If that was his point, it was poorly made. My point was that Apple products are in a class by themselves and not a useful comparable in this discussion. Not even Sony TVs are in that class (not that they were mentioned).

I think the illustration of the idea is spot on and you're simply wrong.

The peson was trying to compare a tv comparison to an Apple/non-Apple comparison. I stand firmly by my contention that that is not a good comparison because Apple products are in a class essentially by themselves (not even approached by Sony TVs). The illustration is weak at best.

The illustration is even more non-sensical since it specifies a top-of-the-line Mac with a bottom of the line no-name.

Spot-on, huh?

I still maintain it works perfectly. You're getting too hung-up on where you rank each brand.

No, there's apple and everyone else. Favoring an old Mac makes sense. Favoring an old Sony tv does not.

Wow. You're either being intentionally obtuse or you have no hope of understanding this. But we'll go through it one more time.

A second-hand Sony television is often higher quality than a brand-new generic manufacturer's TV. In the same vein, a second-hand Macintosh is often higher quality than a brand-new generic manufacturer's computer.

Nobody cares how highly you rank Apple. Their specific quality is irrelevant to the comparison.