And thus the Bingo comment. Sorry, that may not be universal. Bingo means right on, correct, I agree, good comment.
fair enough, reading comprehension ftw
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
All iPads The great memory rip-off
- Thread starter superduperdom
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
fair enough, reading comprehension ftw
I think ZBoater's implication of that is spot on; it's a common business practice. McDonald's burgers are expensive and the margins are small. Fries and drinks, on the other hand, cost next to nothing by comparison. A person buying a "meal" is subsidizing the person who just buys a couple of hamburgers.
Other businesses work similarly.
This is all fine and dandy. It remains that apple's upgradable storage prices could be seen as a rip off.
I guess I just have a different definition of rip off. For me, rip off is popcorn and candy prices at the movies or at the ballgame. Yes, they are increasing their revenue to cover their expenses and make a profit, but once I go see a movie, I can't (or should not) bring my own candy, I HAVE NO CHOICE but buy from them, and they rip me off. Same thing for a coke and a hot dog at the ballgame. If I want to eat something at the ball game, they rip me off because I am a captive audience with no other choices.
If I had choices, like two competing concession stands, with different candies and different prices, and I had a CHOICE, then I would not consider it a rip off. I can CHOOSE the higher priced candy, maybe it is Godiva brand, maybe it is nicer, whatever. If they did not offer some sort of value, the cheaper candy stand would get ALL the business and the expensive candy stand would go out of business.
Apple outsells every other tablet, including the Nexus 7 which is a good tablet and is CHEAP. People have choices. They CHOOSE to pay the Apple premium. If given a choice, and they choose Apple, it can't be a ripoff. They've created an ecosystem of software and services that tends to hold people captive if they choose to invest themselves in it. Like I have hundreds of dollars of iOS apps. Going somewhere else is not practical for some. But you do have a choice. You can't blame Apple for creating such an enticing ecosystem that draws people into it and then charge high prices for their tablets and laptops. They have a very low marketshare, but insane profits. They can't build these things fast enough.
We will just agree to disagree on the "rip off" characterization.
Seagate settled that lawsuit but instead of stopping their deceptive practice, they simply agreed to put a note somewhere on the product packaging (usually in 6pt font or smaller) saying that 1GB = 10^9 bytes, and since then everyone else including Apple follows their example.
Now that's what I call holding them accountable...
I don't necessarily disagree. Personally, I wish storage started at 32 GB. Nonetheless, it's Apple's game and if we want to play we have to pay.
I guess I just have a different definition of rip off. For me, rip off is popcorn and candy prices at the movies or at the ballgame. Yes, they are increasing their revenue to cover their expenses and make a profit, but once I go see a movie, I can't (or should not) bring my own candy, I HAVE NO CHOICE but buy from them, and they rip me off. Same thing for a coke and a hot dog at the ballgame. If I want to eat something at the ball game, they rip me off because I am a captive audience with no other choices.
If I had choices, like two competing concession stands, with different candies and different prices, and I had a CHOICE, then I would not consider it a rip off. I can CHOOSE the higher priced candy, maybe it is Godiva brand, maybe it is nicer, whatever. If they did not offer some sort of value, the cheaper candy stand would get ALL the business and the expensive candy stand would go out of business.
Apple outsells every other tablet, including the Nexus 7 which is a good tablet and is CHEAP. People have choices. They CHOOSE to pay the Apple premium. If given a choice, and they choose Apple, it can't be a ripoff. They've created an ecosystem of software and services that tends to hold people captive if they choose to invest themselves in it. Like I have hundreds of dollars of iOS apps. Going somewhere else is not practical for some. But you do have a choice. You can't blame Apple for creating such an enticing ecosystem that draws people into it and then charge high prices for their tablets and laptops. They have a very low marketshare, but insane profits. They can't build these things fast enough.
We will just agree to disagree on the "rip off" characterization.
I view the storage scenario as exactly the same as your popcorn/concession analogy. I have no choice to get internal storage for my ipad anywhere else. Having an older android tablet, I don't feel they really compare as a substitute. While you could argue I have the choice to buy an android tablet with cheaper upgradable storage, it really isn't the same. Please note that I'm not arguing against apples premium pricing in general, just when it comes to storage bumps. IMO the iPad is worth a premium, I just don't understand why the storage is worth such a premium.
FWIW, as you can see in my sig I use an android phone (and love it). I would argue certain android phones can be legit substitutes for the iphone, but tablets just aren't there yet(if they get there).
Last edited:
Under normal circumstances I might agree that market forces would eventually rule. But in this case each of the manufacturers does basically the same thing so, while they may not hacve colluded on the practice, they certainly all practice it. Therefore only an informed public and the ensuing PR problem will ever get one of them to change. And it will take one to start the ball rolling. But at this point the public simply accepts it because: 1) everyone does it and, 2) to most of the public' se yes glaze over because they don't understand what it even is.
Ok, so only 2% of iPads are returned. So all those millions of people don't understand what even is. Only in Macrumors do we truly appreciate the gamut and our return rate is 90%, with many of us returning the thing 17 times. It's great to have such as deep understanding of the gamut. The masses are so ignorant.
/sarcasm off
Yet "the masses" are the people who are busy using their ipads in blissful ignorance, happy as clams. Meanwhile we're here angstfully debating the merits of cost-based pricing of incremental capacity gradients on a premium, inherently non-commodity product that is part of a very popular ecosystem...
Hmm, I wonder who's better off?
Yet "the masses" are the people who are busy using their ipads in blissful ignorance, happy as clams. Meanwhile we're here angstfully debating the merits of cost-based pricing of incremental capacity gradients on a premium, inherently non-commodity product that is part of a very popular ecosystem...
Hmm, I wonder who's better off?
You know what they say, if you really think the problem is everybody else the problem probably isn't everyone else.
Yes, I know. However, consider this: Is a megatonne equivalent to 1,048,576 tonnes? If you use a kilowatt of electricity, does that mean you used 1,024 watts? The tech industry used standard SI prefixes for binary which should not have been done in the first place.
That said, flash memory actually comes in powers of 2. I reckon the iPad does have 16/32/64/128 GiB of flash memory. I'm guessing the 7% disparity between GB and GiB is just being used as spare area/over provisioning as is common practice with SSD's.
You obviously didn't follow the entire discussion my post applied to. And no, in case you don't realize it there are other forums. But the general public doesn't follow tech forums and have very little knowledge of flash storage and the costs involved. They simply accept the outrageous markups as a matter of life. This has nothing to do with gamut, etc. nor does it apply just to Apple.
So if you wish to be sarcastic at least try to keep on subject. It will make a lot more sense in the long run.
You can install apps to the cloud now? No you can't and apps are getting bigger all the time.
The vast majority of people who buy Ipads and Iphones or even tablets in general are not tech savvy in the slightest. This is who this article is for it's to inform people of the mark up Apple make.
And you obviously missed the basic mechanics of posting. I was replying to a specific post. Yes, it may have been a bit off topic, which is why I QUOTED the post I was replying to.
Your use of the word "outrageous" is misplaced, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. FACT is that iPads are selling like hotcakes, and most people (98% of them as a matter of FACT) do not return them. These two FACTS are what leads me to disagree with your "outrageous" and with the OP "rip off" statements.
This, of course, is my opinion. Feel free to disagree or to further instruct me on forum etiquette. I am all ears.
what? that makes no sense. The problem with my analogy is that you don't like it. If people buy it then it is by definition not a "rip-off" to them unless they are mislead or otherwise coerced.
Android tablets are taking over the tablet market. Android controlled Q3 sales... of course that's going to put pressure on Apple. They will either need to improve quality, reduce prices or eat losses. It really is that simple.
No I did not miss the basics of posting. And you only quoted part of my post. This thread is about the markup for flash storage -period. My post was concerning the fact that every manufacturer marks up their storage options by 4 digit factors.
As for iPads selling like hotcakes, that has nothing to do with the fact that storage increments cost much more than they should. My point is that the general public doesn't even realize that FACT and if they did the resulting PR storm would likely push at least one manufacturer to price more realistically. Then market forces would take over.
But you are correct that I'm entitled to my opinion and as in just about all posts (unless sources are quoted) everything contained within the post is an opinion. And in MY OPINION the pricing most certainly is outrageous. My opinion, my choice of words.
You 'facts' have nothing to do with the pricing structure. The only possible correlation simply reinforces my post that the general public doesn't realize just how much extra they are paying for a relatively inexpensive upgrade.
and expecting the price to be lower is expecting someone else to subsidize your purchase.
Of course they do. It's called supply and demand. And what I take exception with is the assumption that millions of people are just too stupid to realize they are being "ripped off". That is a presumptuous and erroneous conclusion.
First of all, the price of the extra storage does not need to directly correlate to the cost of the part or the labor installing it. That is the first false assumption people are making here. Apple has revenue targets, and they price their products accordingly. So if iCloud is FREE for the most part, then they need to get money to build and maintain those monster data centers from somewhere.
The best analogy was the hot dog at the ball game or the popcorn at the movies. The corn kernels and the oil to make the popcorn cost pennies. Add the rent, the salaries, the electricity, etc., and you still can't justify $5 for a bag of popcorn. Their business model expects more revenue out of their concession sales to make up for the less revenue they make in ticket sales (even though they are expensive, they share that revenue with the film companies). I loved the analogy of MacDonalds's dollar menu. So the burger is a dollar but they get you when you buy the fries and soda. So in essence the buyers of meals are subsidizing the people who buy just the burgers.
So back to Apple, they price their tablets to make money. To assume the $100 jump is just to cover the cost of parts and labor to provide you the extra 16 or 32 or 64GB is an incorrect assumption. If they had a choice, I am sure they would rather have everyone buy $900 iPads. But they need to differentiate their products and provide a "cheaper" option for folks who are penny wise. So the 16GB models are very popular.
No, the extra $100 is not just for the expense of the memory chip. Or any additional labor (which there probably isn't any). And it is just not to pay for their salaries, rent, electricity, R&D, marketing, website, distribution systems, etc. It also provides them PROFIT, and revenue to do other things, like iCloud and Siri and whatever else they have up their sleeve.
Their competitors are charging less. Woohoo. Why does Apple need to compete on price? They don't. So fine, some folks think their pricing scheme is outrageous. Ok. I would encourage anyone who finds Apple pricing outrageous to protest with their wallet. I have paid a premium for iPads, iPhones, MacBook Airs because I like Apple products and I think they are worth it. But to accuse Apple of "ripping off" people is a bit thick. In my opinion, of course.
Of course they do. It's called supply and demand. And what I take exception with is the assumption that millions of people are just too stupid to realize they are being "ripped off". That is a presumptuous and erroneous conclusion.
First of all, the price of the extra storage does not need to directly correlate to the cost of the part or the labor installing it. That is the first false assumption people are making here. Apple has revenue targets, and they price their products accordingly. So if iCloud is FREE for the most part, then they need to get money to build and maintain those monster data centers from somewhere.
The best analogy was the hot dog at the ball game or the popcorn at the movies. The corn kernels and the oil to make the popcorn cost pennies. Add the rent, the salaries, the electricity, etc., and you still can't justify $5 for a bag of popcorn. Their business model expects more revenue out of their concession sales to make up for the less revenue they make in ticket sales (even though they are expensive, they share that revenue with the film companies). I loved the analogy of MacDonalds's dollar menu. So the burger is a dollar but they get you when you buy the fries and soda. So in essence the buyers of meals are subsidizing the people who buy just the burgers.
So back to Apple, they price their tablets to make money. To assume the $100 jump is just to cover the cost of parts and labor to provide you the extra 16 or 32 or 64GB is an incorrect assumption. If they had a choice, I am sure they would rather have everyone buy $900 iPads. But they need to differentiate their products and provide a "cheaper" option for folks who are penny wise. So the 16GB models are very popular.
No, the extra $100 is not just for the expense of the memory chip. Or any additional labor (which there probably isn't any). And it is just not to pay for their salaries, rent, electricity, R&D, marketing, website, distribution systems, etc. It also provides them PROFIT, and revenue to do other things, like iCloud and Siri and whatever else they have up their sleeve.
Their competitors are charging less. Woohoo. Why does Apple need to compete on price? They don't. So fine, some folks think their pricing scheme is outrageous. Ok. I would encourage anyone who finds Apple pricing outrageous to protest with their wallet. I have paid a premium for iPads, iPhones, MacBook Airs because I like Apple products and I think they are worth it. But to accuse Apple of "ripping off" people is a bit thick. In my opinion, of course.
My point in the discussion is not that Apple compete n pricing. They can do whatever they deem right.
What about my posts (and the original one I was replying to) entices you to come up with your replys? We were discussing the markup on flash storage in general. You seem to have some point to make that just doesn't apply to the discussion.
We were discussing the industry in general and what IN OUR OPINION is involved in a practice that, if they understood, the general public would not look upon favorably. In no place was Apple specifically called out.
And if bothered to read the posts you would notice that every tech company selling mobile devices has the same practice. Nobody mentioned that Apple was the only one as they are not.
As a stockholder I love when a company makes a good profit. As a consumer I like seeing companies making it without gouging us consumers. But most of all I prefer when market forces apply because that generally provides a nice balance between the two. And in order for market forces to work at least one company will have chance the markup practice. The only way I see that happening is for the buying public to understand the tech and the wholesale pricing.
I get it. You don't have an issue with Apple doing this. That's your position. My position is that I prefer market forces be brought to bare and let the chips (no pun intended) fall where they may.
I hold my nose and vote every election. Just because I vote, doesn't mean I like/love the people I am voting for. The same could be said of me, and lots of other people, abou being less than happy to spend $100 on something that costs apple about $5.
Yes, I is a rip to pay that amout of money for that amount of extra space.
for better or worse, the big rip off pricing is becuase they're basically subsidizing the masses who buy 16gb of memory. apple knows the breakdown of memory demand so they're able to break up the profitability by it.
So what makes you think market forces are NOT impacting Apple?
Do they have some sort of monopoly I missed? The market IS dictating their pricing.
Apple Business Conduct Policies don't allow me to talk about this. *duck*
Seriously though, on the iPhone 5c it's questionable, while on the iPhone 5s it's "See 'wealthy people should pay more taxes' applied".
Refusing to buy something, may it because someone doesn't perceive the price as justified for a given value, is however part of that game, hence the watchdogs. And stuff like the 1TB Seagate Wireless Harddrive or the 64GB SanDisk Connect to make a 16GB iPad useable.
Seriously though, on the iPhone 5c it's questionable, while on the iPhone 5s it's "See 'wealthy people should pay more taxes' applied".
Refusing to buy something, may it because someone doesn't perceive the price as justified for a given value, is however part of that game, hence the watchdogs. And stuff like the 1TB Seagate Wireless Harddrive or the 64GB SanDisk Connect to make a 16GB iPad useable.
Last edited:
So what makes you think market forces are NOT impacting Apple?
One more time, this is not just about Apple. Market forces do not function when every maker pushes the same markup. If the pricing occurs due to collusion then it's actually against the law. In this case I doubt there was any collusion. They all do it because they can.
I'm confused as to why you cannot understand that this applies to every company not just Apple. You're obviously just here to defend Apple at any cost even if the discussion isn't just about them. If I were calling out Apple specifically I would understand. But I'm not.
I'm done.