I have to disagree, with the disclaimer that I'm a Mac user. While I don't really expect top notch punditry from TechCrunch, this short, well-worn jab at Apple

I have to disagree, with the disclaimer that I'm a Mac user. While I don't really expect top notch punditry from TechCrunch, this short, well-worn jab at Apple is unhelpful, if not simply linkbait. "[Microsoft's] got a point on the cost to feature ratio of Macs v. Windows machines..." I'm not arguing that Macs are commodity priced, but I think the cost to feature ratio of most products is extremely difficult to define, especially for something as complicated as a personal computer. The fact that TechCrunch just trots it out as truth irks me. In my personal opinion, the intangibles that come with a mac more that compensate for the relative difference in price between Macs and PCs with comparable specs. Simply saying that macs have a lower cost to feature ratio than Windows machines because there are cheaper PCs than Macs isn't unlike saying that BMWs have a lower cost to feature ratio because they can only go 50MPH faster than Toyotas and cost twice as much (not to mention the fact that PCs are far from uniform in their pricing and options). Flame wars aren't beneficial to anyone. At some point we must accept that we each have a different definition of value, and discuss things based on their relative merits.