The Mac/PC conversation: PCs are better than Macs

Con recognizes that I will call foul on any attempt to insist on what I perceive to be a subjective value judgment as grounds to make the claim that one is better than the other. He even thinks he sees an opportunity to win the debate by holding me to my own standard, telling me that I can't begin with what appears to be a subjective value judgment, then proceed to dismiss all other value judgments. Con would be correct, except for one thing. All along, what I've argued for is that the PC is the better experience because it allows the consumer to make decisions about, take responsibility for, and utilize his/her expertise in, his chosen device. My original points about versatility, maintainability, and accessibility, were all oriented toward an unstated assumption, which I only alluded to in the the second round of the debate, perhaps should have articulated more clearly from the outset, and will endeavor to express here: that individual liberty is more important than anything else, whether the subject is computers, cars, cuisine, or anything else (even subjects not beginning with the letter ‘C'). This is not a subjective value judgment, but a self-evident truth about about human nature. My point is very, very nuanced, but crucially important. Every choice is a decision to limit one's own liberty. The moment I decide, for instance, to dine at the Ritz, I have practically eliminated McDonald's as an option (unless I am a glutton!). The moment I buy a PC, I have eliminated the Mac as an option (unless I intend to buy both, but for the sake of my analogy, we'll assume I don't). However, since buying a computer is one choice among many, the question becomes this: how much liberty toward future decisions does this one choice leave me? My position is that the decision that affords me the most liberty toward future decisions is nearly always the preferable one (eliminating obvious exceptions and dilemmas, such as decisions that have extreme life-altering outcomes). This is perhaps the argument I might have proposed, or at least given in aside, but I see the Mac/PC discussion as an excellent frame for the larger ideological issue, and besides that, all of the points I made in my initial remarks spoke to this, so it isn't as though my opponent came in under the assumption that I was arguing otherwise. Some may, at this point, recognize the opportunity to invoke the response that since one can buy a Mac and run a Windows OS on it, the whole discussion becomes moot. However, let me disabuse us of that notion by reminding us of two things: that hardware is an important function of the total computer experience, and that financial flexibility is a function of liberty. At www.dell.com and store.apple.com, I configured a Dell notebook, then configured a comparable Apple notebook, and the Apple machine was nearly twice as expensive ($2,668, to $1,519- I can't post my specific configurations because the URLs expire, but configuration is easy on both sites). The Dell machine came installed with Windows 7 Home Premium edition, which means that in order to replicate the Windows experience on the Mac, I'd have to buy a copy of Win7 ($150 retail). Most people simply don't have the luxury of letting their computer-buying experience make a $1200 dollar swing, because such a financial burden severely limits their liberty in other, more vital ways (such as whether they can even afford to eat at McDonald's after buying a $3,000 dollar computer!) What does this tell us? It tells us that buying an Apple computer limits the buyer in at least four ways: it limits him/her financially, and it limits him/her as regards my original point about versatility, maintainability, and accessibility. In closing, then, I re-articulate my position as follows: the PC is the superior computing experience because it affords the user more control over his own computing experience, and less restriction in other areas of his life (such as finances and the potential to utilize his computer skills professionally or publicly). For my opponent to win this debate, he will need to demonstrate that a costlier computer with fewer software options, fewer options for customization and maintenance (since Apple heavily restricts what its customers are legally allowed to do with the computers they supposedly own), and a considerably smaller user-community is superior to a computer that is less expensive (both to purchase and to maintain), offers considerably more software options, comes with almost NO restrictions on what the owner can do to maintain and customize, and the largest user-community of perhaps any technology in the world. He will need to do this without appealing to subjective value-judgments or ‘quality versus quantity' arguments, which are only forms of value-judgment arguments. If he wants to win the ‘meta-debate' (the debate BEHIND the debate, as it were), he will also need to demonstrate why individual liberty is a negative thing, and why it is good to forgo freedom and options when making a buying decision. I look forward to his response!