PSA: 27-Inch iMac Appears to Have a Pricing Mistake

[alphaod]

This is same with some cars. You can end up spec'ing a lower end trim with more options into a price that's higher than a higher end trim that has the same options already included.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

To my recollection Apple has never been accused of undercharging before, so must be the other... 😀

Edit: but seriously, I agree... Why snitch MR?

I read a review where the writer said that Apple was undercharging for the AirPods. Apparently that has been somewhat addressed as the new version, essentially the same as the old version (plus the Qi charger capability), is priced higher. *shrug*
[doublepost=1559827555][/doublepost]

This is same with some cars. You can end up spec'ing a lower end trim with more options into a price that's higher than a higher end trim that has the same options already included.

It's funny how that worked on some cars. I think that happens less now as many auto companies have done away with the 'a la carte' pricing menus of the past. The last time I bought a car, you either got 'basic', or 'loaded'. There were some 'dealer installed options', but the dealers usually installed them on all the higher end cars automatically.

 

[AnonMac50]

Honestly it makes sense, by doing this people would buy a higher specced model than what they would need (higher CPU, Disk Drive, etc) thinking they are getting a much better deal. The only people really benefitting are ones who actually wanted either of the two specs listed in the beginning exactly. Apple probably calculated and found out that by doing this, they can get a lot more people to buy these parts, thus they can get more profit.

 

[Beachguy]

Oh great, the forum is going to be full of "jokes" about stands now aren't they...

Can we not get them banned mods?

I'm glad you're taking a stand on that. I couldn't stand it otherwise. Gotta rush off to the kids' lemonade stand now...

 

[gnasher729]

You presume that it is an error. I would give better than even odds that it is not a mistake at all, just opportunistic pricing by Apple.

Let's say you want an iMac for $2,499. There is another model for $2,999 but that's too expensive. But now you see another model, that looks like it is worth $3,299 but is sold for $2,999. Wouldn't you be tempted to pay $500 more than you planned?
[doublepost=1559856730][/doublepost]

For $999 I'd expect the stand to come with Tim Apple to unbox it and set it up. I'd even pay for the beer...

For $999,999 he will.

Here's a problem: According to howmanyofme.com there are about 7,800 people in the USA with the last name "Apple". There is an estimated 4 people named "Tim Apple". There is a chance that Apple has an employee named Tim Apple. (They actually did have or still have a store employee named Sam Sung after all). If there is demand for it, they could probably find one of the Tim Apple's, hire them, and for $1,999 he comes and installs that stand for you.

 

[Gasu E.]

Apple updated its iMac lineup in March with new processor and graphics options, but the latest 27-inch model appears to have a pricing mistake.

Article Link: PSA: 27-Inch iMac Appears to Have a Pricing Mistake

It's no mistake. I did pricing for computer systems as a Product Manager for 30 years, and sometimes you may want to provide a bundle discount to steer customers toward specific configurations. However, creating any kind of configuration-specific discount automatically introduces anomalies of this nature. It's mathematically unavoidable.

 

[Beachguy]

Let's say you want an iMac for $2,499. There is another model for $2,999 but that's too expensive. But now you see another model, that looks like it is worth $3,299 but is sold for $2,999. Wouldn't you be tempted to pay $500 more than you planned?

I'm not sure what bearing that has on what I said and what you, thus, replied to.