I believe about my personal decisions doesn’t make them actually “right” or “wrong”. However, that is different from saying there is no right or wrong answer. There is a right or wrong answer, and it is my personal choice and duty to try to find it and make the best decision I can and not just pawn it off to personal preference (that’s moral relativity).
Kevin
http://opensourcechurch.com
Michael Novotny says
John, “it might not make a difference to you but it definitely does to me, especially as a creative.”
I think that’s what a lot of people don’t understand about Apple… I look forward to getting on my Mac every day. It’s like Christmas every day! It can be a new app, a new shortcut, a new Automator action, or the way it just works (which is something I can’t say for some other OS’s).
Using a Mac makes me want to use my computer even more. I never had that with any other platform or hardware.
Kevin says
First of all, suffice it to say that I have a very similar experience of “Christmas every day” on my Dell laptop running Ubuntu and all open source free software. I’m always extremely happy and most days pleasantly surprised by discovering new things. This is because we all have emotional attachment to different things. I can’t argue rationally with what you said because it doesn’t have a rational basis; it is completely experiential.
This is not an accident. This is marketing 101, in my opinion. It’s just the way the brain works and companies tap into it all the time. The short of it is that brain science shows we aren’t really rational creatures after all. We have 3 parts of our brains.
The primitive and most immediate part of the brain is the part that answers “Do I want to eat it?”, “Do I want to have sex with it?”, and “Do I want to kill it?”. The former two are obviously positive associations and the later negative. This is why putting a busty or handsome model or yummy food next to your product works and when those elements are combined they even more powerful as we know from beer ads and the amount of revenue they generate. One could also maybe wonder why Apple chose, well, an apple as it’s logo and company name? Coincidence?
The next to process is our “emotional” brain. This part makes associations about the product. Do I like using it? Do I identify with it? Do I feel good when I use it? Is it beautiful? And many more. This is where Apple (and especially Steve Jobs) does it’s magic. They create a whole experience around their products that creates emotional attachment so we get posts like all of yours. It’s basically parroting the emotional associations and escalation points that Mac wants you to have. So whether we’re talking about Mac, BMW, Lexus, luxury anything…this is what they sell: emotional attachment. Design is just one of the ways that emotional attachment happens.
The last and slowest part of your brain to process is the rational part. What brain science has learned and is learning more every day is that the rational part isn’t very rational and usually is very driven by the emotional and primitive. We tend to find rational ways to vindicate our already emotional and primitive responses. If you ask me, this original blog post by John is a textbook example of this. Of course, this isn’t completely linear either and sometimes decisions made by the “rational” part of our brain inform and create emotional or primitive attachment that then further informs the rational later which feeds back…and on and on and on. I can say as an example that I’ve at least somewhat come to dislike Apple for rational reasons (just read my blog for some of them). However, now that I don’t like Apple, I have a primitive “Kill It!” mentality to them and their products or at least a very strong negative emotional response. It really doesn’t matter what they do any more because my emotions just hate Apple and now probably always will unless I really try to rationally reprogram them. Does that mean I’m correct in my emotional response? Definitely not, but it is what it is and at least I understand it.
Now, I’m not saying this because I think it’s unethical to market to things other than rationality. However, I do think it’s important (especially as Christians) to understand how our brain works so that we can make better decisions throughout life including our buying habits. One day I might have to change my extreme dislike for Apple, but for now, I understand my dislike and at least many of the rational reasons behind it. Honestly, from my perspective, most of the Mac people I know just connect to the emotional part (thanks, you guys have been great examples) and I’d just really appreciate a little more balance with the rational side as well which we got to when we found by all of your responses that you’re paying a premium for design and an experience and really not much else.
Since we’re talking about what others seems to miss, the good feelings and positive emotions that I feel toward open source software come from it’s basis in sharing, collaboration, community and common good. I feel good because I could be using other expensive and even better software, but I choose (for ethical and other reasons) to support something that anyone else can also use. This is what Mac people miss out on by joining a closed (and I would say selfish) paradigm. They may get everything they personally want out of their computer, but then have problems sharing and collaborating with others that aren’t Macs. It’s an exclusive club and it’s a total bummer because there is even more brain science coming out about what makes us happiest and it all points to things like sharing, loving, cooperating and the like and not selfishness, narcissism, and always putting our own preferences first which shouldn’t come as a surprise to any Christian.
btw, there’s lots of books coming out on these subjects. I’ve found the most easily accessible to be by Daniel Pink. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule The Future is probably an interesting read for any creative person.
Kevin
http://opensourcechurch.com
Kevin says
Alright! Now we’re finally getting somewhere! This is all I’ve really wanted out of these conversations to begin with: a recognition that you are paying a premium price for aesthetics, a specific design, an image…however you prefer to say it. It’s a valid thing to enjoy and choose to pay for. Just don’t send out articles about marginal performance gain and expect me to appreciate it. Right?
Also, I love you too! And if I didn’t, I might have been offended by your comment, but thankfully I wasn’t. First of all, I am a creative and I do appreciate aesthetics and design (and I don’t need an Mac to vindicate me). However, I think part of being creative is knowing that there isn’t one right answer to design. There isn’t one right answer to usability or aesthetics. That’s part of the creative thing…it’s not mechanized or cookie-cutter. It’s different for everyone. This is why I find Apple inherently anti-creative because you can’t choose. You get what they decide is the right answer. On the other hand, with Linux for instance, I can choose any number of computers (including Macs) that please my aesthetic tastes (and also fit my functional requirements). I can also choose between any number of desktop interaction models (I’m not talking about themes although I can customize all that too). Personally, I use aesthetics and design as a tie-breaker after narrowing down to the devices or programs I know will do the job and within the price range I’m willing to spend (which Apple admittedly is almost never a part of anyway just because I’m a bang for the buck kind of guy). And of course, I use open source software for ethical reasons more than any other and for me ethics should always trump aesthetics no matter what my preferences anyway. I know not everyone is where I’m at, but maybe you should consider it further if you aren’t.
Thanks for finally getting to the real point. ๐
Kevin
http://opensourcechurch.com