[rowanG077]

Not really, price is still extremely important and doesn't really factor into the definition of the best product. Taken to the extreme, Imagine a laptop a thousand times faster then the best there is now, with an extremely bright HDR screen with perfect blacks and a 1000hz refresh rate. It has a battery life of years, It's made of an unscratchable metal alloy and is fanless. It runs windows, linux and macos flawlessly. It's CPU can natively executable all major instruction sets. It's extremely light. Yet it costs 50 million USD. Sure there will be some super rich who may buy it. But never will the majority of the world use it.

[fluoridation]

>price is still extremely important and doesn't really factor into the definition of the best

Heh. Who says it doesn't?

>Taken to the extreme, Imagine [...]

Okay. Likewise, imagine a computer exactly like you've described, except it costs five cents and measures a cubic kilometer. Sure, there may be a couple people for whom operating such a gigantic machine is no problem, but the vast majority of the world will never use it. So the size of the computer also doesn't factor into whether it's "the best", right? And so on for any single property you care to name.

Yeah, no. The price is as much a part of a product as its physical shape. If Macs cost about the same as non-Macs, maybe they'd the most popular computers in the world, but they're not. And even in that case, they would not be the best. If, say, the program I need to run doesn't run on a Mac, the best computer for me would not be a Mac, it would be whatever computer is able to run it.

[rowanG077]

> Heh. Who says it doesn't?

Well, it’s not a formal definition, of course. But most review sites that compare products typically distinguish between best overall and best value categories. For example, if I asked gamers what the best GPU is, most would say the NVIDIA RTX 5090. Its price-to-performance ratio is terrible, but it still holds the crown.

> Okay. Likewise, imagine a computer exactly like you've described, except it costs five cents and measures a cubic kilometer. Sure, there may be a couple people for whom operating such a gigantic machine is no problem, but the vast majority of the world will never use it. So the size of the computer also doesn't factor into whether it's "the best", right? And so on for any single property you care to name.

I’m not describing a computer in general. I’m describing a laptop. What you’ve described wouldn’t even qualify for that category. And even if it did, size and weight are core quality factors for laptops. Portability is part of what defines the category.

> Yeah, no. The price is as much a part of a product as its physical shape. If Macs cost about the same as non-Macs, maybe they'd the most popular computers in the world, but they're not. And even in that case, they would not be the best. If, say, the program I need to run doesn't run on a Mac, the best computer for me would not be a Mac, it would be whatever computer is able to run it.

Price isn’t an property of a product itself, it's part of the product offering. If you have a laptop sitting on a table and you start using it, there’s nothing in the experience that tells you what it costs. If you can’t determine something by using the product, it isn’t an inherent attribute of it. Your cubic kilometer example also falls completely flat here, you can notice it when using the product.

So I'd agree with your point if we would be talking about the product offering. That includes things like pricing, warranty structure, on-site support, marketing message, availability etc.

The best laptop doesn’t have to match everyone’s personal needs. Your criteria may differ, but there are still objective qualities that most people agree are important in a laptop, build quality, display, battery life, input feel, and so on. In those respects, MacBooks tend to push these qualities to an extreme degree, more than any other laptop.

[fluoridation]

>For example, if I asked gamers what the best GPU is, most would say the NVIDIA RTX 5090. Its price-to-performance ratio is terrible, but it still holds the crown.

Not for me. My 3090 can already max out my UPS. Being gifted a 5090 would be a terrible inconvenience for me. What you mean is that it's the fastest gaming GPU. Is that what "best" means? Something is the best in its product category if it tops the chart on the primary property of that category that applies to some abstract consumer? An abstract gamer with no other constraints would just want the fastest GPU, so the fastest one is the best? Fine. But then I'm forced to ask, where do categories begin and end? The 5090 is the best gaming GPU, but it's not the best GPU. Macs may be the best laptops (I don't know, but I'll grant it), but they're not the best PCs, or the best gaming laptops. Or, if I'm feeling cheeky, not the best laptops for under $(price of a Mac - 100).

>If you have a laptop sitting on a table and you start using it, there’s nothing in the experience that tells you what it costs.

I didn't realize arguing like this was possible. So if the laptop instead of being borrowed was yours, but if you ever type and send an email with "テスト" on the subject and body it would explode, but you never send that email (because you don't speak Japanese), that's a perfectly fine laptop, right? I mean, it's the same thing; in one instance the price is irrelevant to you (because you didn't pay it), and in the other the little lithium bomb is irrelevant to you (because you can't ever set it off). So they're both equally good products, at least subjectively.

>build quality, display, battery life, input feel, and so on

Those are the way they are not in small part because of how much they cost. Do you think Dell wouldn't rather make make much higher quality laptops for the same cost and the same price? Yes, you can get a feel for the price of something by using it. Haven't you ever heard someone say "ugh, this feels so cheap"? It's a vague feeling that's difficult to attribute, but it is informed by real experience. Inexpensive products often "feel cheap" and bad to use, while more expensive products don't, or to a lesser degree.

[rowanG077]

I see the points you’re making, but I think there are a few misunderstandings in how you’re framing the discussion.

1. "Best" versus "fastest" or "most expensive"

When I said the RTX 5090 is "the best GPU" for gaming, I meant it objectively tops the category on the core property most gamers care about: raw performance. That’s exactly why review sites separate "best overall" from "best value", they are acknowledging that there are multiple ways to judge a product. If you’re defining "best" by convenience or personal constraints, that’s fine, but that’s a subjective criterion, not the same as evaluating intrinsic qualities of the product. Conflating the two muddies this discussion.

2. Thought experiments

The "laptop that explodes if you type a certain email" analogy is clever, but it’s not equivalent to price. Price is an extrinsic property. It doesn’t affect the physical functionality or design of the laptop itself. A latent, never-triggered bug or trap is intrinsic, because it could affect you at any time if the condition arises. By contrast, whether you paid $50 million or $500 for the laptop doesn’t change its display quality, weight, or battery life.

3. "Feels cheap" argument

It’s true that price influences how companies allocate resources, and a higher-priced laptop can often feel better due to higher-quality materials. But that’s a correlation, not an inherent property. You can measure build quality, screen brightness, or input feel directly without knowing the price. Saying "Dell could make a higher-quality laptop for the same price" is exactly my point: price itself is not part of the intrinsic definition of quality, it’s part of the product offering.

I get that you’re making thought experiments and analogies to illustrate points, but many of them subtly shift the definitions or mix subjective preferences with objective qualities. That makes it hard to have a clear discussion about the intrinsic qualities of products versus their price or accessibility. If you keep ignoring this point and try to again shift the discussion I will stop engaging because I don't consider you acting in good faith.

[fluoridation]

>Saying "Dell could make a higher-quality laptop for the same price" is exactly my point

You understood the exact opposite from what I said. Dell couldn't make a much better laptop for the same price, the same way Apple couldn't make the same laptops for much cheaper.

>Price is an extrinsic property.

No, it's not extrinsic. That was my point. Do you think materials and R&D are free for manufacturers and OS developers? The price is not merely correlated, it's a direct consequence of the build quality. You can't sell a product for less money than it cost to make it. Higher quality -> higher cost -> higher price.

>By contrast, whether you paid $50 million or $500 for the laptop doesn’t change its display quality, weight, or battery life.

In what world could you pay either $500 or $50M for two products which are otherwise equivalent? How do you think the latter one could be viable? Are you serious? Do you actually think cost and price are literally independent variables?