Dell makes machines with limited design value add, Apple makes machines with substantial design value add. ThinkPads, for example, also have design value add -- not because they look pretty (most people think they don't) -- but because (like Macs) they're lighter, smaller, and have better battery life than equivalent-power Taiwanese white box systems.

Toshiba and Sony also make machines with design value add. Dell, not much. Gateway/Acer, not at all. HP, maybe more than Dell, but not especially.

Ten years ago, almost all the market was in generic desktop boxes, and notebooks were a minor category. Dell's manufacturing and supply chain expertise allowed them to differentiate their systems through cost savings and through rapid production of customized systems. They could carry a few more components and sell people better boxes just by swapping in the right components.

Now, the problem is that generic boxes are purely a low-margin commodity, and all the margin is in systems that are actually engineered. Macs. Thinkpads. Elaborate gaming systems. Stuff where you don't just switch out a part or two and call it a different box. And that's not Dell's game.

Having seen the widespread use of Dell in some larger corporate accounts, I feel bad for the employees who are forced to use such terrible machines with such terrible service. Plastic parts and poor design lead to machines that feel flimsy and break often.

With service contracts outsourced to Bangalore (or other off-shore or off-site locations), users of Dell equipment at these corporations are becoming more and more flustered. They can't get their machines fixed in a timely manner, and are locked in to long-term contracts negotiated by executive board members who don't use the machines on a daily basis.

When you say that Dell makes "cheap functional machines", I'd argue that they're simply in the business of making cheap machines these days. Functional machines, I'd argue, would be able to withstand the rigors of normal (10hr/day) usage.

One of the mains reason Apple succeeds today is because their equipment works. Lenovo is also succeeding, despite its ties with Microsoft. (Also, it doesn't hurt that Apple has stores all over the country where you can get live, in-person help with your machine.)

Good observation, bad conclusion. If Apple had to sell as many computers as Dell to survive, then maybe it would overextend its market and be worth shorting. Since Apple sells relatively few computers, there are lots of people who settle for a Dell but dream of an Apple. If your customers would jump ship the first chance they get, you're not a good long bet.

apple's "expensive consumerist lifestyle fashion," as you call it, is now the de facto standard hacker machine, used by dhh, the inventor of ruby on rails, by pg himself, and too many others to mention.

yes, and those are "rich" people, much richer than the average consumer, especially when you take in account countries such as China or India.

You're confusing Macs-the-hardware with UNIX they run. Yes, all hackers work on UNIX of some sort. And even then, OSX requires a quite a bit of work to get it up to Linux levels of hacker friendliness.

dhh recently switched from a macbook pro to a macbook air. does that sound like somebody who's in it just for the unix underpinnings? i think not.

There are a lot of people using Macs, but there are also a lot of people using Linux and Windows.

And then there are the people who get macs for the hardware and replace OS X with some other unix variant.

Are you actually short AAPL and long DELL?

dell may make functional machines, but they are not cheap. maybe cheaper than apple, but u can already see Asian companies starting to beat dell at their own game

How does having competitors with a lower price make you not cheap? I don't see the correlation.

"Cheap" is completely relative. 1000 dollars is cheap for a car, but expensive for a sandwich.