Color Costs More


So way, way back I predicted Apple would bring back Black hardware. It began with the Nanos, and then the MacBooks were made available in similar style. Funny thing about the MacBooks is that the black version costs more than the white. The specs are slightly different, but ultimately you’re paying more for the black paint.

CrunchGear points out that Verizon has released a new version of the Moto Q smart phone. What’s different? It’s black. And it costs $50 more than it’s silver sibling. So are they following Apple’s lead with ‘color-coded’ pricing models?

I don’t think there are many instances outside these two where you’ll pay more just for the color of something (short of maybe the paint job on an automobile). Can you name any other instances I’m missing – especially before Apple so publicly started doing it?



Cingular used to charge $50 more for the pink motorla razr. They are now the same price. Apple is also using color to encourage people to upgrade to the 4gb and 8gb Nanos.

Angel Dominguez

Well, in advertising, color is used as a means of increasing the appeal of a product, specially when you use an unusual color for an article, the public perceives it as rare and therefore tends to want to have it before it runs out.
… Still, this new trend by Apple and others just seems like a lame excuse for a higher pricing.


White Quasar and Panasonic TVs used to have a price premium of $20 back in the mid-90s.


audio equipment. “gold” amplifier are more expensive, for no more features.

I also saw some special silver or gold dvd player, just more expensive for the color.


The motor trade would quite often use a premium price for red vehicles (more sporty) or any unusual colour choice. And of course it was once famous for ‘Any color you like, so long as it’s black’. How far we have come.

Comments are closed.