Macs would be more "value for money" if Apple doubled RAM & SSD across the board

[theorist9]

So again when I questioned the "all they can afford" I was not saying that price is not a factor, it is always a factor. But it's more complex than that and people often use the word "afford" too easily, and sometimes in these forums they get aggressive when you question it (the poor students that's all they can spend... how dare you think otherwise) when the reality is that's more a matter of priorities and priorities are determined by a lot of factors, including preferences, percieved value, knowledge of the subject (in this case computers), etc.

OK, so you weren't arguing with me about substance, you were arguing with me about the semantics of "all they can afford". Sigh.

So just to clarify, when I said sometimes people get 8 GB because it's "all they can afford", I didn't mean "they've scraped together every spare penny they have left over after reducing their food, clothing, and shelter budget to the bare minimum, and it only enables them to buy the 8 GB model." Come on, no one means that in this context! I meant it in the typical use of the phrase in this context, which is: "based on their relatively limited budget and their other priorties, if they bought a higher-end model they'd have to give up other things that are more important to them."

You know, if this were just about semantics, you could have just said that from the beginning and not wasted both your time and mine on this. I.e., instead of saying "I still don't buy the argument in most cases", you could have been more up-front and said "I disagree with your use of the phrase "all they can afford."

 

[Digitalguy]

OK, so you weren't arguing with me about substance, you were arguing with me about the semantics of "all they can afford". Sigh.

So just to clarify, when I said sometimes people get 8 GB because it's "all they can afford", I didn't mean "they've scraped together every spare penny they have left over after reducing their food, clothing, and shelter budget to the bare minimum, and it only enables them to buy the 8 GB model." Come on, no one means that in this context! I meant it in the typical use of the phrase in this context, which is: "based on their relatively limited budget and their other priorties, if they bought a higher-end model they'd have to give up other things that are more important to them."

You know, if this were just about semantics, you could have just said that from the beginning and not wasted both your time and mine on this. I.e., instead of saying "I still don't buy the argument in most cases", you could have been more up-front and said "I disagree with your use of the phrase "all they can afford."

Look, I think I gave enough explanation of what I meant when I said what I said. If that was useful to anyone, good, if you don't like it, I am not starting arguing about semantics, not a good use of my, your or anyone else time here.

 

[theorist9]

Look, I think I gave enough explanation of what I meant when I said what I said. If that was useful to anyone, good, if you don't like it, I am not starting arguing about semantics, not a good use of my, your or anyone else time here.

I'm sorry, but that's flat-out false. Here's what you said in response to my assertion that sometimes people buy the 8 GB because they can't afford more. Where is the "enough explanation of what I meant"? There's no explanation of what you meant! That only came later, after I'd wasted my time.

In particularly, nowhere do you give any indication you were making a semantic argument. You were arguing the semantics of "all they could afford" without saying you were. That sucked me into a completely unnecessary discussion that I could have avoided if you'd just been up-front from the start.

I don't buy the "all they can afford" argument, especially with certain MacBooks. I think the second scenario is by far more likely...

And I don't like that you're falsely denying you were starting an argument about semantics, when that's clearly exactly what you were doing, specifically about the semantics of "afford". Refusing to admit to what you were doing is just bad faith:

So again when I questioned the "all they can afford" I was not saying that price is not a factor, it is always a factor. But it's more complex than that and people often use the word "afford" too easily...when the reality is that's more a matter of priorities and priorities are determined by a lot of factors, including preferences, percieved value, knowledge of the subject (in this case computers), etc.

Please don't comment on any more of my posts.

 

[Digitalguy]

I'm sorry, but that's flat-out false. Here's what you said in response to my assertion that sometimes people buy the 8 GB because they can't afford more. Where is the "enough explanation of what I meant"? There's no explanation of what you meant! That only came later, after I'd wasted my time.

In particularly, nowhere do you give any indication you were making a semantic argument. You were arguing the semantics of "all they could afford" without saying you were. That sucked me into a completely unnecessary discussion that I could have avoided if you'd just been up-front from the start.

Please don't comment on any more of my posts.

I comment on whatever I like 😉

 

[theorist9]

I comment on whatever I like 😉

That reminds me of this quote from Potter Stewart: "Ethics is the difference between what you have a right to do and what's right to do".

You strike me as someone who doesn't know the difference.

 

[Digitalguy]

That reminds me of this quote from Potter Stewart: "Ethics is the difference between what you have a right to do and what's right to do".

You strike me as someone who doesn't know the difference.

Leave ethics alone and go back to discuss what people are interested in, you are better than this (and I really mean it )