So we go in, and within a few minutes, they gave her a new phone, without even asking for a receipt or anything. They tried to revive the phone and when it would not revive, they handed her a new one. My friend totally flipped out. She thought at best she would have to give it in for a week or something. She had no idea they would just give her a new phone. She literally said, “I’m going to buy my computer here next time, too.” (Sorry, HP.) She was like, “they have your back, here!” They made her into a customer for life.

Then she told all her Facebook friends about her experience. Try to buy that kind of advertising.

Because it is more civilized than hit men. Duh.

Because their success has attracted counterfeiters, just like Calvin Klein or Gucci or Rolex. These kinds of companies have to defend their trademarks, designs, and other original work or they essentially become public domain.

Do you think it is OK to create a counterfeit product and sell them to consumers who want the real thing? I don’t know why you would think that was good business, or why you would think that fits into the definition of honest. And these are exactly the kinds of issues you go to court for.

> When is your last time that Microsoft has taken anyone in court

Microsoft is collecting royalties from all the Android handset makers right now. They paid up because otherwise Microsoft would have taken them to court. Microsoft uses its patents aggressively, they go to another company and say, “pay us, you violated our patents.” Apple only uses their patents against companies that copy Apple. Everyone else is left alone.

The principles behind the above are taught in Kindergarten. You do your own work. You sign your name to your own work.

> And [Microsoft] do not even have much happy customers
> to speak of and yet achieved over 90% market share.

That is because they used illegal business practices to destroy competition in the PC industry. That is how you get 90% market share without having happy customers. It’s the same as if you want to win a skating competition without being the best skater. You just hit the best skater in the knee with a pipe. That is “anti-competition” … “competition” would be skating better than them. Anti-competition is what Microsoft is famous for.

Apple did it another way. They simply convinced one customer at a time that they had a better product. Now, they are the leader in computing, but because they earned it, not because they stole it.

When the iPhone came out something happened. Apple sold four times as many phones as they did computers. Meaning non-fanboy, koolaid drinking, cult following customers started buying Apple products. The result was the iPhone received the same higher customer satisfaction rating, even as PC lovers keep claiming the iPhone is over rated, out debated, and under spec’d. While those claims are certainly true, the net result is the iPhone is still just a little more satisfying to own than any other smart phone.

Now the PC market is flat with the exception of Macs, up about 18% from last year. Thus growth is certainly due to new, former PC owners, walking into Apple stores looking for a phone and walking out with a Mac. I am a Mac owner but we have delayed our next Mac purchase to get two iPads. Because the iPad caniblized the entire PC marked, including the Mac, any growth in Mac sales is certainly in the most part due to new Mac owners, i.e. PC switchers.

So when these switchers got their Macs, did they find the satisfaction rating was all just hype? If they did, after paying more for their Mac, than they would have had to pay for a new PC, and expecting more, certainly the satisfaction rating should have gone down? Instead it has gone up.

Can we not conclude that former PC owners have helped to push the satisfaction rating even higher?