If one has the money to buy a 6" triplet apo and mount it properly one can afford a wide variety of alternative configurations.
One of the ironic things about refractor design is what one might call the Conrady barrier. This is the relationship between the size of the aperture and the difficulty in controlling chromatic aberration.
The larger the aperture's diameter, the more difficult this correction is to achieve. This pushes the boundaries in multiple directions. For one thing, one needs more exotic glass (more expensive) and more of it (thicker lenses), which means rejecting more blanks (an additional component of cost).
But the designer is also under constraint to limit the CA by pushing out the focal ratio.
So one would think, well, the LARGEST refractors should have the SHORTEST focal ratios, because the mechanics of manipulating them would be much easier. We should have f/4 or f/5 150 to 200 mm refractors. But in reality, these scopes tend to push out on the FL: f/7, f/8, even, for TEC's 250 mm, almost f/9.
So the optical design of the larger aperture increases the mechanical issues. You need to mount it high and be prepared to go low to access the eyepiece at the best positions in the sky.
You can be pretty sure if you are willing to pay these costs in cash for the optic, cash for the mount and pier, and inconvenience in terms of physically manipulating the scope, that you are a total refractor-holic and there is no point in arguing the matter about what is best because the answer is already known.
By contrast, the pikers hang out at 140 mm and under and do such absurd things as say, "well this here apo stuff is interesting I guess I'll stick one on top of my SCT." Or set one up next to my bigdob. Whatever. They all pikers.