That's a textbook rational response. However, it doesn't address the emotional side of this kind of purchase. Many people don't know the specs and other techn

That's a textbook rational response. However, it doesn't address the emotional side of this kind of purchase. Many people don't know the specs and other technical details of what they're buying. They don't really know, or have no way to tell, if they're getting good silicon value for their money. However, they're keenly aware of the emotions surrounding this machine and its corporation: How much it will fascinate them, fascinate others, how much it will support them and their efforts, how reliable and comforting it will be, who it will put them in touch with, etc. These people don't perceive themselves as making a capital purchase with an anticipated return; rather they perceive themselves as entering into a business _relationship_. They expect this relationship to address their emotional appetite. Logical appetites are based on comparisons like "dollars per GHz." Emotional appetites are based on evaluations such as, "I'm taking care of you, are you taking care of me?" After paying a bunch of money, the emotional appetite expects "to be taken care of." PP has latched onto the idea of a free gadget as a way to be emotionally taken care of. To him/her, this anticipation of his/her needs validates his/her emotional decision. To him/her, getting nickeled and dimed annihilates, or at least attenuates, the valence of the emotional response. Buyers with diminished emotional response, who are additionally tone-deaf, ignorant or otherwise ill-equipped to evaluate the technical/capital qualities of their purchase, have little left to stand on. At best, forcing them to consider the purchase from a perspective which concentrates on different features, facilitates their own insecurity. So, for a technical company looking to profit off their buyer's emotional insecurity, it would make sense to simulate an emotional entity. Of course, no one really cares that much, and PPP is simply producing outrageous examples as a diversion from a theoretically more worthwhile pursuit, but I hope my wisdom helps someone, somewhere, someday.