As you may already know, no component is made equal. In silicon chips like the CPU and GPU, its called “silicon lottery”, where two identical chips can perform quite differently. But the same applies to other components like the display or battery. The manufacturer will give their “guaranteed” value, in which Eve as a customer is allowed to return the product as defective if it doesnt meet the guaranteed value. On the opposite end, for components that go beyond the guaranteed value, it counts as a bonus.
Enter the term “binning”. It is quite a common practice in the industry, but the best example is probably the GPU AIB industry. Part of the reason why one manufacturer offers half a dozen of different GTX 1080s is often for that reason: the more expensive one is more likely to overclock better, if not overclocked from the factory already. The impact could go as large that it may come close to the GPU above it in price level. Thats why Nvidia doesnt allow partners to bin the GTX 1070 Ti, as it may eat into GTX 1080 markets. But its an isolated case.
Anyway, for us it seems that we have a lot of variety in the display (brightness can be anything from 380 to 520 nits), and possibly also the case for other components. So my idea is to have the top 5% display, for example, for the range-topping $2000 model. We could set the threshold with something like, 450+ nits brightness, no backlight bleed, etc.
That could go for other components (e.g. battery with 50 Wh or larger capacity) , basically anything where some parameters can vary by quite a noticeable amount.
In my opinion, people who pay $2000 for the range-topping model deserves better experience than the people who pay less than half of that on the Core m3 model. (and Im speaking here as an m3 user myself)
What do you think?