This idom is about not being able to judge by the same standard since there is no common standard of measurement. An apple is faulted for not being a good orange. Two things are too different to be fairly compared because of differences between items. Two things being compared are so fundamentally different that the comparison lacks validity. This phrase highlights the issue that the two entities do not share a common standard of evaluation. For instance, in a debate about two different artists, the comparison may be meaningless. Similarly, an analogy would fail because two machines may operate under completely different principles and purposes. However, the phrase is sometimes misused to shut down discussions that could still have merit. It is a false analogy or an attempt to compare two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, not directly comparable. Some comparisons are inherently flawed because the items do not share enough relevant similarities to make the comparison meaningful. The two things compared are based on superficial similarities while ignoring significant differences. Apples and oranges differ in taste, texture, color, and nutritional content, making a direct comparison problematic. There is a lack of common basis for comparison. Their unique characteristics make it difficult to judge one as “better” or “worse” than the other. The validity of a comparison often depends on the context. For example, comparing apples and oranges can, in some aspects, become meaningful. Or, a comparison may be subjective and less objective. The phrase is often used rhetorically to dismiss comparisons that seem unfair or irrelevant. For instance, one can’t compare a phone to a car as they’re completely different products. Here, the comparison is dismissed as invalid. However, a comparison between two brands of phones is valid because both products belong to the same category. In summary, comparisons are to be made on a fair and relevant basis, avoiding superficial or inappropriate analogies.