Apple Conjoint Analysis -Spillproof Laptops

Spill-proof Laptop Study:

A Conjoint Analysis for Apple

Prepared in MKT 402 (Consumer Behavior) Arizona State University / W.P. Carey School of Business

Professor John Lastovicka

Nicole Baron DietrichWesley Berg

Anna Bayles DeppMatthew Lawler

Geyang LiNoah Oropeza

Nicholas Sfreddo

Introduction

Problem

Apple is one of the largest technology designers and the creators of devices such as the iPhone, iPad, Mac notebooks and desktop computers. In the third calendar quarter of 2014, Apple reached its highest Laptop market share ever reported. The company gained ground with 13.4 percent of the US Laptop market, edging out Lenovo to grab the number three spot behind HP (27.7 percent) and Dell (24 percent). Although Apple has been gaining ground on its competitors in the US, they are looking to remain competitive by introducing a new product with a spill-proof feature.

In order for Apple to move forward with this new product, management requires research data to support the product’s potential sales. Although Apple has an extensive internal marketing department, they chose to outsource this project in order to administer a full conjoint analysis on the market. This study considers laptops’ attributes and attribute levels that allow definition of new product possibilities from Apple as well as existing competitors’ products. Apple has decided to stick to its premium price point because of their highly established brand equity. They have recently innovated spill-proof casing for their product line. The product look or weight is not different either. The following study will simulate its effect on the market and will allow us to determine if introducing spill-proof computers will be beneficial to Apple.

Attributes/Levels

The new laptop that Apple is particularly interested in introducing is currently priced at $1000, and comes in a 13-inch screen, with a RAM size of 4GB, total hard drive space of 250GB, and is run by a Mac operating system. Not to mention the new attribute, which is the ability to withstand spills. Other attributes and prices being tested in the analysis are shown in Table 1.1. After consulting Apple’s main competitors, pricing is set at either $600 or $1000. The laptops possible screen sizes vary from 11” to 13” to 15” with the largest being 17”. Among the competitors, three levels of storage are offered for both RAM size and total hard space. We chose these sizes because these are the most standard sizes in the industry and the core sizes demanded by consumers. Among the competitors, three levels of storage are offered for both RAM size and total hard space. The levels of RAM and total hard space were also relatively standard for modern laptops, offering options that would satisfy most, if not all laptop users. We chose MAC and Windows operating systems because they are the two most commonly used around the world. We chose to introduce a spill-proof feature because we believed there was a large market of people who have spilled on their laptop before, and thus would find the feature valuable.

Table 1.1 Attributes & Attribute LevelsAttributes Laptop Screen

SizeSpill-proof RAM

SizeTotal Hard Space

Price OS

Levels 11” Spill-proof 2 GB 125 GB $600 Mac13” Not Spill-proof 4 GB 250 GB $1,000 Windows15” 8 GB 500 GB17”

After identifying those attributes, the attributes were then used to define the current competitors in the market as well as the types of laptops they currently offer to consumers. Apple’s existing product, their potential new product and their competition is shown in Table 1.2 below. Images of select existing products are shown in Figures 1.1 through 1.4.

Table 1.2 Competitors Products Price

Attribute Level

Laptop Screen Size Attribute Level

Total Hard Space Attribute Level

RAM Size Attribute Level

OS Attribute Level

Spill-proof Attribute Level

Windows 7 AcerCompetitor

$600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proof

Windows Dell Inspiron Competitor

$1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proof

Windows Lenovo Competitor

$600 13” 125 GB 2 GB Windows Not Spill-proof

MacBook Pro Existing Client Product

$1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof

MacBook SpillNew Client Product

$1,000 13” 250 GB 4 GB Mac Spill-proof

Visual images of current Apple and competitor products in the marketplace are shown on this page.

Figure 1.1 Windows 7 Acer Figure 1.4 MacBook Pro

Figure 1.2 Windows Dell Inspiron

Figure 1.3 Windows Lenovo

Figure 1.2 Windows Dell Inspiron

Data Collection

Data

Data was collected from 32 different consumers who were Arizona State students that had purchased a laptop in the last five years. These students were deemed appropriate for this study because they answered our screener questions and fit the qualifications we were looking for. In addition, the consumers were not biased towards this study because they do not work in the laptop industry or in any advertising or marketing related field. The screening questions used to qualify the study’s participants can be seen in Appendix A: Screening Questions.

Questions 1 and 2 are demographic questions that don’t qualify the respondents. The consumers must answer, “Yes” to questions 3, 4, and 5 to be qualified. These specific questions state that the respondents currently have a laptop, have purchased a laptop in the last five months, and they have used both windows and mac operating systems.

Each of the 16 product concepts was put into cards and was created using the DESIGN software. Every respondent was asked to rank the cards on a scale of 1 to 16 with their most preferred card being 16 and their least preferred being 1. In order to save paper and time, the cards were formatted into a spreadsheet and printed into line strips. This also allowed the respondents to easily sort the cards into the order they wanted. The official instructions on how to rank the cards can be found under Appendix B and the actual cards that were created using the DESIGN software can be found under Appendix C.

We asked specific screener questions in hopes of determining if there were any relevant correlations to our study. Our qualifications included being an ASU student between 17 and 28, who has operated both Windows and Mac operating systems. They must currently own a laptop and they must have purchased a laptop in the last five years. We asked each respondent whether or not he or she had spilled on a laptop before. This was our market segment. We then tested the significance of whether they had spilled on their laptop and if they would consider purchasing the spill-proof laptop.

Preliminary Analysis

In order to evaluate the accuracy of our sample’s responses, multiple-R statistics were computed in analyzing each consumer’s conjoint ranking data. The multiple-R reflects (on a consumer-by-consumer basis) the conjoint model’s ability to describe each consumer’s rankings. Low multiple-R’s reflect respondents that either did not understand the ranking instructions, did not follow the ranking instructions, or were not knowledgeable enough to give informed preferences about laptops in general.

The preliminary study included respondents with multiple-R levels of 0.5 and above. Out of the 32 participants, we kept all of them. 30 of the respondents have R levels above 0.7, although there were two R levels below this mark we felt their responses, as being above 0.5 were appropriate for the total sample as they met the qualifications in both screener questions and as reliable data. If they had been below 0.5 for R, we would not have included them. The average multiple-R of the 32 respondents was 0.956977586.

Table 1. 3 Multiple-R Values from RegressionsRespondent Code# Multiple R Values

11 0.864037 12 0.69401113 0.92243314 0.96285615 0.50456116 0.97222517 0.97933521 0.98350422 0.96176923 0.97241424 0.9275225 0.93048831 0.9859332 0.97241441 0.90809342 0.89257643 0.934628

44 0.97618751 152 0.88429953 0.9948454 0.9933655 0.98723556 0.95274461 0.97900862 0.95563363 0.9484971 0.99592772 0.93794173 0.73863974 0.9990875 1

Average multiple-R of the 32 respondents retained:

Overall Market Analysis

Utilities

From the regression analysis conducted on each of the respondents in the study, part-worth utilities were estimated for 32 consumers. These individual part-worth utilities were then averaged. The results are shown in Graph 1.1 and demonstrate the part-worth utilities for all 32 consumers.

When the price of the Apple laptop increased from $600.00 to $1,000.00, the utility decreased slightly. With respect to operating system (essentially brand) preference, Apple’s MAC was high on perceived utilities, so respondents preferred Apple over Windows operating system. In the overall market, the most significant utilities were the laptop screen size and the RAM size. An 11-inch screen size was preferred over a 13-inch, but ranked significantly lower than a 15-inch or 17-inch screen size. The utility for RAM size proved the second most significant. Respondents’ average part-worth utility increased by 1 util from 2GB to 4GB, and increased by 1 util from 4GB to 8GB. Utility increased when the laptop included the spill-proof feature, so consumers in this study preferred spill-proof laptops. The difference in this part-worth utility for a spill-proof attribute was not significant enough - in relation to the part-worth utilities of the other attributes - for us to recommend that Apple introduce this feature.

Graph 1.1 Average Part-Worth Utilities

The average importance of the attributes for the entire market was also computed by calculating the importance of each attribute for each consumer, and then by computing the average importance of each attribute across all consumers. These averages are reported in Table 1.4. Graph 1.2 shows each attribute’s relative importance in a pie chart.

The attribute that was most important on average was the laptop screen size. The attribute levels of a 11-inch, 13-inch, 15-inch, or 17-inch, were the most important factors in choosing a

laptop. On average, price was the least important attribute; there was little difference between a $600 laptop and a $1,000 laptop. In addition, the spill-proof feature proved to be the second least significant attribute. Attributes that fell in the middle in importance included the total hard space, the operating system, and the RAM size.

Table 1.4 Average Attribute ImportanceAttribute ImportanceLaptop Screen Size 26%Spill-proof 10%RAM Size 22%Total Hard Space 17%Price 6%OS 20%SUM 100%

Graph 1.2 Average Attribute Importance

Willingness to Pay

To determine the trade-offs consumers were willing to make between price and desired attribute levels, exchange rates and willingness to pay were considered. The exchange rate is the dollar amount per utility, computed as:

Exchange Rate = $(the change in price)______________________ (the corresponding difference in utilities for the price attribute)

For instance, the first respondent in the study had a utility of 2.5 utils for a drop in price from $1,000 down to $600. This utility increase corresponds to a drop in price of $400. Therefore, the exchange rate for this consumer is:

Exchange Rate = $400/2.5 util = $160/util

When all of the exchange rates were computed, an average exchange rate for all consumers of $466.04 per util was estimated. The average exchange rate, calculated in terms of dollars/util, indicates that on average, 1 util of any given attribute is worth $466.04.

This exchange rate allows for the calculation of a consumers “willingness to pay”. A measure of willingness to pay shows how much value an individual consumer places on a good or service. It is measured in terms of money. This ratio represents a characteristic of each consumer for each non-price attribute level. In the calculation of willingness to pay, each consumer’s exchange rate is used to value each consumer’s utilities in dollars (as opposed to utils). After determining the willingness to pay for each individual, the average willingness to pay among all respondents is shown in Table 1.7 below.

Table 1.7 Average Willingness To Pay Calculations Willingness to pay: Spill-proof over Not Spill-Proof -$103.19Willingness to pay: MAC over Windows $427Willingness to pay: 17-inch over 11-inch $1,237.83Willingness to pay: 8GB over 2GB $1696.45

Market Simulations

Analysis of the current products provided by competitors was necessary in assessing if a spill-proof laptop would advance Apple’s position in the laptop marketplace. In order to provide a standard upon which the market’s response to a new product can be gauged, an existing Apple product was included in the simulations. The competitors and existing product that were analyzed in the first simulation are shown in Table 1.5.

Table 1.5 Existing Products in the MarketplacePrice Screen

SizeHard Drive

SpaceRAM Size

OS Spill-proof

P1-Existig Product $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proofP2 –Acer $600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proof

P3 –Dell Insipron $1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proofP4 - Lenovo $600 13” 125 GB 2 GB Windows Not Spill-proof

In order to simulate a total market, the utilities of competitors’ products were calculated with respect to the consumer’s part-worth utilities. For example, choices for each consumer were simulated by allocating the choice to the product P1-P4 in table 1.5 with the highest utility for each. Through this simulation a total market was made in which market shares for each product were computed.

The calculated market shares for each product within the simulated total market are shown in Graph 1.3. Over half of the consumers prefer P1 from Apple, running Mac operating software, costing $1,000, with a screen size of 13-inches, 500 GB of total hard space, and 8 GB of RAM that does not withstand spills. The product that was liked least by the consumers in the simulation market was Windows Lenovo, costing $600, with a screen size of 13-inches, 125 GB of total hard space, and 2 GB of RAM, that also does not have a spill-proof attribute.

Graph 1.3 Existing Market Shares:

Once a total market was simulated and customer preferences of this market were established, the new product design was applied to a second simulation to determine how consumers in the market would react to the new product idea.

The second market simulation consisted of the product design at the higher price as well as the competitors in the market. The product idea that was simulated in the market had the following attribute levels: $1,000 + 15-inch + 500 GB of Total Hard Space + 4GB of RAM + Mac + Spill-proof. This product design is displayed in Table 1.6 as P1.

Table 1.6 Introduction of First New Product ConceptPrice Screen Size Hard Drive Space RAM Size OS Spill-proof

P1- New (A) $1,000 13” 250 GB 4 GB Mac Spill-proofP2- Existing $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof

P3- Acer $600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proofP4- Dell $1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proof

P5- Lenovo $600 13” 125 GB 2 GB Windows Not Spill-proof

In the second simulation the market share for the first new product at a higher price, $1,000, with the spill-proof attribute, was preferred by only 22% of the consumers. The introduction of Apple’s spill-proof laptop had no effect on the market shares for the Dell Inspiron and Lenovo competitors whose shares stayed constant at 22% and 6% respectively. The majority of the first new product’s market shares came from the existing client product in the simulation, which decreased from 53% to 38%. One thing of importance to note was that Acer’s market shares dropped 7%, from 19% in the market simulation down to 12% in the simulation of the first new product concept introduction. The simulation with the first new product design is illustrated in Graph 2.1 as P1.

Graph 1.4 Simulation #2: Market Shares

In the third market simulation a product design at the lower price, as well as the existing competing products in the market were included. The second new product design, identified as P1 had the following attribute levels: $600 + 15-inch + 500 GB of Total Hard Space + 4GB of RAM + Mac + Spill-proof. Table 1.7 illustrates the competing product as well as the second new product included in the third simulation.

Table 1.7 Introduction of Second New Product Concept Price Screen Size Hard Drive Space RAM Size OS Spill-proof

P1-New (B) $600 13” 250 GB 4 GB Mac Spill-proofP2- Existing $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof



This third simulation in which the second new product concept was introduced identified that consumers were more attracted to the new product at a lower price, $600. With the decrease in the new product’s price from $1,000 down to $600, the apple market shares increased from 22% to 34%. The existing client product’s market share further dwindled from 38% in the first new product simulation, to 16% in the second new product simulation. The market shares for P3, the Windows 7 Acer that had fallen between the market simulation and first introduction saw a 4% increase from 12% to 16% at the introduction of the second new product. The Windows Lenovo competitor who had stayed constant in market shares saw a 10% increase from 6% in the first two simulations to 16% in the third simulation. The simulation of the introduction of the second new product concept into the market is shown below in Graph 1.5.

Graph 1.5 Simulation #3: Market Shares

Market Segment Analysis In order to better understand the part-worth utilities of the consumers in the market, the

total market was divided into two market segments. The market was segmented into those who had spilled and those who had not spilled on their laptop prior.

Segment AnalysisThe market segment that included those who have spilled on their laptops was chosen for

further analysis. The idea was to market a spill-proof laptop to consumers that have spilled alcoholic beverages on their laptops in the past, who would have a greater appreciation for a laptop that is spill-proof due to their past accidents spilling on their laptops.

Table 2.5 Attribute Importance Average: Those who have spilled beverages on their laptopsAttribute ImportanceLaptop Screen Size 24%Spill-proof 5%RAM Size 18%Total Hard Space 24%Price 11%OS 18%

The average importance of the attributes for the entire market was computed by calculating the importance of each attribute for each consumer, and then by computing the average importance of each attribute across all consumers. These averages are reported in Table 2.5.

The attribute that was most important on average remained the laptop screen size, holding 24% importance. The attribute levels of a 11-inch, 13-inch, 15-inch, or 17-inch, were the most important factors in choosing a laptop. In addition, the Total Hard Space proved equally significant, at a comparable 24%. On-average, the Spill Proof feature was the least important attribute, at 5%. Price was the second least important attribute; there was little difference between a $600 laptop and a $1,000 laptop. Attributes that fell in the middle in importance included the price, the operating system, and the RAM size. It is important for Apple to consider the importance of various attributes in deciding what they want to introduce to the marketplace. This helps them determine what consumers are looking for. Graph 2.9 is graphical representation of our findings.

Graph 2.9 Attribute importance: Those who have spilled beverages on their laptops

Additionally, the average willingness to pay of this segment of those who have spilled on their laptops can be found below in table 2.6:

Table 2.6 Those who have spilled on their laptops Average Willingness To PayWillingness to pay: Spill-proof over Not Spill Proof -$166.16Willingness to pay: MAC over Windows $208.65Willingness to pay: 17-inch over 11-inch -$101.51Willingness to pay: RAM Size 8 GB over 2 GB $803.99

Table 2.7 Those who have spilled on their laptops Attribute ImportanceAttribute ImportanceLaptop Screen Size 24%Spill-proof 5%RAM Size 18%Total Hard Space 24%Price 11%OS 18%

We found it very important to consider market segments to help push towards realistic customers. Initially we believe the spill-proof feature would appeal to many people who have spilled on their laptops or knew someone who had spilled on their laptop. Upon further analysis we have found the spill-proof feature did not add any value or incentive for consumers. Total hard space and laptop screen size were the most influential features and spill-proof was least influential. Conducting an additional study that offered larger screen size and/or larger total hard space is a lucrative opportunity in the market to capture more market-share. The implementation of the new spill-proof attribute for laptops only proved viable oddly with a high market price.

Market Simulations in the Segment

Using the existing product alternative, we conducted a simulation using the segment market. Table 1.5 is shown again are we conducting the same simulation only with the segment this time.

Table 1.5 Existing Products in the Marketplace (Repeat)Price Screen

SizeHard Drive

SpaceRAM Size OS Spill-proof

P1 -Existing $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proofP2- Acer $600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proofP3- Dell $1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proof


Graph 3.0 Segment Simulation for Existing Products

14%

21%

14%

50%

Simulation-Existing

Windows 7 Acer

Windows Dell Inspiron

Windows Lenovo

MacBook Pro

As for the first simulation regarding the segmented market, the results show that the consumers favor the Apple laptop or P1. Graph 3.0 clearly illustrates the 50% market-share.

We conducted the same simulation for the new product introduction as we did for the overall market earlier. Refer to Table 1.6, to see the specification of the new product and the other products. Graph 3.1 shows that with the introduction of the new product alternate Apple gained 7% market-share.

Table 1.6 Introduction of First New Product Concept (Repeat)Price Screen

SizeHard Drive

SpaceRAM Size

OS Spill-proof

P1- New (A) $1,000 13” 250 GB 4 GB Mac Spill-proofP2- Existing $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof



Graph 3.1 Segment Spill-proof Simulation

7%

21%

14%43%

14%

Simulation-Spill-proof

Windows 7 Acer


Windows Lenovo

MacBook Pro

MacBook Spill

The final simulation for the segment mirrors the third overall market simulation. We factor a lower price for this specific segment. Table 1.7 is shown again to illustrate the product alternatives. The findings tell us that Apple will get 8% more market-share with a lower price point for new product.

Table 1.7 Introduction of Second New Product Concept (Repeat)Price Screen

SizeHard Drive

SpaceRAM Size OS Spill-proof

P1-New (B) $600 13” 250 GB 4 GB Mac Spill-proofP2- Existing $1,000 13” 500 GB 8 GB Mac Not Spill-proof

P3- Acer $600 15” 125 GB 4 GB Windows Not Spill-proofP4-Dell $1,000 15” 250 GB 8 GB Windows Not Spill-proof


Graph 3.3 Segment Simulation With Lower Price

7%

21%

14%29%

29%

Simulation-price

Windows 7 Acer


Windows Lenovo

MacBook Pro

MacBook Pro2

Conclusion

Final DiscussionIn summary, this research study has helped Apple enhance its current line of laptops and

remain competitive in the marketplace. Through understanding of what consumers want, as well as the attributes that they desire in products, we have developed the outline of a desirable new product design for Apple. Based on the results of customer importance levels and the market share levels we found that the new spill-proof feature is not regarded as important by consumers but may help capture market-share nonetheless. The feature did not matter to our segmented respondents either.

Screen size (26%)* was the most important attribute to our overall market. It was closely followed by RAM size (22%) and the operating system (20%). The preferred levels for screen size, RAM size, and OS was 17”, 8GB, and Mac OS. We suggest further studies and simulations to look into larger screen sizes and upgraded specifications in RAM and Hard Drive space (17%). These are valued more highly than the spill-proof attribute.

However the introduction of the product alternative for Apple gained market-share in all simulations, except for the lower price spill-proof in overall market, which actually saw the cannibalization as a negative overall effect. In all other cases, the market share cannibalization was a net benefit. Apple gained 10% in market-share in the first overall market simulation with the high price. For the segment, Apple’s existing share was lower than the overall, but they managed to gain 7% and 8% in both simulations. Based on the results in both overall and segment markets, Apple should not introduce a lower price spill-proof product rather the higher price.

We did notice the results that the overall market favored the spill-proof feature in both Willingness to Pay (-109.19 vs -166.16), and Attribute Importance (10% vs 5%). This tells us that the segment market, those who have spilled on their laptop may actually be currently satisfied with the durability of their laptop. Having already spilt on their laptop they may have experienced that their laptop is adequately protected from spills, compared to those who have not spilled ever. Those who have not spilled maybe more inclined to see the value in spill-proof as they can only imagine the consequences of such action. In addition, the segment market also favored smaller screen size, which may attribute to their collective results, as it is harder to spill on smaller laptops. It is recommended that any possible marketing programs utilize the fear of spills to help highlight the attributes importance in the consumers’ eyes.

We recommend more research into possible product attributes combinations. Based off our results alone the introduction of the spill-proof product alternative would prove to be beneficial as they capture a significant market share away from competitors.

Note 1*: Percentages in parentheses correspond to overall attribute importance.

Reflection

We encountered numerous problems with our research. Notably we found that the sample size conducted for this analysis was much too small

and contained limited reach. The sample was too homogenous in nature as we only interviewed people who primarily went to Arizona State. The sample was not random and was not heterogeneous. Alternatively, a sample size of 50 or more from various places, not exclusively college, would much more ideal.

In addition, all interviewers saw a near total brand preference for Mac OS except for our foreign student team member whose interviewees had a complete preference for Windows OS. The bias is apparent in the simulations as although there were many offering with important attributes that had preferred attribute levels were viewed more favorably, Apple’s existing product still held a majority market-share. More respondents would have smoothed over the bias we encountered.

Building off the fact Apple’s new and existing product alternatives had inferior attribute levels compared to the windows offerings; we should have conducted market simulations with the Apple laptops having similar attribute levels. As the simulation took account for the attribute importance, clearly Apple would have had much greater market-share with comparable attributes.

The attribute level for price on Apple laptops should have been taken to with more thought, as all Apple computer are priced high. The limitation to two prices for the products, although necessary, skewed the data in some respects. Additional studies with differing prices should be arranged in the future to have better comparative data.

We should have designated outliers to generate a more accurate simulation results. We thought about removing the two respondents with weaker Multiple-R scores, but ultimately decided not to when we realized we had gone far into the project, as removing those results would have changed the entire amount of data. We agreed as a group that although the two respondents were below 0.7, they still qualified being above 0.5. In future analysis, we would recommend stricter requirements for Multiple-R.

All in all, the analysis was great learning experience.

Appendix A

Screener Questions

1. Are you an Arizona State student? Yes No

2. Select the age category that you fall into? a. 17-20 b. 21-24 c. 25-28 d. None of the above

3. Do you own a laptop? Yes No

4. Have you purchased a laptop in the last five years? Yes No

5. Have you operated on both Windows and Mac operating systems? Yes No

6. Have you ever spilled on your laptop? Yes No

7. If so, was it alcohol that you spilled? Yes No

Appendix B

Instructions

Sort the 16 laptop profiles shown on the 16 cards (labeled 1 through 16) into three piles: the cards you like most, the cards you like the least, and the cards in between. Then use this preference scale to rank each card.

Preferred Least Preferred Most 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Rate the profile you preferred most with a 16 and the profile you preferred least with a 1. Then assign each of the other numbers from 2 to 15 to indicate your rank-ordered level of preference for the remaining cards. Each card should have a different number from 1 to 16.

Appendix C

Cards Card 1Laptop Screen Size11'

Spill-proofSpill-proof

RAM Size2 GB

Total Hard Space250 GB

Price$600

OSMac

Card 2Laptop Screen Size17'


RAM Size4 GB


Price$6000

OSMac


Spill-proofNot Spill-proof

RAM Size2 GB


Price$600

OSMac



RAM Size4 GB


Price$1,000

OSWindows



RAM Size8 GB


Price$600

OSWindows



RAM Size8 GB


Price$1,000

OSMac



RAM Size4 GB


Price$1,000

OSMac



RAM Size4 GB

Total Hard Space125 GBPrice$6000

OSWindows



RAM Size

2 GB


Price$1,000

OSWindows



RAM Size8 GB


Price$600

OSWindows



RAM Size4 GB


Price$6000

OSWindows



RAM Size8 GB


Price$1,000

OSMac



RAM Size4 GB


Price$1,000

OSMac



RAM Size4 GB


Price$600

OSMac



RAM Size2 GB


Price$1,000

OSWindows



RAM Size4 GB


Price$1,000

OSWindows

Documents

Apple Conjoint Analysis -Spillproof Laptops