Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 o…
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 t…
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?