I agree that Apples are superior. But you have to dumb it down to reach the reality of the problem. Many if not most computer buyers just go in and look at a couple machines and buy the one that's cheap and will run a word processor and the internet. They look at the sticker and feel cool about what the sticker says, but that's about it.
Apple would probably be better for even those users. They have a chance to get those users. The fact that they are selling a kind of mini-mac indicates that they want those users. But they will not get those users if most of their computers are much more expensive than a PC. They will continue to get a lesser percentage of the market share.
Read the Art of War. You strike when your opponent is weak. Vista has made Microsoft the weakest it has been in 20 years. If Apple slashes prices and offers a better product, they can sink Microsoft. If they allow Microsoft to regain dominance, they will be playing number two for longer.
The analogy of computers to cars is overused, but that's only because it works. Year in and year out, the best-selling vehicles are not the cheapest. Comfort and smart engineering count more than raw performance and rock-bottom price when you're talking about something you're going to use for hours on end. And that's a far, far greater price differential than with computers. Apple can bring down its prices, it has, and I hope it does further. But the least expensive Mac will not ever compete on the basis of price alone with the cheapest PC. It's just not going to happen, because using low-end components and shoddy build quality would be ruinous to the Apple brand. Plus, Apple has to bear all of its own R&D costs, where the beige-box PC makers can lean on each other, Microsoft and Apple.
Read the Art of War. You strike when your opponent is weak. Vista has made Microsoft the weakest it has been in 20 years. If Apple slashes prices and offers a better product, they can sink Microsoft. If they allow Microsoft to regain dominance, they will be playing number two for longer.
And that's fine. Business is not war; in war, the overriding goal is to defeat the enemy and end the war. Businesses, at least those that last, work on a longer time frame.
Market share is not the overriding goal. Microsoft's business model is based on maintaining hegemony, but Apple's is not. Which is the healthier company: GM, with around 20% market share, or BMW, with around two?
I'd rather see Apple continue to create great products, to build the company and the brand, then to throw all its resources into trying to defeat Microsoft at a stroke. I'm betting on the tortoise.