I'd add that although I find it a bit dirty, the computers are obviously still amazing. It's just a bit bizarre that the lower spec cpu offers the customer the option to change the ram quantity. More specifically, going from the M4 Pro to the M4 Max removes the option to change the ram from 36gb, whereas sticking with the Pro lets you select 48gb or 24gb, unless you choose the max Max. If I pre-order the Mac Mini with the same processor, I can select 64gb for the insane price of an additional $750cad, but it's just not available on the macbook pro M4 Pro.

It would indeed have been nice to see a faster response rate screen, even though I value picture quality more, and it also would have been nice to see even vaguely different colors like the iMac supposedly got, but it seems like a nice spec bump year anyway.

I think any idea that Apple doesn't thoroughly understand the capacity, value, market, price tradeoff is untenable.

The most obvious view is that Apple price gouges on storage. But this seems too simplistic.

My conjecture is that there's an inescapable tension between supply (availabilty/cost) sales forecasts, technological churn, and roadmaps that leads them to want to somewhat subsidize the lowest end, and place a bit of back-pressure on consumption at the high-end. The trick is finding the tipping point on the curve between growth and over commitment by suppliers. Especially, for tightly vertically integrated products.

The PC industry is more diffuse and horizontal and so more tolerant of fluctuations in supply and demand across a broader network of providers and consumers, leading to a lower, more even cost structure for components and modules.

In real terms, Apple's products keep costing less, just like all computer products. They seem to make a point of holding prices on an appearance point of latest tech that's held steady since the first Macs: about $2500 for a unit that meets the expectations of space right behind the bleeding edge while being reliable, useful and a vanguard of trends.

Seems plausible enough to me, but whether there's a business case or not isn't my concern as much as how it feels to price something out knowing that I'm deliberately gouged on arbitrary components instead of the the segmentation being somewhat more meaningful. They're already reaping very high margins, but by tightly coupling quantities of those components to even higher margin builds, it feels a bit gross, to the point where I just have to accept that I'd have to spend even more excessively than in previous years of similar models. As in, I'm happy to pay a bit more for more power if I find it useful, likewise with ram, but not being able to get more ram without first getting something I have no way to put to use seems a bit silly, akin to not being able to get better seats in a car unless I first get the racing spec version, otherwise I'm stuck with a lawn chair.