On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Jim Devine wrote: > and Apple products are typically more expensive than their non-Apple > competitors.
No, they are not. And I am surprised to see that comment on a list where members discuss economic facts and theories on a daily basis. In fact competitors cannot match Apple's prices. That's why they are loosing share every day. Even though they have access to the exact same resources: Foxconn & Cie for one. You don't seriously think that Apple's share in the US for laptops has raised from 5% to 23 % with machines more expensive than competitors' ? And laptops are typically more expensive than equivalent desktops... Honestly, if on one hand you have a 1kg machine enclosed in aluminum and tightly integrated inside vs a 2kg machine mostly in plastic and with twice the volume, but with equivalent "internal" specs, do you really consider that the machines are equivalent from a user point of view or that their prices should be the same ? How do you compare the machines ? In other terms, how to do price the industrial design that, on a car, will make you save a few gpm for example ? > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:46 PM, michael perelman > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I do so because Apple's products are seductive, but I think have many >> negative aspects -- enclosing what would be better as an more open >> system. Jean-Christophe Helary _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
