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.
No, Katastroff is correct. It's an adjustment for FOREX rates. When the Mac Mini was released back in June, the USD was at 5 year high versus the EUR. The Euro had fallen from $1.50 in Jan to $1.18 in June. Therefore, Apple priced the Mac mini according to the prevailing exchange rate. However, USD strength has been short-lived as the EUR has climbed back above $1.40. Thus, Apple was able to cut prices to reflect the weaker dollar.
Love the mac mini, I bought one for my wife, but why in the heck would you put a card reader on the BACK of a mac mini? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, they should have just left that off !!!
Who makes the LCD panel in the Dell? The iMac is IPS quality.
Not sure about how makes the LCD, its LED backlite but not IPS. However here are some things you didnt mention. I assume your looking at the $1200 entry level Imac. I'll compare it to the $799 2305.
-AMD 2.3GHz vs. Clarkdale 3.06 GHz
AMD is a Athlon II X4 Quad-Core, the I3 Clarksdale is a great processor but its a dual-core
- Screen no problem there
- OS No problem here
- Memory, both systems are configured with 4gb, dell's limit is 8gb not 6gb (that is a config limit of that SKU), and so is the 21.5" Imac since it only has two slots, the 27" has 4 slots
- Video, No Problem here
- Networking, All dell 2305's in the store have N Networking
Also the $799 model has a 750gb HD vs's 500gb.
Plus, HDMI connectivity a 7-in-1 card reader a 6 USB ports.
Im not trying to prove that it is superior to the entry level Imac, which it may or might not be. My argument is that its comparible and it costs $400 dollars less.
Love the mac mini, I bought one for my wife, but why in the heck would you put a card reader on the BACK of a mac mini? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, they should have just left that off !!!
Thats true, it be nice if someone would integrate into a keyboard, since I always tuck the computer into an awkward place
Who makes the LCD panel in the Dell? The iMac is IPS quality.
Sorry to bother but one more thing, IPS is a technology not a grade, just as TFT is a LCD technology. Would you say there is a wide array of different TFT panels out there with varying levels of quality? I would. Would it also not be fair to say that IPS panels also vary in quality?
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.
Price on the apple site this morning (3rd Nov 2010) was A$899 (US$897.55) for the Mini and A$1299 (US$1297.06) for the Server, and that includes a 10% sales tax.
No, Katastroff is correct. It's an adjustment for FOREX rates. When the Mac Mini was released back in June, the USD was at 5 year high versus the EUR. The Euro had fallen from $1.50 in Jan to $1.18 in June. Therefore, Apple priced the Mac mini according to the prevailing exchange rate. However, USD strength has been short-lived as the EUR has climbed back above $1.40. Thus, Apple was able to cut prices to reflect the weaker dollar.
He is not correct. Prices for retail goods simply are not set according to exchange rates. In fact, if you want to look a bit deeper into this, you will notice that the GBP is still relatively weak against the USD. Yet, Apple dropped the price of the mini in the UK as well. This is hard to explain by exchange rate logic alone, because currency exchange rates have very little to do with setting retail prices.
Price on the apple site this morning (3rd Nov 2010) was A$899 (US$897.55) for the Mini and A$1299 (US$1297.06) for the Server, and that includes a 10% sales tax.
He is not correct. Prices for retail goods simply are not set according to exchange rates. In fact, if you want to look a bit deeper into this, you will notice that the GBP is still relatively weak against the USD. Yet, Apple dropped the price of the mini in the UK as well. This is hard to explain by exchange rate logic alone, because currency exchange rates have very little to do with setting retail prices.
Exchange rates have everything to do with setting prices. Apple, as well as all other public companies, target a desired profit margin which is setting selling price relative to product costs.
The GBP had dropped from above $1.65 to below $1.45 in June, and now has risen back above $1.60. The key here is at the time of the Mac mini launch, the Euro currencies had just crashed due to their sovereign debt crisis. However, confidence was restored and markets quickly recovered.
I keep track of Apple's international pricing in USD terms, and the Mac mini before the price cut was nearly 30% higher than US pricing. Nearly all other Apple products are only slightly more than 10% higher. That's generally the case for most all products / in all countries. Thus, the Mac mini was priced way above Apple's typical US price band so it cut the price to bring it back in line. When Mac mini was released, at then prevailing FOREX rates, it was slightly 10% higher versus US pricing. That's consistent with the typical variance Apple shoots for.
So its a spot check on pricing comparison using today's exchange rate.
I'm not seeing the point. Today the prices in Australia might be lower than if they were converted to US dollars. Another time, they might be higher. Either way, they the cost to Australians hasn't changed. This is the key take-away point that seems to be so widely misunderstood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller
Exchange rates have everything to do with setting prices. Apple, as well as all other public companies, target a desired profit margin which is setting selling price relative to product costs.
The GBP had dropped from above $1.65 to below $1.45 in June, and now has risen back above $1.60. The key here is at the time of the Mac mini launch, the Euro currencies had just crashed due to their sovereign debt crisis. However, confidence was restored and markets quickly recovered.
I keep track of Apple's international pricing in USD terms, and the Mac mini before the price cut was nearly 30% higher than US pricing. Nearly all other Apple products are only slightly more than 10% higher. That's generally the case for most all products / in all countries. Thus, the Mac mini was priced way above Apple's typical US price band so it cut the price to bring it back in line. When Mac mini was released, at then prevailing FOREX rates, it was slightly 10% higher versus US pricing. That's consistent with the typical variance Apple shoots for.
The profit margin they target is the highest one they can manage. They don't reach a target and then give up anything beyond that out of charity. Apple and every other company will always attempt to maximize profits. Always. Always. Always. Cheap currencies give exporters like Apple a great opportunity to increase profits. Ask the Chinese -- that's why they keep their currency undervalued.
You simply cannot compare prices by country by computing exchange rates. It makes no sense, since the products are not priced for foreign markets, they are priced for the markets in which they sell. They will only raise or lower them for competitive purposes, since any other reason is dumb.
I'm not seeing the point. Today the prices in Australia might be lower than if they were converted to US dollars. Another time, they might be higher. Either way, they the cost to Australians hasn't changed. This is the key take-away point that seems to be so widely misunderstood.
The profit margin they target is the highest one they can manage. They don't reach a target and then give up anything beyond that out of charity. Apple and every other company will always attempt to maximize profits. Always. Always. Always. Cheap currencies give exporters like Apple a great opportunity to increase profits. Ask the Chinese -- that's why they keep their currency undervalued.
You simply cannot compare prices by country by computing exchange rates. It makes no sense, since the products are not priced for foreign markets, they are priced for the markets in which they sell. They will only raise or lower them for competitive purposes, since any other reason is dumb.
No, I totally agree with you. I think we are both just looking at it two different ways. Companies always maximize profits which is a function of profit margin (price - cost) and unit volume. Volume is sensitive to price, and the degree of that sensitivity is the demand elasticity. What I was trying to say, was USD strength was eroding profit margins, therefore Apple raised its prices to protect those margins. Higher prices can lead to lower sales, but not always lower profit since margin is higher. Companies will try to hike prices to the point where decreased volume doesn't reverse the margin effect of higher selling price.
Competition is a major factor in demand elasticity. Obviously Apple saw that cutting prices would increase unit volume much more than the effects of lower profit margin/unit leading to higher overall profits.
I guess what I was trying to point out was that Apple had raised prices on nearly all its products this year, to offset the USD strength. It only did that because Apple products can command premium prices. It just so happened that the Mac mini launch occurred at the time the USD was at its high.
I totally agree that prices are set according to the markets in which they are sold based on competitive landscape. However, exchange rates can be either a competitive advantage or disadvantage and in this instance, it was the fluctuation in rates that allowed Apple to price more competitively.
No, I totally agree with you. I think we are both just looking at it two different ways. Companies always maximize profits which is a function of profit margin (price - cost) and unit volume. Volume is sensitive to price, and the degree of that sensitivity is the demand elasticity. What I was trying to say, was USD strength was eroding profit margins, therefore Apple raised its prices to protect those margins. Higher prices can lead to lower sales, but not always lower profit since margin is higher. Companies will try to hike prices to the point where decreased volume doesn't reverse the margin effect of higher selling price.
Competition is a major factor in demand elasticity. Obviously Apple saw that cutting prices would increase unit volume much more than the effects of lower profit margin/unit leading to higher overall profits.
I guess what I was trying to point out was that Apple had raised prices on nearly all its products this year, to offset the USD strength. It only did that because Apple products can command premium prices. It just so happened that the Mac mini launch occurred at the time the USD was at its high.
I totally agree that prices are set according to the markets in which they are sold based on competitive landscape. However, exchange rates can be either a competitive advantage or disadvantage and in this instance, it was the fluctuation in rates that allowed Apple to price more competitively.
No question, a weaker currency provides companies located in that country with a competitive advantage. They can afford to lower prices and maintain their margins -- if they so choose. Or they can increase their margins if they're already positioned where they want to be, vis-a-vis the competition. I see Apple doing a whole lot more of the latter. Enviable margins are one of the keys to their success. They surrender them very reluctantly.
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
Seems like i got to this thread late. David, you have used the Apple TV as your example. There are no arguments about that one, Apple is blatently overcharging - as your figures show. But you are being selective in your choice. Here they have priced the Apple TV the same price in pounds as in dollars so that $1=£1. Why they should that in this product when it is poorer value in the UK anyway, due to less content being available is a mystery.
However, Apples more usual pricing ratio is 1$ = £0.85. e.g. MacBook Air 11" $999 v £849.
Still on the steep side, even after considering VAT etc, but not half as bad as your figures make them look for 90% of Apple products.
So, if the major revisions aren't worth the additional cost, buy the original?
But before you make that decision, perhaps you should do some spec'ing. There was a lot more than just changing the processor and case.
The prices of components drop as new and better parts arive and nobody wants that old crap
Same goes for apple. Im always astonished about that the price wouldnt change to cheaper if they didnt upgrade at all. Why would anybody then bother to buy outdated hardware for a premium price.
Its what is going to happen if they dont dump the core 2 line on the mini soon... I wouldnt buy it until they upgrade to core i series hardware AND im not buying if they increase the price by 100Euros again after that.
The simplest way I can observe it is as such. In many countries, the general policy seems to be that Apple sets the price of products in that country based on the US Dollar. That doesn't mean it is a direct conversion of the US Dollar to the country's currency, there is always a premium of some sort, whether due to taxes or what not.
Apple can never sell it lower than the equivalent price in the US. Since Apple's finances are in USD therefore any payments they get back from other countries must be at least what they would get for it in the US, otherwise technically they're selling products at a reduced margin outside the US. You would be very hard pressed to find any country whereby it is cheaper to buy Apple products there than the US, removing state and govt taxes from the calculation.
The fly in the ointment is currency fluctuation. Apple generally does not reprice products in-between model refreshes outside the US, or even in the US. Therefore, if the non-US country currency weakens, it means Apple is getting less money back than it should from that country.
I think the primary tool of calculating price outside the US is a conversion based on the US price, then a premium applied to cover various things but definitely to cover the "spread" for currency fluctuations.
Of course this "premium" will have to take into account how successful sales are in that country and the cost of business in that country, taxes etc.
As I mentioned Apple does not have a practice of repricing products mid-product-cycle. They tend to adjust for currency changes whenever new models are announced or refreshes of existing models, etc.
Therefore you will end up with situations whereby some models eg. MacBook Pros are quite expensive in a country even though that countries currency has gone up, while in the same country MacBook Airs may be more in line with the exchange rate because they were recently refreshed/repriced (besides that the price was dropped in the US).
Has anyone found trends in Europe, Australia, etc. that correlate with my observations? My experience in the pricing is mostly South East Asia but I have seen such trends in Australia previously.
I don't see how the existence of a "premium" can be assumed for Apple products outside of the US market, unless it can be shown that no such "premium" exists in the US market. This argument apparently assumes that Apple prices products outside of the US further above the market for competitive goods than they do in the US. Since this seems like an irrational pricing policy (not to mention, one doomed to fail), I question the argument that Apple deliberately prices its products higher than the competitive market everywhere but in the US. I think all of this talk of currency exchange rates clouds the fundamental issue, which is that companies have to price their products competitively within every market in which they hope to succeed.
Comments
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.
No, Katastroff is correct. It's an adjustment for FOREX rates. When the Mac Mini was released back in June, the USD was at 5 year high versus the EUR. The Euro had fallen from $1.50 in Jan to $1.18 in June. Therefore, Apple priced the Mac mini according to the prevailing exchange rate. However, USD strength has been short-lived as the EUR has climbed back above $1.40. Thus, Apple was able to cut prices to reflect the weaker dollar.
Yes the Dell 2305 isn?t exactly the same as a low-end Imac, but make no mistake, they are comparable.
So let's compare them.
AMD 2.3GHz vs. Clarkdale 3.06 GHz
23" 1920x1080 vs. 21.5" 1920x1080
7 Home Premium vs. Snow Leopard
6GB RAM max vs. 16 GB RAM max
HD 4270 vs. HD 4670
802.11g vs. 802.11n
Who makes the LCD panel in the Dell? The iMac is IPS quality.
So let's compare them.
AMD 2.3GHz vs. Clarkdale 3.06 GHz
23" 1920x1080 vs. 21.5" 1920x1080
7 Home Premium vs. Snow Leopard
6GB RAM max vs. 16 GB RAM max
HD 4270 vs. HD 4670
802.11g vs. 802.11n
Who makes the LCD panel in the Dell? The iMac is IPS quality.
Not sure about how makes the LCD, its LED backlite but not IPS. However here are some things you didnt mention. I assume your looking at the $1200 entry level Imac. I'll compare it to the $799 2305.
-AMD 2.3GHz vs. Clarkdale 3.06 GHz
AMD is a Athlon II X4 Quad-Core, the I3 Clarksdale is a great processor but its a dual-core
- Screen no problem there
- OS No problem here
- Memory, both systems are configured with 4gb, dell's limit is 8gb not 6gb (that is a config limit of that SKU), and so is the 21.5" Imac since it only has two slots, the 27" has 4 slots
- Video, No Problem here
- Networking, All dell 2305's in the store have N Networking
Also the $799 model has a 750gb HD vs's 500gb.
Plus, HDMI connectivity a 7-in-1 card reader a 6 USB ports.
Im not trying to prove that it is superior to the entry level Imac, which it may or might not be. My argument is that its comparible and it costs $400 dollars less.
Love the mac mini, I bought one for my wife, but why in the heck would you put a card reader on the BACK of a mac mini? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, they should have just left that off !!!
Thats true, it be nice if someone would integrate into a keyboard, since I always tuck the computer into an awkward place
So let's compare them.
AMD 2.3GHz vs. Clarkdale 3.06 GHz
23" 1920x1080 vs. 21.5" 1920x1080
7 Home Premium vs. Snow Leopard
6GB RAM max vs. 16 GB RAM max
HD 4270 vs. HD 4670
802.11g vs. 802.11n
Who makes the LCD panel in the Dell? The iMac is IPS quality.
Sorry to bother but one more thing, IPS is a technology not a grade, just as TFT is a LCD technology. Would you say there is a wide array of different TFT panels out there with varying levels of quality? I would. Would it also not be fair to say that IPS panels also vary in quality?
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.
Price on the apple site this morning (3rd Nov 2010) was A$899 (US$897.55) for the Mini and A$1299 (US$1297.06) for the Server, and that includes a 10% sales tax.
No, Katastroff is correct. It's an adjustment for FOREX rates. When the Mac Mini was released back in June, the USD was at 5 year high versus the EUR. The Euro had fallen from $1.50 in Jan to $1.18 in June. Therefore, Apple priced the Mac mini according to the prevailing exchange rate. However, USD strength has been short-lived as the EUR has climbed back above $1.40. Thus, Apple was able to cut prices to reflect the weaker dollar.
He is not correct. Prices for retail goods simply are not set according to exchange rates. In fact, if you want to look a bit deeper into this, you will notice that the GBP is still relatively weak against the USD. Yet, Apple dropped the price of the mini in the UK as well. This is hard to explain by exchange rate logic alone, because currency exchange rates have very little to do with setting retail prices.
Price on the apple site this morning (3rd Nov 2010) was A$899 (US$897.55) for the Mini and A$1299 (US$1297.06) for the Server, and that includes a 10% sales tax.
So...?
So...?
So its a spot check on pricing comparison using today's exchange rate.
He is not correct. Prices for retail goods simply are not set according to exchange rates. In fact, if you want to look a bit deeper into this, you will notice that the GBP is still relatively weak against the USD. Yet, Apple dropped the price of the mini in the UK as well. This is hard to explain by exchange rate logic alone, because currency exchange rates have very little to do with setting retail prices.
Exchange rates have everything to do with setting prices. Apple, as well as all other public companies, target a desired profit margin which is setting selling price relative to product costs.
The GBP had dropped from above $1.65 to below $1.45 in June, and now has risen back above $1.60. The key here is at the time of the Mac mini launch, the Euro currencies had just crashed due to their sovereign debt crisis. However, confidence was restored and markets quickly recovered.
I keep track of Apple's international pricing in USD terms, and the Mac mini before the price cut was nearly 30% higher than US pricing. Nearly all other Apple products are only slightly more than 10% higher. That's generally the case for most all products / in all countries. Thus, the Mac mini was priced way above Apple's typical US price band so it cut the price to bring it back in line. When Mac mini was released, at then prevailing FOREX rates, it was slightly 10% higher versus US pricing. That's consistent with the typical variance Apple shoots for.
So its a spot check on pricing comparison using today's exchange rate.
I'm not seeing the point. Today the prices in Australia might be lower than if they were converted to US dollars. Another time, they might be higher. Either way, they the cost to Australians hasn't changed. This is the key take-away point that seems to be so widely misunderstood.
Exchange rates have everything to do with setting prices. Apple, as well as all other public companies, target a desired profit margin which is setting selling price relative to product costs.
The GBP had dropped from above $1.65 to below $1.45 in June, and now has risen back above $1.60. The key here is at the time of the Mac mini launch, the Euro currencies had just crashed due to their sovereign debt crisis. However, confidence was restored and markets quickly recovered.
I keep track of Apple's international pricing in USD terms, and the Mac mini before the price cut was nearly 30% higher than US pricing. Nearly all other Apple products are only slightly more than 10% higher. That's generally the case for most all products / in all countries. Thus, the Mac mini was priced way above Apple's typical US price band so it cut the price to bring it back in line. When Mac mini was released, at then prevailing FOREX rates, it was slightly 10% higher versus US pricing. That's consistent with the typical variance Apple shoots for.
The profit margin they target is the highest one they can manage. They don't reach a target and then give up anything beyond that out of charity. Apple and every other company will always attempt to maximize profits. Always. Always. Always. Cheap currencies give exporters like Apple a great opportunity to increase profits. Ask the Chinese -- that's why they keep their currency undervalued.
You simply cannot compare prices by country by computing exchange rates. It makes no sense, since the products are not priced for foreign markets, they are priced for the markets in which they sell. They will only raise or lower them for competitive purposes, since any other reason is dumb.
I'm not seeing the point. Today the prices in Australia might be lower than if they were converted to US dollars. Another time, they might be higher. Either way, they the cost to Australians hasn't changed. This is the key take-away point that seems to be so widely misunderstood.
The profit margin they target is the highest one they can manage. They don't reach a target and then give up anything beyond that out of charity. Apple and every other company will always attempt to maximize profits. Always. Always. Always. Cheap currencies give exporters like Apple a great opportunity to increase profits. Ask the Chinese -- that's why they keep their currency undervalued.
You simply cannot compare prices by country by computing exchange rates. It makes no sense, since the products are not priced for foreign markets, they are priced for the markets in which they sell. They will only raise or lower them for competitive purposes, since any other reason is dumb.
No, I totally agree with you. I think we are both just looking at it two different ways. Companies always maximize profits which is a function of profit margin (price - cost) and unit volume. Volume is sensitive to price, and the degree of that sensitivity is the demand elasticity. What I was trying to say, was USD strength was eroding profit margins, therefore Apple raised its prices to protect those margins. Higher prices can lead to lower sales, but not always lower profit since margin is higher. Companies will try to hike prices to the point where decreased volume doesn't reverse the margin effect of higher selling price.
Competition is a major factor in demand elasticity. Obviously Apple saw that cutting prices would increase unit volume much more than the effects of lower profit margin/unit leading to higher overall profits.
I guess what I was trying to point out was that Apple had raised prices on nearly all its products this year, to offset the USD strength. It only did that because Apple products can command premium prices. It just so happened that the Mac mini launch occurred at the time the USD was at its high.
I totally agree that prices are set according to the markets in which they are sold based on competitive landscape. However, exchange rates can be either a competitive advantage or disadvantage and in this instance, it was the fluctuation in rates that allowed Apple to price more competitively.
No, I totally agree with you. I think we are both just looking at it two different ways. Companies always maximize profits which is a function of profit margin (price - cost) and unit volume. Volume is sensitive to price, and the degree of that sensitivity is the demand elasticity. What I was trying to say, was USD strength was eroding profit margins, therefore Apple raised its prices to protect those margins. Higher prices can lead to lower sales, but not always lower profit since margin is higher. Companies will try to hike prices to the point where decreased volume doesn't reverse the margin effect of higher selling price.
Competition is a major factor in demand elasticity. Obviously Apple saw that cutting prices would increase unit volume much more than the effects of lower profit margin/unit leading to higher overall profits.
I guess what I was trying to point out was that Apple had raised prices on nearly all its products this year, to offset the USD strength. It only did that because Apple products can command premium prices. It just so happened that the Mac mini launch occurred at the time the USD was at its high.
I totally agree that prices are set according to the markets in which they are sold based on competitive landscape. However, exchange rates can be either a competitive advantage or disadvantage and in this instance, it was the fluctuation in rates that allowed Apple to price more competitively.
No question, a weaker currency provides companies located in that country with a competitive advantage. They can afford to lower prices and maintain their margins -- if they so choose. Or they can increase their margins if they're already positioned where they want to be, vis-a-vis the competition. I see Apple doing a whole lot more of the latter. Enviable margins are one of the keys to their success. They surrender them very reluctantly.
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
Seems like i got to this thread late. David, you have used the Apple TV as your example. There are no arguments about that one, Apple is blatently overcharging - as your figures show. But you are being selective in your choice. Here they have priced the Apple TV the same price in pounds as in dollars so that $1=£1. Why they should that in this product when it is poorer value in the UK anyway, due to less content being available is a mystery.
However, Apples more usual pricing ratio is 1$ = £0.85. e.g. MacBook Air 11" $999 v £849.
Still on the steep side, even after considering VAT etc, but not half as bad as your figures make them look for 90% of Apple products.
So, if the major revisions aren't worth the additional cost, buy the original?
But before you make that decision, perhaps you should do some spec'ing. There was a lot more than just changing the processor and case.
The prices of components drop as new and better parts arive and nobody wants that old crap
Same goes for apple. Im always astonished about that the price wouldnt change to cheaper if they didnt upgrade at all. Why would anybody then bother to buy outdated hardware for a premium price.
Its what is going to happen if they dont dump the core 2 line on the mini soon... I wouldnt buy it until they upgrade to core i series hardware AND im not buying if they increase the price by 100Euros again after that.
No change here in Canada. Should we really pay $50 more? Our dollars are pretty much at par.
well sled dogs -are- more expensive to use for shipping.
Apple can never sell it lower than the equivalent price in the US. Since Apple's finances are in USD therefore any payments they get back from other countries must be at least what they would get for it in the US, otherwise technically they're selling products at a reduced margin outside the US. You would be very hard pressed to find any country whereby it is cheaper to buy Apple products there than the US, removing state and govt taxes from the calculation.
The fly in the ointment is currency fluctuation. Apple generally does not reprice products in-between model refreshes outside the US, or even in the US. Therefore, if the non-US country currency weakens, it means Apple is getting less money back than it should from that country.
I think the primary tool of calculating price outside the US is a conversion based on the US price, then a premium applied to cover various things but definitely to cover the "spread" for currency fluctuations.
Of course this "premium" will have to take into account how successful sales are in that country and the cost of business in that country, taxes etc.
As I mentioned Apple does not have a practice of repricing products mid-product-cycle. They tend to adjust for currency changes whenever new models are announced or refreshes of existing models, etc.
Therefore you will end up with situations whereby some models eg. MacBook Pros are quite expensive in a country even though that countries currency has gone up, while in the same country MacBook Airs may be more in line with the exchange rate because they were recently refreshed/repriced (besides that the price was dropped in the US).
Has anyone found trends in Europe, Australia, etc. that correlate with my observations? My experience in the pricing is mostly South East Asia but I have seen such trends in Australia previously.