“I’ve been one of those people nagging on that. Glad to hear it. Anything you can do to make it easier to buy the product helps facilitate its acquisition. Apple has already done this for some time,” said Michael Cherry, a Directions on Microsoft analyst. “Multiple computer families is a factor– particularly with netbooks coming along.”

Likely customer demographics will be families that have children or teenagers, he added.

It makes sense for Microsoft to offer greater value to families. The message of its recent “I’m a PC” advertising campaign is value, and its licensing policies should be consistent with its marketing.

Share/E-Mail

Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Florida, temporarily slowing down Apple’s legal case against it. The filing may be an indication that the company’s financial backers have pulled out, signaling they see Apple as the clear winner in court.

The bankruptcy documents were filed with the Federal Courts in Florida on Thursday, and Apple’s legal team was most likely made aware of the situation over the Memorial Day weekend.

The Mac Observer says that Psystar will have to disclose who its financial backers are at a June 5th hearing. That should either be really interesting–or put an end to the theory that the tiny company has some corporate Svengali calling the shots.

Share/E-Mail

Charles Arthur of the Guardian did more than brood–he downloaded a developer build of Chrome for the Mac, and found it to be a work in progress. And it sounds like a lot more progress has to be made before the browser is ready for mass consumption–many basic features aren’t in place yet.

On one hand, it’s reassuring to know that Chrome for the Mac isn’t in limbo, but I’m now recalibrating my expectations for when it might arrive in a form that anyone’s going to use as a primary browser. I’m thinking it’s going to take months, not weeks, and I’ll be relieved if it’s ready before Chrome for Windows celebrates its first birthday.

Share/E-Mail

Here they be:

The only one that feels like it tiptoes into “Laptop Hunters” territory is the third one, “Stacks,” since it points out a feature of iLife 09 which PC says sounds expensive, then explains that iLife comes with all Macs. Maybe that’s a subtle response to the Microsoft ads’ painting of the cost of Macs as including a large premium for meaningless cool factor. Or maybe not–a pretty high percentage of all “Get a Mac” commercials have touted iLife as a principal reason to buy an Apple computer.

I’m not sure if the second ad, “Legal Copy,” is referring to something specific with its conceit that an ad claiming that Windows PCs are more simple and intuitive than Macs must carry a lot of fine print. As I’ve written, one of the striking things about the “Laptop Hunters” series is that it makes no claims about Windows. The message is all about the specs and features you can get at a particular price point, and anything relating to software seems to beside the point.

(Side note: I’m not a fan of fine print, but it’s better than not using it when an advertising claim badly needs clarification–as I wrote in this post about Apple’s iPhone 3G advertising.)

Then again, maybe ignoring “Laptop Hunters” is Apple’s way of responding to it. While Microsoft keeps doing its price comparisons and saying that Macs provide no added value for the price you pay, Apple is returning to the basic mantra that “Get a Mac” has repeated all along–that Macs deliver fewer hassles and more powerful included software than Windows PCs.  The implied message is that you should be including those factors when you do the math on a computer purchase. It’s a far more reasonable point than the one that Microsoft has busily hammered away.

And maybe the fact that Mac and PC are back at all is an oblique acknowledgment that Microsoft’s ads are attracting attention, and Apple needs to reinforce the pro-Mac, anti-PC case it had already been making.

One other thought about the new commercials: Poor PC seems to have drunk the Mac Kool-Aid himself somewhere along the way–in “Time Traveler” he actively argues that PCs don’t work the way they should and are inferior to Macs. The early ads in which he touted his own virtues and disparaged the Mac were at least as effective, and a lot funnier…

Share/E-Mail

Here’s a chart that a Microsoft representative sent me back on October 24th, comparing the MacBooks against Windows laptops (sorry it’s so small):

And here’s the laptop comparison chart in the new white paper:

This is a chart on Mac and Windows desktops that Microsoft sent me on January 5th, when it and the world thought Apple might announce one or more cheap new Macs at Macworld Expo (it didn’t):

And here’s the desktop chart in the white paper:

Both charts have gotten updates–for instance, the new laptop one has the $999 MacBook with a DVD burner (which is right, even though it’s not the $999 MacBook configuration you’ll buy today) and some of the PCs are different.

I’m not saying there’s anything fishy going on here–maybe Microsoft hired Endpoint to create the charts and analysis it sent out earlier, but didn’t credit it that time.  But it’s worth noting that the new charts aren’t really new–they’re updates (albeit insufficiently updated ones) to ones that Microsoft was distributing under its own name several months ago. And Kay’s argument that the cost of Apple-brand networking equipment and a Sony Blu-Ray player is a penalty Mac owners must pay is also repeated from another round of materials that a Microsoft representative sent me on October 13th.

Bottom line: The white paper is a rehash, not a revelation…

Share/E-Mail

But Microsoft’s latest salvo in the Windows-vs.-Mac war isn’t a commercial–it’s a ten-page white paper by veteran analyst Roger Kay (a friendly acquaintance of mine, and, like me, a former IDG employee). Roger is independent and knows the personal computer market as well as anyone on the planet, but his paper was sponsored by Microsoft, which means that even if it’s a third-party take on things, it’s going to be one that the company is comfortable with. But the whole point of vendor-sponsored white papers is bring an independent expert’s analysis and data into a discussion in hopes that it’ll be taken more seriously than mere marketing materials.

Roger’s paper includes a bunch of tables that compare Windows PCs and Macs–sort of like what I’ve been doing, although in less excruciating detail–and an analysis of the cost of ownership of the two platforms that concludes that a family than buys two Macs instead of two Windows machines will pay a cumulative Apple tax of $3,367 over five years.

In his laptop section, Roger compares the white MacBook, new MacBook, and 15-inch MacBook Pro against various notebooks from Dell, HP, and Sony, and finds, unsurprisingly, that the Macs cost more. He shows, for instance, that the $999 MacBook comes with a skimpy 1GB of RAM, a bare-bones 120GB of hard disk space, and Intel’s uninspiring x3100 integrated graphics. For hundreds of dollars less, the chart proves, you can buy a Windows laptop with double the RAM, more than twice the disk space, and better graphics.

Pretty compelling. Except that the $999 MacBook doesn’t come with 1GB of RAM. (It has 2GB.) It doesn’t have a 120GB hard disk. (It’s 160GB.) And it doesn’t have X3100 graphics. (It has the considerably more potent NVIDIA GeForce 9400M.) Here, look for yourself. The analysis is based on the old MacBook configuration that Apple refreshed more than two months ago, but the white paper talks about it in the present tense.

At least some of the Windows laptops that the white paper compares the MacBook to are also more richly configured today than the paper’s charts indicate. For instance, the chart has the $699 HP DV4 with 2GB of RAM and a 250GB hard drive, but  HP will sell you one with 4GB of memory and 320GB of hard-drive space for that price.

The chart’s analysis of desktop computers is also stale, at least in spots: It features the old $599 Mac Mini rather than the better-equipped one which Apple started shipping more than a month ago. He’s also got the old $1199 iMac and a Mac Pro configuration that Apple no longer sells. Nobody shopping for a computer today will be confronted by the choices that appear in the paper’s grids.

Note that I’m not claiming that Roger’s conclusions would be fundamentally different if he was analyzing current computers. Any analysis of Windows-vs.-PCs will always show that it’s possible to get a Windows machine with a faster CPU, more RAM, and a bigger hard drive for less than the cheapest vaguely comparable Mac. But the numbers in his charts sure would be different if they were current, and it’s odd that his analysis is labeled “Where We Are Now” but the charts carry no footnotes indicating that he collected at least some of his data months ago.

[Side note: Roger also says that the $999 MacBook doesn't come with a keyboard or mouse, and I'm really not sure what he means there--all notebooks come with built-in keyboards, and I doubt that any of the notebooks in his chart come bundled with an external keyboard and mouse. Maybe he meant that point to refer to the Mac Mini?]

Roger’s analysis goes on to bring up a number of reasonable points–especially the fact that there are plenty of worthwhile items that aren’t available for Macs which are commonplace on Windows systems, such as Blu-Ray drives, HDMI ports, integrated wireless, and built-in TV tuners. But he stacks the deck against the Mac in ways that remind me of earlier Microsoft commentary, such as assuming that Mac owners will buy Apple networking products when the Linksys products he assumes a Windows users will buy work equally well with Macs. He factors a $99 iLife upgrade into his Mac math, but doesn’t account for getting comparable creativity software ont the PCs in the first place; he also assumes that the Mac owner will buy the MobileMe family pack each year without accounting for adding similar functionality to the Windows computers. (There are multiple free ways to get MobileMe-like features on a Windows computer…but just about all of them also work with Macs.)

I don’t understand why his five-year cost analysis seems to assume that products like Blu-Ray players will cost the same years from now as they do today. I do understand why he doesn’t address issues like the money and time required to protect a Windows computer from all the security risks that don’t apply to Macs–but the fact that he doesn’t address them means that the white paper isn’t the work of a neutral observer.

Actually, I don’t think the paper is meant to come off as objective–it keeps coming back to Microsoft’s talking point that the primary difference between Windows computers and Macs is pricey, wasteful cool factor. (It uses the word “cool” twenty-five times.) And it uses the words “fairy dust” in referring to the Sony Blu-Ray player that a Mac owner will supposedly be forced to buy in a way that I don’t really understand…but which would appear to be snarky.

Can we get one thing out of the way here? I’m not an advocate for one platform over the other–I buy and use both, and recommend both to different people depending on their needs. I say nice things about Microsoft when warranted; I say nice things about Apple when warranted; I criticize both companies when appropriate.

But for the last couple of years, my primary computer has been a Mac laptop, and it has absolutely nothing to do with cool factor. I’m not cool. I don’t want to be cool, especially if it involves spending money that I don’t have to. I’ve spent more time with Macs primarily because the software involves fewer hassles and is more reliable (especially because Apple doesn’t lard up its machines with the junk that still runs rampant on many of the systems of Microsoft’s PC-manufacturing customers).

My choice, in other words, has had nothing to do with cool factor or fairy dust or the unicorn tears that Microsoft marketing honcho brought up when talking about Macs with Newsweek’s Dan Lyons. It’s been about practical matters and long-term value rather than initial cost.

One of the reasons I’m looking forward to Windows 7’s release is my hope that it’ll make the contrast between Windows and OS X at least a little less striking. But for now, any discussion of Windows PCs and Macs which fails to acknowledge the possibility that Macs might have virtues that are real, not fluff, is no more serious than the repeated mantra in Apple’s “Get a Mac” ads that Windows PCs are mostly about spreadsheets.

And here’s something I’m still confused about: Every time a consumer considers a Mac but buys a Windows computer instead, it validates the pros of the Windows platform–the lower entry-level price points, the far wider variety of hardware, and the multiple useful features which Windows PCs have and Apple chooses not to offer. Even in an age of increased Mac market share, the overwhelming majority of consumers decide to buy Windows computers. So why is Microsoft harping on the Windows-vs.-Mac issue? Why can’t its charts use current pricing information, and why does it have to put its thumb on the scale when analyzing the cost of owning a computer?

I’d love to know. I’ll ask Microsoft again whether it’s making representatives available for discussion of all this (I made an inquiry last week but didn’t hear back). Meanwhile, your thoughts would be appreciated. Knowing you guys, I’ll hear from both sides, and there will be plenty of food for thought.

[UPDATE: Here's another post on the white paper--it turns out its charts are insufficiently-updated versions of ones Microsoft distributed a few months ago.]

[FURTHER UPDATE: Fortune's Philip Elmer-DeWitt interviewed Roger Kay about all this. Roger attributed some of the paper's issues to changes to the Mac lineup after his deadline and a production gaffe on Microsoft's part. He also called Mac fans who dogpiled on him--not including me, I hope--"brownshirts." Which, when added to Microsoft's other recent comments about Macs and Mac users, brings to mind visions of Nazis who are overly concerned with looking cool and into unicorn tears and fairy dust. Roger also says that the glitches with the paper don't impact his thesis, and he's right--as I say above, I'm sure his overarching conclusions wouldn't have been different even if his data had been current, accurate, and quibble-proof.]

Share/E-Mail

Snow Leopard: June eighth? Maybe!

Buggy Firefox gets fixed fast.

Robert Scoble leaves Fast Company.

GameStop mocks Amazon resale program.

Craigslist sued over prostitution ads.

Unauthorized iPhone software stores emerge.

Palm investor has high hopes.

TV converter box coupons return.

Washington types bash BlackBerry Storm.

MacBook Pro graphics card woes?

Chinese officials are chatting online.

32-gig SD cards arrive.

Apple is going increasingly green.

Windows 7: turn off everything!

Share/E-Mail

Hardwarewise, the Pre looks nothing like a Treo. It doesn’t run PalmOS apps. The user interface probably has a fair amount in common with early Palm devices in terms of overarching philosophies, but there are only minor nods to the specifics of the old UI, such as the desktop full of icons. (Which come to think of it, looks as much like the iPhone as it does previous Palms.) I’m assuming that Palm’s new WebOS, which has Linux underpinnings and a top layer based on Web technologies, shares not a single line of code with PalmOS.

The Pre, in other words, is an entirely new phone built on an entirely new platform designed for 2009 and beyond–not a refresh of Palm’s existing hardware and software, both of which are evolutionary improvements to what the company came up with when it built the first PalmPilot in the mid-1990s. If the Pre is a hit, it’ll be because that bold gamble paid off. And it’s hard to imagine any Palm smartphone that wasn’t based on a completely fresh start succeeding.

Of course, Palm had the luxury of starting over, since it was so painfully obvious that the old Palm platform had reached the end of the line. The only viable alternative to not building an all-new platform was going out of business. (I’m reminded of what Matthew Broderick’s character said in The Freshman: “There’s a kind of freedom in being completely screwed.. because you know things can’t get any worse.”)

The only truly comparable moment I can think of involving another major tech company is when Apple scrapped the original Mac OS for the Unix-based OS X–a decision that it, too, made when the continued existence of the company wasn’t a given. And even Apple provided backwards compatibility with old apps (it wasn’t great, but it was there).

Other examples of starting over aren’t nearly as sweeping. Microsoft, for instance, did write Windows NT from scratch in order to modernize Windows under the surface–but it kept the Windows 3.1 interface on top. (It also kept Windows 3.1 on the market, and didn’t merge the old and new versions of Windows until years later , when it released Windows 2000.) With Office 2007, it sort of did the reverse, adding a new interface but keeping just about all of the Office apps’ existing features.

In both instances, Microsoft couldn’t really toss its old product aside and truly begin anew–the installed base of the old versions were huge, and sales were still good. The company has enough trouble getting the world to move to new file formats; asking it to make a great leap forward to an utterly different product would be untenable.

Or would it? Consider the state of Windows in 2009. We know that the next version, Windows 7, is completely evolutionary–in fact, Microsoft is working extremely hard to make it a smoother upgrade that asks less of users than Windows Vista did. But what’s next for Windows after 7? The operating system may still have a monopolistic market share that puts billions in Microsoft’s pockets every year, but the signs that Windows’ two decades of dominance are eroding are everywhere. I kind of like Windows 7, but but it’s an OS that’s mostly about overdue fixes to festering problems. 

We know that Microsoft is working on something code-named Midori that might be its take on what an all-new, Web-centric, post-Windows operating system could be. And that’s about all we know about Midori–it sure isn’t a given that it’ll ever evolve into a shipping product. In one way or another, I hope that Microsoft does try starting over with Windows–preferably before the company is in anywhere near the shaky condition that Palm finds itself in–and that its customers approach an all-new Windows with an open mind. 

And hey, if it wants to experiment on a smaller scale, how about replacing the dinosaur known as Windows Mobile with something completely fresh? (It shouldn’t even be a given that it can run old Windows Mobile apps if that would cripple its ability to go boldly where no Microsoft mobile OS has gone before.) The current Windows Mobile is only a little less of an anachronism than the PalmOS, after all. If Palm’s gutsy gambit with the Pre and WebOS pay off, it would be beautiful if it inspired other companies to worry more about leaping forward and less about clinging to the past…

Share/E-Mail

But once again, the e-mail I got from a Microsoft representative takes a heavy-handed approach to making this perfectly valid point. “Apple continues to impose the Apple tax” was the subject line, a notion repeated in a statement within the message so important it’s in boldface: They continue to impose the Apple Tax on consumers even in the midst of a very challenging recession.”

What’s with the “impose?” What makes it a “tax?” Apple isn’t the Sheriff of Nottingham, and it can’t impose anything on anyone. (As Microsoft’s own e-mail points out, the world is bursting at the seams with other choices, most of which cost less than Macs.) All it can do is try to convince consumers that the products it sells are worth the money. If it can’t do that, it’ll eventually go out of business. (Hey, it almost did in the mid-1990s.)

Reasonable people can and do disagree on whether Macs are good values, but every purchase of one represents a willful decision by a person to spend money. That’s more of an investment–sensible or not–than a tax.

Then there’s the fact that computers with Mac-like features and Mac-like price premiums exist in the Windows world, too–most obviously in the form of Sony’s classier VAIOs. With computers as with most things in life, you’ll probably pay extra for fancier materials and more stylish design. But Microsoft isn’t about to start talking about a Sony tax or a VooDoo tax.

Lastly, Microsoft’s price comparisons are all about specs. (I’ve taken a similar approach in the multiple PC/Mac price comparisons I’ve written.) But the biggest differences between PCs and Macs has nothing to do with hardware–it is, of course, the operating systems the two platforms run. I suspect that if you talk to virtually any happy Mac user, he or she will mention OS X first, will say that it lets him or her get more stuff done in less time than Windows, and will strongly feel that it’s worth paying more to get a computer that runs it. Like I said, some price premiums are investments.

Look, there’s a reasonable argument buried in Microsoft’s hype painting Apple as a recession-ignoring, customer-abusing totalitarian tax collector. (Which is a portrayal as unfair in its own way as Apple’s depiction of PCs as being incapable of much except for running spreadsheets.) You can get a powerful PC for a lot less than a Mac. PCs do immensely greater choice–for everyone from gamers to businessfolk to those on very tight budgets–than the handful of models offered by Apple. There are meaningful features such as Blu-Ray drives which are commonplace on PCs and unavailable on Macs.

These facts presumably explain at least in part why more than nine people choose a PC for every one person who chooses a Mac. But the people who opt for Macs aren’t the victims of a tyrant or goofballs who don’t know any better. And I’d love to see Microsoft–who counts more than three-quarters of Macheads as customers for Office–acknowledge that fact.

Share/E-Mail