Playboy: That’s what critics charge you with: hooking the enthusiasts with premium prices, then turning around and lowering your prices to catch the rest of the market.
Seems like old tricks are the best tricks, eh?
Seems like old tricks are the best tricks, eh?
"As to overpricing, the start-up of a new product makes it more expensive than it will be later. The more we can produce, the lower the price will get"
"As soon as we can lower prices, we do. It’s true that our computers are less expensive today than they were a few years ago, or even last year. But that’s also true of the IBM PC. Our goal is to get computers out to tens of millions of people, and the cheaper we can make them, the easier it’s going to be to do that. I’d love it if Macintosh cost $1000."
Every time I go to find an "equivalent" laptop from a PC vendor I end up in the same ballpark of money, give or take (and often give) $200 or so.
As soon as I add the Hi-Dpi screen, 16GB RAM, equally fast SSD, equal GPU, equal CPU, USB-C ports, try to match the size (not some "desktop replacement" monstrosity), and go for a vendor like Lenovo, Dell, Alienware, Razer, etc, it's usually a tie.
And usually I'm still getting a worse build quality, a slightly worse display (gamut, etc), and a worse trackpad.
At least today though you get a better keyboard with PC vendors.
Lots of kids who grew up away from larger cities ended up with computers from Radio Shack, because they were EVERYWHERE, while Apple or Commodore dealers were harder to find.
But I'm still curious, because I don't remember: How did (e.g.) Apple II pricing compare to equivalent-ish, contemporaneous models from Commodore or Tandy?
Apple ][: $1,298
Commodore PET: $795
Tandy TRS-80: $600
At these prices, in 1977, only the Apple had color graphics.