AI
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 11:39:56 AM
No need to get defensive, Blue
I'm sure you didn't mean to mischaracterize my post, but for clarification, the "honest" reference had nothing to do with selection of which pricepoint you'd use -- it was about once you set the pricepoint and matched the basic CPU/components, then assembling the non-Apple comparison machine to create most attractive machine for the money or the one the average PC customer would be most likely to assemble. In the past, you have not done this, IMO. (And yes, that's certainly JMHO).
From my post: "Also, if it's route (b) ["compare the very best machine that could be assembled by different mfgrs for a particular identical price"], an "honest" appraisal/comparison would require putting together the "best" machine possible for dollars alotted, or at the least, making the add-ons match the decisions the average customer is most likely to make."
Not that you really need any more work, and certainly there are those customers who buy machines at the barebones base configuration, but realistically, most Macs are NOT bought at barebones configuration -- so if the goal is to work your way to a pricepoint from a base Mac configuration, it might be that a more useful comparison would be to set the machine up at the configuration which is the "realistic base" configuration -- whatever configuration the highest percentage of machines gets configured at. I don't know what that is, but I know it's not with the base RAM.
At any rate, really no need to get defensive. You've reasonably up front about acknowledging "my Mac bias", as well as the "so be it."
FWIW, I feel badly for you that you're going to have "extra" work that will be only temporary -- here I'm referring to the gouge-job Apple's pulling on the Black color, which I feel highly confident will be reversed as soon as Apple has soaked the first batch of suckers, and gotten channel feedback on what the real-world demand ratio is between black/white, and hence the proper manufacturing ratio necessary to fill out the supply chain.
I'm sure you didn't mean to mischaracterize my post, but for clarification, the "honest" reference had nothing to do with selection of which pricepoint you'd use -- it was about once you set the pricepoint and matched the basic CPU/components, then assembling the non-Apple comparison machine to create most attractive machine for the money or the one the average PC customer would be most likely to assemble. In the past, you have not done this, IMO. (And yes, that's certainly JMHO).
From my post: "Also, if it's route (b) ["compare the very best machine that could be assembled by different mfgrs for a particular identical price"], an "honest" appraisal/comparison would require putting together the "best" machine possible for dollars alotted, or at the least, making the add-ons match the decisions the average customer is most likely to make."
Not that you really need any more work, and certainly there are those customers who buy machines at the barebones base configuration, but realistically, most Macs are NOT bought at barebones configuration -- so if the goal is to work your way to a pricepoint from a base Mac configuration, it might be that a more useful comparison would be to set the machine up at the configuration which is the "realistic base" configuration -- whatever configuration the highest percentage of machines gets configured at. I don't know what that is, but I know it's not with the base RAM.
At any rate, really no need to get defensive. You've reasonably up front about acknowledging "my Mac bias", as well as the "so be it."
FWIW, I feel badly for you that you're going to have "extra" work that will be only temporary -- here I'm referring to the gouge-job Apple's pulling on the Black color, which I feel highly confident will be reversed as soon as Apple has soaked the first batch of suckers, and gotten channel feedback on what the real-world demand ratio is between black/white, and hence the proper manufacturing ratio necessary to fill out the supply chain.
