the point of a shootout
... either should be to (a) compare relative pricing on identically specced hardware, OR (b) compare the very best machine that could be assembled by different mfgrs for a particular identical price.
If route (b) is the choice, it makes more sense to pick out the most common psychological budget pricepoints, no? Rather than choosing pricepoints to confer maximum "fit" advantage to one of the mfgrs? Also, if it's route (b), 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.
i.e. if you were going to make $1,500 the comparison pricepoint, and assemble whatever MacBook you could get for $1,500, after matching up the basic components, if the competitor's machine was weighing in at $1,200, the additional $300 should be spent not trying to keep the competitor's product from outshining the MacBook (i.e. larding in software most customers wouldn't select), but doing it the way a normal customer would -- adding on the most attractive upgrades for the extra $300.
FWIW, among PC shoppers who start out with a budgeted pricepoint, I don't think there are very many whose starting number is $1,100. The base-10 round numbers of sub-$1000, sub-$1,500, sub-$2000, are likely to dominate. For those working with a "non-round" number between $1,000 and $1,500, I'd guess $1,200 would be the most common, with $1,100 being the least likely.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
