I take Apples definition of a MacBook over an internet poster. If apple tells me a MacBook consists of a lineup of computers from the most powerful to the least powerful and the least powerful has tinted keys, 2 usb port, non-laminitated display an iPhone processor. That’s the definition I’m going with.
Apple’s public-facing definition was their product line, Pre-Neo. Again, the absence of evidence is not — itself — evidence. And if you don’t believe me, read the actual article this is all about. Apple said:
"It's certainly a MacBook, but there's some important differences," she continued. "It was important to make it feel part of the family, but with its own personality.” That means they did have a specific definition of a MacBook family, and were trying to make this fit, but still allowing it to stand out due to the important differences, which we can reasonably assume were chosen to meet the new price point target. Literally no one argued against that.
I’m using your definition here.
No, you weren’t — you put words in my mouth (just like you did for Apple) because your argument doesn’t stand on any of the legs you are propping it up on, so you are saying things I (and Apple) didn’t, and arguing against points I never made — the very definition of a straw-man argument.
You are using your own definition, again. I’m using Apples definition.
How is it my definition and not Apple’s when I literally pointed to Apple’s “compare” page. You think I made that? And they said it in the article — this differs from what we’ve known a MacBook to be.
And this compromises quote is a good one. At that price point there are no compromises. This is not a comparison to higher end models, all who have “compromises” compared to more higher end models.
Dude, you sound ridiculous — it’s not a quote, because they never said "at this price point”. Not ever — YOU said that. They said
"It's undeniably a MacBook, we're certainly not making any compromises on the design and that's really important”. They never mentioned “at this price point”. You are now lying to defend against an irrefutable point. You are not being logical or truthful for the most benign of reasons — you want your opinion to be right, but it contains no facts.
You are entitled to your definition and you have a differing opinion than me. You can certainly voice your opinion that apple is misleading customers. You talk about trust and trust getting broken. I don’t see it, maybe your opinion is different.
This is not an opinion, it is fact. It’s your opinion to ignore fact just to defend your purchase... which none of us derided you for, just your unwavering defence of a company (who doesn’t not care about you) when they got one thing wrong in the promotion of the product — not the product it’s self. I do not understand this impression an ostrich you are performing to avoid the fact of such a trivial thing.
Anyway this appears to be a semantic discussion at it’s core.
It would have been, had it not been for your staunch defence of nonsense. I could have glossed over Apple's purposefully vague concept of "compromises on the design” — as in what constitutes “compromises”, and what encompasses “design” in context. But you had to lie and put words in their (and my) mouth, to defend a perspective that has been throughly debated out of existence.
Retreating from this conversations the right move. Enjoy your laptop that no one said was bad. Learn to understand that calling out a company for being purposefully murky when promoting a product isn’t the same as labeling said product is bad, and don’t lie and add details to things that were written down, because we can just go back a read what was really said. There is nothing bad about being wrong if you learn from it.
