>you feel like you are getting ripped off when your neighbor can buy the same good for a fraction of the cost because their country is doing poorly economically. And then it brings up some complex ethical questions like "is it stealing to use a VPN to buy a digital good at a fraction of the cost of your current geographic region"

And also questions like why do some countries do poorly economically and some do well economically? Are people born in those countries responsible for the results of their ancestors actions? Or changes in weather patterns? Are people born in better performing countries entitled to the fruits of the actions of their ancestors?

Does a person in a country with a poor economy feel ripped off that they cannot hop into a country with a better economy and earn far more?

FYI, some countries have different pricing based on which passport you have, such as at national parks. If you have a passport from a richer country, you pay more, and if you have a passport from a poorer country, you pay less.

> questions like why do some countries do poorly economically and some do well economically?

Just search on Wikipedia for "United Fruit Company", Bechtel etc.

Come on, it's not about being charitable or maximising profits; it's about scaling a price proportionally to the target audience's purchasing power (similar to discounts for students, et cetera).

> feels kind of cheesy because intuitively you feel like you are getting ripped off [...] and then it brings up some complex ethical questions like "is it stealing to use a VPN

An actually complex ethical question would be "does my country and my predecessors have a hand in making [poor African country] so poor that they can't buy games at 60 dollars?"

I dont feel very sorry for you.

The biggest rip-off is you having a salary that is 10-50 times higher than someone i Africa.

I doubt many Africans have the same education and/or qualification as most Americans.

This is no judgement or suggestion for improvements, but it is the reality.

Those who do have same qualifications are still payed much much less. Anecdotally, when Intel still had offices in Russia our salaries including stock awards were 3x or lower than those of the US personnel. Not because of difference in qualifications but because of the labor market (the salaries were very good considering other opportunities in my home city).

Well that's no fair; nor would they have had they have the same opportunities. Do your/our good opportunities entitle us to earn 50x what someone else does? Only in a colonialist "we got here first so now you work for us" sense.

I can’t change the past. I fully support changing the course of Africa towards more education, but that doesn’t make Africans suddenly super proficient software engineers, and doesn’t teach them "how to work productively with western companies" (if you get what I mean - there’s more to work than pure manpower).

Does that make me a colonialist?

It's the opinion (that their reduced opportunities / economic bargaining position mean they _should_ be paid orders of magnitude less) that's colonialist, rather than you as a person. By 'colonialist' I of course mean to imply "regressive and repugnant". It is not an immutable economic fact that wages should be where they are relative to each other.

How about starting by making software cheaper for people in Africa?

Thats bs. 10-50 times higher is for unskilled labor. You should try comparing a someone with an academic background in Lagos versus someone in Cairo .

Or the chance to educate themselves with for example photoshop to become a professional.

Because it is too expensive.

Don’t think of it as money directly. Rather think of it as time. When you do, the quantities required are probably a lot closer.

That's what I'm saying. People are used to paying for a good based on its intrinsic value (cost to manufacture/distribute/etc. + some profit margin). But since digital goods are nearly 100% profit margin once created, you can instead pay with "time" aka % of your income.

That's why it's surreal (for me at least) - it would be like walking into a grocery store, but instead of fixed prices the items on shelves had labels like "Box of Lucky Charms: .005% of your annual income"

Software (Wolfram Mathematica is a prime example) does this too, with huge discrepancy between the pricing for individual home use and individual use if in a business place.

As I recall, it was a commonplace pricing scheme 20+ years ago in the Unix workstation times: if you were buying Framemaker (later acquired by Adobe i think) for NeXT or Sun I think it was more than if you were buying for Mac or Windows.

This could be attributed to the cost of porting to those platforms was more expensive per seat since there more windows and mac users. Especially at an era where cross platform usually meant full rewrite.

I always think it is relatively unfair that MacBooks for instance are in Europe more expensive than in the US where in US you will easily make 6 figures as a software developer and in EU the wages for software devs are typically much lower

Prices for Mac products are about the same; the difference is taxes (how they are treated and the rates).

1. Taxes in the US are added on top, not inclusive. 2. Taxes in Europe are generally higher than in the US.

Looking at the MacBook Air, in the US it goes for $999.

In the UK, it goes for £999, which is $1030 after 20% VAT is deducted. In France, it goes for €1199, which is currently almost exactly $999 after 20% VAT is deducted.

Don't forget that 1 British Pound is $1.20 USD

£999 is really $1236, $1444 with VAT (and to be fair, the USA has an average sales tax of ~5%)

In Germany they are 1.199,00 €, plus €202 VAT. Apple is always accused of ripping off other countries but most of the time it's the exchange rate.

https://www.macworld.com/article/1358386/apple-ripping-off-r...

Take off the £167 VAT first, and that gives you £832, or $1030.52. So, depending on what the £/$ value was when the price was set, it's still close.

Your calculation is wrong. UK prices and German prices are quoted VAT-inclusive, so £999 already includes VAT @ 20% and the German figure includes 19% MwSt. £999 is all you'll pay. In the US you will pay an additional amount at the register based on local sales tax, for example in Cupertino you will pay an additional $91 of sales tax bringing your total up to $1,090. Converted to USD the price difference is almost entirely tax (9.125% vs 20% on a $1k purchase).

Noted and edited

Ok, I understand prices for products are somewhat the same (although always slightly higher in Europe) but my main point is, because salaries are higher in US, it is easier to buy the same device here than it is there.

And I know salaries in California are higher than in the rest of the US. But also for other types of jobs such as construction work, compensation in US is higher than in the EU

My understanding is a large driver of this is import and VAT.

In the usa, taxes are added to the price at checkout, but in Europe, it’s before.

Also, European countries have higher import taxes on tech.

The salaries for devs are not that much different, you’re probably thinking about the ones from California, but that’s not a usual compensation for US devs.

Same applies to physical goods though. For example a big mac has a different price around the world based on the average purchasing power of the region.

This has to do with the labour costs, too, though. Poorer countries have lower purchasing power, but also lower labour costs, reducing the cost it takes to produce a Big Mac.

That's a valid point. Also explains why an iPhone still costs the same since its not locally built.

Also because it is trivial to buy an iPhone in a poorer country and bring it to a richer one.

You can view it as getting ripped off, or you can view it as being charitable towards those with less purchasing power. I prefer the latter, both for high-minded reasons and because it just makes me feel better than feeling ripped off.

If it's not stealing when the owners of this here website pay $1.50/hr to train their AIs, it's not stealing for you to get a videogame ultimately owned by Tencent for $1.

But you should probably be furious about the former before hand-wringing either way about the latter.

This is already how the price of labor in a global market works. In many companies, virtual workers are already paid on a scale based on their home market price, not the market price where their company is located. If that's how virtual economies are going to work, then it should at least go both ways.