231–240 of 385 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is fair. OTOH, you have the single European market (the EU forces games, apps, hardware, etc to be sold at the same price everywhere in the EU in practical terms), which has shafted poor countries-it's disgraceful that a Swedish costumer pays the same price for an iPhone than a Portuguese costumer while making several times as much money every month.
That's kinda messed up. ALL hardware?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Highly niche and specialised apps could set such price points. Medical apps come to mind.
Yeah apps for pilots also came to mind, though I took a look and ForeFlight was $400/year on the iOS store, not a one-time fee.
I refuse to use apps like this. None of my Apple IDs have payment information associated with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is fair. OTOH, you have the single European market (the EU forces games, apps, hardware, etc to be sold at the same price everywhere in the EU in practical terms), which has shafted poor countries-it's disgraceful that a Swedish costumer pays the same price for an iPhone than a Portuguese costumer while making several times as much money every month.
That's kinda messed up. ALL hardware?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's a bad practice. I'm Russian and Steam games are (were) 1.5x-2x times cheaper for Russia compared to Europe and Americas, even before regional passes. I don't know whether that was responsiblity of devs or storefront, but it seemed quite a fair and profitable practice, because the price point you are willing to pay for a game (or an app) is different for people from different economical and cultur…
The economics of all of that seem sketchy to me. It sounds like the main North American market is subsidizing the apps being produced and sold worldwide. Does the same logic apply for other virtual good such as digital music elsewhere?
Check out this brief description of how software proliferated in Poland during the early years of computers (3:09-8:27): https://youtu.be/ffngZOB1U2A
We changed the URL from https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/12/apple-announces-bigge... to a third party article I just googled. If there's a better third-party article, we can change it again. Yes, HN has the rule "*Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ), but corporate press releases are so awful…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really the opposite, it's a form of price discrimination. There's a theory of surplus in economics, which is the extra benefit that someone gets from a transaction above what they would have been willing to pay. If I buy a game that I would have paid $100 for for $50, then I have a "$50" consumer surplus. One the other end, if the producer was willing to let that game sell as low as $40, then they have a produce…
>Now, you could call it subsidizing in that there are probably products that wouldn't be brought to market without the NA market to pay for them, but that's not really "subsidizing". That's every product ever made for profit by a developer in a 1st world country. It's still essentially subsidizing even if you don't like the optics of the word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this was the wrong move. The original source is better in this case and you are letting your anti-corporate bias and personal opinion affect your decision making as a moderator. What makes this so awful to read to you?
3rd party sourcing isn't anti-corp. The purpose is to seek a more neutral position. Apple is clearly motivated to say positive things about Apple.
Will this solve the issue that the $49.99 tier equals to a 59.99 EUR price? I get a ton of messages every week by would-be Euro customers complaining why the fuck I am fleecing them with a 59.99 EUR price when the US price is $49.99 and the exchange rate is currently roughly 1:1.
The EUR price includes VAT, Americans have this odd thing of quoting prices without tax which tends to be illegal elesewhere. OK the US does not have a sales type tax on digital goods,
Here’s an example: a base model iPhone 14 is $799. If I go to the Downtown San Francisco Apple Store, it is $868.12; if I go across a bridge to the Berkeley Apple Store it is $880.90; if I go from there across a different bridge to Corte Madera it is $870.91; if I go back through San Francisco down to the neighboring county to the Hillsdale Apple Store it is $875.90; and if I buy it in Cupertino, then it is $871.91. If I cross the State border with Oregon and go to an Apple Store in Tigard or Portland, then it is $799.
Which is the price Apple should be showing on the Apple Store? They tell you at checkout because what you pay at the end is calculated according to your shipping address, and it’s a line item: sales tax, but pricing is also marketing. Which price should Apple be quoting their American customers in national ad campaigns?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have the same thing in Canada. Taxes are not included in the price so that people can be aware of how much tax they're paying and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Since sales taxes are charged on some products but not others, the price-conscious consumer can elect to choose the tax-free products over the tax-burdened ones.
??? If taxes are included in price, the consumer can just look at the price and compare rather than jumping through the additional mental hoop to determine if one item is subject to sales tax, and what its price is in tgat case.