Yet when I point out that Microsoft has a ~20:1 advantage in OS production volume, which invariably impacts operating costs by this 20:1 difference in the denominator for Fixed Costs amortization....you openly express cynicism and/or try to wave it off as insignificant, when it is clearly not.
I didn't say it's insignificant to them, I used a "backyard oil refinery" analogy to illustrate that it's irrelevant to the end customer. You have a disadvantage in OS production volume? Well boo hoo, then use iPod revenue to subsidize it or something, we're all out of tears here. Apple's own prices are what keeps the production volume more limited than it has to be, the customers never forced them into that catch-22.
Yet this still doesn't really address the stubbornness illustrated in the iMac warranty repair saga.
I still fail to see the "cheap" part, had I been frugal I wouldn't have bought AppleCare to begin with. It simply posed a practical problem at a time when I was working up to 16 hours a day to get a project finished, occasionally slept on my studio couch and was stressed out to the max. When you're minute-pinching like I was at the time, molehills can be insurmountable. Even setting up so I could fax receipts to Apple (sorry but I haven't used a fax since the 90's) would have been too much of an interruption, and that would only have been one small step towards getting it fixed. But the project was finisihed a while ago so it's not crazy crunching time anymore -- now you can just call me lazy.
A statement that now clearly contradicts the prior claim of "übergreed" being present. If you can admit that two Apple products are fairly priced, perhaps more are ... or even all of them.
Now you're twisting my words just to be Mr. Opposite (not the first time I might add). I never said they were fairly priced, I just said that those sums match my budget. I could also buy Pet Rocks for the entire budget, that doesn't mean I think they're fairly priced for what they do or what they cost to produce. Being willing to pay a lot and wanting bang for buck are not mutually exclusive.
The "übergreed" comment referred to their peculiar habit of selling premium products and being defiantly cheap at the same time. High prices alone do not constitute übergreed. You know how when you buy a Bentley, there's an umbrella in the driver's door that slides out elegantly if the rain sensor says it's raining? They make sure to add little details like that to make you feel shamelessly spoiled. Whereas Apple would just remove the spare tire and the electrical windows and eliminate all color options, and then ask for whatever the Bentley costs + 10%.
And more significantly, I don't see it as some massively malignant scheme: afterall, Mercedes doesn't sell their A-Class in the USA, nor does Audi their A1 or A2 series, nor does your favorite of BMW offer their smaller engine variants (eg, 316i, 318i, 320i, 323i, 325i, 318d, 320d, 325d, 330d). The reality is that there's solid business reasons why they do what they do.
The A2 has been discontinued (sadly... I use to own one. Aluminium unibody!). The reason why they didn't sell anything below A4 for a long time is that Americans hate hatchbacks with a passion and scoff at compact cars in general (I'm not being judgmental -- Swedes drive the largest and thirstiest cars in Europe). When the gas prices skyrocketed and the economy went down the toilet on top of that, Americans were suddenly very interested in small cars again so now Audi USA has brought the A3 back (the A1 will come later), and VW has brought back the Polo, and maybe even the Fox (one size above the SmartCar). In other words, they sell whatever cars that any given market is asking for at any given time. That's the opposite of Apple, who try to dictate what customers want rather than adapt to the demand. Audi would've delivered that xMac tower ages ago.
