Thanks for taking the time to respond in a fair and courteous manner. Looking back, my post comes off as more than a little abrasive, so your consideration is a

Thanks for taking the time to respond in a fair and courteous manner. Looking back, my post comes off as more than a little abrasive, so your consideration is appreciated. I do see where you're coming from (sort of). I recognize that aesthetics can be of substantive value. If that was not the case, artwork would not sell for millions of dollars. That said, I still have to disagree with you regarding Apple. I suspect this may stem from a fundamental divergence in the way we view our computers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you view the form of the computer, in addition to the function, as a primary consideration in the value that you assign to it. I, on the other hand, view the function of the machine as the only consideration when assigning a value to it. Computers are different enough from other objects that analogies are always suspect, but a limited analogy to tools may be of use here. I would be willing to trade an ergonomic handle and a certain aesthetic look in a wrench for a 20% gain in torque strength. I suspect that you would not be as sure to make that trade-off. At the very least, you would perhaps consider whether you really needed the advantage in strength.