Slashdot Mirror
Mac Users May Be Smarter
micah_lanier writes "Thought I would point out an interesting story from news.com. It seems a NetRatings Study concluded that those owning Macs tend to be more experienced with the internet, as well as educated better in general. However, this simply illustrates the fact that Macs are generally bought by those with little trouble paying higher prices, and therefore those who can more easily gain access to higher education (and so on)." Then how do we explain all the people with less education buying premium computers from Compaq and Dell? I think it's just that people with bigger brains like better computers!
Prestige: Saying you own a Mac says something about you that saying you own a Dell or a Compaq doesn't. It conveys an artsy, "I like what computers can do but I don't like computers" image. The people who most want to project this image typically travel in more educated social circles (and thus are more likely to have been educated themselves).
Cost: As mentioned in the summary, Macs cost more. I bet if you did a survey that isolated the price of the system instead of the brand, much of the brain gap would disappear. I suspect that those who buy a premium Dell are more intelligent by the usual tests....
Market: Apple has always sold to education and graphic design markets. The education market is, of course, likely to attract a number of well, educated consumers.
Any other "correlation not causation" explanations?
Make cheese not war 8:)
And the Mac faithful are 58 percent more likely than the overall online population to build their own Web page
So that's where all the "Hi-my-name-is-Jenny-and-I-like-cats" homepages are coming from.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
Anytime you see a "this platform of users is better than that platform of users"...
You don't need syrup for them troll flap jacks, fer the syrup is spilln off the plate and
floatin dem grits.
This Article is an example of what has got to be the most unoriginal troll. Maybe it's even an
example of the oldest/first troll ever posted "my system is better than yours".
pudge, the caffinated coffee is in the orange pot, not the green one.
Funny how OSX is now of a Unix flavor....huh? Often genuis lack common sence.
I love macs, and If I could afford one I would buy one. But apparently the person who wrote this article knows very little about data analysis.
What we are seeing here is a correlation among a small select group. Not a cause and effect.
In psychology this is a common error. You see, a correlation just implies that having one might mean having the other. But it doesn't imply one causes the other, or even the two are related.
For example, you could look at the statistics in poor neighbourhoods and discover that they have lower education. Now, a person could say:\
1. They have lower education because they inherently that way (they are poor).
Another:
2. They are poor because they have lower education
And yet a third could say:
3. In these poor neighbourhoods are contaminates like Mercury, Lead, etc. These have been proved to lower IQ scores. They could have lower education because these affect their ability to learn.
Now just using the statistic that lower education in poor neighbourhoods is common leads to three possible reason.
Applying this to the macintosh and smart people issue also leads to possible explanations:
1. People who buy Apples are inherently smarter then the general populous.
2. Apples are better devices for learnign the web and expanding knowledge, therefore the people who own them would have more opportunity to learn.
3. Since more IBMs are owned then Apples, there is more of a chance of having the mean intelligence lower(or possibly higher) for IBMs then Apples. Therefore, this causes the apparent correlation between intelligence and Apples.
As you can see, all three apply. And there are likely many more explanations. Data Analysis is a confusing field, and this explains why so many myths are perpetrated through the populous. It's easy to believe someones explanation offhand for a correlation. It's hard to find out why the correlation exists.
Some food for thought,
~ kjrose
The story was even posted by a troll: Had someone written that in a comment, it would have been modded down to -1 as Troll and Flamebait.
I have to say though, I am a Mac user I enjoy using it quite a bit (there, I admitted my bias
I've made an observation that I think may be relevant since I bought my mac.
- I use my Linux PC when I want to tinker. I've noticed that most PC users I know enjoy "messing" with the computer almost as much as doing things with it. Sort of like that old car in the driveway.
- I use my Mac when I just want to do something, and don't want to tinker. Writing a letter, ripping MP3's, burning CDs, surfing the web, etc.
I've also noticed that ultra-busy people with little free time also seem to enjoy using Macs. Not all of the ultra-busy people I know have them, but those that have tried them enjoy them immensely.I think the argument here of which is "better" really is pointless...it's just a different type of machine geared for a different type of person. Not necessarily smarter or dumber. If you don't want to tinker, and you don't have a lot of time--I'd have to say that most people would want a machine that just works and doesn't make a fuss (which the opposite could be true of Linux or Windows).
In summary though, I think people who use desktop computers long enough may come full-circle. Generally, beginners would want a Mac because its easy to learn, and doesn't mess things up as often as a PC. Intermediately, PC is are more appealing because on the surface, it seems it can do more.
But after a long time of using computers, I can personally argue that the simpliest way is usually the better way and I'm back to using a Mac once again. The software argument that a PC has more software is only really true of games. There's a Mac equivalent for almost any PC application out there. I'm not a big gamer, and those which I do play are available on the Mac (which right now is WarCraft III).
-brain
You know, I hate to break out the trusty Slashdot insult, but did anyone read the article? Beyond the headline, which is indeed a troll, the article does not claim that Mac users are smarter. Nielsen/NetRatings did a marketing survey of Mac users and found two things: they have more money and they're better educated (not necessarily smarter).
The Nielsen spokesperson admits that there are other factors which contribute to this effect: "Kelly said the greater affluence and education level of those who surf using a Mac is attributable in part to the company's comparatively pricier machines, as well as to their perception as a status symbol and their greater market share among those in the publishing and design industries."
Now, that doesn't look to me like they're lying through statistics, and in fact they have a pretty solid analysis. However, their goal is a market analysis, not a statistical one. They're not interested in the cause, just the demographic, which appeals to advertisers because high-income, higher educated people tend to buy pricier products (Macs!).
If you want to debate whether or not CNet is justified with its wording on the headline ("Are Mac Users Smarter?"), but honestly, magazines and newspapers use such sensational headlines all the time. For that matter, Slashdot has made it worse, already jumping to a conclusion with "Mac Users May Be Smarter", a statement that is no way supported by the article.
the greater affluence and education level of those who surf using a Mac is attributable in part to the company's comparatively pricier machines
The average Mac user appears to be better educated and wealthier than their PC counterparts, judging by this survey. However, by the report's own figures, Mac users constitute less than 5 percent of the overall market. That means the total number of well-educated and well-to-do Mac users, when compared with the size of the US market, is extremely small.
Stated another way -- there are many more wealthy and well-educated users currently using PCs than there are Mac users. Let's assume the US has 200 million people who use computers. 5% of 200 million people is 10m, which means there's a maximum of 10m Mac users in the US. Even if 50% of them are well-educated and affluent, that's a max of 5m people. 90% of 200 million is 160m, which means that if only 8% of PC users fit the same criteria for education / $$, you'll have the same number of smart, rich peeps using each type of computer. And if that number's higher, it means that more intelligent, affluent people use PCs than Macs.
If the study really wanted to back up the conclusions they stated in the article, they'd survey users whose educational background and yearly earnings were comparable. Given a large enough survey sampling group, I'm sure they would reach the same conclusion.
Right there, next to where it says "Posted by pudge?" The one with the Alt text that says "It's funny. Laugh." Maybe you all have Mozilla set to only accept images from the originating server out of some obsessive need to avoid advertisements.
;-)
That can be a post next weekend, Ads Make Your Smarter. A study has found that people who are able to ignore online ads have more developed brains than those who need to use software and settings to remove ads from web pages.
Please, can we put this tired old lie to rest?
Macs do not cost more than other brands for what you get. They actually cost less, and there's good reason for it.
First off, every PC maker, inclduing Apple, uses standardized commodity parts. The only question, or form of differentiation, is quality. You can buy a really cheap power supply and get random BSODs like you get with many PC makers, or you can buy quality power supplies that don't die on you or cause over and under voltage- like you get with IBM (IBM Made) and Apple computers. (And I'm sure *some* dells and compaqs but certainly not the "cheap" PCs that people are always claiming are typical for cost comparisons.
For other parts, such as PCI controller chips, Firewire, USB, memory, etc, they are pretty complicated and you have to buy form only a small number of vendors - you cannot cut cost by buying low quality, but the volumes of them make them not too expensive. Which is why PC motherboards go for $100-$200, while the processor may be more than twice as much. There's a lot of work in the silicon of them otherboard-- it is only volume that makes this disparity possible- the controller chips are commoditized but the processor isn't.
So, other than the Processor, Case and Power Supply Macs use essentially the same components as a PC from a quality vendor.
Now, I addressed the power supplies- lets talk about Cases. Yes, Apple pays probably more on average than most PC vendors for cases. But these cases are plastic. We're talking $5-20 a unit, not $50-$200.
Thirdly, processor. Apple pays FAR LESS for their processors than any PC Vendor for a comperable processor.
First off, lets point out that there are no comperable processors-- a G4 is the fastest processor on the market. Which brings us to another myth- processor clockrate is its speed. The clock rate is not its speed. (I got moderated "1 Overrated +2 insightful -1 flamebait" for pointing this out before.)
A G4 Processor, being a risc chip, has far less complicated instructions to break down. The pentium, which is a combination RISC and CISC processor is extremely complicated in its design.
Instructiosn go to one of two processors on the same die-- a 386 compatibility, and a RISC one. The problem occurs in that this parallelization causes out of order instruction execution... because some instructions take longer to execute than others. CISC instructions take many stages (And thus, many clock cycles) to execute. That's why a 2GHz pentium has, maybe, 250MIPS, while a G4 running at 1GHz (a pure risc processor) will have 1000 mips- an instruction finishes every clock cyle.
Also these processors are super scalar- meaning that they have many execution units. This means that a G4 may well actually produce 4000 MIPS at 1GHz because on average, every clock cycle, 4 instructions are finished. The pentium, may well produce 1000 MIPS in this same way.
But notice that the pentium has to have 8 pipelines for that 4 times increase because its got both the RISC procesor and hte 386 compatibility processor to deal with. The simpler PowerPC just duplicates its execution units.
Then there's the branch prediction issue. Since there are mutliple execution units they may well execute code out of order-- while a slower instruction is being processed, other instructions are executed to keep the processor busy, and when some of those instructions are on the other side of a conditional jump, the processors speculativly executes them. If it turns out that jump wasn't to be made, it has to flush the pipeline and start over.
The G4 has a much shorter pipeline than the Pentium, and thus when this happens it incurs much less overhead and hassle having to refil the pipeline.
So, in the end all these issues (and it really boils down to backwards compatibility for intel keeping it down) mean that the PowerPC is a much simpler, yet much faster processor.
And this means costs-- first in the size of the processors die. If you have a processor with a smaller die you get far more dies to a wafer and exponentially better pricing.
Secondly this addresses cost when comparing computer's prices you have to take performance into a ccount, toherwise, a 286 for $100 is a "Better deal" than a new computer for $1000. And I didn't even go into the vastly superior floating point unit on the PowerPC-- which makes the disparity even worse.
So, Apple gets its processors from Motorola or IBM for a lot less money, its parts from the same suppliers Dell, et. al. do and spends more on cases, but in the end is able to sell computers for LESS MONEY and make MORE PROFIT.
The problem is that its hard to quantify the performance of a computer. So people invariably lie when they compare Apples to Oranges. They pick a really cheap PC from a fly by night company (such as a low end dell) with a crappy power supply, and compare it to a high quality Macintosh with a much faster processor and point out that the mac is overpriced. And to add insult to insult, they claim that the Mac is even a slower computer becuase its clockrate is lower!
If you still buy that myth, look at this quote from: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,,361877,00.asp
"Intel claims its 1GHz Itanium 2 offers up to twice the performance of its 800MHz predecessor, which has suffered from poor sales since its release in May 2001."
Do you really think an Itanium is slower than a Pentium??? After all , the Itanium runs at 1GHz and the pentium runs at 2!
Or how about this-- how could a 1Ghz processor be twice as fast as a 800MHz one? Think intel is lying, that this is impossible?
This basic myth (and the bogus comparisons of price that come from it) is at the root of the "Macs are more expensive" myth.
At first I addressed this issue by grabbing comparisons fro mthe most recent dell flyer and the apple vendors, but those were ignored. Here's a quicky, the IBM intellistation ProE with 2GHz P4 is $1639, compare that to a PowerMac at $1599 and you see that you get a better video card (3d vs 2d), the same Hard drive (literally, I bet) same memory, CDRW instead of CD, and a MUCH better case with the Mac for $100 less.
But that's pointless to tell people- they will ignore it, as the PC comes with Windows, for instnace. Is that worth $100? not when the alternative is OS X. Etc. etc. and people will quibble over the tiniest spec differences, such as a faster bus (that is half as wide) and stuff like that. The PC world is clearly optimized for numbers that give the sheen of performance insteaf of actual perfomance-- like Intel processors with twice the clock rate but half the bus size (meaning zero performance improvement but doubled perception.) A great example of this is the fact that Apple uses slower Ram, but has a wider RAM path. People ignore that all the time.
But my point is not to quibble on these things but to make the broader point: MACS ARE NOT MORE EXPENSIVE.
When you have th choice of a much better looking computer, more ergonomic, uses OS X uses a REAL Gui, uses better peripherals, and is more expandible, not to mention better performance, it isn't really a choice at all. If you value those things, the Mac is worth twice the price-- but that doesn't mean it IS twice the price. IF you don't value those things, or detest some of them, the mac isn't worth half the price-- but that doesn't mean you can compare it at half the value with some other machine and call it twice as expensive.
What it really comes down to is what the value is to you. If you enjoy fscking with your hardware, tracking down faulty power supplies, then you get lot more enjoyment out of a machine that you can obsess over for 3 months which motherboard to upgrade it with.
If you'd prefer to go 3 years with a fast machine performing well and not having to mess with the hardware, then you'll value a machine that lets you do that.
But the economics of the situation dictate that there is NO price premium between the two-- and in fact, given the illegal stranglehold over the industry that Microsoft has, Apple has to be better AND cheaper in order to compete. And they are.
You don't value the MAc OS, fine, don't buy it. But STOP telling other people that it is overpriced. Stop spreading your preferences as a bigotry and driving people who would rather have a computer that "just works" away from the platform.
There is such a history of this kind of bullshit bigotry that many first time users get a Windows box and are screwed from then on because tehy got talked out of a mac. If you want Microsoft to go away, talk them into a mac. When they are technically proficient, then maybe talk them into a harder to use but infinitely configurable alternative like Linux on the x86.,
Look at it this way-- every Mac sold is a lost windows sale and another person using open source Unix.
But every one of you who tells a relative or someone who believes you that Macs are more expensive is doing them a disservice, and yourself as well. They are not, they cannot be, and they never will be... After all, when you're fighting a market share battle and you have a magic weapon that lets you sell a better computer for less money and make more money doing so per unit, wouldn't you do it? Apple isn't stupid.
OSX, the PowerPC and good designers are that magic weapon for apple.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
This is another common myth. People seem to think Apple had never heard of a second button mouse when they invented the macintosh.
IIRC the original Engerbert mouse had two buttons, but certainly the idea of putting mutple buttons on the mouse was evaluated by apple.
What they found in usability testing is that it slows people down-- significantly. It slows everyone down, power user and newbie alike.
But, like the command line, you don't think its slowing you down becuse you're working with subjective time and hte apple tests were using objective time.
Its subjectively faster to right mouse on something and get a popup than go to the menu and select what you wanted. but having to remember which button to use (which you're certain you don't but you actually do) slows you down *all* the time.
I use a three button trackball, but the I only use the second and third buttons in quake. The wheel works great and doesn't break the interface.. but the second button does and while I'll sometimes use it, I recognize that it is a convenience....so conciously its a one button mouse to me.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
> If you want to debate whether or not CNet is
> justified with its wording on the headline ("Are
> Mac Users Smarter?"), but honestly, magazines
> and newspapers use such sensational headlines
> all the time. For that matter, Slashdot has made
> it worse, already jumping to a conclusion with
> "Mac Users May Be Smarter", a statement that is
> no way supported by the article.
Wow, someone actually read the article. You don't see that very often on Slashdot!
The title is a troll, but the article makes sense. They say that Mac users tend to be more affluent, have higher levels of education, and in general be more attractive marketing targets for premium products/services. This isn't to say Mac users are smarter; as a demographic, they're more attractive if you're trying to sell a premium product.
What this means is, in general, if you're planning on developing a web marketing plan for a product like Mercedes, Krupps, Williams Sonoma, or any other "premium-like product", you are likely to have better success if you target your ads to a web site that has a lot of Mac users. Or, if you work at Nordstrom, it would be a good idea to make sure your web site is friendly to Mac users (take the time to make sure it works for Macintosh browsers). If you're running a web site for Walmart, this might not be as important.
That's all it's saying. It's a sleazy marketing thing, not a Mensa-entry requirement.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.