JW: yes, correct.
Simon Galley: You are a valued entity, There is no denying that truth. Ilford is (or, plural for you Brits: "are") just about the best in the business, endlessly dedicated to film and analog capture. But that does not mean that I must be enraptured with you when the need arises for dissecting certain truths.
First and foremost: don't think that you can escape criticism just because you are 'better than the rest' of the manufacturers. Comparisons with vultures do not answer the more objective queries out there and serve merely to delimit the discussion (even though such limits are a well-honed marketing tool). We (Apug and manufacturers) all know how 'desperate' we users are for film and know, with resolve, that there is simply no where else to turn for film, other than to the current marketplace. On the other hand, when we see market craziness we are more than obligated to voice our concerns, to denote the reasons for these concerns, and, yes, to voice angst. Responses such as came from Dinesh serve no valuable purpose.
We might wish to 'go beyond' the convenient 'competitive' face-saver excuses and delve, instead, into the actual cost accounting paradigm of these various manufacturers. We might want to know how much of that price is purely for the benefit of the glorious, notorious stockholders and how much is an absolutely necessary (and unavoidable) cost expenditure, based upon materials, labor, and overhead. In summation, Simon, we just might want to know what that hard-core breakdown is, and whether or not there is room, here, for reprieve, if the voices get loud enough.
Simon, we know that manufacturers are not charities and we know that pricing is derived from other than purely altruistic concerns. Simon, we want to know what you look like 'naked'. - David Lyga