Lango--I do understand your point here, which is that it's "unfair" to increase the lowest-end shootout price point from $1,000 to $1,100 just because Apple is now starting their laptops at $1,100.
At the same time, the original point of the shootouts was to see how Apple's *stock* models stack up. Once in awhile, I'll "beef up" the Mac in a given comparison if there's a special circumstance, but generally it's the one that I'm comparing against.
If you feel this is "dishonest" (which your "quotes" around "honest" obviously imply), that's your opinion. You've *never* liked the way I do my comparisons, and you've always been quite vocal about this. I've made a *lot* of changes in my methodology over the years--some due to your input, some due to that of others, and some due to my own considerations--but there are other things I have no intention on changing (or, if I do, it will be for my own reasons, not yours).
You point out rightly that $1,000 is a psychological price point cut-off for most people, while $1,100 is not, which is correct.
I'm looking at this from the point of view of someone who is considering "that new consumer laptop from Apple"--which he/she sees costs $1,100--and then wants to see how it sizes up against a similar PC costing the same amount (in most cases, a Dell). If this is part of my Mac bias, so be it.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
