4 ms·

>> these new Macs seem to have gained an average of $200 over the preceding models of the same size. What makes Apple think they can get away with that? Apple c

>> these new Macs seem to have gained an average of $200 over the preceding models of the same size. What makes Apple think they can get away with that? Apple can get away with that because it always has gotten away with it. > So, inflation has gone up 10.7 percent since 2010, which is just over $200 on a $2000 laptop. > http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm > Seems like a bogus assumption to suggest that Apple is "getting away" with something. What comparable companies with comparable products have left their prices untouched since 2010? The Big Mac went up more than 20% since 2010. You're looking at the wrong data. The price index for personal computers and peripherals has decreased from 7.0 to 4.2 over that same period. Using the price index as a guide, a $2000 laptop in 2010 would be priced at $1200 today. http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/long-term-price-trends-for-computers-tvs-and-related-items.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/long-term-price-trends-for-...

dahart 10y ago
> Using the price index as a guide, a $2000 laptop in 2010 would be priced at $1200 today. This is tracking specs for computers. The $1200 laptop today would have to have the exact same specs as the $2000 laptop from 2010. Does that even pass the smell test for thinking about pricing of a new product? I don't think so. That data is clearly essentially tracking Moore's law, showing that the price of any computer with a certain size hard drive and a certain size RAM has dropped by half every 2-4 years. You're implying that Apple is stealing the gains and gouging the customers, where other companies' laptop have dropped in price 40% over the last 6 years, yet no such thing has occurred. A decent Dell 15" laptop with similar hardware specs to the new MacBook Pro costs over $2000 vs Apple's $2400. That is more or less the same difference it was 6 years ago, and about as far back as I can remember. While Apple laptops are a little more expensive than same-spec laptops by other manufacturers, that difference did not go up by 50% with this new Macbook Pro, it has been about the same for as long as laptops have existed.
- theli0nheart 10y ago
  > This is tracking specs for computers. The $1200 laptop today would have to have the exact same specs as the $2000 laptop from 2010. Does that even pass the smell test for thinking about pricing of a new product? I don't think so. That data is clearly essentially tracking Moore's law, showing that the price of any computer with a certain size hard drive and a certain size RAM has dropped by half every 2-4 years. The BLS has dedicated an entire FAQ page to answering the question of how they account for changes in quality with changes in price. They've thought about this question hard and I'm reasonably confident they have statisticians on staff whose full time jobs are dedicated to making sure the CPI isn't just regurgitating Moore's Law. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpihqaqanda.htm#Question_1 http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpihqaqanda.htm#Question_1
  - dahart 10y ago
    Yes, you're right. They're validating Moore's Law with historical facts and statistics. That does not make this the right data to use, nor does this invalidate use of inflation as a metric. I'm not questioning the data, I'm saying you are using it incorrectly. This is not the right data with which to evaluate prices for new products in the market, this data is showing prices for equal-spec computers. A brand new MacBook Pro with a new touch strip interface and SSD and larger ram and brighter display and longer battery life and lightning connectors, does not compare dollar for dollar to the 2010 MacBook Pro. The price for the new one is expected to be higher than what the CPI shows. Inflation isn't perfect for evaluating new products, but it's actually better than the CPI, because manufacturers are trying to get the same amount of money or more out of consumers every year, they are not allowing products to cost less and less. Historically, that's exactly what's happened. My family spent about $2500 on our first computer in 1983. Today I spend about $2000 on a computer. I've spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000 on every computer I've ever bought between 1983 and now. My expenditure doesn't track the CPI, and it never has. Nobody else's does either.

dahart 10y ago

> Using the price index as a guide, a $2000 laptop in 2010 would be priced at $1200 today. This is tracking specs for computers. The $1200 laptop today would have to have the exact same specs as the $2000 laptop from 2010. Does that even pass the smell test for thinking about pricing of a new product? I don't think so. That data is clearly essentially tracking Moore's law, showing that the price of any computer with a certain size hard drive and a certain size RAM has dropped by half every 2-4 years. You're implying that Apple is stealing the gains and gouging the customers, where other companies' laptop have dropped in price 40% over the last 6 years, yet no such thing has occurred. A decent Dell 15" laptop with similar hardware specs to the new MacBook Pro costs over $2000 vs Apple's $2400. That is more or less the same difference it was 6 years ago, and about as far back as I can remember. While Apple laptops are a little more expensive than same-spec laptops by other manufacturers, that difference did not go up by 50% with this new Macbook Pro, it has been about the same for as long as laptops have existed.

theli0nheart 10y ago
> This is tracking specs for computers. The $1200 laptop today would have to have the exact same specs as the $2000 laptop from 2010. Does that even pass the smell test for thinking about pricing of a new product? I don't think so. That data is clearly essentially tracking Moore's law, showing that the price of any computer with a certain size hard drive and a certain size RAM has dropped by half every 2-4 years. The BLS has dedicated an entire FAQ page to answering the question of how they account for changes in quality with changes in price. They've thought about this question hard and I'm reasonably confident they have statisticians on staff whose full time jobs are dedicated to making sure the CPI isn't just regurgitating Moore's Law. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpihqaqanda.htm#Question_1 http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpihqaqanda.htm#Question_1
- dahart 10y ago
  Yes, you're right. They're validating Moore's Law with historical facts and statistics. That does not make this the right data to use, nor does this invalidate use of inflation as a metric. I'm not questioning the data, I'm saying you are using it incorrectly. This is not the right data with which to evaluate prices for new products in the market, this data is showing prices for equal-spec computers. A brand new MacBook Pro with a new touch strip interface and SSD and larger ram and brighter display and longer battery life and lightning connectors, does not compare dollar for dollar to the 2010 MacBook Pro. The price for the new one is expected to be higher than what the CPI shows. Inflation isn't perfect for evaluating new products, but it's actually better than the CPI, because manufacturers are trying to get the same amount of money or more out of consumers every year, they are not allowing products to cost less and less. Historically, that's exactly what's happened. My family spent about $2500 on our first computer in 1983. Today I spend about $2000 on a computer. I've spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000 on every computer I've ever bought between 1983 and now. My expenditure doesn't track the CPI, and it never has. Nobody else's does either.