Not really. It's an adjustment to remain competitive with other, similar products in those markets. That's how non-commodity products are priced, not by calculating exchange rates.
So where's the evidence that "similar products" have seen visible drops in pricing in recent months?
Possibly... But what I have seen in the UK, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia is that Apple pricing is most heavily influenced by exchange rates rather than competitors. That is, the most significant price moves seem to be related to how the US dollar is doing relative to those currencies. I could be wrong though.
I've been hearing much the opposite. The complaint I've been hearing for many years now from Apple product buyers outside the US, is they feel they should be paying the same at home as they could theoretically if they were spending their currencies in the US. Pricing simply doesn't work that way. Maybe it would if they were selling bauxite or some other commodity, but not with consumer goods, which are priced competitively with other products in the same market.
So where's the evidence that "similar products" have seen visible drops in pricing in recent months?
The evidence is that Apple felt the need to reduce some product prices. They'd have no other reason to do so. If you can think of a different one, then by all means, feel free to state it.
Health care in the UK is not free, I have to pay for it in a special tax called national insurance and so does every other working person, we pay tax and then we also pay national insurance.
Now back to the Mac, the system is built in China and shipped directly to the country which it's sold so there are no additional shipping costs.
Now lets allow for fluctuating currencies higher petrol costs etc which probably are a factor.
For a basis, lets run off the new Apple TV which has a $99 US Price which is of course before any tax.
Now $99 is £61.80. UK VAT stands at 17.5% so £61.80 + 17.5% = £72.61.
Now out of fairness Apple probably does have to spend a little bit more to deal in the UK, I'm not an economist but surely it can't be more than 5%? For arguments sake let's go with 10%.
So £72.61 + 10% = £79.87 that means that even on a generous 10% mark up on the US price Brits have got to pay an additional £20 or $32.03 over an American customer which surely any reasonable person here will agree is wrong, we pay it because we have no choice if you want an Apple product you have to pay their extortionate prices.
Now perhaps you feel I am being unreasonable, but I don't think I am.
I call that profiteering, feel free to correct me with hard facts and I will happily bow to superior evidence and logic.
David
Look in your own backyard.
Compared to the US, your fuel is 2-3 times higher, cost of living is higher, minimum wages are double, rent is higher, taxes are higher, etc. Virtually everything in the UK is higher period!
Unfortunately, I can't find the import tariffs, if there are any on electronics. However, there is a cost in freight forwarding, import registrations, etc., on everything coming into the UK.
Clearly the advantages in the US is the lack of a federal sales tax and the exclusion of state and local taxes. For example, in California, "At 8.25%, California has the highest state sales tax in the United States, which can total up to 10.75% with local sales tax included."*
In all fairness, if we were to add a VAT to the US prices, the list price would jump to $118. And add the exchange rate, which is a highly fluxing figure and the differences dwindle significantly.
Obviously, Apples declared gross profit margins are a determining factor is setting prices. As such, Apple fiduciary responsibilities will help dictate just how much they can price their goods at. And are open for inspection every time they submit their obligatory financial reports.
* ^ a b Equalization California Board of (July 2009). "Publication 71, California City and County Sales and Use Tax Rates, April 1, 2009 Edition" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-09-26.
Obviously, Apples declared gross profit margins are a determining factor is setting prices. As such, Apple fiduciary responsibilities will help dictate just how much they can price their goods at. And are open for inspection every time they submit their obligatory financial reports.
What? Apple is always going to charge for their products the most that any given market will bear. This is the most basic rule of pricing economics.
So £599 is not too bad. Shame VAT is going up to 20% soon lol.
The exchange rate is 0.623556 so the pricing is £435 + 17.5% = £511
So the UK price was nearly £140 too much before the change. Dropping that figure to £90 is much better as you can almost get the 4GB RAM for the difference but the UK price at £549 would still be £40 over.
I don't think anyone would complain about a £549 price point and it would be equivalent to $748.
They don't do this on the other Mac models to the extent they have on the Mini. At least now the Mini should fall in line with the iMac tax-for-not-being-American.
Health care in the UK is not free, I have to pay for it in a special tax called national insurance and so does every other working person, we pay tax and then we also pay national insurance.
Now back to the Mac, the system is built in China and shipped directly to the country which it's sold so there are no additional shipping costs.
Now lets allow for fluctuating currencies higher petrol costs etc which probably are a factor.
For a basis, lets run off the new Apple TV which has a $99 US Price which is of course before any tax.
Now $99 is £61.80. UK VAT stands at 17.5% so £61.80 + 17.5% = £72.61.
Now out of fairness Apple probably does have to spend a little bit more to deal in the UK, I'm not an economist but surely it can't be more than 5%? For arguments sake let's go with 10%.
So £72.61 + 10% = £79.87 that means that even on a generous 10% mark up on the US price Brits have got to pay an additional £20 or $32.03 over an American customer which surely any reasonable person here will agree is wrong, we pay it because we have no choice if you want an Apple product you have to pay their extortionate prices.
Now perhaps you feel I am being unreasonable, but I don't think I am.
I call that profiteering, feel free to correct me with hard facts and I will happily bow to superior evidence and logic.
David
It's not that bad really. I bought an iPod Touch in Florida this year using my credit card and also thinking i was getting a much better deal. When my credit card statement came i'd only saved a fiver. So not that big of a saving.
Their prices are also pre-tax (plus 5%). It's horses for courses.
I thought $499 was high when the first mini was released, Thats why when Apple came out with the 1.25ghz g4 mini I snagged a logic board and ide adapter off of ebay for $100.00 and built my own.
The current Mini starts at $750CAD. I dont care how Apple fans want to rationalize it, the mac Mini is over priced.
I know its not a tiny little mini, but come-on it comes with a 23" monitor and a keyboard!
The Mini wasnt what the Mac community wanted originally anyway its what Steve gave us. I remember people wanting a headless Imac with one video slot and maybe one or two expansion card slots.
I still hate the fact that in-order to get a real desktop at Apple I have to pony up $2600.00USD plus tax for a quad-core (close to $3K) by the time your done. The most I've ever paid for a Mac product was $2500.00 for a PowerMac G5, 3 months before Steve announced the switch to Intel, Im not doing that again.
Then why hasn't Apple done any mid-revision price drops since the early 1990s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by katastroff
I know its not a tiny little mini, but come-on it comes with a 23" monitor and a keyboard!
And isn't in any way geared toward the same audience as people who would buy the Mac Mini, rendering it completely meaningless.
Quote:
I still hate the fact that in-order to get a real desktop at Apple I have to pony up $2600.00USD plus tax for a quad-core (close to $3K) by the time your done.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
That's a good one. That's rich. So what's your definition of a "real desktop", then? The iMac comes with a monitor and keyboard. That seems to be good enough for you given your previous definition.
Then why hasn't Apple done any mid-revision price drops since the early 1990s?
And isn't in any way geared toward the same audience as people who would buy the Mac Mini, rendering it completely meaningless.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
That's a good one. That's rich. So what's your definition of a "real desktop", then? The iMac comes with a monitor and keyboard. That seems to be good enough for you given your previous definition.
I never met such a fan of acutely designed obsolescence. However if thats your thing, here.
I realize it isnt a direct comparable product to an Imac but still.
Dont get me wrong I like Macs, but their lack of technical innovation in the last few years, besides artsy industrial design, doesnt warrant the price tag.
Apple has to stop pulling on my heart strings and start engineering again, hardware and software (on the PC). I will pay for that.
I realize it isnt a direct comparable product to an Imac but still.
Dont get me wrong I like Macs, but their lack of technical innovation in the last few years, besides artsy industrial design, doesnt warrant the price tag.
Apple has to stop pulling on my heart strings and start engineering again, hardware and software (on the PC). I will pay for that.
That's actually a pretty poor comparison. Check out the Tech Specs on that page. 1.6 GHz processor? 320 GB hard drive? Only 802.11 b/g?
The problem with Macs isn't that they are over-priced. It's that they are over-spec'd. Macs & PC's are similarly priced if you spec them the same. But most people don't need all the features Apple crams into their computers, and they have to pay for them whether they want them or not. Take the screen for example, unless you have a chance to compare them side-by-side, most people wouldn't know which type of screen is better or that Apple tends to use better screens. (Which is my biggest iMac pet peeve...why should I have to buy a new monitor every time I want to upgrade my computer?) Why should my Mac purchase subsidize development of Garage Band if I don't want it and will never use it?
That's why these price comparisons are pointless outside of the context of how the computer will be used. If all I'm doing is email and web browsing, the Dell is probably fine. But I certainly wouldn't be editing my DLSR photos with such a slow processor.
The question isn't whether Apple should charge less for their computers. The question is whether Apple should build lower-end computers. Apple used to have a good option in the $500 mini. Under-spec'd compared to other Macs, but well priced. Things like unibody construction add cost without really adding value (in my opinion), contributing to the perception that Macs are over-priced.
I realize it isnt a direct comparable product to an Imac but still.
So you realize your argument's invalid. Fine.
Quote:
Dont get me wrong I like Macs, but their lack of technical innovation in the last few years, besides artsy industrial design, doesnt warrant the price tag.
That's what they've always been. Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
Or Australia and as our dollar is pretty much at parity, we are now paying $A999 ($986) for the base model and $A1399 ($1381) for the server version.
Which only goes to show that the price you pay has remained the same, because strangely enough, Australians earn and spend Australian dollars in Australia.
That's actually a pretty poor comparison. Check out the Tech Specs on that page. 1.6 GHz processor? 320 GB hard drive? Only 802.11 b/g?
The problem with Macs isn't that they are over-priced. It's that they are over-spec'd. Macs & PC's are similarly priced if you spec them the same. But most people don't need all the features Apple crams into their computers, and they have to pay for them whether they want them or not. Take the screen for example, unless you have a chance to compare them side-by-side, most people wouldn't know which type of screen is better or that Apple tends to use better screens. (Which is my biggest iMac pet peeve...why should I have to buy a new monitor every time I want to upgrade my computer?) Why should my Mac purchase subsidize development of Garage Band if I don't want it and will never use it?
That's why these price comparisons are pointless outside of the context of how the computer will be used. If all I'm doing is email and web browsing, the Dell is probably fine. But I certainly wouldn't be editing my DLSR photos with such a slow processor.
The question isn't whether Apple should charge less for their computers. The question is whether Apple should build lower-end computers. Apple used to have a good option in the $500 mini. Under-spec'd compared to other Macs, but well priced. Things like unibody construction add cost without really adding value (in my opinion), contributing to the perception that Macs are over-priced.
Ok point taken but that was one SKU, check out the other SKU's
I know its not Apples to Apples, but look at the higher end sku's, you get a quad core Athlon II processor, 4gb RAM, 750GB HD, 23" screen, and I admit lower spec'd video for $799, I think thats pretty damn competitive at least againt the entry level i3 $1200 Imac there is a $400 delta. Now its up to the user to determine if the value of OS X and Ilife are worth the additional $400
Back to your argument about Mac's being highly spec'd, I agree with you on some of their offerings but not all, the Mini and the 13" Macbooks are not cutting edge their using a pretty geriatric technology and still commanding a premium.
IMO the Mini in its current form should be $499.00USD, that would be fair.
That's what they've always been. Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
First, there is no reason to get indignant. I?m trying to have a balanced conversation not a shouting match.
Second, if you go shopping for a 50" TV at a Best Buy, and are trying to decide between two comparable products one is $1000 and the other is $500 however the $1K unit has three hdmi's and one component input while the $500 dollar unit has only two HDMI but two component inputs, do you automatically disregard giving the cheaper unit consideration because its not a comparable product to the $1000 dollar unit that you deem to be the gold master?
Of course not, everyone in the business use's product differentiation to establish a competitive advantage over the other with a slightly different mix to entice the prospective customer. It?s up to the consumer to judge the pro's and con's and make a decision. Yes the Dell 2305 isn?t exactly the same as a low-end Imac, but make no mistake, they are comparable.
Comments
Let's do the Math with todays exchange rate
for Germany:
699 $ = 499 ?
499 ? + 19 % Tax = 594 ?
594 ? + 16 ? "Urheberrechtsabgabe" = 610 ?
And now add some amount for the EU's / Germany's 24 month "Gewährleistung" ? a kind of mandatory warranty, for you people outside of Germany
That is only the RAW conversion and only an example.
You will still have to account for higher living standards, higher costs for
Apple in Europe, employees costing Apple more in Europe, etc., etc.
If you have any knowledge of business and finances you will know that this means there's
virtually no difference.
I hope we can settle this once and for all.
Maybe Apple is showing the Germans some love, still in the UK we don't have the extended warranty etc that you do and we still by way over the odds.
Not really. It's an adjustment to remain competitive with other, similar products in those markets. That's how non-commodity products are priced, not by calculating exchange rates.
So where's the evidence that "similar products" have seen visible drops in pricing in recent months?
Possibly... But what I have seen in the UK, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia is that Apple pricing is most heavily influenced by exchange rates rather than competitors. That is, the most significant price moves seem to be related to how the US dollar is doing relative to those currencies. I could be wrong though.
I've been hearing much the opposite. The complaint I've been hearing for many years now from Apple product buyers outside the US, is they feel they should be paying the same at home as they could theoretically if they were spending their currencies in the US. Pricing simply doesn't work that way. Maybe it would if they were selling bauxite or some other commodity, but not with consumer goods, which are priced competitively with other products in the same market.
So where's the evidence that "similar products" have seen visible drops in pricing in recent months?
The evidence is that Apple felt the need to reduce some product prices. They'd have no other reason to do so. If you can think of a different one, then by all means, feel free to state it.
$699 x 0.7129 (todays exchange rate) = £498 + 17.5% VAT = £585
So £599 is not too bad. Shame VAT is going up to 20% soon lol.
Health care in the UK is not free, I have to pay for it in a special tax called national insurance and so does every other working person, we pay tax and then we also pay national insurance.
Now back to the Mac, the system is built in China and shipped directly to the country which it's sold so there are no additional shipping costs.
Now lets allow for fluctuating currencies higher petrol costs etc which probably are a factor.
For a basis, lets run off the new Apple TV which has a $99 US Price which is of course before any tax.
Now $99 is £61.80. UK VAT stands at 17.5% so £61.80 + 17.5% = £72.61.
Now out of fairness Apple probably does have to spend a little bit more to deal in the UK, I'm not an economist but surely it can't be more than 5%? For arguments sake let's go with 10%.
So £72.61 + 10% = £79.87 that means that even on a generous 10% mark up on the US price Brits have got to pay an additional £20 or $32.03 over an American customer which surely any reasonable person here will agree is wrong, we pay it because we have no choice if you want an Apple product you have to pay their extortionate prices.
Now perhaps you feel I am being unreasonable, but I don't think I am.
I call that profiteering, feel free to correct me with hard facts and I will happily bow to superior evidence and logic.
David
Look in your own backyard.
Compared to the US, your fuel is 2-3 times higher, cost of living is higher, minimum wages are double, rent is higher, taxes are higher, etc. Virtually everything in the UK is higher period!
Unfortunately, I can't find the import tariffs, if there are any on electronics. However, there is a cost in freight forwarding, import registrations, etc., on everything coming into the UK.
Clearly the advantages in the US is the lack of a federal sales tax and the exclusion of state and local taxes. For example, in California, "At 8.25%, California has the highest state sales tax in the United States, which can total up to 10.75% with local sales tax included."*
In all fairness, if we were to add a VAT to the US prices, the list price would jump to $118. And add the exchange rate, which is a highly fluxing figure and the differences dwindle significantly.
Obviously, Apples declared gross profit margins are a determining factor is setting prices. As such, Apple fiduciary responsibilities will help dictate just how much they can price their goods at. And are open for inspection every time they submit their obligatory financial reports.
* ^ a b Equalization California Board of (July 2009). "Publication 71, California City and County Sales and Use Tax Rates, April 1, 2009 Edition" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-09-26.
Obviously, Apples declared gross profit margins are a determining factor is setting prices. As such, Apple fiduciary responsibilities will help dictate just how much they can price their goods at. And are open for inspection every time they submit their obligatory financial reports.
What? Apple is always going to charge for their products the most that any given market will bear. This is the most basic rule of pricing economics.
If my maths are correct:
$699 x 0.7129 (todays exchange rate) = £498 + 17.5% VAT = £585
So £599 is not too bad. Shame VAT is going up to 20% soon lol.
The exchange rate is 0.623556 so the pricing is £435 + 17.5% = £511
So the UK price was nearly £140 too much before the change. Dropping that figure to £90 is much better as you can almost get the 4GB RAM for the difference but the UK price at £549 would still be £40 over.
I don't think anyone would complain about a £549 price point and it would be equivalent to $748.
They don't do this on the other Mac models to the extent they have on the Mini. At least now the Mini should fall in line with the iMac tax-for-not-being-American.
Health care in the UK is not free, I have to pay for it in a special tax called national insurance and so does every other working person, we pay tax and then we also pay national insurance.
Now back to the Mac, the system is built in China and shipped directly to the country which it's sold so there are no additional shipping costs.
Now lets allow for fluctuating currencies higher petrol costs etc which probably are a factor.
For a basis, lets run off the new Apple TV which has a $99 US Price which is of course before any tax.
Now $99 is £61.80. UK VAT stands at 17.5% so £61.80 + 17.5% = £72.61.
Now out of fairness Apple probably does have to spend a little bit more to deal in the UK, I'm not an economist but surely it can't be more than 5%? For arguments sake let's go with 10%.
So £72.61 + 10% = £79.87 that means that even on a generous 10% mark up on the US price Brits have got to pay an additional £20 or $32.03 over an American customer which surely any reasonable person here will agree is wrong, we pay it because we have no choice if you want an Apple product you have to pay their extortionate prices.
Now perhaps you feel I am being unreasonable, but I don't think I am.
I call that profiteering, feel free to correct me with hard facts and I will happily bow to superior evidence and logic.
David
It's not that bad really. I bought an iPod Touch in Florida this year using my credit card and also thinking i was getting a much better deal. When my credit card statement came i'd only saved a fiver. So not that big of a saving.
Their prices are also pre-tax (plus 5%). It's horses for courses.
The current Mini starts at $750CAD. I dont care how Apple fans want to rationalize it, the mac Mini is over priced.
http://configure.dell.com/dellstore/...tudio-xps-7100
I know its not a tiny little mini, but come-on it comes with a 23" monitor and a keyboard!
The Mini wasnt what the Mac community wanted originally anyway its what Steve gave us. I remember people wanting a headless Imac with one video slot and maybe one or two expansion card slots.
I still hate the fact that in-order to get a real desktop at Apple I have to pony up $2600.00USD plus tax for a quad-core (close to $3K) by the time your done. The most I've ever paid for a Mac product was $2500.00 for a PowerMac G5, 3 months before Steve announced the switch to Intel, Im not doing that again.
Mac price premium is a myth? I think not.
it's just an adjustment for the exchange rates.
Then why hasn't Apple done any mid-revision price drops since the early 1990s?
I know its not a tiny little mini, but come-on it comes with a 23" monitor and a keyboard!
And isn't in any way geared toward the same audience as people who would buy the Mac Mini, rendering it completely meaningless.
I still hate the fact that in-order to get a real desktop at Apple I have to pony up $2600.00USD plus tax for a quad-core (close to $3K) by the time your done.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
That's a good one. That's rich. So what's your definition of a "real desktop", then? The iMac comes with a monitor and keyboard. That seems to be good enough for you given your previous definition.
Then why hasn't Apple done any mid-revision price drops since the early 1990s?
And isn't in any way geared toward the same audience as people who would buy the Mac Mini, rendering it completely meaningless.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
That's a good one. That's rich. So what's your definition of a "real desktop", then? The iMac comes with a monitor and keyboard. That seems to be good enough for you given your previous definition.
I never met such a fan of acutely designed obsolescence. However if thats your thing, here.
http://www.dell.com/ca/p/inspiron-on...FileVariation2
(Prices are in Canadian)
I realize it isnt a direct comparable product to an Imac but still.
Dont get me wrong I like Macs, but their lack of technical innovation in the last few years, besides artsy industrial design, doesnt warrant the price tag.
Apple has to stop pulling on my heart strings and start engineering again, hardware and software (on the PC). I will pay for that.
No change here in Singapore as well ...
Or Australia and as our dollar is pretty much at parity, we are now paying $A999 ($986) for the base model and $A1399 ($1381) for the server version.
I never met such a fan of acutely designed obsolescence. However if thats your thing, here.
http://www.dell.com/ca/p/inspiron-on...FileVariation2
(Prices are in Canadian)
I realize it isnt a direct comparable product to an Imac but still.
Dont get me wrong I like Macs, but their lack of technical innovation in the last few years, besides artsy industrial design, doesnt warrant the price tag.
Apple has to stop pulling on my heart strings and start engineering again, hardware and software (on the PC). I will pay for that.
That's actually a pretty poor comparison. Check out the Tech Specs on that page. 1.6 GHz processor? 320 GB hard drive? Only 802.11 b/g?
The problem with Macs isn't that they are over-priced. It's that they are over-spec'd. Macs & PC's are similarly priced if you spec them the same. But most people don't need all the features Apple crams into their computers, and they have to pay for them whether they want them or not. Take the screen for example, unless you have a chance to compare them side-by-side, most people wouldn't know which type of screen is better or that Apple tends to use better screens. (Which is my biggest iMac pet peeve...why should I have to buy a new monitor every time I want to upgrade my computer?) Why should my Mac purchase subsidize development of Garage Band if I don't want it and will never use it?
That's why these price comparisons are pointless outside of the context of how the computer will be used. If all I'm doing is email and web browsing, the Dell is probably fine. But I certainly wouldn't be editing my DLSR photos with such a slow processor.
The question isn't whether Apple should charge less for their computers. The question is whether Apple should build lower-end computers. Apple used to have a good option in the $500 mini. Under-spec'd compared to other Macs, but well priced. Things like unibody construction add cost without really adding value (in my opinion), contributing to the perception that Macs are over-priced.
I realize it isnt a direct comparable product to an Imac but still.
So you realize your argument's invalid. Fine.
Dont get me wrong I like Macs, but their lack of technical innovation in the last few years, besides artsy industrial design, doesnt warrant the price tag.
That's what they've always been. Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
Or Australia and as our dollar is pretty much at parity, we are now paying $A999 ($986) for the base model and $A1399 ($1381) for the server version.
Which only goes to show that the price you pay has remained the same, because strangely enough, Australians earn and spend Australian dollars in Australia.
That's actually a pretty poor comparison. Check out the Tech Specs on that page. 1.6 GHz processor? 320 GB hard drive? Only 802.11 b/g?
The problem with Macs isn't that they are over-priced. It's that they are over-spec'd. Macs & PC's are similarly priced if you spec them the same. But most people don't need all the features Apple crams into their computers, and they have to pay for them whether they want them or not. Take the screen for example, unless you have a chance to compare them side-by-side, most people wouldn't know which type of screen is better or that Apple tends to use better screens. (Which is my biggest iMac pet peeve...why should I have to buy a new monitor every time I want to upgrade my computer?) Why should my Mac purchase subsidize development of Garage Band if I don't want it and will never use it?
That's why these price comparisons are pointless outside of the context of how the computer will be used. If all I'm doing is email and web browsing, the Dell is probably fine. But I certainly wouldn't be editing my DLSR photos with such a slow processor.
The question isn't whether Apple should charge less for their computers. The question is whether Apple should build lower-end computers. Apple used to have a good option in the $500 mini. Under-spec'd compared to other Macs, but well priced. Things like unibody construction add cost without really adding value (in my opinion), contributing to the perception that Macs are over-priced.
Ok point taken but that was one SKU, check out the other SKU's
http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-one-2305-amd/fs#
I know its not Apples to Apples, but look at the higher end sku's, you get a quad core Athlon II processor, 4gb RAM, 750GB HD, 23" screen, and I admit lower spec'd video for $799, I think thats pretty damn competitive at least againt the entry level i3 $1200 Imac there is a $400 delta. Now its up to the user to determine if the value of OS X and Ilife are worth the additional $400
Back to your argument about Mac's being highly spec'd, I agree with you on some of their offerings but not all, the Mini and the 13" Macbooks are not cutting edge their using a pretty geriatric technology and still commanding a premium.
IMO the Mini in its current form should be $499.00USD, that would be fair.
So you realize your argument's invalid. Fine.
That's what they've always been. Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
First, there is no reason to get indignant. I?m trying to have a balanced conversation not a shouting match.
Second, if you go shopping for a 50" TV at a Best Buy, and are trying to decide between two comparable products one is $1000 and the other is $500 however the $1K unit has three hdmi's and one component input while the $500 dollar unit has only two HDMI but two component inputs, do you automatically disregard giving the cheaper unit consideration because its not a comparable product to the $1000 dollar unit that you deem to be the gold master?
Of course not, everyone in the business use's product differentiation to establish a competitive advantage over the other with a slightly different mix to entice the prospective customer. It?s up to the consumer to judge the pro's and con's and make a decision. Yes the Dell 2305 isn?t exactly the same as a low-end Imac, but make no mistake, they are comparable.
IMO the Mini in its current form should be $499.00USD, that would be fair.
On that we agree. I could see $599. But $699 is a pretty steep price for what you get.
On that we agree. I could see $599. But $699 is a pretty steep price for what you get.
Amen, I would snap up a Mini at $499. Maybe Apple can do a $499 Mini in the future with a AMD Bobcat and good ATI integrated graphics.