Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, OS, Blogs
Fuzzy tactics aren't helping the Mac community
A blog post has been rising up the digg ranks (though has been finally marked inaccurate) that utilizes some fuzzy math in an attempt to prove that the 5 iterations of Mac OS X have been cheaper to update than the 1 version of Windows released during Mac OS X's existence. While the prospect of this might sound great to many Mac users (myself included) who have been purchasing the recent Mac OS X releases at retail value, there are some serious flaws in this post's math that not only undermine the premise, but are also doing a significant disservice to the Mac community by lying to make a point and earning so much bad PR because of it (yes, at times, there is such a thing as bad PR).The problem is that the author excludes an iteration or two of Mac OS X from the final cost of ownership because he didn't deem them worthy for one subjective reason or another. To make matters worse, he then includes premium Windows services on top of the cost of a Windows license, such as yearly Norton AntiVirus subscriptions and yearly spyware + security cleanings from Geek Squad. While there is certainly an easy argument to be made for the virtual necessity for some kind of security and virus software that (amazingly) isn't included with Windows itself, there are plenty of similar services available, sometimes with free and open source alternatives, which cause me to suspect the author of seeking out the most expensive services he could find to fuel a blatantly biased opinion.
Posts like this that use underhanded techniques and shoddy math to prove a biased point aren't helping the Mac community. In fact, they're making it look even worse because, once found out, they are (rightfully) transformed into key evidence for clueless Apple fanaticism, which can easily harm the reputation of almost anyone with something genuinely educated and relevant to say about Apple or their products, whether it's a good or *gasp* unpleasant statement.
These wholly inaccurate and misleading articles need to stop if computer users are going to learn the genuine advantages (and even disadvantages) of Apple and their products. Lying to grab attention for Apple may briefly taste sweet, but helping consumers make an educated choice (no matter what the outcome) based on pure, true merit takes the cake.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Scott said 3:44PM on 8-15-2006
Why are you blogging about a terrible story on Digg? Do you honestly think it will affect the next Mac you buy in any way?
Who cares about this "Apple community"? It's all crap.
What community? Are there events, gatherings? Is there a welcome wagon for those new to the mac?
Most of the Apple stories on Digg immediately turn into a PC vs. Mac flame war.
I like TUAW, but don't drop down to that level.
Reply
Steven Fisher said 3:57PM on 8-15-2006
I agree about the fuzzy math in this article, but it happens the other way, too. 10.0 was free for most users, since it basically required new hardware. If you bought it retail, it cost $100. Likewise, 10.1 was free if you provided a blank CD to a retailer, or $30 if you wanted it through the mail. Again and again I've seen comparisions value these at $129, which is over estimating the total cost by over $200.
Reply
Pablo said 4:02PM on 8-15-2006
OMG! I'm in shock! So there actually is "clueless Apple fanaticism". First time I hear! I thought there was only "clueless anti-Apple fanaticism" and "clueless Microsoft fanaticism".
Seriously guys, what's the big deal? That it was "exposed" on digg? Like it never was before? Gimme a break.
How about this for the Mac community: stop being so self-conscious and enjoy your computer of choice. Praise it if you like. Some people will think you're snob, gay, retarded, or all of the above. I, personally, don't give a shit.
After all, that was just a stupid blog post. I doubt it'll make a dent on Apple's reputation. You're giving that poor guy too much credit.
Reply
Steven Fisher said 4:17PM on 8-15-2006
By being vague in exactly what I was talking about, I was a little fuzzy to. So be to specific:
Actual cost:
10.0 bundled ($0), 10.1 free ($0) = $0.
10.0 bundled ($0), 10.1 purchased ($30) = $30.
10.0 purchased ($100), 10.1 free ($0) = $100.
10.0 purchased ($100), 10.1 purcahsed ($30) = $130.
So the actual cost for getting to 10.1 ranges from $0 to $130. The usual quoted cost is $130 for each, or $260. Thus, it's over estimated anywhere from $130 to $260.
Reply
t.s. said 4:27PM on 8-15-2006
David, I think you make a valid argument in pointing out the "fuzzy tactics" used by some Mac zealots. But really, are articles like the one you cited really likely to make anyone switch, anyway? Seems like those articles are mostly about preaching to the choir, despite how they couch their arguments.
Articles like the one you cite seem only to serve the ongoing flame war between hardcore Mac and PC users. It represents crosstalk between people near the extremes -- not the more undecided people in the middle ground who might switch one way or the other. Just like obnoxious political debate shows on cable news don't serve to change people's minds, but rather to stoke a fire under each party's base constituency.
I tend to think that the hard facts tend to lead to switching the most -- for instance, the ever-increasing compatibility of Macs with PCs. Speaking as a relatively recent switcher, I can say that no argument on any Mac user's blog -- whether it used fuzzy tactics or not -- really influenced my decision to switch. But maybe others have had different experiences and would disagree with me!
Reply
craig said 5:16PM on 8-15-2006
Yeah some of his figures are dodgy/really biased. I mean on my 'file server' PC all of the security apps I use are free. AVG free antivirus, Zonealarm firewall, Spybot Search and Destroy and Adaware Personal Edition, so $250 of his yearly cost is not entirely true.
Reply
Stephen Antonucci said 5:19PM on 8-15-2006
Steven Fisher,
OS 10.0 did not require new hardware. In fact OS X in each version right up to 10.4 runs on a G3!
Reply
Daniel Eran said 5:46PM on 8-15-2006
Hi David,
I wrote the article.
It's rather sleazy to say I lied in it. Further, it's hypocritical to say I lied by lying yourself, and misrepresenting both the content and intent of my article.
You say my article "excludes an iteration or two of Mac OS X from the final cost of ownership because [I] didn't deem them worthy for one subjective reason or another."
In reality, the article steps through every version of Mac OS X, comparing the number and frequency of updates Apple made each year, with what was going on at Microsoft. I didn't exclude anything. If you'd read the article, you'd know that. I also compared actual usablity of both products, stating that few people used the earliest version of Mac OS X.
Your reactionary, uninformed retort suggests the +800 people who positively rated my article and sent it to the front page of Digg were somehow all hopelessly confused, and you celebrated the minority that marked the article as inaccurate.
None of hundreds of comments on the story actaully point out anywhere where I factually misstated facts. Providing some anecdotes or alternative possiblities does not make me a liar.
The same commenters who marked my article as "inaccruate" were happy to repeat Paul Thurrott's statement that upgrading through Mac OS X cost users "about $750," That anti-fact was grossly inaccurate on every level - he didn't even get the math close, and added costs for free releases.
If I had stated that Windows Service Packs costed extra, or made other factual misstatements, you might have some basis for siding with the PC fanboy trolls,
but as it stands, you owe me an apology for slander, and TUAW an apology for using them to spread it.
Daniel Eran, RoughlyDrafted Magazine
Reply
Alistair Hutchinson said 6:06PM on 8-15-2006
As Craig rightly pointed out, there are many free alternatives to Windows users bringing the TCO ( I hate that phrase) down substantially. I never paid for antivirus etc when I used Windows.
So, why did I "switch" (another phrase I hate)? Simply because with the Mac I not only get a superb user experience (subjective I know) but I also don't have the hassle of downloading and configuring all these either free or subscription based softwares.
Admit it, even the free antivirus/firewall softwares available for the Windows platform give you serious headaches.
"blah blah just tried to access the internet, do you want to allow it? yes no"
"do you want to allow it forever or just this once? forever/just this once"
"are you sure? yes no"
Sheesh! As if that wasn't bad enough we also have....
"Your virus definitions are out of date, should I update? yes no" Umm no go on let me live dangerously.....*sigh*
One word....
Unintuitive
Using a Mac with OSX lets me do the thing "I want to do" without worrying about doing the things that "should be done"
I know it's horses for courses and right now OSX on a Mac is *my* best option, it's not for everybody but it suits ME.
Reply
Mark Wilson said 6:11PM on 8-15-2006
As someone who uses Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows, I'd like to chip in here. The point isn't about which releases cost how much, but about Mac fanaticism actually working against the general wellbeing of the Mac community. If this post wasn't a good example then there are many more out there. Interestingly enough, if Paul Thurrott is quoting $750 for Mac upgrades then he's doing a similar disservice to the Windows community. And before the Linux guys chip in here - Linux is not free - there are hidden costs to consider for anyone who has to manage systems for end users (see http://www.markwilson.co.uk/blog/2006/03/why-open-source-software-is-not-really.htm).
I often hear Windows quoted as expensive, but last time I looked I could get an OEM version for less than a retail version of OS X (as far as I know, OS X isn't available to OEMs, although who knows where Apple will take things over the next year or so).
In the meantime, here's something I ripped off from James O'Neill's blog - please don't flame me. It's just a bit of humour that sums up the "my OS is better than your OS" arguments quite well:
A: I'm thinking of getting a new computer.
B: I've got a Mac, you should get one too.
C: Macs are pretty, but Windows is more flexible.
D: Windoze is evil man. Look at all the money M$ makes. You should get Linux [gives list of distributions].
B: Linux is hard. My granny can use a Mac, and she's been dead for 10 years.
D: If she can't build a kernel she shouldn't have a computer, tree hugger.
C: Have you looked at Windows XP-Dead Grandparent Edition? It's got lots of features [lists them. All of them].
E: Yeah, but that's the problem XP DGE is so bloated. It's been downhill since Windows 3.0, and we didn't get viruses in those days.
D: And those features are just a cover for Micro$oft to steal your brain.
C: [Gives feature by feature justification, explains 15 years of changes in viruses. Denies brain stealing rumour. Misses meal].
A: None of you have given me a reason to choose one OS over another.
F-Z: WE DON'T CARE!
K: Why do you need a computer? In my day we did everything in the darkroom - computers are just cheating.
J: Hey, I'm new here and I'm not sure if this is the right place - does anyone have a recipe for pancakes?
L: Grab yourself a 3174 and run it green screen to an OS/390 host. If you're short of cash then AS/400s are going for about £129 on eBay. Those fancy Mac things are really based on RS6000 technology anyway. Apple steal everything just like M$.
X: Nah - OS/390 hasn't cut it since they renamed it Z/OS...
Sound familiar to anyone?
Reply
Ian Betteridge said 6:11PM on 8-15-2006
Daniel, first of all the fact that you've got lots of Diggs doesn't make you factually accurate. It just means there's lots of idiots around who will mark up anything "pro" Apple.
Secondly, I doubt that you could find anyone on the planet who's actually spent $200 per year on spyware removal, even out of the hundreds of millions of (how shall I put it?) "less smart" users running Windows. It's like claiming that you have to buy ProCare in order to make sure a Mac works - you could do it, but you don't have to. That basically makes what you're saying at best a distortion of the truth, and at worst a lie.
One final correction: slanders is a malicious untruth spread by word of mouth. What you're accusing TUAW of is libel. Facts? you need to learn some.
Reply
David Chartier said 6:23PM on 8-15-2006
#8: Mark - hilarious. Any chance you could share a link?
Reply
Mark Wilson said 6:33PM on 8-15-2006
A more points:
1. Spyware removal. Adaware=free. Spybot S&D=free. Windows Defender Beta=free. If you are concerned about the effectiveness of these tools then the award-winning PC Tools Spyware Doctor = €29.95.
2. Updates. Enable automatic updates and let Windows get on with it (just the same as software update for the Mac or the various equivalents for Linux distos).
3. AV Updates. Ditto - let the AV software do it for you.
4. Windows XP SP2 was not a minor update - not at least for the corporate and government clients that I have who are still trying to assess the potential impact of the security fixes on their applications before they apply it (2 years after they should have done!)
5. I bought a Mac a few weeks back. I like it a lot. But to all those people who say the nice thing about a Mac is that "it just works" - that hasn't been my experience (http://www.markwilson.co.uk/blog/2006/07/week-when-my-digital-life-was-on-hold.htm).
Reply
Cloggin said 6:39PM on 8-15-2006
To dearest Pablo: I am sure you are aware the TUAW blogs are geared towards the Mac Community (et al). Your comments:
"How about this for the Mac community: stop being so self-conscious and enjoy your computer of choice. Praise it if you like. Some people will think you're snob, gay, retarded, or all of the above. I, personally, don't give a shit."
The point of this and other like-blogs is to inform, report, and challenge the Mac community to think about the abilities, possibilities, and criticism of their 'computer of choice.' We are all thrilled how much you care. It's the reputation of the Mac-user-community David is speaking to, not the Apple Brand. (Argue the difference to me and I may give you more credit).
To dearest Daniel (author of the article in question):
For starters, regardless of what anyone will say, it would greatly help your case if your comments had some objective backing to them. For example, "[Apple's] [10.1] was significantly improved, but still wasn't ready for mainstream use."
Sounds very subjective without a credible source (or any source at all).
Second, I think you miss a solid point about Apple as a company both producing hardware and the software to run on it. You pit Apple's hardware/software co-development against Microsoft's Software development. I am not an engineer, but I think even joe-six -pack would agree that hardware and software development versus software development may be an unfair match up. Quick grab: "Microsoft's entire business was built on selling its operating system: bundled with new PCs[...]Apple wanted into the same game" - could you back up that Apple wanted into the same game? Or is that a subjective assumption based on joe-six-pack%u2019s knowledge of the most common output by both firms (Apple and Microsoft)?
Ian hit the nail on the head before I could: "Daniel, first of all the fact that you've got lots of Diggs doesn't make you factually accurate."
Beautiful.
I go on: "Windows 2000, which was more stable and professional than either Mac OS."
Evidence? Source? Or opinion?
I hope you see what I'm getting at: a lot of the data you use to support your argument/comparison has no substantial backing besides Wiki.
You have, however, been ultimately successful in sending users of each aforementioned end of the OS spectrum to arms. The 800 diggs your article received, doesn't mean 800 people agree with you, and making it to the front of digg doesn't make your opinion correct.
In short, you should be proud your article has received so much popularity. You should benefit from both negative and neutral feedback on your article. After all, despite your desire for an 'apology for slander' - you complete your article by stating:
"I really like to hear from readers. What do you think?"
Of everything you've written to be in question, this is clearly the most blatant lie in your article. Clearly.
Reply
Leland Scott said 6:55PM on 8-15-2006
Well, this exchange may be worthy of a blog article all by itself!
But I'm putting in 2 cents to counter the notion that you can easily get Windows XP for less than about $200. Wrong. My wife and son went to Cosco recently to get a copy for his new Intel Mac. The ignorant sales guy swore up and down that the $100 copy they were walking out with was the full version, not an upgrade. Of course, it wasn't... it was an upgrade. It assumed you already had a copy of Windows on your computer, and it was the Home edition, not the Pro (which is the version that's equivalent to Mac OS X).
On Amazon right now, a full copy of Windows XP Pro costs $280. A full version of XP Home costs $200, and upgrades for each cost $100-$200.
Now, you might say that if I shopped around I could find something cheaper. But you know what? I don't have time to shop around. Furthermore, my shopping in the past showed that Amazon had about the lowest price I could find, and even when they didn't, the convenience of shopping at a store that "knew" me (not having to set up an account, etc) was worth the extra $10.
Besides all of this, it's worth noting that Windows XP's activation feature means I can't install it on other PC's without Microsoft's permission. I'll never forget a colleague who installed Mac OS X for the first time... he couldn't believe you didn't have to enter a serial number somewhere. You want to talk about cheap OS's? I'm not above running Mac OS X on my five home computers with only two legitimate licenses, though Apple's 5-pack made that unnecessary a couple of years ago. The point is, if I need to install Mac OS X on a Mac, I can do so without buying a new copy or calling Microsoft.
Finally, I'm sick of hearing--especially from Mac users--that antivirus software is free. Yes, I gather if you're a techhie and know where to look, I suppose you can. But do you think any U.S. corporations are doing that? I seriously doubt it. And I also seriously doubt that any regular person who buys a Windows PC doesn't either (a) buy the subscription that was an option when they bouught it or (b) go to Amazon.com and buy the software with the best rating.
It's certainly legitimate in a comparison like the one Eran did to quantify the cost of antivirus software. It may be free to some, but it's not free to most.
Give Eran a break, y'all. I certainly agree that we need to be careful not to start creating Windows FUD to counteract the Apple FUD we all know so well. But let's remember that what folks like Eran (and me, for that matter) are trying to do is to break down years and years of myth and FUD that have been built up to shut Mac users out. If you're lucky enough to work somewhere that lets you use a Mac, don't assume it's that way for everyone. A good friend of mine at work was just told he couldn't get a Macbook Pro, at a time when they were upgrading everyone's computers with year-end money, simply because "we don't do Macs here." WTF?
TUAW could stand to include a bit more "real life" perspective on using a Mac. And using a Mac in the real world still means having people think you're a freak, or that you're using a toy, or that you must be rich since you could afford a Mac, or that you're being subversive, or any number of other prejudiced notions.
I'm all for peaceful demonstrations, folks. Show me a Martin Luther King for Mac users, and I'll sit down with him anytime. But some of you guys who think we should be nice to Windows and Microsoft all the time because otherwise they might get nasty with us (or whatever it is you think) need to be quiet. If you don't feel like speaking out and making waves about the hypocrisy, lies, and myths that remain in place in order to preserve Microsoft's desktop monopoly, no problem. But for heavens sake, don't come down on a guy like Dan Eran who's trying to carefully document and tear down the myths and lies. If he makes a mistake, send him an email about it--don't go shouting it out for the whole world to hear.
No one is perfect, and we all make mistakes. But hopefully, Mac users are all on the same side. What does Mac usage no good at all is not an article like Dan's, but rather an article like TUAW's. Dan has a legitimate right --and very good reason--to be angry about the way Mac users are treated and portrayed in today's workplace and in some media outlets. You should have written him and verified any mistakes you thought he made, rather than immediately assuming he was wrong.
Even if the Mac gets little respect in the world today, despite its strength and brilliance, at least we can show respect for each other. Can't we?
Leland
Reply
Ernie Smith said 7:43PM on 8-15-2006
Okay, I support Apple. I own an iBook.
But I can also see through biased bullshit.
Daniel, your article makes judgment calls and assumes to be speaking for how the average user buys stuff. No, it's not. It's just a way for you to get your point across in a way that suits your logic. Anecdotes are not facts and twisting your anecdotes into something that supports your argument does not make your arguments sound.
"The same commenters who marked my article as "inaccruate" were happy to repeat Paul Thurrott's statement that upgrading through Mac OS X cost users 'about $750,' That anti-fact was grossly inaccurate on every level - he didn't even get the math close, and added costs for free releases."
Two fuzzy numbers don't make a right answer. You're grasping at straws here.
There's no slander going on here. Your anecdotal evidence is just bullshit. That's what David has called it out as, that's what Paul's article was, and that's what weak anecdotal evidence deserves to be called. Bullshit.
Reply
Pierce Glennie said 7:49PM on 8-15-2006
Finally someone in the mac community speaks sense. I love Macs but TUAW is absolutely right that this blind fanatiscism is unhelpful and slightly sick making. Are people really so desparately in love with a corporation. It is fine to follow the company closely and get excited about new releases (as I do) but don't throw away any reason you had. Additionally I would say the same about Paul Thurrott who is not helpful to Microsoft.
Be reasonable and speak the truth. It almost always gets your point across better.
Reply
Cloggin said 7:49PM on 8-15-2006
Touche, however, there's a difference between 'setting the record straight' and accusations of slander.
David was pointing out how the article hinders the Mac-community. I ripped into Eran about the content of his article, and not so much about the true nature of David's claims.
Attempts to undermine the credibility of the author of the article are to encourage this specific author, and anyone willing to make bold statements and publish them, should take that extra second to run their ideas/statements/etc by someone on the opposite pole from them, to get an idea of a generalized response.
Pitty. And if this whole discussion was really about cost of the OS instead of the validity/accuracy of the author's claims (regarind costs), we may have a different arguement.
Reply
David Chartier said 7:53PM on 8-15-2006
#14: Thank you. Well said.
Reply
Paul Ingram said 7:54PM on 8-15-2006
The problem with this comparison is the problem with any comparison regarding consumer products, we're concerned with the costs and relative value of two very different things. We're not comparing bananas from one grocery to another, we're comparing whole and complex systems over years of time, and thus the numbers can be changed to reflect inherent biases.
For someone who bought a Powerbook in 2001, like I did, 10.0 didn't exist, and 10.1 came with the machine. If, I bought a similar machine in 2004, I would only have upgraded from Panther to Tiger, and thus the cost of the OS would be $129. But, this is assuming I did change, which I don't have to.
So, then what are we comparing, the best deal of a Windows XP Pro SP2 disk with the best deal for Tiger? Should we use OEM? But, isn't buying an OEM copy illicit considering these copies are for Original Equipment Manufacturers. Wouldn't it be more honest to use the retail copy of Windows XP Pro SP2? Should we count coupons?
Furthermore, if someone buys a Windows machine today, wouldn't they need to buy a copy of Vista next year, just as a Mac user would need (or want) to buy a copy of Leopard? Is this TCO, or just the cost of moving forward? Does one need Leopard or Tiger in order to use the newest software? Not yet.
Adding the cost of AV and Geek Squad Support is disingenuous, but so is adding up every iteration of OSX and calling it $750. Updating has costs, but the model between Apple and Microsoft is simply different, anyone who pretends they can be directly compared head-to-head has an agenda to serve.
Reply