Believing is seeing!

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Insofar as the Display, my understanding is that even including
the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is a relative bargain
in comparison to similar products on the marketplace.

the pro stand is not overpriced. sony has a $900 stand for their
reference monitor.

How does that prove either is not over priced.
And who labled it over priced, I haven't I've just said it;s a bit too
expensive which is a little different.

the price is comparable to existing products.

apple's pro display, at $6k with the pro stand, is *much* less
expensive versus to existing solutions ($20k-30k) *and* has better
specs.

and the next gen monitor will cost less that;s how technology works.
It would be interesting to see if those that already own the existing
solutions will go and buy this new apple solution to their workflow.

they absolutely will, because it has better specs and costs less.

After
all, its not like people are going to buy the stand and not the
monitor.

false.

True.

Why would people buy the stand but NOT the monitor.

one reason is because they want a second stand for a second location,
so all they need to take is the display.


many users will skip the pro stand and buy the vesa mount
instead.

and why would they do that ?

because they don't need a stand when they have vesa. duh.

that's why it's optional.

In article , Incubus
wrote:

Insofar as the Display, my understanding is that even including
the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is a relative bargain
in comparison to similar products on the marketplace.

the pro stand is not overpriced. sony has a $900 stand for their
reference monitor.

Do you know where the respective products are manufactured? Sony's high end
stuff was still being made in Japan the last I knew of it, whereas I believe
all of Apple's gear is assembled by ChiComs.

irrelevant.

In article , Incubus
wrote:

Do you know where the respective products are manufactured? Sony's high
end
stuff was still being made in Japan the last I knew of it, whereas I
believe
all of Apple's gear is assembled by ChiComs.


irrelevant.

Not really. Some people are willing to pay more for products made in Japan.

such people are ignorant.

apple's gear is among the most reliable in the industry.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

apple's pro display, at $6k with the pro stand, is *much* less
expensive versus to existing solutions ($20k-30k) *and* has better
specs.

and the next gen monitor will cost less that;s how technology works.
It would be interesting to see if those that already own the existing
solutions will go and buy this new apple solution to their workflow.

they absolutely will, because it has better specs and costs less.

If they do. Not every company can afford to throw away their old equipent
when
a newer one comes out and I'm still talking about just the monitor stand.

If it true of the monitors too I'll expec tto see lots of actions or special
deals on the companies old kit, I think it's unlikely they'll just
throw the items away as worthless.

nobody said anything about throwing old stuff away.

however, if a new product performs better and/or can do things the old
one cannot, then companies can't *not* afford to replace it.

On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 8:04:17 AM UTC-5, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:

Insofar as the Display, my understanding is that even including
the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is a relative bargain
in comparison to similar products on the marketplace.

the pro stand is not overpriced. sony has a $900 stand for their
reference monitor.

Since Sony's price is 10% less than Apple's, how does that prove
your claim?

prices are similar for competing products, and people buying
reference monitors don't give a **** about $100 anyway.

That doesn't actually answer the question of how that Sony
price supports your claim. After all, Sony doesn't have a
reputation for products of a particularly good value either.


apple's pro display, at $6k with the pro stand, is *much* less
expensive versus to existing solutions ($20k-30k) *and* has better
specs.

No need for you to repeat what I already said:

"...even including the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it
is a relative bargain in comparison to similar products..."

i added some numbers.

the difference in price and performance for the xdr is *substantial*.

Which doesn't change the fact that I'd already acknowledged
Apple's XPS monitor as a bargain.

Nor did you countermand the observation that Apple squandered
the positive press & customer goodwill that they could have
gleaned from that superior value product because the stand
was associated with it, and the stand was negatively perceived
because of its price point.


Overall, Apple probably could have done themselves a favor
by increasing the MSRP by $700 and sold the stand for $300.

that would have been a very dumb idea.

The Apple fan base opined otherwise.

so what? the xdr is not intended for them so they're whining.

Doesn't matter because they are Apple customers in other product
lines, so everything Apple does - particularly screw-ups - will
have an impact on their perception of the overall company and to
their willingness to buy *any* Apple products. You're trying to
ignore the effects of reputation and Brand loyalty.


From a pedantic standpoint
they aren't necessarily correct,

from any standpoint.

but it still generated negative
press for Apple, which incurs a "worth".

only from those who don't understand the target market and was
expecting a consumer display.

the xdr display is not a consumer device.

it is intended for high end pros that need colour critical displays
and/or high sustained brightness, who previously had to spend $20-30k
for something that wasn't as good.

anyone bitching about the price of the stand doesn't know what similar
display stands cost or how well designed the pro stand actually is.
it's *not* a piece of stamped metal (or worse, plastic), which is what
they're probably used to.

None of which really stopped the negative press & kibitzing, as is
illustrated by the fact that here we are *still* talking about it.

Even if one could prove that the stand was priced perfectly, there's
still the irrational elements to Public Relations management that
factor in and can affect other Apple customers in other product lines.
These sorts of intangibles are commonly associated to Reputation
and affect customer Brand Loyalty.

This intangible is quite real: every time that you've heard anyone
say that they'd pay more for Apple because their good reputation,
or that they'd buy Apple without even considering another product.


non-pros would be much, much better off with a 4k or 5k display. apple
doesn't make one, and *that's* what they're whining about.

Which is just such an example of how unhappy customers will find
things to bitch about, even when its not rationally a product that
they themselves will ever buy, which circles back to the stand as
being a PR management failure.


After
all, its not like people are going to buy the stand and not the
monitor.

false. many users will skip the pro stand and buy the vesa mount
instead.

Try re-reading: what I wrote is not false when customers buy the
VESA in lieu of the stand.

vesa customers would have paid $700 more.

That's a diversion attempt away from the claim that you made.

Basically, I said:
(Qty of Stands sold) (Qty of Monitors sold)

....to which you said "false".


FYI, I'll also assert:
(Qty of VESA mounts sold) (Qty of Monitors sold)

Now are you going to claim this is false too?


Similarly, for completeness, the question of:

[(Qty of Stands sold) + (Qty of VESA mounts sold) }
vs.
(Qty of Monitors sold)

....this one's an "Equal or Greater than".


that's why the pro stand is optional. not everyone needs
or wants it.

Which is why if the price was split differently, Apple would
actually walk away with more money.

if more money was their goal, they'd have priced the display at $10k,
which is still a lot less than existing solutions and still sold a lot.

they could have also bundled the pro stand rather than make it
optional, thereby forcing everyone to buy it when they didn't actually
need it, adding to their bottom line.

And yet they could have included both the Stand *and* VESA mount in
that $10K price and everyone would have been delighted … and Apple
would have had a Public Relations win instead of the negative
remarks they received because of the Stand subassembly.


keep in mind that there will be a third party stand market,
where apple won't sell *any* stand.

There will only be a 3rd Party market if Apple leaves sufficient
room for them, and at a $1K price point, Apple left TONS of room,
along with customer motivation to trim $500. Its not really any
different to how Apple chooses to jack up RAM upgrade prices
and alienates themselves from their own "accessory" sales.

Case in point, consider two scenarios:

fabricated scenarios mean absolutely nothing.

Which you deleted because it illustrated how you were wrong.


there are other scenarios where they'd make less.

None of which were even notionally detailed out because .. why?
Mayhaps they'd been quite easily revealed as bull****.


apple actively worked with pros to design the xdr display, the very
customers that would be buying it, and have a *much* better idea of
sales expectations for the pro stand versus vesa versus nothing.

Interesting claim, considering that Apple nevertheless decided on
a product that's incompatible with existing VESA interface standards.

you might also have noticed there's no built in webcam. pros
don't want that **** and they told apple in no uncertain terms
that if there's any sort of camera, the display ceases to be an
option no matter how good it is. those who want a camera can buy
a third party solution.

Incorrect: webcams are dirt cheap and its hardware wouldn't have
altered the price of the XDR by even 1%, which reveals that this
isn't a "don't want" factor as you assert, but a "I can't buy it
if it has that" constraint. This is a not-uncommon corporate
security policy and it has restricted my ability to buy Apple
systems too.


-hh

In article , -hh
wrote:


Nor did you countermand the observation that Apple squandered
the positive press & customer goodwill that they could have
gleaned from that superior value product because the stand
was associated with it, and the stand was negatively perceived
because of its price point.

pros don't give a **** about that, nor do most people.

people bitched about the iphone 4 antenna (out of ignorance) yet it was
the best selling iphone in apple's history at that time.

the reality is that there was no problem specific to the iphone 4.

the 'problem' was fabricated by companies that had no products to
compete with it, so they tried to bash it out of despair, only to have
it backfire.

https://www.fastcompany.com/1707227/...ate-hits-hypoc
ritical-htc
The handset maker defends signal drop-out problems with its HD7
phone, notes that the effect is ³inevitable.² Conveniently it seems
to have forgotten it said the opposite when calling out Apple over
the iPhone ³antennagate² affair.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/10...t_paper_iphone
_4_antennagate_is_a_us_problem.html
Both Nokia and HTC have responded to Antennagate with bold claims
that signal drops experienced when a phone is held in a particular
way are a problem unique to Apple, while at the same time warning
users not to hold their own Nokia or HTC phones in such a way as to
cause signal attenuation.

Overall, Apple probably could have done themselves a favor
by increasing the MSRP by $700 and sold the stand for $300.

that would have been a very dumb idea.

The Apple fan base opined otherwise.

so what? the xdr is not intended for them so they're whining.

Doesn't matter because they are Apple customers in other product
lines, so everything Apple does - particularly screw-ups - will
have an impact on their perception of the overall company and to
their willingness to buy *any* Apple products. You're trying to
ignore the effects of reputation and Brand loyalty.

there are always a bunch of vocal whiners in every product category.

i remember when nikon released the d40, the first nikon slr without an
internal focus motor, which meant existing autofocus lenses with a cam
linkage were now manual focus. only lenses with internal motors would
autofocus.

nikon fanbois were *furious*. bat**** crazy furious.

the photo news sites claimed it was a drawback (it wasn't, it was a
*feature*) and the various forums were filled with people ranting about
how stupid that was, how it made existing lenses obsolete, nikon was
doomed, blah blah.

the d40 was smaller, lighter in weight, less expensive, making it
*more* attractive than having a focus motor that was almost always
dead-weight, which is why it became the best selling nikon slr in
nikon's history at that time.

nikon knew exactly what the market wanted and hit a home run, and
that's *with* the 'bad' press.

for those who want focus motors, nikon continued to make many *other*
slrs that had one.

From a pedantic standpoint
they aren't necessarily correct,

from any standpoint.

but it still generated negative
press for Apple, which incurs a "worth".

only from those who don't understand the target market and was
expecting a consumer display.

the xdr display is not a consumer device.

it is intended for high end pros that need colour critical displays
and/or high sustained brightness, who previously had to spend $20-30k
for something that wasn't as good.

anyone bitching about the price of the stand doesn't know what similar
display stands cost or how well designed the pro stand actually is.
it's *not* a piece of stamped metal (or worse, plastic), which is what
they're probably used to.

None of which really stopped the negative press & kibitzing, as is
illustrated by the fact that here we are *still* talking about it.

nothing stops negative press. it's linkbait.




that's why the pro stand is optional. not everyone needs
or wants it.

Which is why if the price was split differently, Apple would
actually walk away with more money.

if more money was their goal, they'd have priced the display at $10k,
which is still a lot less than existing solutions and still sold a lot.

they could have also bundled the pro stand rather than make it
optional, thereby forcing everyone to buy it when they didn't actually
need it, adding to their bottom line.

And yet they could have included both the Stand *and* VESA mount in
that $10K price and everyone would have been delighted Š and Apple
would have had a Public Relations win instead of the negative
remarks they received because of the Stand subassembly.

nope, because people would have a pile of stands they don't want or
need.

again, apple worked directly with the very customers for whom this
display is targeted.

it's *not* a consumer product.




Case in point, consider two scenarios:

fabricated scenarios mean absolutely nothing.

Which you deleted because it illustrated how you were wrong.

nope. it's because anyone can fabricate a scenario to 'prove' whatever
they want, which makes it bull****.

there are other scenarios where they'd make less.

None of which were even notionally detailed out because .. why?
Mayhaps they'd been quite easily revealed as bull****.

just as was yours.

apple actively worked with pros to design the xdr display, the very
customers that would be buying it, and have a *much* better idea of
sales expectations for the pro stand versus vesa versus nothing.

Interesting claim, considering that Apple nevertheless decided on
a product that's incompatible with existing VESA interface standards.

false.

you might also have noticed there's no built in webcam. pros
don't want that **** and they told apple in no uncertain terms
that if there's any sort of camera, the display ceases to be an
option no matter how good it is. those who want a camera can buy
a third party solution.

Incorrect: webcams are dirt cheap and its hardware wouldn't have
altered the price of the XDR by even 1%, which reveals that this
isn't a "don't want" factor as you assert, but a "I can't buy it
if it has that" constraint. This is a not-uncommon corporate
security policy and it has restricted my ability to buy Apple
systems too.

in other words you agree with what i said, thus not 'incorrect'.

On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 10:36:46 AM UTC-5, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:

[deleted by nospam: two instances where he was unwilling
[to concede on a point lost.

Nor did you countermand the observation that Apple squandered
the positive press & customer goodwill that they could have
gleaned from that superior value product because the stand
was associated with it, and the stand was negatively perceived
because of its price point.

pros don't give a **** about that, nor do most people.

Pros not caring about professional reputations? _Really_?


people bitched about the iphone 4 antenna...

And other so-called examples. But how about the 'Butterfly'
keyboard and Apple's subsequent product warranty extensions/etc?
Do you really want to try to claim that that didn't have any
adverse effects on MBP sales?



Doesn't matter because they are Apple customers in other product
lines, so everything Apple does - particularly screw-ups - will
have an impact on their perception of the overall company and to
their willingness to buy *any* Apple products. You're trying to
ignore the effects of reputation and Brand loyalty.

there are always a bunch of vocal whiners in every product category.

Which invariably affect product sales. Even if something is a
"blockbuster hit!", it could have been a bigger one.

i remember when nikon released the d40, the first nikon slr
without an internal focus motor, which meant existing autofocus
lenses with a cam linkage were now manual focus. only lenses
with internal motors would autofocus.

nikon fanbois were *furious*. bat**** crazy furious.

the photo news sites claimed it was a drawback (it wasn't, it
was a *feature*) and the various forums were filled with people
ranting about how stupid that was, how it made existing lenses
obsolete, nikon was doomed, blah blah.

It wasn't a feature, but a trade-off: reduced capability in
the fully supported lenses, for a modest cost & weight savings.

Ironically, it was precisely because of Nikon's cluster**** with
their lens support (which this is an example) is why I personally
decided to go to Canon instead. However small my individual
financial contribution was, its still lost revenue for Nikon.


None of which really stopped the negative press & kibitzing, as is
illustrated by the fact that here we are *still* talking about it.

nothing stops negative press. it's linkbait.

Which does a better job at managing negative press: screwing up,
or not screwing up? /rhetorical question


And yet they could have included both the Stand *and* VESA mount in
that $10K price and everyone would have been delighted Å* and Apple
would have had a Public Relations win instead of the negative
remarks they received because of the Stand subassembly.

nope, because people would have a pile of stands they don't want or
need.

Because its so difficult to throw a piece of metal in a trash can? /S

Plus there's many ways to price & offer the products other than
what Apple did. Just to name two, they could have made it standard
but with a "zero cost delete" option like some automakers do for some
features, or they could have included one in the base price and given
buyers the choice (Stand or VESA included).

again, apple worked directly with the very customers for whom this
display is targeted.

it's *not* a consumer product.

Nope. Customers are still customers, even if they're a buyer in
an Enterprise setting vs personal consumption.


Case in point, consider two scenarios:

fabricated scenarios mean absolutely nothing.

Which you deleted because it illustrated how you were wrong.

nope. it's because anyone can fabricate a scenario to 'prove' whatever
they want, which makes it bull****.

Except that you didn't actually prove it to be BS. Oops.


there are other scenarios where they'd make less.

None of which were even notionally detailed out because .. why?
Mayhaps they'd been quite easily revealed as bull****.

just as was yours.

Incorrect, because by illustrating the principle being applied
that would have addressed the complaint, others could poke holes.

In contrast, your deliberately vague hand-wave denied others any
opportunity to critique the nature of your claim. That choice
of a dodge wasn't an accident on your part...that gets back to
factors of "reputation" and how your poor one precedes you such
that readers know better than to blindly trust your claims.


apple actively worked with pros to design the xdr display, the very
customers that would be buying it, and have a *much* better idea of
sales expectations for the pro stand versus vesa versus nothing.

Interesting claim, considering that Apple nevertheless decided on
a product that's incompatible with existing VESA interface standards.

false.

If you think for just a minute, you would realize that if the
XDR monitor were itself VESA compliant, then there would be no
need for Apple to separately sell an adaptor for $200.


And yes, its an adaptor: the word "Adaptor" is literally in
Apple's product name:

https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/specs/

And note that it is the VESA Mount Adaptor, not the XDR
monitor, which is stated as being:
"Compatible with 100 x 100 mm VESA stand or mount.",



you might also have noticed there's no built in webcam. pros
don't want that **** and they told apple in no uncertain terms
that if there's any sort of camera, the display ceases to be an
option no matter how good it is. those who want a camera can buy
a third party solution.

Incorrect: webcams are dirt cheap and its hardware wouldn't have
altered the price of the XDR by even 1%, which reveals that this
isn't a "don't want" factor as you assert, but a "I can't buy it
if it has that" constraint. This is a not-uncommon corporate
security policy and it has restricted my ability to buy Apple
systems too.

in other words you agree with what i said, thus not 'incorrect'.

No, I do not. I'm noting that there is a significant difference
between "don't want [that ****]" and "cannot have".


-hh

On 17/12/2019 5:53 am, David wrote:
On 16/12/2019 08:17, geoff wrote:
On 11/12/2019 1:24 pm, David wrote:
Your photographs will look unbelievable on one of these!

https://www.apple.com/uk/pro-display-xdr

Do scroll for all the info.

Another fantastic piece of kit from Apple! :-)


So that would be an LG brand OLED display panel ?

No Geoff - APPLE!

You need to *scroll* at the link:-

The first 32-inch Retina 6K display ever. Up to 1,600 nits of
brightness. An astonishing 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio and super-wide
viewing angle. Over a billion colours presented with exceptional
accuracy. And dynamic range that transforms the professional workflow.
Introducing Apple Pro Display XDR, the world’s best pro display.

=

Watch the video! :-D


So you are suggesting that rather than using display-panels manufactured
by display-panel manufacturers as they have up to now, that Apple have
begun to actually manufacture panels ?

geoff

On 20/12/2019 2:04 am, nospam wrote:


it is intended for high end pros that need colour critical displays
and/or high sustained brightness, who previously had to spend $20-30k
for something that wasn't as good.

Every year the quality of displays goes up, and the price comes down.
Just like for consumer TVs.

geoff

In article , -hh
wrote:

[deleted by nospam: two instances where he was unwilling
[to concede on a point lost.

Nor did you countermand the observation that Apple squandered
the positive press & customer goodwill that they could have
gleaned from that superior value product because the stand
was associated with it, and the stand was negatively perceived
because of its price point.

pros don't give a **** about that, nor do most people.

Pros not caring about professional reputations? _Really_?

really. they care about whether a product does what they need and how
productive they can be when using it, not what others think about it.

people bitched about the iphone 4 antenna...

And other so-called examples. But how about the 'Butterfly'
keyboard and Apple's subsequent product warranty extensions/etc?
Do you really want to try to claim that that didn't have any
adverse effects on MBP sales?

the butterfly keyboard certainly has problems, however, macbook sales
have been increasing, so clearly it's not as bad as some might want you
to believe. some people even like the short travel, particularly on the
lighter weight macbooks.


Doesn't matter because they are Apple customers in other product
lines, so everything Apple does - particularly screw-ups - will
have an impact on their perception of the overall company and to
their willingness to buy *any* Apple products. You're trying to
ignore the effects of reputation and Brand loyalty.

there are always a bunch of vocal whiners in every product category.

Which invariably affect product sales. Even if something is a
"blockbuster hit!", it could have been a bigger one.

not significantly.

i remember when nikon released the d40, the first nikon slr
without an internal focus motor, which meant existing autofocus
lenses with a cam linkage were now manual focus. only lenses
with internal motors would autofocus.

nikon fanbois were *furious*. bat**** crazy furious.

the photo news sites claimed it was a drawback (it wasn't, it
was a *feature*) and the various forums were filled with people
ranting about how stupid that was, how it made existing lenses
obsolete, nikon was doomed, blah blah.

It wasn't a feature, but a trade-off: reduced capability in
the fully supported lenses, for a modest cost & weight savings.

it was a feature.

the target market never used the motor. they didn't have a collection
of lenses and used only the kit lens.

Ironically, it was precisely because of Nikon's cluster**** with
their lens support (which this is an example) is why I personally
decided to go to Canon instead. However small my individual
financial contribution was, its still lost revenue for Nikon.

canon was worse. they ****ed everyone ever who had manual focus lenses.

granted, they had to, since the canon fd mount was awful and could not
support autofocus, but that didn't help people with existing lenses who
were orphaned.

at least with nikon, nearly every lens since around 1959 can be used on
a modern nikon. existing manual focus lenses work perfectly fine, as
manual focus lenses, the same as they always did.

in fact, the d40 could use non-ai lenses, which were not compatible
with cameras that had motors, such as the d70, d200, etc.

pentax also maintained compatibility. minolta, on the other hand,
****ed everyone over like canon did, but unlike canon, didn't have a
good reason to do so. it should be no surprise that minolta no longer
exists, its ashes bought up by sony (after the failed konica deal).

And yet they could have included both the Stand *and* VESA mount in
that $10K price and everyone would have been delighted ? and Apple
would have had a Public Relations win instead of the negative
remarks they received because of the Stand subassembly.

nope, because people would have a pile of stands they don't want or
need.

Because its so difficult to throw a piece of metal in a trash can? /S

it's much, much more than a piece of metal.

Plus there's many ways to price & offer the products other than
what Apple did. Just to name two, they could have made it standard
but with a "zero cost delete" option like some automakers do for some
features, or they could have included one in the base price and given
buyers the choice (Stand or VESA included).

they no doubt thought of that, and decided that was worse.

again, apple worked directly with the very customers for whom this
display is targeted.

it's *not* a consumer product.

Nope. Customers are still customers, even if they're a buyer in
an Enterprise setting vs personal consumption.

not nope.

it's a professional class product, not a consumer class product.



Case in point, consider two scenarios:

fabricated scenarios mean absolutely nothing.

Which you deleted because it illustrated how you were wrong.

nope. it's because anyone can fabricate a scenario to 'prove' whatever
they want, which makes it bull****.

Except that you didn't actually prove it to be BS. Oops.

nor did you. oops.

there are other scenarios where they'd make less.

None of which were even notionally detailed out because .. why?
Mayhaps they'd been quite easily revealed as bull****.

just as was yours.

Incorrect, because by illustrating the principle being applied
that would have addressed the complaint, others could poke holes.

anyone can fabricate a scenario to prove whatever they want.

In contrast, your deliberately vague hand-wave denied others any
opportunity to critique the nature of your claim. That choice
of a dodge wasn't an accident on your part...that gets back to
factors of "reputation" and how your poor one precedes you such
that readers know better than to blindly trust your claims.

ad hominem.

apple actively worked with pros to design the xdr display, the very
customers that would be buying it, and have a *much* better idea of
sales expectations for the pro stand versus vesa versus nothing.

Interesting claim, considering that Apple nevertheless decided on
a product that's incompatible with existing VESA interface standards.

false.

If you think for just a minute, you would realize that if the
XDR monitor were itself VESA compliant, then there would be no
need for Apple to separately sell an adaptor for $200.

which would make the pro stand impossible.

not a good idea.

unlike you, they talked with pros and worked with them to design
something that they actually wanted.

And yes, its an adaptor: the word "Adaptor" is literally in
Apple's product name:

https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/specs/

And note that it is the VESA Mount Adaptor, not the XDR
monitor, which is stated as being:
"Compatible with 100 x 100 mm VESA stand or mount.",

yep.

did you have a point? no.

you might also have noticed there's no built in webcam. pros
don't want that **** and they told apple in no uncertain terms
that if there's any sort of camera, the display ceases to be an
option no matter how good it is. those who want a camera can buy
a third party solution.

Incorrect: webcams are dirt cheap and its hardware wouldn't have
altered the price of the XDR by even 1%, which reveals that this
isn't a "don't want" factor as you assert, but a "I can't buy it
if it has that" constraint. This is a not-uncommon corporate
security policy and it has restricted my ability to buy Apple
systems too.

in other words you agree with what i said, thus not 'incorrect'.

No, I do not. I'm noting that there is a significant difference
between "don't want [that ****]" and "cannot have".

nope. they don't want it *because* it's prohibited.