Really, people. The point of the article isn't whether Macs are better than PCs or vice versa (though you can kind of glean where the author's sympathies lie). The question is whether an advertising campaign based on "my product is cheaper than yours" is a viable long-term strategy.

I guess an analogy could be made with beers (or maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges). If Anheuser Busch felt threatened by, let's say, the New Belgium brewing company (which makes Fat Tire-the BEST BEER. Suck on that, bud light!), would it be good for them to roll out a campaign saying that they're cheaper by about a buck a bottle? And since we're playing hypothetical games about the real world, let's say that Bud has 90% of the market and New Belgium has less than 10% (real world figures would be more like 50% Bud, 0.00001% New Belgium). Would the 10% drinking Fat Tire feel the urge to drink Buds once the economy is rolling again and they've got money in their pockets? I think not. But then again, it is apples and oranges. You need a computer to do your job, but you don't need beer to do it. Unless you're a writer.

Which makes me wonder. I'm guessing most of the revenue for MS comes from corporate accounts. So why bother even advertising to the average consumer? That's being done by Dell and HP and whatnot anyway.

The issue here is the advertising campaign. Not the product. So have a beer people. And chill.