I think any idea that Apple doesn't thoroughly understand the capacity, value, market, price tradeoff is untenable.
The most obvious view is that Apple price gouges on storage. But this seems too simplistic.
My conjecture is that there's an inescapable tension between supply (availabilty/cost) sales forecasts, technological churn, and roadmaps that leads them to want to somewhat subsidize the lowest end, and place a bit of back-pressure on consumption at the high-end. The trick is finding the tipping point on the curve between growth and over commitment by suppliers. Especially, for tightly vertically integrated products.
The PC industry is more diffuse and horizontal and so more tolerant of fluctuations in supply and demand across a broader network of providers and consumers, leading to a lower, more even cost structure for components and modules.
In real terms, Apple's products keep costing less, just like all computer products. They seem to make a point of holding prices on an appearance point of latest tech that's held steady since the first Macs: about $2500 for a unit that meets the expectations of space right behind the bleeding edge while being reliable, useful and a vanguard of trends.
Seems plausible enough to me, but whether there's a business case or not isn't my concern as much as how it feels to price something out knowing that I'm deliberately gouged on arbitrary components instead of the the segmentation being somewhat more meaningful. They're already reaping very high margins, but by tightly coupling quantities of those components to even higher margin builds, it feels a bit gross, to the point where I just have to accept that I'd have to spend even more excessively than in previous years of similar models. As in, I'm happy to pay a bit more for more power if I find it useful, likewise with ram, but not being able to get more ram without first getting something I have no way to put to use seems a bit silly, akin to not being able to get better seats in a car unless I first get the racing spec version, otherwise I'm stuck with a lawn chair.
The most obvious view is that Apple price gouges on storage. But this seems too simplistic.
My conjecture is that there's an inescapable tension between supply (availabilty/cost) sales forecasts, technological churn, and roadmaps that leads them to want to somewhat subsidize the lowest end, and place a bit of back-pressure on consumption at the high-end. The trick is finding the tipping point on the curve between growth and over commitment by suppliers. Especially, for tightly vertically integrated products.
The PC industry is more diffuse and horizontal and so more tolerant of fluctuations in supply and demand across a broader network of providers and consumers, leading to a lower, more even cost structure for components and modules.
In real terms, Apple's products keep costing less, just like all computer products. They seem to make a point of holding prices on an appearance point of latest tech that's held steady since the first Macs: about $2500 for a unit that meets the expectations of space right behind the bleeding edge while being reliable, useful and a vanguard of trends.