Of course prices aren't there yet, but they will reach a point where it's no longer worth CE manufacturer's time and money to produce DVD-only players. And when enough people have DVD players that also happen to play blu-rays, the studios will start phasing out DVDs and lowering blu-ray disc prices. It's inevitable, but no it's not going to happen this year or the next.
Sure. But timing is important...the further in the future this is, the less market share BR will have. dfiler put it very well...the odds that BR will have the same dominance as DVD is unlikely.
Quote:
It makes absolutely zero sense to compare blu-ray adoption to all digital sales, rentals, SD and HD, because SD streaming and rentals are not competitors with blu-ray. Blu-ray exists as a means of getting the best picture and sound possible at home; SD streaming does nothing of the sort, so to suggest that one negates the need to have the other is completely illogical.
Except that the need for the "best picture and sound possible at home" is not a mainstream requirement. The mainstream requirement is to get "good enough picture and sound possible at home".
Is netflix streaming, iTunes downloads, cable VOD, etc good enough quality for most consumers even for their HDTV sets? My belief is that for most 40" HDTVs where folks sit 8'+ feet away the answer is yes.
If that is the case, then yes, even the iTunes/netflix/VOD SD downloads could negate the need for BR.
Quote:
I'm not saying you are doing that, but Steve Jobs is. Analysts and number crunchers should be comparing digital SD sales and rentals to DVD, and digital HD rentals and sales to blu-ray; that's the only comparison that makes sense. And unlike SACD/DVDA, which never took off, blu-ray is already mainstream. Even if another blu-ray player never sold after today, there's already enough of a user base to keep it alive for a decade.
I disagree that is the only comparison that makes sense...Microsoft and Apple disagree as well given their primary media platforms (360, mac, aTV) do not do Blu-Ray and their current strategy is to skip BR in favor of digital download...which includes SD downloads.
Does this mean that BR will fail? No. It has already succeed.
Does this mean that BR may not achieve the same dominance as DVD? Yes.
Is SD downloads relevant in the discussion whether a BR drive is required for Macs? Yes.
Did you have any DVDs you would have been interested in watching? I know how you must have felt though. I had a similar thing happen a few months ago, but the culprit wasn't rain, it was a power outage. Good thing my iPhone was all charged up.
Well yeah, I had a couple of DVDs, but I had already watched them. I was looking for a movie I hadn't seen before. My point is that broadband (at least in my area) is simply not as reliable as I wish it were. My Dish Network satellite goes out pretty much with every summer storm and my Comcast doesn't even need that to go down.
I would hazard to ask the same of you, since you wish to be pointed about it. I am not against anyone in these posts and I have stated I have no skin in this "game" as I have no stated or unstated format preference. I don't need to admit my sales figures are wrong - they are not MY sales figures, they are simply the ones reported from the sources I cited. Those numbers have been challenged by Cory and jfanning (who was particularly snarky if I recall - but then this I expect), the numbers reported by the industry driving blu-ray adoption are equally at risk for manipulation and inaccuracy, but this seems to less important than defending the format, or simply snarking whenever the chance presents itself.
And no the environmental impact is not moot, it is very real regardless of the data center statistics or rather IN ADDITION to those statistics. If you were at the least alert enough to ponder the issues they represent you would not disregard the problems as "moot". But no in your rush to defend a format I didn't even attack you decide that it's OK to dump hundreds of thousands of lbs of optical plastic trash in landfills - because its Blu-ray and too cool to be bad.
How puerilely adolescent of you. You owe the media industry no loyalty for jacking you out of your hard-earned money by switching formats every few years to offer you the opportunity to repurchase your media in "new and exciting formats". So buy away. There, blunt as a brick wall. I am also willing to exchange politeness and intelligent discussion as well if you care to offer it in turn. You decide.
Thank you for proving my point, in my orignal post that I have quote below, with this post! I would like to point out that in the post you are quoting no where am I defending any format whatsoever. If you cite those sales figures as a way to back up "your argument", and yes it is "your argument" that you are making then it is your "sales figure".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noliving
So basically what your saying is that you like to be very aggressive/jackass/asshole against people with your posts and at the same time you don't want to admit that your sales figures are wrong making your main point in terms of sales moot and at the same time that your environment point is also essentially moot.
Of course the tracking is going to show China -- because, as you know, with popular products there is sometimes a lead time of three weeks or more. However, I wonder if your orders went from the factory in China directly to your door; they may well have, or they may have been picked up by a local courier in Ireland, I don't know. Actually, this supports my point all the more: that there is no difference to Apple in sending a product directly to you, or to a physical store. If there is one less stop along the way, well, then what I said is even more true.
What you have written there seems a little confusing... I have ordered products from Apple Online when I lived in Ireland, if you tracked the item you could see when it left China, and when it arrived in Europe, then when it was shipped to Ireland, and when the local UPS deliveried it. When I have ordered items from Apple in New Zealand they have always been shipped from Australia (and billed from Ireland). So in both these cases there has been a significant difference in the process. Apple hasn't had to pay for a physical store in either case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
No, I agree -- I was going to post more last time, and didn't. Of course there is a substantial cost to Apple for opening and maintaining stores, there must be. And of course, this would be one of the costs of doing business anywhere.
So you recongise that there is a cost difference in selling from the physical store, compared to the online store. So Apple is charging more for people to purchase from online to cover extra costs for a physical store? Or just profiting more?
Except that the need for the "best picture and sound possible at home" is not a mainstream requirement. The mainstream requirement is to get "good enough picture and sound possible at home".
Is that why Macs have such a low market share, because the other PCs with Windows are "good enough"?
Well yeah, I had a couple of DVDs, but I had already watched them. I was looking for a movie I hadn't seen before. My point is that broadband (at least in my area) is simply not as reliable as I wish it were. My Dish Network satellite goes out pretty much with every summer storm and my Comcast doesn't even need that to go down.
What kind of broadband speeds are you typically getting? In northern NJ I'm typically getting 8-12Mbps down and about 2Mbps up. Not great, but not too shabby either. When is the last time you had your dish realigned? I use DirecTV and when I upgraded to their 5-LNB "Slimline" dish a little over a year ago, my reception has been almost bulletproof. I typically check dish alignment every 2 years or so. In my experience, at least in NJ anyway, the vast majority of storm related signal fade was due to an improperly installed or aimed dish. Not saying this is the case with you as I don't have too much experience with Dish Network, but I've seen a lot of people take their dish alignment for granted, assuming it would always stay exactly where the original installer set it. BTW, is your location considered to be in "lightning alley"?
...So in both these cases there has been a significant difference in the process. Apple hasn't had to pay for a physical store in either case.
Don't know. Apple seems kind of flexible, able to move things around. Again, apparently they have the best channels in the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
So you recongise that there is a cost difference in selling from the physical store, compared to the online store. So Apple is charging more for people to purchase from online to cover extra costs for a physical store? Or just profiting more?
Kind of a trick question, eh? I really don't understand your objections to Apple's pricing structure or strategy regarding its brand identity and physical stores versus online store, or why you are pursuing it. It is what it is. There is one (regional) price for each product, so what of it? Apple has made itself profitable and has grown accordingly. You don't have to buy Apple. I have never ever heard of anyone that assumes that Apple products should be cheaper if purchased online.
Others have said that Apple has kept prices pretty much the same for years, putting out upgraded products at the same price as the last model. And as I noted, new stores open all the time without a change in product price. I might expect lower prices on things purchased from companies who were online bulk retailers only. But companies that sell both online and in a physical store don't necessarily make the same products cheaper when sold online, especially when they are a limited range of their own products, like Apple's. If I order online from Tescos, I don't get stuff cheaper (in fact I miss out on the in-store specials).
I certainly recognize there is a cost to having physical stores. I just don't think having physical stores significantly affects the prices of the products directly, nor should it be expected to adjust online prices. As I said before, I do not think it is a case of saying, "well, the Regent Store and the Louvre Store cost X, so either close them or make my iMac 25 Pounds cheaper when I buy it online." Apple leases a few hundred locations worldwide, and I think this is carefully planned as part of Apple's identity and presence. I disagree about the selling from physical stores making a measurable difference on a per item basis, because I see the stores as more than a sales pipe for products -- though they do that very effectively. Should Apple Care or support cost less if you agree to do it all over the phone and promise not to walk into a physical store and talk to someone face to face? No, the fact that there is a physical side adds value all round.
And why stop with physical stores? Why not moan that any given product could be cheaper if the company responsible was more efficient in all areas? What about companies that: have no forward vision and don't know where to focus; made poor use of acquisitions; need to focus on their core business because even that is losing its perceived value; are laying off employees; have a couple of questionable projects that drain resources; spend excessively on inefficient marketing and R&D with little to show for it? I think their products should be cheaper because they must be using their sales to make up for all the money they are actually wasting.
Don't know. Apple seems kind of flexible, able to move things around. Again, apparently they have the best channels in the industry.
Apple doesn't move anything around, they use freight companies, like everyone else. But you didn't answer the question I asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
Kind of a trick question, eh? I really don't understand your objections to Apple's pricing structure or strategy regarding its brand identity and physical stores versus online store, or why you are pursuing it. It is what it is. There is one (regional) price for each product, so what of it? Apple has made itself profitable and has grown accordingly. You don't have to buy Apple. I have never ever heard of anyone that assumes that Apple products should be cheaper if purchased online.
Maybe you need to go back in the thread a little, it has been discussed a number of times now. The original question asked why the Macs were so much more in the UK than the US, the usual answer is it costs more to do business in the UK. I asked why, when from the online store you miss most of these costs out. So if these costs are not there, why are they charging more? The answer is, because they can, and if I had the chance I would purchase a product from their store as it costs them more to do so.
Apple doesn't move anything around, they use freight companies, like everyone else. But you didn't answer the question I asked.
Maybe you need to go back in the thread a little, it has been discussed a number of times now. The original question asked why the Macs were so much more in the UK than the US, the usual answer is it costs more to do business in the UK. I asked why, when from the online store you miss most of these costs out. So if these costs are not there, why are they charging more? The answer is, because they can, and if I had the chance I would purchase a product from their store as it costs them more to do so.
I thought we had already dealt with the "why are Apple products more expensive in UK?" question. I was an an early responder on that and went into VAT, and yes other "costs of doing business", all of the details of which all of us are unaware -- these may include a host of business tax and delivery issues, who knows (but more about costs of doing business below).
No, your specific question at the end, which I have been trying to deal with is NOT Why are prices generally higher in UK?.
Your question more recently was "Why do I not pay less when I buy it online as opposed to buying it in a physical store?" In other words, Why doesn't Apple discount products when sold online (or, why doesn't Apple just add a premium to products bought in a physical store, in order to cover the cost of running the physical store?). Does Apple charge so much more across the board in order to subsidize all its physical stores? And if so, why should I be paying for that when I buy online?
My reply to that specific question, again, is that Apple has NEVER had differentiated pricing between online and physical store purchase, whatever the country and however many physical stores it had at any given time. Apple opens more stores every quarter, in every part of the world. I personally do not think they have built this into their product prices for any region. I think it is a separate matter -- part of a marketing budget or something, I don't know. The product prices for the UK are now set, each product comes out with a set price; and yet there are new UK stores opening!
So, back to the general question of why the UK prices may be higher than US prices: Obviously (as I have mentioned), my conclusion is that there are a host of costs to do with doing business. Let's go back into that and find some more, that have nothing to do with physical stores! Here's one: Apple has to hire extra lawyers and marketers that specialize in business in each country, and these lawyers have to register this and that and go before the relevant boards to approve the radio signals in phones and whatnot. Another one: Apple has to hire copy writers and marketers that know the local language and/or markets. What about reshooting TV ads? Updating the different versions of the website? What about the regional Education Reps? All these are new costs over doing business in the US. These costs of doing business do differ around the world... but, I am discounting as part of the factors that contribute to higher product prices the actual number of physical stores that Apple operates at a given moment in a given region, and the exact location of these stores. How else can I say this?
Therefore: No, I do not think Apple merely charges a premium to UK customers, "simply because Apple can." I don't know exactly how to account for the price differences, but I doubt the factors contributing to the differences go beyond the differing costs in doing business between US and UK, such as those noted above. I suppose other factors could include things like relative shipping volumes, but I don't think volumes are a real factor because we have discussed Apple's shipping methods. As I and another poster noted, electronic goods do generally cost more in UK (and Europe) -- whether they are bought online or not. However, the differences in Apple prices between US and UK are not as great as you were trying to make out -- 50 bucks on one thing and 100 bucks on a MacBook Pro. Suck it up
I thought we had already dealt with the "why are Apple products more expensive in UK?" question. I was an an early responder on that and went into VAT, and yes other "costs of doing business", all of the details of which all of us are unaware -- these may include a host of business tax and delivery issues, who knows (but more about costs of doing business below).
VAT isn't an expense for Apple to deal with, it is a consumption tax, the consumer pays it, they pay it on the majority of items sold. This is why you compare the pre-tax prices across countries.
You wrote a lovely speech, again, but again, you are missing the point. I was responding to someones question, if you are that concerned, maybe you should go back through the thread and respond to them.
The fact is, Apple charges the same for the online store as they do for the physical store because they can. It is that simple. At the end of the day it is the consumers issues, if they are happy to pay it then there isn't a problem. How ever, if people are true to their word and do not purchase the devices because of concerns of the pricing between countries then it becomes Apples problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
Therefore: No, I do not think Apple merely charges a premium to UK customers, "simply because Apple can." I don't know exactly how to account for the price differences, but I doubt the factors contributing to the differences go beyond the differing costs in doing business between US and UK, such as those noted above. I suppose other factors could include things like relative shipping volumes, but I don't think volumes are a real factor because we have discussed Apple's shipping methods. As I and another poster noted, electronic goods do generally cost more in UK (and Europe) -- whether they are bought online or not. However, the differences in Apple prices between US and UK are not as great as you were trying to make out -- 50 bucks on one thing and 100 bucks on a MacBook Pro. Suck it up
Apple will price all their products in all regions at the maximum price they believe the market will take, they are not just restricting this notion to just the UK.
And if you are purchasing from a online store and not getting a discount over a physical store, I suggest you start purchasing from another retailer, at the end of the day you should be.
Apple will price all their products in all regions at the maximum price they believe the market will take, they are not just restricting this notion to just the UK.
No doubt. Someone (you, I thought) sounded like they were worried that UK was getting "special treatment" from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
And if you are purchasing from a online store and not getting a discount over a physical store, I suggest you start purchasing from another retailer, at the end of the day you should be.
Well, I don't know about this. Sounds like a nice speech. Where do you shop?
Of course, I would expect the same product to be cheaper at Dabs.co.uk (which to my knowledge does not have any physical stores) than it is at a different retailer which does have physical stores, like PC World. I shop at the online retailers with their huge warehouses (Dabs or Amazon) to avoid going to a store like PC World for the exact same product and to get it cheaper. And I think Amazon carries Apple products a little cheaper than Apple.
But, again, I am hard pressed to think of a single retailer that has reduced prices for its same products when shopping online vs shopping in its own physical stores (and we do a lot of shopping online for different kinds of products, such as clothing from H&M). Nor do I expect PC World to vary its prices from shop to shop because property in Preston is cheaper than property in Slough; or because it has five branches in the northeast and seven in the southwest (or Regent Street vs Fifth Avenue).
I purchase from Tescos online in order to avoid going to my local store and fighting the crowd, and pushing a cart, and standing in line, and loading the car and unloading the car; I get my groceries delivered to my door. Tescos has a huge investment in physical property, much more than Apple's. Are they saving by offering online shopping? According to you, they should be. And yet, I think someone actually walks around your local Tesco Store (or stock room) and does your shopping for you. Tesco's don't offer discounted prices online (in fact, going to the physical store would have its benefits, such as getting the special offers).
Point is, that is Tesco's channel for its products, and it makes little difference to them whether you go in and get it yourself or order it online -- with the former, they have to stock it on a shelf in the front of the store, with the latter they have to find it and put it in a box and put it in a van. Same with Apple, physical or online, Apple has priced its products the same, given its channels and methods.
Why should the two modes of selling, by the same company, at the end of the day require a difference in price? Apple Online *is* the Apple Store.
But, again, I am hard pressed to think of a single retailer that has reduced prices for its same products when shopping online vs shopping in its own physical stores (and we do a lot of shopping online for different kinds of products, such as clothing from H&M). Nor do I expect PC World to vary its prices from shop to shop because property in Preston is cheaper than property in Slough; or because it has five branches in the northeast and seven in the southwest (or Regent Street vs Fifth Avenue).
Some do, the issue you have is Apple has a very low number of physical stores in relation to the online store. Like how the price of equipment was the same across all of Europe (Euro currency stores) at one point (don't know if it still is) yet most of the countries didn't have an Apple store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
I purchase from Tescos online in order to avoid going to my local store and fighting the crowd, and pushing a cart, and standing in line, and loading the car and unloading the car; I get my groceries delivered to my door.
Good for you, I stopped shopping at Tesco online due to the number of mistakes they would make, and the poor customer service they had for their online sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
Tescos has a huge investment in physical property, much more than Apple's. Are they saving by offering online shopping? According to you, they should be. And yet, I think someone actually walks around your local Tesco Store (or stock room) and does your shopping for you. Tesco's don't offer discounted prices online (in fact, going to the physical store would have its benefits, such as getting the special offers).
If the is the answer you are giving, then you haven't understood what I have been saying all this time, and it isn't worth my effort to continue as I don't think you will ever (or seem to want to) understand it.
...If the is the answer you are giving, then you haven't understood what I have been saying all this time, and it isn't worth my effort to continue as I don't think you will ever (or seem to want to) understand it.
Here is your question from post #145 -- the only question I have been discussing with you:
Why does it cost the same to purchase a Mac from an Apple store in the UK as it does to purchase the same Mac purchased through the Apple Online store, you know the one, the one that is sold in Ireland and shipped from China to the UK.
To set the stage, I had had an earlier interchange with Kotatsu regarding his comment in post #85:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
Maybe in the US. Here in the UK Apple hikes it's prices a lot. Check the price of a top end iMac here vs in the US. When you stop laughing tell me what you think.
I respond in post #87 saying the apparent difference in price is not that great -- once you take off VAT to get at similar pre-tax prices for both countries, there is little difference. And that remaining difference is likely the cost of doing business -- not a special "price hike" perpetrated on the UK.
Kotatsu replies to that in post #93, wondering how I arrived at my figures.
In #96, Jragosta replies to post #93 of kotatsu before I do. Talking about relative costs of business between US and UK (to which you respond with your question in post #145 about online vs in-store prices).
In post #108 I too reply to kotatsu and show how I arrived at my figures.
Seems like Kotatsu went away satisfied -- he never posts about this again. My conclusions were the same as jragosta's -- the cost of doing business in Europe is higher, and if you don't like it, don't buy it.
But, apparently, you were having quite a running discussion with jragosta about some of these very issues (price differences and costs of doing business) over in the thread about the Mac Mini (unbeknownst to me).
Evenso, in post #145 in this thread you quote jragosta's #96 post to ask your own question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Those differences are mostly not all that large (other than the Mini). Try comparing US car prices to UK prices if you want to see a real difference.
The problem, though, is that you're assuming that the cost of doing business is the same in the UK as in the US. You have very different laws and rules and it costs more to do business there. The prices reflect that.
The bottom line is that there's a price for a product. You decide if you want to buy that product or not. Whining about "it's too expensive" doesn't do you any good. If enough people refuse to buy, the company drops its prices. If lots of people buy, then the price is OK. So far, the latter appears to be the case.
Why does it cost the same to purchase a Mac from an Apple store in the UK as it does to purchase the same Mac purchased through the Apple Online store, you know the one, the one that is sold in Ireland and shipped from China to the UK. [emphasis mine]
I began an interchange with you at this point, because I thought your question was interesting, and I related it to my earlier post about relative prices between US and UK. I related the two because Jragosta responded to kotatsu, and you responded to jragosta's repsonse -- linked. We now have relative prices between online purchase and physical store purchase -- as well as the relative prices between US and UK. Interesting stuff. Prices: UK vs US, online vs in-store. With me so far?
The rest of our discussion (yours and mine) centered on your question. You seem to be deflecting at every turn, vaguely referring to other questions or saying that you asked something different, or saying how poor Tesco's service is, etc. What other question have you asked on this particular subject? What am I not answering? I believe I have made myself very clear about why I believe the online prices and the in-store prices are the same.
So, what are you saying? -- I'd love to try to understand. That Physical shops cost money to run? I totally agree. I also said I don't think that has anything to do with setting individual prices in most retail businesses that sell both online and in physical shops. I have explained very clearly and in great detail why I think this is the case, using both Apple and Tesco's as examples -- their models are such that they sell their same products at the same price both online and in their physical shops; and both methods of selling are just two different expressions of their unified retail businesses. China to your house or China to your local Apple Store where you pick it up, whatever. The stores are more than a drop point, and there will be physical stores in all sorts of locations around the world, regardless. If you think you understand what I am trying to say, then further discussion could be interesting. I had already said at one point, "since we are not privvy to Apple's internal data and strategy, what more can I say". I don't think it is worth my effort continuing.
Bottom line is, you may disagree with me and just say so. But if you think people are misunderstanding you, try making your points more clearly and stating your conclusions with some kind of support: "I think Apple's products should have lower prices online than they do in a physical Apple store because online purchases save Apple money." Good for you. I don't know why you think that, but I don't agree. I already told you why.
At the end of the day, maybe you just think you're getting stiffed by Apple and you want us to say that a Mac is worth no more than a Dell, but somehow Apple gets away with grossly overcharging (both across the board and discriminately based on location), simply because it can? Sorry you feel that way, I don't. However, I will re-echo jragosta here:
The bottom line is that there's a price for a product. You decide if you want to buy that product or not. Whining about "it's too expensive" doesn't do you any good. If enough people refuse to buy, the company drops its prices. If lots of people buy, then the price is OK. So far, the latter appears to be the case.
The rest of our discussion (yours and mine) centered on your question. You seem to be deflecting at every turn, vaguely referring to other questions or saying that you asked something different, or saying how poor Tesco's service is, etc. What other question have you asked on this particular subject? What am I not answering? I believe I have made myself very clear about why I believe the online prices and the in-store prices are the same.
You were the one that brought up Tesco, not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
So, what are you saying? -- I'd love to try to understand. That Physical shops cost money to run? I totally agree. I also said I don't think that has anything to do with setting individual prices in most retail businesses that sell both online and in physical shops. I have explained very clearly and in great detail why I think this is the case, using both Apple and Tesco's as examples -- their models are such that they sell their same products at the same price both online and in their physical shops; and both methods of selling are just two different expressions of their unified retail businesses. China to your house or China to your local Apple Store where you pick it up, whatever. The stores are more than a drop point, and there will be physical stores in all sorts of locations around the world, regardless. If you think you understand what I am trying to say, then further discussion could be interesting. I had already said at one point, "since we are not privvy to Apple's internal data and strategy, what more can I say". I don't think it is worth my effort continuing.
I don't think using Tesco is comparable to Apple. Tesco is mainly a phyiscal store type of place, and they also do on-line shopping. They are also mainly selling FMCG products, Apple is selling computers. Apple has mainly online stores, with some physical stores dotted around the place.
You may class the stores as a "drop point". But Apple also had to pay for the store, pay the staff manning the store, pay the electricity to light the store, pay for the equipment in the store. It isn't a zero cost operation for Apple to run a physical store. So this costs must be recouped from somewhere.
Perhaps comparing UK to US isn't the best example. How about, Apple IE, to Apple Fi, to Apple Fr. The entry Mac Mini in these three countries is ?799, ?805, and ?799, pre-tax they would be 660, 654, and 668. France is the only one of the three to have a physical store.
I disagree with your notion, it is my belief and that is fine, and I am happy for you to have your belief.
I haven't said anything about getting "stiffed" by Apple, I own four Macs and are happy with all of them (even though I have had a 50% failure rate). Personally I wouldn't quote jragosta, he has a slight bias in any Apple related discussion.
I said, the stores are more than drop points -- referencing my thoughts about them being good for PR, hands-on experience of Apple products, Genius' Bars (for both online and store buyers), etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Perhaps comparing UK to US isn't the best example. How about, Apple IE, to Apple Fi, to Apple Fr. The entry Mac Mini in these three countries is ?799, ?805, and ?799, pre-tax they would be 660, 654, and 668. France is the only one of the three to have a physical store.
On the contrary, the UK is a fine example. I ran the UK numbers with your examples above. I also ran the German figures. I don't know why you brought this up, but here goes...
UK: 649 GBP = ?769. Less VAT (17.5%) = ?654
DE: ?809 - 19% = ?679!
Let me get this straight...
UK has 27 physical stores, one of which is an extremely expensive Regent Street location! It comes in joint lowest.
Ireland, with no store, is more than UK!
Finland, with no store is the same as UK!
France, with 3 stores (one of which is an extremely expensive Louvre location) is a whopping 14 Euros more than UK and Finland!
Germany, with 3 stores is by far the most expensive!
Now, if you are satisfied that the 14 Euro extra for France or the 25 extra for Germany is precisely, and only, due to the fact that they have physical stores, you may have half a point. But UK has stores too (significantly more:27).
Hey, maybe your conclusion is that German customers are paying for all the European stores! Alternatively, we could imagine a scenario in which there are as yet a bunch of costs of doing business in each country that we are unaware of, which two people have already suggested to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I disagree with your notion, it is my belief and that is fine, and I am happy for you to have your belief.
On the contrary, the UK is a fine example. I ran the UK numbers with your examples above. I also ran the German figures. I don't know why you brought this up, but here goes...
Because it is a good example of the difference in their pricing
Comments
Of course prices aren't there yet, but they will reach a point where it's no longer worth CE manufacturer's time and money to produce DVD-only players. And when enough people have DVD players that also happen to play blu-rays, the studios will start phasing out DVDs and lowering blu-ray disc prices. It's inevitable, but no it's not going to happen this year or the next.
Sure. But timing is important...the further in the future this is, the less market share BR will have. dfiler put it very well...the odds that BR will have the same dominance as DVD is unlikely.
It makes absolutely zero sense to compare blu-ray adoption to all digital sales, rentals, SD and HD, because SD streaming and rentals are not competitors with blu-ray. Blu-ray exists as a means of getting the best picture and sound possible at home; SD streaming does nothing of the sort, so to suggest that one negates the need to have the other is completely illogical.
Except that the need for the "best picture and sound possible at home" is not a mainstream requirement. The mainstream requirement is to get "good enough picture and sound possible at home".
Is netflix streaming, iTunes downloads, cable VOD, etc good enough quality for most consumers even for their HDTV sets? My belief is that for most 40" HDTVs where folks sit 8'+ feet away the answer is yes.
If that is the case, then yes, even the iTunes/netflix/VOD SD downloads could negate the need for BR.
I'm not saying you are doing that, but Steve Jobs is. Analysts and number crunchers should be comparing digital SD sales and rentals to DVD, and digital HD rentals and sales to blu-ray; that's the only comparison that makes sense. And unlike SACD/DVDA, which never took off, blu-ray is already mainstream. Even if another blu-ray player never sold after today, there's already enough of a user base to keep it alive for a decade.
I disagree that is the only comparison that makes sense...Microsoft and Apple disagree as well given their primary media platforms (360, mac, aTV) do not do Blu-Ray and their current strategy is to skip BR in favor of digital download...which includes SD downloads.
Does this mean that BR will fail? No. It has already succeed.
Does this mean that BR may not achieve the same dominance as DVD? Yes.
Is SD downloads relevant in the discussion whether a BR drive is required for Macs? Yes.
Did you have any DVDs you would have been interested in watching? I know how you must have felt though. I had a similar thing happen a few months ago, but the culprit wasn't rain, it was a power outage. Good thing my iPhone was all charged up.
Well yeah, I had a couple of DVDs, but I had already watched them. I was looking for a movie I hadn't seen before. My point is that broadband (at least in my area) is simply not as reliable as I wish it were. My Dish Network satellite goes out pretty much with every summer storm and my Comcast doesn't even need that to go down.
I would hazard to ask the same of you, since you wish to be pointed about it. I am not against anyone in these posts and I have stated I have no skin in this "game" as I have no stated or unstated format preference. I don't need to admit my sales figures are wrong - they are not MY sales figures, they are simply the ones reported from the sources I cited. Those numbers have been challenged by Cory and jfanning (who was particularly snarky if I recall - but then this I expect), the numbers reported by the industry driving blu-ray adoption are equally at risk for manipulation and inaccuracy, but this seems to less important than defending the format, or simply snarking whenever the chance presents itself.
And no the environmental impact is not moot, it is very real regardless of the data center statistics or rather IN ADDITION to those statistics. If you were at the least alert enough to ponder the issues they represent you would not disregard the problems as "moot". But no in your rush to defend a format I didn't even attack you decide that it's OK to dump hundreds of thousands of lbs of optical plastic trash in landfills - because its Blu-ray and too cool to be bad.
How puerilely adolescent of you. You owe the media industry no loyalty for jacking you out of your hard-earned money by switching formats every few years to offer you the opportunity to repurchase your media in "new and exciting formats". So buy away. There, blunt as a brick wall. I am also willing to exchange politeness and intelligent discussion as well if you care to offer it in turn. You decide.
Thank you for proving my point, in my orignal post that I have quote below, with this post! I would like to point out that in the post you are quoting no where am I defending any format whatsoever. If you cite those sales figures as a way to back up "your argument", and yes it is "your argument" that you are making then it is your "sales figure".
So basically what your saying is that you like to be very aggressive/jackass/asshole against people with your posts and at the same time you don't want to admit that your sales figures are wrong making your main point in terms of sales moot and at the same time that your environment point is also essentially moot.
Of course the tracking is going to show China -- because, as you know, with popular products there is sometimes a lead time of three weeks or more. However, I wonder if your orders went from the factory in China directly to your door; they may well have, or they may have been picked up by a local courier in Ireland, I don't know. Actually, this supports my point all the more: that there is no difference to Apple in sending a product directly to you, or to a physical store. If there is one less stop along the way, well, then what I said is even more true.
What you have written there seems a little confusing... I have ordered products from Apple Online when I lived in Ireland, if you tracked the item you could see when it left China, and when it arrived in Europe, then when it was shipped to Ireland, and when the local UPS deliveried it. When I have ordered items from Apple in New Zealand they have always been shipped from Australia (and billed from Ireland). So in both these cases there has been a significant difference in the process. Apple hasn't had to pay for a physical store in either case.
No, I agree -- I was going to post more last time, and didn't. Of course there is a substantial cost to Apple for opening and maintaining stores, there must be. And of course, this would be one of the costs of doing business anywhere.
So you recongise that there is a cost difference in selling from the physical store, compared to the online store. So Apple is charging more for people to purchase from online to cover extra costs for a physical store? Or just profiting more?
Except that the need for the "best picture and sound possible at home" is not a mainstream requirement. The mainstream requirement is to get "good enough picture and sound possible at home".
Is that why Macs have such a low market share, because the other PCs with Windows are "good enough"?
Well yeah, I had a couple of DVDs, but I had already watched them. I was looking for a movie I hadn't seen before. My point is that broadband (at least in my area) is simply not as reliable as I wish it were. My Dish Network satellite goes out pretty much with every summer storm and my Comcast doesn't even need that to go down.
What kind of broadband speeds are you typically getting? In northern NJ I'm typically getting 8-12Mbps down and about 2Mbps up. Not great, but not too shabby either. When is the last time you had your dish realigned? I use DirecTV and when I upgraded to their 5-LNB "Slimline" dish a little over a year ago, my reception has been almost bulletproof. I typically check dish alignment every 2 years or so. In my experience, at least in NJ anyway, the vast majority of storm related signal fade was due to an improperly installed or aimed dish. Not saying this is the case with you as I don't have too much experience with Dish Network, but I've seen a lot of people take their dish alignment for granted, assuming it would always stay exactly where the original installer set it. BTW, is your location considered to be in "lightning alley"?
Is that why Macs have such a low market share, because the other PCs with Windows are "good enough"?
Win7 isn't a bad OS...so yes, it is good enough.
...So in both these cases there has been a significant difference in the process. Apple hasn't had to pay for a physical store in either case.
Don't know. Apple seems kind of flexible, able to move things around. Again, apparently they have the best channels in the industry.
So you recongise that there is a cost difference in selling from the physical store, compared to the online store. So Apple is charging more for people to purchase from online to cover extra costs for a physical store? Or just profiting more?
Kind of a trick question, eh? I really don't understand your objections to Apple's pricing structure or strategy regarding its brand identity and physical stores versus online store, or why you are pursuing it. It is what it is. There is one (regional) price for each product, so what of it? Apple has made itself profitable and has grown accordingly. You don't have to buy Apple. I have never ever heard of anyone that assumes that Apple products should be cheaper if purchased online.
Others have said that Apple has kept prices pretty much the same for years, putting out upgraded products at the same price as the last model. And as I noted, new stores open all the time without a change in product price. I might expect lower prices on things purchased from companies who were online bulk retailers only. But companies that sell both online and in a physical store don't necessarily make the same products cheaper when sold online, especially when they are a limited range of their own products, like Apple's. If I order online from Tescos, I don't get stuff cheaper (in fact I miss out on the in-store specials).
I certainly recognize there is a cost to having physical stores. I just don't think having physical stores significantly affects the prices of the products directly, nor should it be expected to adjust online prices. As I said before, I do not think it is a case of saying, "well, the Regent Store and the Louvre Store cost X, so either close them or make my iMac 25 Pounds cheaper when I buy it online." Apple leases a few hundred locations worldwide, and I think this is carefully planned as part of Apple's identity and presence. I disagree about the selling from physical stores making a measurable difference on a per item basis, because I see the stores as more than a sales pipe for products -- though they do that very effectively. Should Apple Care or support cost less if you agree to do it all over the phone and promise not to walk into a physical store and talk to someone face to face? No, the fact that there is a physical side adds value all round.
And why stop with physical stores? Why not moan that any given product could be cheaper if the company responsible was more efficient in all areas? What about companies that: have no forward vision and don't know where to focus; made poor use of acquisitions; need to focus on their core business because even that is losing its perceived value; are laying off employees; have a couple of questionable projects that drain resources; spend excessively on inefficient marketing and R&D with little to show for it? I think their products should be cheaper because they must be using their sales to make up for all the money they are actually wasting.
Don't know. Apple seems kind of flexible, able to move things around. Again, apparently they have the best channels in the industry.
Apple doesn't move anything around, they use freight companies, like everyone else. But you didn't answer the question I asked.
Kind of a trick question, eh? I really don't understand your objections to Apple's pricing structure or strategy regarding its brand identity and physical stores versus online store, or why you are pursuing it. It is what it is. There is one (regional) price for each product, so what of it? Apple has made itself profitable and has grown accordingly. You don't have to buy Apple. I have never ever heard of anyone that assumes that Apple products should be cheaper if purchased online.
Maybe you need to go back in the thread a little, it has been discussed a number of times now. The original question asked why the Macs were so much more in the UK than the US, the usual answer is it costs more to do business in the UK. I asked why, when from the online store you miss most of these costs out. So if these costs are not there, why are they charging more? The answer is, because they can, and if I had the chance I would purchase a product from their store as it costs them more to do so.
Apple doesn't move anything around, they use freight companies, like everyone else. But you didn't answer the question I asked.
Maybe you need to go back in the thread a little, it has been discussed a number of times now. The original question asked why the Macs were so much more in the UK than the US, the usual answer is it costs more to do business in the UK. I asked why, when from the online store you miss most of these costs out. So if these costs are not there, why are they charging more? The answer is, because they can, and if I had the chance I would purchase a product from their store as it costs them more to do so.
I thought we had already dealt with the "why are Apple products more expensive in UK?" question. I was an an early responder on that and went into VAT, and yes other "costs of doing business", all of the details of which all of us are unaware -- these may include a host of business tax and delivery issues, who knows (but more about costs of doing business below).
No, your specific question at the end, which I have been trying to deal with is NOT Why are prices generally higher in UK?.
Your question more recently was "Why do I not pay less when I buy it online as opposed to buying it in a physical store?" In other words, Why doesn't Apple discount products when sold online (or, why doesn't Apple just add a premium to products bought in a physical store, in order to cover the cost of running the physical store?). Does Apple charge so much more across the board in order to subsidize all its physical stores? And if so, why should I be paying for that when I buy online?
My reply to that specific question, again, is that Apple has NEVER had differentiated pricing between online and physical store purchase, whatever the country and however many physical stores it had at any given time. Apple opens more stores every quarter, in every part of the world. I personally do not think they have built this into their product prices for any region. I think it is a separate matter -- part of a marketing budget or something, I don't know. The product prices for the UK are now set, each product comes out with a set price; and yet there are new UK stores opening!
So, back to the general question of why the UK prices may be higher than US prices: Obviously (as I have mentioned), my conclusion is that there are a host of costs to do with doing business. Let's go back into that and find some more, that have nothing to do with physical stores! Here's one: Apple has to hire extra lawyers and marketers that specialize in business in each country, and these lawyers have to register this and that and go before the relevant boards to approve the radio signals in phones and whatnot. Another one: Apple has to hire copy writers and marketers that know the local language and/or markets. What about reshooting TV ads? Updating the different versions of the website? What about the regional Education Reps? All these are new costs over doing business in the US. These costs of doing business do differ around the world... but, I am discounting as part of the factors that contribute to higher product prices the actual number of physical stores that Apple operates at a given moment in a given region, and the exact location of these stores. How else can I say this?
Therefore: No, I do not think Apple merely charges a premium to UK customers, "simply because Apple can." I don't know exactly how to account for the price differences, but I doubt the factors contributing to the differences go beyond the differing costs in doing business between US and UK, such as those noted above. I suppose other factors could include things like relative shipping volumes, but I don't think volumes are a real factor because we have discussed Apple's shipping methods. As I and another poster noted, electronic goods do generally cost more in UK (and Europe) -- whether they are bought online or not. However, the differences in Apple prices between US and UK are not as great as you were trying to make out -- 50 bucks on one thing and 100 bucks on a MacBook Pro. Suck it up
I thought we had already dealt with the "why are Apple products more expensive in UK?" question. I was an an early responder on that and went into VAT, and yes other "costs of doing business", all of the details of which all of us are unaware -- these may include a host of business tax and delivery issues, who knows (but more about costs of doing business below).
VAT isn't an expense for Apple to deal with, it is a consumption tax, the consumer pays it, they pay it on the majority of items sold. This is why you compare the pre-tax prices across countries.
You wrote a lovely speech, again, but again, you are missing the point. I was responding to someones question, if you are that concerned, maybe you should go back through the thread and respond to them.
The fact is, Apple charges the same for the online store as they do for the physical store because they can. It is that simple. At the end of the day it is the consumers issues, if they are happy to pay it then there isn't a problem. How ever, if people are true to their word and do not purchase the devices because of concerns of the pricing between countries then it becomes Apples problem.
Therefore: No, I do not think Apple merely charges a premium to UK customers, "simply because Apple can." I don't know exactly how to account for the price differences, but I doubt the factors contributing to the differences go beyond the differing costs in doing business between US and UK, such as those noted above. I suppose other factors could include things like relative shipping volumes, but I don't think volumes are a real factor because we have discussed Apple's shipping methods. As I and another poster noted, electronic goods do generally cost more in UK (and Europe) -- whether they are bought online or not. However, the differences in Apple prices between US and UK are not as great as you were trying to make out -- 50 bucks on one thing and 100 bucks on a MacBook Pro. Suck it up
Apple will price all their products in all regions at the maximum price they believe the market will take, they are not just restricting this notion to just the UK.
And if you are purchasing from a online store and not getting a discount over a physical store, I suggest you start purchasing from another retailer, at the end of the day you should be.
Apple will price all their products in all regions at the maximum price they believe the market will take, they are not just restricting this notion to just the UK.
No doubt. Someone (you, I thought) sounded like they were worried that UK was getting "special treatment" from Apple.
And if you are purchasing from a online store and not getting a discount over a physical store, I suggest you start purchasing from another retailer, at the end of the day you should be.
Well, I don't know about this. Sounds like a nice speech. Where do you shop?
Of course, I would expect the same product to be cheaper at Dabs.co.uk (which to my knowledge does not have any physical stores) than it is at a different retailer which does have physical stores, like PC World. I shop at the online retailers with their huge warehouses (Dabs or Amazon) to avoid going to a store like PC World for the exact same product and to get it cheaper. And I think Amazon carries Apple products a little cheaper than Apple.
But, again, I am hard pressed to think of a single retailer that has reduced prices for its same products when shopping online vs shopping in its own physical stores (and we do a lot of shopping online for different kinds of products, such as clothing from H&M). Nor do I expect PC World to vary its prices from shop to shop because property in Preston is cheaper than property in Slough; or because it has five branches in the northeast and seven in the southwest (or Regent Street vs Fifth Avenue).
I purchase from Tescos online in order to avoid going to my local store and fighting the crowd, and pushing a cart, and standing in line, and loading the car and unloading the car; I get my groceries delivered to my door. Tescos has a huge investment in physical property, much more than Apple's. Are they saving by offering online shopping? According to you, they should be. And yet, I think someone actually walks around your local Tesco Store (or stock room) and does your shopping for you. Tesco's don't offer discounted prices online (in fact, going to the physical store would have its benefits, such as getting the special offers).
Point is, that is Tesco's channel for its products, and it makes little difference to them whether you go in and get it yourself or order it online -- with the former, they have to stock it on a shelf in the front of the store, with the latter they have to find it and put it in a box and put it in a van. Same with Apple, physical or online, Apple has priced its products the same, given its channels and methods.
Why should the two modes of selling, by the same company, at the end of the day require a difference in price? Apple Online *is* the Apple Store.
No doubt. Someone (you, I thought) sounded like they were worried that UK was getting "special treatment" from Apple.
No, the only reason I mentioned the UK was due to the original question being asked.
Well, I don't know about this. Sounds like a nice speech. Where do you shop?
I get most of my stuff from http://www.ascent.co.nz, but when I was living in Ireland I purchased from http://www.komplett.ie
But, again, I am hard pressed to think of a single retailer that has reduced prices for its same products when shopping online vs shopping in its own physical stores (and we do a lot of shopping online for different kinds of products, such as clothing from H&M). Nor do I expect PC World to vary its prices from shop to shop because property in Preston is cheaper than property in Slough; or because it has five branches in the northeast and seven in the southwest (or Regent Street vs Fifth Avenue).
Some do, the issue you have is Apple has a very low number of physical stores in relation to the online store. Like how the price of equipment was the same across all of Europe (Euro currency stores) at one point (don't know if it still is) yet most of the countries didn't have an Apple store.
I purchase from Tescos online in order to avoid going to my local store and fighting the crowd, and pushing a cart, and standing in line, and loading the car and unloading the car; I get my groceries delivered to my door.
Good for you, I stopped shopping at Tesco online due to the number of mistakes they would make, and the poor customer service they had for their online sales.
Tescos has a huge investment in physical property, much more than Apple's. Are they saving by offering online shopping? According to you, they should be. And yet, I think someone actually walks around your local Tesco Store (or stock room) and does your shopping for you. Tesco's don't offer discounted prices online (in fact, going to the physical store would have its benefits, such as getting the special offers).
If the is the answer you are giving, then you haven't understood what I have been saying all this time, and it isn't worth my effort to continue as I don't think you will ever (or seem to want to) understand it.
...If the is the answer you are giving, then you haven't understood what I have been saying all this time, and it isn't worth my effort to continue as I don't think you will ever (or seem to want to) understand it.
Here is your question from post #145 -- the only question I have been discussing with you:
Why does it cost the same to purchase a Mac from an Apple store in the UK as it does to purchase the same Mac purchased through the Apple Online store, you know the one, the one that is sold in Ireland and shipped from China to the UK.
To set the stage, I had had an earlier interchange with Kotatsu regarding his comment in post #85:
Maybe in the US. Here in the UK Apple hikes it's prices a lot. Check the price of a top end iMac here vs in the US. When you stop laughing tell me what you think.
I respond in post #87 saying the apparent difference in price is not that great -- once you take off VAT to get at similar pre-tax prices for both countries, there is little difference. And that remaining difference is likely the cost of doing business -- not a special "price hike" perpetrated on the UK.
Kotatsu replies to that in post #93, wondering how I arrived at my figures.
In #96, Jragosta replies to post #93 of kotatsu before I do. Talking about relative costs of business between US and UK (to which you respond with your question in post #145 about online vs in-store prices).
In post #108 I too reply to kotatsu and show how I arrived at my figures.
Seems like Kotatsu went away satisfied -- he never posts about this again. My conclusions were the same as jragosta's -- the cost of doing business in Europe is higher, and if you don't like it, don't buy it.
But, apparently, you were having quite a running discussion with jragosta about some of these very issues (price differences and costs of doing business) over in the thread about the Mac Mini (unbeknownst to me).
Evenso, in post #145 in this thread you quote jragosta's #96 post to ask your own question:
Those differences are mostly not all that large (other than the Mini). Try comparing US car prices to UK prices if you want to see a real difference.
The problem, though, is that you're assuming that the cost of doing business is the same in the UK as in the US. You have very different laws and rules and it costs more to do business there. The prices reflect that.
The bottom line is that there's a price for a product. You decide if you want to buy that product or not. Whining about "it's too expensive" doesn't do you any good. If enough people refuse to buy, the company drops its prices. If lots of people buy, then the price is OK. So far, the latter appears to be the case.
Why does it cost the same to purchase a Mac from an Apple store in the UK as it does to purchase the same Mac purchased through the Apple Online store, you know the one, the one that is sold in Ireland and shipped from China to the UK. [emphasis mine]
I began an interchange with you at this point, because I thought your question was interesting, and I related it to my earlier post about relative prices between US and UK. I related the two because Jragosta responded to kotatsu, and you responded to jragosta's repsonse -- linked. We now have relative prices between online purchase and physical store purchase -- as well as the relative prices between US and UK. Interesting stuff. Prices: UK vs US, online vs in-store. With me so far?
The rest of our discussion (yours and mine) centered on your question. You seem to be deflecting at every turn, vaguely referring to other questions or saying that you asked something different, or saying how poor Tesco's service is, etc. What other question have you asked on this particular subject? What am I not answering? I believe I have made myself very clear about why I believe the online prices and the in-store prices are the same.
So, what are you saying? -- I'd love to try to understand. That Physical shops cost money to run? I totally agree. I also said I don't think that has anything to do with setting individual prices in most retail businesses that sell both online and in physical shops. I have explained very clearly and in great detail why I think this is the case, using both Apple and Tesco's as examples -- their models are such that they sell their same products at the same price both online and in their physical shops; and both methods of selling are just two different expressions of their unified retail businesses. China to your house or China to your local Apple Store where you pick it up, whatever. The stores are more than a drop point, and there will be physical stores in all sorts of locations around the world, regardless. If you think you understand what I am trying to say, then further discussion could be interesting. I had already said at one point, "since we are not privvy to Apple's internal data and strategy, what more can I say". I don't think it is worth my effort continuing.
Bottom line is, you may disagree with me and just say so. But if you think people are misunderstanding you, try making your points more clearly and stating your conclusions with some kind of support: "I think Apple's products should have lower prices online than they do in a physical Apple store because online purchases save Apple money." Good for you. I don't know why you think that, but I don't agree. I already told you why.
At the end of the day, maybe you just think you're getting stiffed by Apple and you want us to say that a Mac is worth no more than a Dell, but somehow Apple gets away with grossly overcharging (both across the board and discriminately based on location), simply because it can? Sorry you feel that way, I don't. However, I will re-echo jragosta here:
The bottom line is that there's a price for a product. You decide if you want to buy that product or not. Whining about "it's too expensive" doesn't do you any good. If enough people refuse to buy, the company drops its prices. If lots of people buy, then the price is OK. So far, the latter appears to be the case.
The rest of our discussion (yours and mine) centered on your question. You seem to be deflecting at every turn, vaguely referring to other questions or saying that you asked something different, or saying how poor Tesco's service is, etc. What other question have you asked on this particular subject? What am I not answering? I believe I have made myself very clear about why I believe the online prices and the in-store prices are the same.
You were the one that brought up Tesco, not me.
So, what are you saying? -- I'd love to try to understand. That Physical shops cost money to run? I totally agree. I also said I don't think that has anything to do with setting individual prices in most retail businesses that sell both online and in physical shops. I have explained very clearly and in great detail why I think this is the case, using both Apple and Tesco's as examples -- their models are such that they sell their same products at the same price both online and in their physical shops; and both methods of selling are just two different expressions of their unified retail businesses. China to your house or China to your local Apple Store where you pick it up, whatever. The stores are more than a drop point, and there will be physical stores in all sorts of locations around the world, regardless. If you think you understand what I am trying to say, then further discussion could be interesting. I had already said at one point, "since we are not privvy to Apple's internal data and strategy, what more can I say". I don't think it is worth my effort continuing.
I don't think using Tesco is comparable to Apple. Tesco is mainly a phyiscal store type of place, and they also do on-line shopping. They are also mainly selling FMCG products, Apple is selling computers. Apple has mainly online stores, with some physical stores dotted around the place.
You may class the stores as a "drop point". But Apple also had to pay for the store, pay the staff manning the store, pay the electricity to light the store, pay for the equipment in the store. It isn't a zero cost operation for Apple to run a physical store. So this costs must be recouped from somewhere.
Perhaps comparing UK to US isn't the best example. How about, Apple IE, to Apple Fi, to Apple Fr. The entry Mac Mini in these three countries is ?799, ?805, and ?799, pre-tax they would be 660, 654, and 668. France is the only one of the three to have a physical store.
I disagree with your notion, it is my belief and that is fine, and I am happy for you to have your belief.
I haven't said anything about getting "stiffed" by Apple, I own four Macs and are happy with all of them (even though I have had a 50% failure rate). Personally I wouldn't quote jragosta, he has a slight bias in any Apple related discussion.
You may class the stores as a "drop point"....
I said, the stores are more than drop points -- referencing my thoughts about them being good for PR, hands-on experience of Apple products, Genius' Bars (for both online and store buyers), etc.
Perhaps comparing UK to US isn't the best example. How about, Apple IE, to Apple Fi, to Apple Fr. The entry Mac Mini in these three countries is ?799, ?805, and ?799, pre-tax they would be 660, 654, and 668. France is the only one of the three to have a physical store.
On the contrary, the UK is a fine example. I ran the UK numbers with your examples above. I also ran the German figures. I don't know why you brought this up, but here goes...
UK: 649 GBP = ?769. Less VAT (17.5%) = ?654
DE: ?809 - 19% = ?679!
Let me get this straight...
UK has 27 physical stores, one of which is an extremely expensive Regent Street location! It comes in joint lowest.
Ireland, with no store, is more than UK!
Finland, with no store is the same as UK!
France, with 3 stores (one of which is an extremely expensive Louvre location) is a whopping 14 Euros more than UK and Finland!
Germany, with 3 stores is by far the most expensive!
Now, if you are satisfied that the 14 Euro extra for France or the 25 extra for Germany is precisely, and only, due to the fact that they have physical stores, you may have half a point. But UK has stores too (significantly more:27).
Hey, maybe your conclusion is that German customers are paying for all the European stores! Alternatively, we could imagine a scenario in which there are as yet a bunch of costs of doing business in each country that we are unaware of, which two people have already suggested to you.
I disagree with your notion, it is my belief and that is fine, and I am happy for you to have your belief.
Thank you!
On the contrary, the UK is a fine example. I ran the UK numbers with your examples above. I also ran the German figures. I don't know why you brought this up, but here goes...
Because it is a good example of the difference in their pricing