What's so fantastic about Apple?

[Stray Cat]

Personally, I would like the prices to be lower in general. Especially the price discrepancy between the ipod touch and iphone (no-contract). (IE iphone being priced so much higher but being very similar hardware just without a cell radio)

But what methodology does one use to arrive at the conclusion that the price difference for higher capacity storage is too high ?

What would an appropriate price be ?

As was said (much earlier) in this thread, if they are selling every 'extortionately' priced ipad/iphone/ipod they make, then it seems obvious that they aren't priced too high, right ?

Although I agree "too high" is nonsense when you consider that people are still paying the asked price, I have to agree partly with Darat that an extra £80 for an extra 16gb is certainly a lot. And a lot more than I'd expect when 16gb comes in much cheaper (about £10) in say a USB memory stick.

Apple have always done this (no excuse!) and it's the reason when buying my computers, I don't go for the full spec model, but the cheaper one, which I then third party upgrade (extra RAM and larger HD).

 

[Brian-M]

Although I agree "too high" is nonsense when you consider that people are still paying the asked price, I have to agree partly with Darat that an extra £80 for an extra 16gb is certainly a lot. And a lot more than I'd expect when 16gb comes in much cheaper (about £10) in say a USB memory stick.

Of course, with an internal SSD you'd also get a much faster read/write speed and far more read/write cycles before failure when compared to a USB memory stick, so you'd expect to pay more.

Maybe not £70 more, but you wouldn't expect it to be the same price.

 

[Stray Cat]

Of course, with an internal SSD you'd also get a much faster read/write speed and far more read/write cycles before failure when compared to a USB memory stick, so you'd expect to pay more.

Maybe not £70 more, but you wouldn't expect it to be the same price.

Although I understand there are other differences between USB memory sticks and SSD cards, the only difference between a 16gb SSD and a 32gb SSD is the storage space, which across the board nowadays is about £1 per gb.

 

[Darat]

Personally, I would like the prices to be lower in general. Especially the price discrepancy between the ipod touch and iphone (no-contract). (IE iphone being priced so much higher but being very similar hardware just without a cell radio)

But what methodology does one use to arrive at the conclusion that the price difference for higher capacity storage is too high ?
What would an appropriate price be ?

As was said (much earlier) in this thread, if they are selling every 'extortionately' priced ipad/iphone/ipod they make, then it seems obvious that they aren't priced too high, right ?

Again you seem to be making up things that I haven't actually posted. If you want to ask me about stuff I've actually posted I might look to answer your questions.

 

[Fishstick]

Apple has 91% of market for $1,000+ PCs, says NPD

Nine out of 10 premium-priced PCs sold at US retail is a Mac

OMG - THE FAILURE OF IT ALL.

Those are kind of a dumb comparison since Macs practically start at 1k and Pc's are gotten for 500 - 900 on average. So it's obvious that Apple would have a larger marketshare in the market they're specifically tailoring to. Overall, Mac still is only ~9% of total PC marketshare as the majority of PCs are 500 - 900ish and not 1k+ .

The second article says basically the same thing as the first - obviously macs are going to be the majority premium PC seller as most common PC's are sold at under a <1K pricepoint - ie, not 'premium'.

 

[Darat]

Of course, with an internal SSD you'd also get a much faster read/write speed and far more read/write cycles before failure when compared to a USB memory stick, so you'd expect to pay more.

Maybe not £70 more, but you wouldn't expect it to be the same price.

Why no you would expect the costs to Apple to be much cheaper.

 

[Stray Cat]

Those are kind of a dumb comparison since Macs practically start at 1k and Pc's are gotten for 500 - 900 on average. So it's obvious that Apple would have a larger marketshare in the market they're specifically tailoring to. Overall, Mac still is only ~9% of total PC marketshare as the majority of PCs are 500 - 900ish and not 1k+ .

The second article says basically the same thing as the first - obviously macs are going to be the majority premium PC seller as most common PC's are sold at under a <1K pricepoint - ie, not 'premium'.

But to say that Apple have failed in a market they weren't even aiming at is silly.
Apple have also completely failed to convert more people to Hinduism.

Apple have always aimed at the higher end market and in that market they have achieved great success.

 

[Fishstick]

But to say that Apple have failed in a market they weren't even aiming at is silly.
Apple have also completely failed to convert more people to Hinduism.

Apple have always aimed at the higher end market and in that market they have achieved great success.

I never said those things, and I'm not defending whoever said that, just pointing out that those articles are a bad way to counter the argument re: pc market share.

 

[Stray Cat]

I never said those things, and I'm not defending whoever said that, just pointing out that those articles are a bad way to counter the argument re: pc market share.

I disagree. They both show that in the sectors Apple have actually aimed at, they have been successful.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

One area of legitimate criticism regarding apple product pricing is the extortionate price you pay for internal storage memory on their iOS range of products. For instance in the UK you pay £80 for the additional 16Gb for a 32Gb iPad.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:extortionate

ex·tor·tion·ate /ikˈstôrSHənit/ Adjective:
1.(of a price) Much too high; exorbitant.
2.Using or given to extortion.

But what methodology does one use to arrive at the conclusion that the price difference for higher capacity storage is too high ?

Again you seem to be making up things that I haven't actually posted. If you want to ask me about stuff I've actually posted I might look to answer your questions.

Really ?

I don't know how else to read what you posted. It seems completely clear that your opinion is that the price difference for memory between the 16GB and 32 GB is too high. How else is one supposed to interpret your statement ?

Did you mean you believe Apple is actually extorting you ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I never said those things, and I'm not defending whoever said that, just pointing out that those articles are a bad way to counter the argument re: pc market share.

The poster said Apple only having 6% market share made them a failure in the pc market. I was just pointing out that was a poor definition of the word failure, IMHO. And no, my URLs were not the best, but it were sufficient to get the point across that there is more to success/failure than overall market share numbers.

 

[Darat]

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:extortionate

ex·tor·tion·ate /ikˈstôrSHənit/ Adjective:
1.(of a price) Much too high; exorbitant.
2.Using or given to extortion.





Really ?

I don't know how else to read what you posted. It seems completely clear that your opinion is that the price difference for memory between the 16GB and 32 GB is too high. How else is one supposed to interpret your statement ?

Did you mean you believe Apple is actually extorting you ?

No the price difference is exorbitant as I stated - if I had used the phrase you've made up me using i.e. "too high" the meaning of my post would have been different and it would not have meant what I wanted it to mean.

I should not really be addressing you - but could I suggest you stop doing that as it is rather tiresome and doesn't make for an interesting discussion if I have to keep reminding you that you are making things up about what I have posted. Address what I've posted. Thanks.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:extortionate

ex·tor·tion·ate /ikˈstôrSHənit/ Adjective:
1.(of a price) Much too high; exorbitant.
2.Using or given to extortion.





Really ?

I don't know how else to read what you posted. It seems completely clear that your opinion is that the price difference for memory between the 16GB and 32 GB is too high. How else is one supposed to interpret your statement ?

Did you mean you believe Apple is actually extorting you ?

Considering I can buy a 32GB SSD for less than the difference in Apple markup, I would say "yes....Apple is overcharging for the increase".

ETA: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820161496

And internal drives:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=

Given that all those drives can be had for less than the markup, one can only assume that Apple is attaching the "Apple tax" to the increase in storage space.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The poster said Apple only having 6% market share made them a failure in the pc market. I was just pointing out that was a poor definition of the word failure, IMHO. And no, my URLs were not the best, but it were sufficient to get the point across that there is more to success/failure than overall market share numbers.

No, actually, the poster was fairly accurate.

Take into account that the segment Apple has dominated is the >$1k segment and that still only accounts for a small portion of the overall market, Apple has been less than overly successful.

Then factor in that Apple did well in the premium market because the overwhelming majority of it's products were in the premium market... Combine this with the realization that the premium segment is dominated by: people buying Apple and hardcore gamers (because, let's face it, the average computer user doesn't need a $1k+ computer) and most hardcore gamers don't buy prebuilt computers, but rather upgrade existing hardware regularly...

It becomes easy to see that Apple is doing well in the premium segment because they're targeting people who are willing to pay more for less just to get the Apple name. It's an interesting niche market that Apple has created for itself.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No the price difference is exorbitant as I stated -

This is the first time you used the word exorbitant. You said extortionate, and the first definition of the word is 'too high'.

I should not really be addressing you - but could I suggest you stop doing that

Doing what ? Interpreting words as they are defined ?

as it is rather tiresome and doesn't make for an interesting discussion if I have to keep reminding you that you are making things up about what I have posted. Address what I've posted. Thanks.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

This is the first time you used the word exorbitant. You said extortionate, and the first definition of the word is 'too high'.

And...the pricing is "too high" considering the cost difference between a 32GB and 16GB SSD. (extortionate, and the synonym exorbitant)


One could argue that it's extortion for Apple to so greatly overcharge for the increased storage space given that there is far less than $100 difference in price between a 16GB and 32GB SSD.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And...the pricing is "too high" considering the cost difference between a 32GB and 16GB SSD.

Apparently that is not what Darat is saying though. And to put it in context, my post was:

Personally, I would like the prices to be lower in general. Especially the price discrepancy between the ipod touch and iphone (no-contract). (IE iphone being priced so much higher but being very similar hardware just without a cell radio)

But what methodology does one use to arrive at the conclusion that the price difference for higher capacity storage is too high ?

What would an appropriate price be ?

As was said (much earlier) in this thread, if they are selling every 'extortionately' priced ipad/iphone/ipod they make, then it seems obvious that they aren't priced too high, right ?

So, Bob, feel free to respond to my questions. I would like to see your responses.

I think it's worth keeping in mind in your response that apple generally increases the specs (screen resolution, processor, internal memory) etc, while keeping the price point the same, too. (i.e. ipad1,2 and 3 all started at the same price point)

One could argue that it's extortion for Apple to so greatly overcharge for the increased storage space given that there is far less than $100 difference in price between a 16GB and 32GB SSD.

OK, go ahead. Unless that's your whole argument ?

 

[rustypouch]

Those are kind of a dumb comparison since Macs practically start at 1k and Pc's are gotten for 500 - 900 on average. So it's obvious that Apple would have a larger marketshare in the market they're specifically tailoring to. Overall, Mac still is only ~9% of total PC marketshare as the majority of PCs are 500 - 900ish and not 1k+ .

The second article says basically the same thing as the first - obviously macs are going to be the majority premium PC seller as most common PC's are sold at under a <1K pricepoint - ie, not 'premium'.

This is just conjecture, but because the article is about computers sold at retail, it excludes people who build their own.

Everyone I know, including me, who spent more than $1000 on a desktop PC bought the components and put it together themselves, or upgrade as they go, so they wouldn't be counted in this article. That leaves laptops and corporate purchases on the PC side.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, actually, the poster was fairly accurate.

Take into account that the segment Apple has dominated is the >$1k segment and that still only accounts for a small portion of the overall market, Apple has been less than overly successful.

Then factor in that Apple did well in the premium market because the overwhelming majority of it's products were in the premium market...

IOW, apple has done well in the market they are selling products in ?

I still don't understand how that is failure. Even you just wrote 'less than overly successful' - not 'failed'.

Again, if pure numbers market share is the goal, then they failed. But that seems like a poor metric for success/failure.

 

[Babbylonian]

Again, if pure numbers market share is the goal, then they failed. But that seems like a poor metric for success/failure.

I think it's a good metric for missed opportunity/wasted potential.

That said, I also think the iPad fills Apple's low/mid-range PC price gap nicely. As time goes on, I expect people to discover they use their desktops/laptops less than they would/do use their tablets. For example, the people in my family who use computers for purely light home office/recreational purposes could easily switch to iPads that (with a Bluetooth keyboard and vertical stand) would meet all their needs.