Companies raise their prices all the time. If that gives you a "gross feeling," then I don't know what to say.
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.
the mac mini increase that nobody is talking about.
- Thread starter Mrbiggestman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
East India Company
macrumors 6502
That’s incorrect. Any company can issue a mid quarter forecast adjustment and explain the reasons for that. That’s not a problem and they are never bound to fulfil their previsions.
Probably the most depressing site I ever saw, if it's still updated, was a spreadsheet that showed the introduction price of any given Apple product and how much today you'd be worth if you bought AAPL stock instead (for the same money).
You don't have to go back far to see how much cash you could have made.
JPack
macrumors P6
Exactly, because it's not just about demand, it's about profit. Many people don't get that.
Apple is bottlenecked by the number of M4 chips TSMC can manufacture. If a pizzeria is running low on dough, common sense dictates they should prioritize selling premium, fully-loaded pizzas over basic pepperoni ones.
SalisburySam
macrumors 65816
Pull-eeze, no pineapple/peppers/anchovies/eggplant/other oddities on my pepperoni pizza!
Of course they can give updated guidance. And then their stock craters. Wiping out shareholder value. Which considering how may institutional investment entities hold AAPL, means everyone's 401(k) takes a hit.
All because ya'll are mad that MacBook prices went up by $200? This is the free market economy folks.
This actually happens ALL the time in large enterprises. It's part of 'elasticity of demand' and raising prices to get more profit from few customers happens every single day.
In this AI-fueled rage, there's also a fair amount of purposeful 'demand reduction' by reducing advertising for products that are short on supply, tapering demand based on vendor fulfillment/production timelines so there are not huge gaps where product supply goes down to zero 'days on hand', etc.
You posted:
...no, they won't come down if Micron (one of only about 3 companies that actually make RAM) are using the current shortage to force customers into contracts that lock in high prices until 2031.
RAM makers are currently selling every chip they can make at twice the price they were getting a year ago. They're making money hand over fist - they're not going to give that up without a struggle. Sure, if they invest in increasing capacity they could sell more chips at a lower price and still grow but (a) that is betting big that the current AI boom hasn't already peaked and will continue to boom (even if there isn't the massive crash) and (b) they'd much, much rather invest in increasing capacity so they can sell more chips at the current high prices. Even if new players come in - well, right now they just have to have chips to sell and can charge the same high prices as the existing supplier (and then get bought out for billions by one of the big three incumbents).
The people in the audience at WWDC were presumably the "target market" - and they gasped when the price was announced. That, the Mac Pro wheels and, later, the sock/mankini thing turned into internet memes that put the message "Apple is overpriced" into a lot of potential "switchers" who probably won't in the market for a Pro XDR but might have been in the market for a MBA or Mac Mini.
I don't know what possible confusion of ideas would make anybody think that a display stand or some castors to go under your tower workstation would fit the same business model as a status symbol like a yacht or supercar (where the price and exclusivity is actually part of the function of the product).
Maybe the 'target customer' was expected to invite the CTO of Weyland-Yutani around to split a bottle of '69 Petrus while wheeling their 3D graphics workstation around the room making "broom broom!" noises...
(I mean, at least the actual display was about the only 6k/220ppi screen with local dimming at the time & Apple were trying to pitch it against $20k reference HDR displays (bit of a reach) but I bet those $20k displays at least had a VESA mount included, as does pretty much any display over about $600...)
Anyway, that's a bit aside the point today - where the issue is Apple daring to raise Mac prices by - probably - a little less than most other PC prices have risen over the last year (certainly c.f. things like Beelink-style MiniPCs which are obvious competitors to the Mac Mini & which have nearly doubled in price). The only relevant question is, did anybody ever seriously think that the guy behind the $20 polishing cloth would choose to sacrifice their profit margin rather than raise prices?
Contact_Feanor
macrumors 6502a
you can't get every configuration in-store; and in-store stock (also at places like best-buy and Amazon etc.) can't have their prices move dependent on when they ordered. Every store changes the prices when the brand prices change. Otherwise you get chaos and discussions: suddenly the cheaper model gets more expensive than the model with more RAM and storage because they sold out faster, why did the last customer get it cheaper and you have to pay more for the same model in the same store on the same day? Why is it more expensive/cheaper here than in that other store two blocks away? etc.
jakey rolling
macrumors 65816
VESA mounts are standard on pretty much every monitor made in the last 15 years. You'd be pretty hard-pressed to find even a sub-$200 monitor that didn't come with a VESA mount included. With the exception of a few monitors that ship with desk-mounted arms instead of stands, you'd also be hard pressed to find one that doesn't actually ship with both.
Apple is pretty much the lone "professional" monitor manufacturer where the choice of whether to have a stand or a VESA mount is either a required time-of-purchase decision or a forced add-on option.
jakey rolling
macrumors 65816
That would be an equally stupid value proposition if it were true. You appear to be off by about $340 on that stand price, though. At least in Canadian dollars. So it is only a little stupid.
Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Curved Monitor - U5226KW Without Stand | Dell Canada
Shop Dell UltraSharp Thunderbolt Hub Monitor U5226KW. 6K ultrawide curved display, 120Hz refresh, & TUV-certified eye comfort.
www.dell.com
(also, the Dell at least still comes with VESA mounting hardware).
$2719.99 USD with stand. $2299.99 USD without
and to be fair, the current XDR also comes with a VESA amount
jakey rolling
macrumors 65816
I just looked at the US site. Indeed. That is um.. pretty bonkers.
EDIT: Also looks like us hosers are getting hosed on the exchange rate by Dell. As per usual. 😡
Well, the VESA mount version of the monitor does, being that it is the.. uh.. VESA mount version of the monitor. The version that comes with a stand does not include a VESA mount. Apple makes it pretty clear that you have to choose one or the other at the time of purchase and switching between the two requires an Apple-certified technician:
Last edited:
point of interest as a fellow hoser:
the new LG 27" mini LED is $1199.99 USD but only $1399.99 CAD up here. that's about $400 CAD discount
Making the stand optional on a large monitor that many customers will want wall mounted and/or placed on a swing arm or other specialist mount of their choice is reasonable.
Leaving out the (gasp) 4 standard threaded holes needed to make it VESA mountable and charging $$$ extra for a VESA adapter (old Pro XDR) or making customers choose between VESA-only or Apple-stand-only at purchase (old+new Studio displays, iMacs...) is something else...
Now, admittedly, my current 4k+ MateView screens have a non-removable stand and no VESA, but I could have got 3 of those for the price of a Studio Display with a worse stand, so I'll give them a pass.
Meaningless info but still happy - the last 799.00 Mac Mini 16/512gb in AZ arrived today. I only upgrade every 5 or 6 years (10 is my longest pause) but my 8th Mac since the summer of 1988 arrived (Mac Plus, Quadra 800, iMac 1st gen, G5 heavy metal, Mac Mini 1st gen, Macbook 2007, Mac Mini 2010 and this one (sprinkled in the gaps or prior; C64, Atari 1200XL, NeXTstation, Thinkpad, Ubuntu via Atari Ryzen 2020 (I'm typing on it now - it's pretty decent for a micro-mini - but the application gap is too severe (I'd rather put the dual boot back into console-mode).
Of course now I have to break my procrastination barrier and configure it (that's why I don't like upgrading - although it's better than the syquest drive days).
Of course now I have to break my procrastination barrier and configure it (that's why I don't like upgrading - although it's better than the syquest drive days).
iPads have terrible batteries (apart from 1g apparently - I have 2 and they run fine) - on the same front - so does the iOS and browers so it all evens out. I prefer the minis and they are horrible on the lithium gamble.
oh wait I need show off :
context from an art table from a single tree trunk from a ranch (and is totally useless) :
context from an art table from a single tree trunk from a ranch (and is totally useless) :
There are more than 3 companies that make memory chips, those are just the biggest 3 and its not necessarily locking in "high prices" - there are different contracts that companies may or may not agree to, some with fee floors or fee ceilings and other types, they will still be selling I'm sure many at spot prices as well but we don't know the exact nature of the supply contracts and who or how many companies have agreed to them.
I believe you are overplaying reality, for years memory prices have been extremely, extremely low (thanks to globalization and advancements in production), many of these suppliers have been constrained due to limited leverage and simple economics, those have shifted in their favor and they are able to charge more - what the market will bear and in effect, recoup years of lost cashflow. There's an argument that because of the prior dynamic, suppliers have not been able to expand or reinvest much, which to a degree is a setup for the supply constrain happening now. Particularly when you consider production complexity and costs have increased over the years along with demand for all kinds of chips (they are used in just about everything these days). I certainly wouldn't blame this on memory chip suppliers.
This is a complex situation with many factors - it's not necessarily the case that prices won't come down in 2028 - there is certainly a reasonable chance prices come down or maybe they will merely slow or stabilize, no one can really predict at this point.
Either way people are way more bent out of shape than they should be over this - just a byproduct of the consumer oriented society we live in I suppose.
except that the memory shortages and connected price increases are real for all manufacturers. The real question will be twofold. 1. Do they insulate the iphone from any increases at all and 2. do they pull pricing back once the memory prices come down. My guess is yes to #1 and no to #2.