or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Customers say Apple's online store has become less satisfying to shop
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Customers say Apple's online store has become less satisfying to shop - Page 3

post #81 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

I ordered a Refurb MBP 13" on Dec. 17th.  Apple shipped it to me for FREE PRIORITY OVERNIGHT on Dec. 19th and it arrived late Dec. 20th.  What company does this but maybe Zappos.com?

 

Coincidentally, Amazon owns Zappos

post #82 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

agreed that this is likely a major factor in the disatistifaction. Especially when you consider that they were only asking during holiday shopping. Not to mention that I question the survey in general in terms of sample size and selection. I suspect it is far from statistically sound on either front. For all we know for every person asked there were 10 others who were very satisfied who simply weren't asked

 

...but that was NOT the case when Apple scored higher? The methodology has suddenly changed or something?

 

Bury your heads in the sand if you choose, but some of us are becoming frustrated with Apple, and the response to development of web site may be reflecting that. It's not terrible (obviously) but it *is* more difficult to find certain product details and support information than it was just a couple years ago. Shoppers may also be reacting to the exorbitantly priced BTO options now that they don't have third-party alternatives and choices are more limited than ever.

post #83 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You've clearly come into this with the idea that Apple has somehow created it's profit margins up front and any upgrades should be down at some magical, near cost value you've imagined in your head. That isn't how reality works. You can't walk up to a bus or train and say "I don't have a ticket, but since you're going that way why not give me a ride?" just as as you can't say "I have already configured an iMac, now I want to add a couple upgrades so why not give them to me at cost? I'll even through an extra $5 because I'm a nice guy." That's fucking bullshit!
And what if I told you that's because the standard config iMacs are sold at less than their optimal sale value to achieve a lower starting price? Well, you'd probably erroneously call that bait-and-switch. You'd be wrong, of course. Bottom line is they figure out everything long before it goes on sale so they can try to make their profit margin. If you only want to support companies that don't how to make a profit instead of buying equipment that suits your particular needs then Apple isn't for you. In fact, talking about how you should be able to change out your components tells me the iMac certainly isn't for you.
Note that Intel's current price list has the Core i7-3770 (8M cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 3.40 GHz. 22nm) at $294 and the Core i5-3470 (6M cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 3.20 GHz, 22nm) at $184. That's a $110 difference. Yeah, right, Apple doesn't pay that, but the point is the difference in price. Sure, right, it will vary but which do you think Apple gets a better deal on the more expensive on in the BTO 27" iMac that they buy less of or one that is a standard build processor? That's right, the chances are that they get a bigger discount on the cheaper processor so that $110 difference could potentially be greater.
PS: It's only the 21.5" iMac that doesn't user accessible RAM, not iMacs.
PPS: If you want to build your own Hackintosh there are plenty of sites that detail how to do it and which HW is best supported. If you don't like the support they have then write your own drivers to better support your particular wishes but complaining about a company charging you for an upgrade is ridiculous.

 



First of all, no, you're wrong. What I point out is that they charge more for an upgrade of a mere 8GB for what I can buy 32 GB for, which is a huge difference in price, and they pay a lot less than I would. It costs $40 for an 8GB stick of high quality memory these dasys. Those processor prices are real prices - Core i7 3770 at Microcenter is $259 and the Core i5 $149. They surely pay less than that in quantity, despite Intel's "official" price list. So, nearly 100% markup for an upgrade? $110 real cost plus $90 markup? Ouch... It's all too easy for a good Mac with just a couple of upgrades to get astronomical in price.

post #84 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post




First of all, no, you're wrong. What I point out is that they charge more for an upgrade of a mere 8GB for what I can buy 32 GB for, which is a huge difference in price, and they pay a lot less than I would. It costs $40 for an 8GB stick of high quality memory these dasys.

So if you want 32GB in the newest iMac you simply buy it and install it yourself. Not a big deal! That's what I'm doing. I'm spending $300 on 32GB from Newegg. That's half of what Apple charges for the 32GB. It'll take 2 minutes to complete. So where it the problem?

BTW, you brought up the cost of upgrading the processor.
Quote:
Those processor prices are real prices - Core i7 3770 at Microcenter is $259 and the Core i5 $149. They surely pay less than that in quantity, despite Intel's "official" price list. So, nearly 100% markup for an upgrade? $110 real cost plus $90 markup? Ouch... It's all too easy for a good Mac with just a couple of upgrades to get astronomical in price.

Again, any price you can find for some processor you think is the same in performance and power is irrelevant. What is comparable is the price difference between them (even you say they are $110 apart). But even that is irrelevant because that is not how upgrades work. They aren't rewarding your desire by selling you the non-standard, high-end options; you are rewarding yourself. They know there are plenty of people just like you that say 'I want the best (for the sake of being the best" that will buy it despite your bellyaching simply you want to use that for dick measuring. It's no different than any other well marketed product. The only thing that is relevant is if it's the product you want. If not, then shop somewhere else. If it is, then buy it. This is difficult to understand.

I say stop buying Apple products if you don't like them making a profit or like them making machines that you can't service. This is nothing new for the iMac (see first flatscreen iMacs).
Edited by SolipsismX - 12/27/12 at 8:09pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #85 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Off topic, but.....

 

Mine disappeared and I found it in another settings menu (forgot which one). Once I turned my phone off/on it came back to the main page of the settings menu. This was on Rogers.

OK, thanks for the reply. I already re-booted my phone twice, the hotspot option is still gone. I'll have to visit a Genius bar to see if they have a solution.   

post #86 of 142
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
This is nothing new for the iMac (see first flatscreen iMacs).

 

Heck, the hard drives in the G3 models were hard enough to get to…


Edited by Tallest Skil - 12/28/12 at 11:10am
post #87 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I say stop buying Apple products if you don't like them making a profit or like them making machines that you can't service. This is nothing new for the iMac (see first flatscreen iMacs).

Yes, people should stop feeling so entitled to various price points, but let's think about this... I've said before that Apple's pricing strategy should be reconsidered with respect to memory upgrades, not just for Macs but for iPads and iPhones as well.  A lot of smart (and loyal Apple) customers are feeling ripped off when it comes to upgrades on memory.  I'm not saying it's an Apple-only practice or an Apple-only sentiment.  But we shouldn't ignore this sentiment as it's a very real concern.

 

I say, bring down the price of memory upgrades...just like most fast food places brought down the price of up-sized soda pop!

post #88 of 142
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post
I've said before that Apple's pricing strategy should be reconsidered with respect to memory upgrades, not just for Macs but for iPads and iPhones as well.  A lot of smart (and loyal Apple) customers are feeling ripped off when it comes to upgrades on memory.  I'm not saying it's an Apple-only practice or an Apple-only sentiment.  But we shouldn't ignore this sentiment as it's a very real concern.

 

Why? People pay them. 

post #89 of 142
@drewys808

I wish they made the iMac $7999 so we could skim out the current customer base.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #90 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

Yes, people should stop feeling so entitled to various price points, but let's think about this... I've said before that Apple's pricing strategy should be reconsidered with respect to memory upgrades, not just for Macs but for iPads and iPhones as well.  A lot of smart (and loyal Apple) customers are feeling ripped off when it comes to upgrades on memory.  I'm not saying it's an Apple-only practice or an Apple-only sentiment.  But we shouldn't ignore this sentiment as it's a very real concern.

If it's not priced right (as in too high or too low) then they hurt their sales. I'm certainly not being anymore than the 8GB minimum for my 27" iMac. In fact, I don't care about any additional upgrade except for the 3TB Fusion Drive. Now I'll likely get a better CPU and GPU but if they don't have that available then I'll likely just say screw it as both are much better than my 13" 2010 MBP.

I'll be getting my RAM from Newegg. It's $300 from them for 32GB rather than $600 from Apple. Now, with Apple I do get them to install it and warranty it which is better than having Newegg warranty it for 30 days and then the manufacturer warranty it for life. Why is Apple's 3 year warranty better than a lifetime warranty from the manufacture? It's simple, RAM doesn't have moving parts so any issues are likely going to occur well within those 3 years and if there is a problem Apple will fix it without any cost to me, whereas the manufacturer will require me to go to their site, fill out a form, find my receipt, make a copy, then ship in the RAM on their dime. They also don't tend to be as quick with repairs. For $300 I'll risk it for RAM since the chances of an issue are slim but for others this simply isn't a good option.
Quote:
I say, bring down the price of memory upgrades...just like most fast food places brought down the price of up-sized soda pop!

Interesting you should mention that. This goes along with what I was saying about the pricing model. McDonald's can charge you a little more for a larger drink thus bringing down your cost per ounce because they are charging a lot for the lower capacity. They have most certainly figured what their desired profit margin is and what percentage of people buy drinks at very capacities.
Would you really want Apple to charge hundreds of dollars more per base Mac just so that the upgrade pricing looks like it's saving you money? No matter what Apple will still make the same profit on the decked out Mac as they would before.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #91 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

@drewys808
I wish they made the iMac $7999 so we could skim out the current customer base.

They need to make it $8000 for the cheapest iMac and then knock off hundreds of dollars every time to upgrade to a better component. This way everyone would buy the top end Mac (at the same price it is now for a decked out Mac). How can you afford not to upgrade?¡



edit: Quoted wrong person.
Edited by SolipsismX - 12/28/12 at 11:39am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #92 of 142
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
They need to make it $8000 for the cheapest iMac and then knock off hundreds of dollars every time to upgrade to a better component.

 

The worst model is the most expensive…

 

That would actually work because people would still buy it. lol.gif

post #93 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by muffinman View Post

 

Coincidentally, Amazon owns Zappos

 

It's not really a coincidence, Amazon bought them. 

post #94 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Why? People pay them. 


Please expand/clarify.

post #95 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Interesting you should mention that. This goes along with what I was saying about the pricing model. McDonald's can charge you a little more for a larger drink thus bringing down your cost per ounce because they are charging a lot for the lower capacity. They have most certainly figured what their desired profit margin is and what percentage of people buy drinks at very capacities. Would you really want Apple to charge hundreds of dollars more per base Mac just so that the upgrade pricing looks like it's saving you money? No matter what Apple will still make the same profit on the decked out Mac as they would before.

And that's a fair point to make.  Because most often, it is perception (of the customer and bottom line profit for the corporation).  I gather then, that you're saying that Apple's bottom end prices are in fact, cheaper than they need to be (as opposed to fast food beverages)?...you were kind of inferring that, right?  IMO on the contrary... most probably perceive Apple's bottom end prices NOT at all low.

 

But let me clarify.  I'm not trying to blow this out of proportion....just bringing some merit to others' posts....and hopefully bringing some sane/valuable discussion to the table.

post #96 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

@drewys808
I wish they made the iMac $7999 so we could skim out the current customer base.


Excuse me?  Why even make that comment?  Feel free to clarify.

post #97 of 142
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post
Please expand/clarify.

 

People pay Apple's prices for upgrades, otherwise those wouldn't be the prices for upgrades. And as a growing number of people buy Apple's computers both every quarter and YoY, it's safe to say their prices are correct.

 

You also have to take into consideration that it is physically impossible for them to make their devices any faster. They have to "price people out" of buying them to even barely meet the demand of those who can pay for them as-is. Apple would gladly accept smaller marketshare and lower sales for the sake of being able to actually get product in people's hands, making customers satisfied.

 

You can make a $10,000, fully electric car. You can promise it to people. You can take pre-orders. You'll get about 200 million. But since you can't possibly make that many in an amount of time acceptable to those people, you quintuple the price. You can then add higher-end features to make the vehicle better, make a greater profit, AND cut your orders down to an amount that can be physically fulfilled. Then your orderers will be quite pleased (and more so than previously, as the vehicles can have more luxuries), your pocketbook will be filled (allowing you to build more facilities or research faster/better manufacturing techniques), and your reputation bolstered.

 

Additionally, you have to remember: they used to be "worse". RAM was ludicrously expensive all the time back in the day. As of late, it has been quite competitively priced at the time of the new product's launch. That the price then never drops during the run of the model is an Apple ideas that has one of their highest simple:shrewd ratios.

post #98 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

People pay Apple's prices for upgrades, otherwise those wouldn't be the prices for upgrades. And as a growing number of people buy Apple's computers both every quarter and YoY, it's safe to say their prices are correct.

 

You also have to take into consideration that it is physically impossible for them to make their devices any faster. They have to "price people out" of buying them to even barely meet the demand of those who can pay for them as-is. Apple would gladly accept smaller marketshare and lower sales for the sake of being able to actually get product in people's hands, making customers satisfied.

 

You can make a $10,000, fully electric car. You can promise it to people. You can take pre-orders. You'll get about 200 million. But since you can't possibly make that many in an amount of time acceptable to those people, you quintuple the price. You can then add higher-end features to make the vehicle better, make a greater profit, AND cut your orders down to an amount that can be physically fulfilled. Then your orderers will be quite pleased (and more so than previously, as the vehicles can have more luxuries), your pocketbook will be filled (allowing you to build more facilities or research faster/better manufacturing techniques), and your reputation bolstered.

 

Additionally, you have to remember: they used to be "worse". RAM was ludicrously expensive all the time back in the day. As of late, it has been quite competitively priced at the time of the new product's launch. That the price then never drops during the run of the model is an Apple ideas that has one of their highest simple:shrewd ratios.


You've made some good points.  The supply/demand balance is always in play, I understand that and feel that Apple has typically played well in that regard.  However, my point is actually more along the lines of GB of iPhone/iPad flash...so really, it was my fault in taking it a bit off tangent.  Anecdotally, I often hear of customer grievances regarding prices of upgrades.  Not sure if it's worth listening to or not.  But yes, I totally agree with erring on the side of quality instead of quantity when it comes to anything Apple.  Appreciate your above thoughts.

post #99 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

And that's a fair point to make.  Because most often, it is perception (of the customer and bottom line profit for the corporation).  I gather then, that you're saying that Apple's bottom end prices are in fact, cheaper than they need to be (as opposed to fast food beverages)?...you were kind of inferring that, right?  IMO on the contrary... most probably perceive Apple's bottom end prices NOT at all low.

But let me clarify.  I'm not trying to blow this out of proportion....just bringing some merit to others' posts....and hopefully bringing some sane/valuable discussion to the table.

I didn't say they were low prices, I stated their lower end could be below their intended profit margins to help make a price point and to entice buyers. Bottom line is that no matter how you adjust the prices to suit what you want to pay for an upgrade you can't escape Apple wanting to maintain an average profit margin and total profit for a product category.

What PC and automobile vendors do with upgrades are very different from what fast food and movie theaters do with beverages. Why do you think you can buy a 2 liter of store-brand cola for 69¢ but it cost $2 at McDonalds for a large coke that is half filled with ice? People know they can get a cheaper beverage elsewhere so why don't they?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #100 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I didn't say they were low prices, I stated their lower end could be below their intended profit margins to help make a price point and to entice buyers. Bottom line is that no matter how you adjust the prices to suit what you want to pay for an upgrade you can't escape Apple wanting to maintain an average profit margin and total profit for a product category.
What PC and automobile vendors do with upgrades are very different from what fast food and movie theaters do with beverages. Why do you think you can buy a 2 liter of store-brand cola for 69¢ but it cost $2 at McDonalds for a large coke that is half filled with ice? People know they can get a cheaper beverage elsewhere so why don't they?

 

Not sure I understand your differentiation between low prices versus below their intended profit margin....seems to be pretty much the same in the eyes of the consumer in most cases.

 

I agree with everything you said except for 2 things in regards to "average profit margin":

1. Neither you nor me know what that number is.

2. That number (as defined by the Corporation) is a planned margin, but is not known until consumers "vote" with their wallet (i.e. buy the low end or the high end).

 

My point of contention is that it is quite possible that by reducing cost of the high end, more consumers will buy the high end, thereby actually increasing the average profit margin.  It may not be viable for the Mac, but maybe more of a viable theory for flash storage (iPhones/iPads).

 

But hey, I'm not trying to quibble.  I think that some here made some good points that Apple feels that its low end is good for the masses and that maybe it's the high end that really isn't really necessary or popular, so why reduce that price?  In the end, Apple is almost always smarter than me.  Almost always. :-)

post #101 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

Not sure I understand your differentiation between low prices versus below their intended profit margin....seems to be pretty much the same in the eyes of the consumer in most cases.

I agree with everything you said except for 2 things in regards to "average profit margin":
1. Neither you nor me know what that number is.
2. That number (as defined by the Corporation) is a planned margin, but is not known until consumers "vote" with their wallet (i.e. buy the low end or the high end).

My point of contention is that it is quite possible that by reducing cost of the high end, more consumers will buy the high end, thereby actually increasing the average profit margin.  It may not be viable for the Mac, but maybe more of a viable theory for flash storage (iPhones/iPads).

But hey, I'm not trying to quibble.  I think that some here made some good points that Apple feels that its low end is good for the masses and that maybe it's the high end that really isn't really necessary or popular, so why reduce that price?  In the end, Apple is almost always smarter than me.  Almost always. :-)

1) It's not the same. Apple wants to make a certain profit and the customer wants to get a certain value out of a product. The value for the customer varies because most Mac buyers don't see the value in the iMac over other Macs, and why most PC sales are not Macs.

2) We do know what the number is because Apple states it during their earnings. You have to do math to figure out their expectations for the quarter, their revenue and net profit, but the values are all there.

3) Of course reducing the cost of the high end will cause more people to buy it. This is what we've been discussing. This is what fast food companies do by selling you a very expensive soda at the low end and then charging you a little more for a much larger container; a container that has as nominal cost increase, as well as for ice and for the carbonated soda and syrup. They point is to maximize the upsell as much as possible.

PCs don't work that way because no vendor can have enough product to make all their machines the same at the high end. it's not just more syrup and water, it's very different components altogether. Again, you're coming at this as if Apple's low end is some ideal price point and then upgrades are somehow raping you. That's the wrong to way to look at any product.

4) Try this scenario: Take the most expensive iMac you can price. Now add $1000 to the price for the hell of it. Now start taking away each upgrade but instead of reducing the price start adding that to the base price. Now do it reverse. Would that make sense for Apple to do so? Would that make you a happy customer simply because they reduced the price as you added components even though the end result would be $1000 more than the top of the line is now? Of course not! All you're doing is complaining that Apple charges you for upgrades. If you don't see a value in those upgrades then don't get them. If you see no value in an AIIO then don't buy one. That is how the free market works. This really couldn't be any simpler.

5) Here's another scenario: Let's say Apple can get ahold 10 million 16GB NAND chips, 10 million 32GB NAND chip, and 10 million 64GB NAND chips for a quarter that will go into their Pads (limiting to iPad even though they go in many devices) Now lets say that Apple does what you want them to do and reduces the upgrade price on those devices. Lets say they drop 75% to be just the cost. So you have the iPad at $500, $525 and $550.

So now more people want the 64GB because it's only $50 more. Now they are making less money than before. A drop in real revenue by $150 but you think they will make more because they can sell more. But can they? They only have 10 million... which they sell out of at the $700 price point. So where is the extra profit coming from? What about people that will wait for the 64GB to come back in stock because they don't want 16 or 32GB because paying $25 to $50 more is worth waiting? Now they not only make less money but sell less items. How could that possibly make sense to you?

The only way that works in maintaining their profit margins is to push up the lower end to force the high-end purchase (like with soft drinks). That means the 16GB iPad is now $650 instead of $500 and the 32GB iPad is now $675 instead of $600, but again you have the same issue with supply and demand from using components that are not simply an accumulation of more of the same thing, unlike with syrup and carbonated water. So now you have Apple losing a lot of business to the lower end and still only having people want the 64GB iPad even though it's likely overkill simply because the value for the additional capacity seems better. I think you'd be a fool to think that a $5 large soda at the movie theater is a bargain because you're compared it to the medium at $4.75.
Edited by SolipsismX - 12/28/12 at 6:20pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #102 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Would you really want Apple to charge hundreds of dollars more per base Mac just so that the upgrade pricing looks like it's saving you money? No matter what Apple will still make the same profit on the decked out Mac as they would before.

 

I understand your position and it's a valid argument. In retail electronics you shave the bone on TV pricing but making it up on cables. That's not the case with Apple though.

 

Critics have broken down the cost of Apple devices and demonstrated that Apple already makes really healthy margins on even their base configurations. The prices they charge for upgrades are not compensatory, they're gouging, period.

 

I do NOT expect upgrades at cost. I expect them at the same kind of margins they make on everything else. ESPECIALLY now that Jony is making it impossible for us to do these things ourselves.

post #103 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I understand your position and it's a valid argument. In retail electronics you shave the bone on TV pricing but making it up on cables. That's not the case with Apple though.

Critics have broken down the cost of Apple devices and demonstrated that Apple already makes really healthy margins on even their base configurations. The prices they charge for upgrades are not compensatory, they're gouging, period.


1) Again, you people aren't seeing the forest for the trees. it's not your company. You can't say "well I think you're making a good enough profit with the base model so gimme the upgrades at the price I want to pay." That's fucking ridiculous. There profit margins are what they are. They calculate that along what they have sold in the past for various upgrade steps within a product category along with how many units they can sell and then price it accordingly to maximize the number of units they think they can sell at a certain price to maximize their return. The math is complex but you guys should at least be able to understand the concept.

2) If you think Apple is breaking the law with their "price gouging" then report them.
Quote:
I do NOT expect upgrades at cost. I expect them at the same kind of margins they make on everything else. ESPECIALLY now that Jony is making it impossible for us to do these things ourselves.

2So you want upgrades that the profit margins they make for the product category as a whole? Do you know what that is? Lets say their profit margin on an upgrade is double what it is for the base model, do you really want them raise the price of the base model so you can have this foolishly level price to satisfy so ignorance about economics and/or some OCD issue? What does it matter if the base model is $1799 and the one you want is $3000 when no matter how the numbers fall Apple will still charge you $3000 for the model you want, if not more money because the system you want to set up will cause an ever greater crunch on the high end components while reducing sales or the lower end? All you're really saying is that you want to be an elitist.. but don't want to pay for being one. That's sad, ironic and hypocritical.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #104 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

[...] All you're really saying is that you want to be an elitist.. but don't want to pay for being one. That's sad, ironic and hypocritical.

 

No, I understand the point, and I'm not a fucking idiot. I understand the weighting you're describing. First, I'm saying it's bullshit because we KNOW how much margin there is in a base model machine, and it's already VERY healthy. Second, I'm saying it's irrelevant because OVERALL Apple's margins are too high. I think Apple is now greedy to the point where it's becoming vulgar. As evidence I present their enormous cash reserve and executive compensation packages that are beyond the realm of what 99% of the population can even IMAGINE. More than a lottery jackpot per person per year.

 

I think it's wrong for all of us to pay so much more for Apple than we would for *equivalent* competing products. I'm okay with  paying more for quality, but not so MUCH more for insane profits.

 

And I do have a choice. I haven't purchased a new MacBook Pro since 2009. I'd *like* to, but I refuse to reward what I consider to be egregious treatment of customers. I realize legions of people do still line up to get boned in the ass, making it hard to argue with Apple's actions. I guess I just naively expect Apple to be a "better" corporate citizen. They issue shareholder dividends, why not a BUYER dividend in the form of somewhat more competitive prices?

 

You may see the issue differently and I respect that. It's not fair to call me an idiot just because we don't agree.

post #105 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

No, I understand the point, and I'm not a fucking idiot. I understand the weighting you're describing. First, I'm saying it's bullshit because we KNOW how much margin there is in a base model machine, and it's already VERY healthy. Second, I'm saying it's irrelevant because OVERALL Apple's margins are too high. I think Apple is now greedy to the point where it's becoming vulgar. As evidence I present their enormous cash reserve and executive compensation packages that are beyond the realm of what 99% of the population can even IMAGINE. More than a lottery jackpot per person per year.

I think it's wrong for all of us to pay so much more for Apple than we would for *equivalent* competing products. I'm okay with  paying more for quality, but not so MUCH more for insane profits.

And I do have a choice. I haven't purchased a new MacBook Pro since 2009. I'd *like* to, but I refuse to reward what I consider to be egregious treatment of customers. I realize legions of people do still line up to get boned in the ass, making it hard to argue with Apple's actions. I guess I just naively expect Apple to be a "better" corporate citizen. They issue shareholder dividends, why not a BUYER dividend in the form of somewhat more competitive prices?

You may see the issue differently and I respect that. It's not fair to call me an idiot just because we don't agree.

You say you're not an idiot and you understand everything I've stated and you still show you don't understand how the free market works. You say that people who buy Apple's products are getting "boned in the ass" and want a "buyer dividend." You really need to let go of this elitist and entitlement you've created for yourself. You're just a consumer. Either buy a product from a vendor or not. If no vendor offers what you want and you think there is a gap in the market then create your product to fill that gap. That's how the free market functions.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #106 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

@drewys808

I wish they made the iMac $7999 so we could skim out the current customer base.


Excuse me?  Why even make that comment?  Feel free to clarify.

Because so many people think Apple should lower their prices 'because they have enough money already'. If they'd price their products higher they could have less customers and still make the same profit. After reading post #104 I think that's a good thing.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #107 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You say you're not an idiot and you understand everything I've stated and you still show you don't understand how the free market works.

 

I'm gonna take one more shot at being civi because I think you're worth it.

 

I don't think "because we can" is a good enough standard in 21st century western culture. That does NOT mean I don't understand how it works. I get it. What the market will bear, buy or not, yada yada yada. As long as we're throwing around business model conventional wisdom, there's also "Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD." Apple CAN choose to "settle" for "only" around 33-35% gross margin (which is still around triple what HP and Dell manage), sell even MORE product AND make buyers feel warm and fuzzy instead of resentful.

 

Remember what started this thread? A slip in customer satisfaction. Reducing that age-old so-called "Apple Tax" could go a long way towards building lasting relationships with consumers. Buyers are more savvy that they were even just ten years ago, and they consider corporate culture in their big ticket item decision making.

 

You think it's okay for them to charge as much as they possibly can until enough buyers bail to cause a hit. I think it's better to make the pricing more competitive and win many more converts. If you think that makes me an idiot, I guess I overestimated your willingness to accept alternative viewpoints.

 

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You're just a consumer. Either buy a product from a vendor or not.
 

Yeah, I get that. I SAID so. Remember? I said that I haven't bought a MacBook Pro even though... oh never mind.

post #108 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I'm gonna take one more shot at being civi because I think you're worth it.

I don't think "because we can" is a good enough standard in 21st century western culture. That does NOT mean I don't understand how it works. I get it. What the market will bear, buy or not, yada yada yada. As long as we're throwing around business model conventional wisdom, there's also "Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD." Apple CAN choose to "settle" for "only" around 33-35% gross margin (which is still around triple what HP and Dell manage), sell even MORE product AND make buyers feel warm and fuzzy instead of resentful.

Remember what started this thread? A slip in customer satisfaction. Reducing that age-old so-called "Apple Tax" could go a long way towards building lasting relationships with consumers. Buyers are more savvy that they were even just ten years ago, and they consider corporate culture in their big ticket item decision making.

You think it's okay for them to charge as much as they possibly can until enough buyers bail to cause a hit. I think it's better to make the pricing more competitive and win many more converts. If you think that makes me an idiot, I guess I overestimated your willingness to accept alternative viewpoints.

"Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD." is not a valid rebuttal because it's what I've being all along. The free market works because if enough people choose no to buy a product because the price is too high then the company will suffer. Remember how Apple lowered the price of the original iPhone after initial demand subsided too much for their liking? That's the free market working... and it's beautiful.

Your comparisons to Dell and HP are irrelevant. They have different models. HP, Dell, et al. are competing for different segments of the market. HP and Dell's high end PCs have routinely been higher priced than a comparable Mac. Note, that is not to say that HP and Dell were profiting more because profit isn't you taking a price and subtracting the cheapest components you find on Newegg. Companies that produce a physical product that are successful are typically very efficiently run. Apple has shown they have a great supply chain and manufacturing process, often investing billions years in advance for a calculated long term goal. You are suggesting they reduce their profits from this simply because their competitors are so poor at competing and because you want a "buyer's dividend." You are implying that Apple, and only Apple, should not be a free company in a free market but a socialist company. That's crazy talk!
Quote:
Yeah, I get that. I SAID so. Remember? I said that I haven't bought a MacBook Pro even though... oh never mind.

But you're still whining about it and implying a notion of socialist rule where the consumers get Apple's profits return to them for being loyal consumers.


PS: I know you're saying to yourself that you didn't say that or think that — and I believe you honestly didn't — but that is exactly what you are implying by trying to rip Apple from the free market simply because they are more successful at designing, building, selling, and servicing their products then you want them to be.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #109 of 142
Bloated product lines, advertised products that take forever to show up with mass confusion, like iPad mini LTE, iMac 21", iMac 27", iPod touch... *sigh*.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

No, I understand the point, and I'm not a fucking idiot. I understand the weighting you're describing. First, I'm saying it's bullshit because we KNOW how much margin there is in a base model machine, and it's already VERY healthy. Second, I'm saying it's irrelevant because OVERALL Apple's margins are too high. I think Apple is now greedy to the point where it's becoming vulgar. As evidence I present their enormous cash reserve and executive compensation packages that are beyond the realm of what 99% of the population can even IMAGINE. More than a lottery jackpot per person per year.

I think it's wrong for all of us to pay so much more for Apple than we would for *equivalent* competing products. I'm okay with paying more for quality, but not so MUCH more for insane profits.

And I do have a choice. I haven't purchased a new MacBook Pro since 2009. I'd *like* to, but I refuse to reward what I consider to be egregious treatment of customers. I realize legions of people do still line up to get boned in the ass, making it hard to argue with Apple's actions. I guess I just naively expect Apple to be a "better" corporate citizen. They issue shareholder dividends, why not a BUYER dividend in the form of somewhat more competitive prices?

You may see the issue differently and I respect that. It's not fair to call me an idiot just because we don't agree.

Dude, don't let the shortsightedness of a few upset you. "None are so blind..."
post #110 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I'm gonna take one more shot at being civi because I think you're worth it.

I don't think "because we can" is a good enough standard in 21st century western culture. That does NOT mean I don't understand how it works. I get it. What the market will bear, buy or not, yada yada yada. As long as we're throwing around business model conventional wisdom, there's also "Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD." Apple CAN choose to "settle" for "only" around 33-35% gross margin (which is still around triple what HP and Dell manage), sell even MORE product AND make buyers feel warm and fuzzy instead of resentful.

Set aside your tirade for a second and consider two facts:

1. There is no such thing as "too high a price". Manufacturer sets a price and the consumer either pays it or they don't. If the consumer pays it, then that's the 'correct' price for that consumer. Similarly, if the vendor would rather pass up added sales rather than lower the price, that's their right. YOU (or other consumers) don't get to dictate a price to the supplier except by not buying. If enough people refuse to buy, then the supplier lowers the price, accepts the lower revenue, or goes out of business. That's how the market works. If you don't like the price, don't buy - and spend your money on the alternative.

2. You're crazy if you think that Dell and HP charge 1/3 of what Apple does. For example, I went to HP.com and clicked on 'laptops'. I selected the first laptop on the page and upgraded from 8 GB to 16 GB. Price was $200. Dell charges $175 for their laptops and $150 for desktops (but that's 4x4 GB rather than 2x8GB as Apple does). Apple's $200 is not far out of line with market price.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #111 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

[...] You're crazy if you think that Dell and HP charge 1/3 of what Apple does.

 

That's not what I said. I said they make 1/3 the MARGIN Apple does. If you're gonna be insulting, at least know what you're responding to so you don't look like an idiot.

 

And you guys can quit with the Economics For Dummies lessons. I fucking GET it. My fucking DOG gets it! You guys sure have an awfully high opinion of your own economics expertise.

 

Apple can do whatever the **** they want. You and Solip can do whatever the **** you want. I give up. I think there's another, possibly better, way to do business, but you guys are too deeply entrenched in "get all you can while you can" to even discuss it so consider me done.

post #112 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

That's not what I said. I said they make 1/3 the MARGIN Apple does. If you're gonna be insulting, at least know what you're responding to so you don't look like an idiot.

And you guys can quit with the Economics For Dummies lessons. I fucking GET it. My fucking DOG gets it! You guys sure have an awfully high opinion of your own economics expertise.

Apple can do whatever the **** they want. You and Solip can do whatever the **** you want. I give up. I think there's another, possibly better, way to do business, but you guys are too deeply entrenched in "get all you can while you can" to even discuss it so consider me done.

You say you get but everything you've stated to support your position seems to say the opposite.

If you think there is a better way then why not show that? BTW, a better way is a detailed method as to how Apple can lower prices and still make more profit. Nothing else matters! There is no altruism from Dell and HP for their inability to command a higher profit margin.

I'll use my own desires as an example: If Apple only charged me no more than $450 for the 32GB upgrade instead of $600 and it was CAS 9 I'd be happy to buy from Apple. As it stands I'll pay $300 from Newegg.

In that example Apple is losing profit on the RAM. Probably a solid $150 after everything has been calculated. Since I don't think RAM is in short supply I think this would be a real reason to lower RAM prices. But they aren't so I'll find my own solution.

Edit: This example is still what the market will bear, but from my singular PoV which may not be held by enough people to make it a viable option for Apple. Based on their current prices and what other OEMs charge it's clear they don't currently think it's in their favor overall.
Edited by SolipsismX - 12/29/12 at 9:01pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #113 of 142
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
Second, I'm saying it's irrelevant because OVERALL Apple's margins are too high.

 

This is subjective.


As evidence I present their enormous cash reserve and executive compensation packages that are beyond the realm of what 99% of the population can even IMAGINE.

 

This is not for you to decide. You have zero say in this beyond your choice of purchasing a product. That's how a free market economy works.


I think it's wrong for all of us to pay so much more for Apple than we would for *equivalent* competing products. I'm okay with  paying more for quality, but not so MUCH more for insane profits.

 

Then stop buying Apple products. If you are correct, their prices will go down. If you are not, nothing will happen.


I'd *like* to, but I refuse to reward what I consider to be egregious treatment of customers.

 

There you go! Exactly! But arguing about it here does nothing additional to aid your cause. You have already stated all Apple cares to hear.

 

Please also note that your last purchase was during an even (subjectively) "worse" time in Apple's history when they charged far more for upgrades than they do now.


I guess I just naively expect Apple to be a "better" corporate citizen.

 

Ah, but when you speak of this, all that matters is their duty to the owners and employees of the company. To that end, they are performing marvelously.


They issue shareholder dividends, why not a BUYER dividend in the form of somewhat more competitive prices?

 

They don't need to and are physically unable to. The latter is covered by the fact that customers stock them out at the CURRENT prices. The former is covered by the principles of the free market.

 

Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I think there's another, possibly better, way to do business…

 

And you may deign to hold that opinion, just note that you have zero internal insight into what they're actually doing.

post #114 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwilly View Post

Just hire the person from Amazon

I agree, Amazon Rocks

post #115 of 142
My iPhone, iPad mini's for the kids and our new iMac came quickly. The 27" iMac came weeks earlier than the Dec. 26th they had said I would have it buy. I'm very happy, as always, never had a problem with Apple online store or in person. 
post #116 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

That's not what I said. I said they make 1/3 the MARGIN Apple does. If you're gonna be insulting, at least know what you're responding to so you don't look like an idiot.

And you guys can quit with the Economics For Dummies lessons. I fucking GET it. My fucking DOG gets it! You guys sure have an awfully high opinion of your own economics expertise.

Apple can do whatever the **** they want. You and Solip can do whatever the **** you want. I give up. I think there's another, possibly better, way to do business, but you guys are too deeply entrenched in "get all you can while you can" to even discuss it so consider me done.

I don't think you fully understand Apple is a premium brand.

Much the same with other types of designer brands, the cost is much greater than BoM

You think Mercedes charges near cost price for a different paint job? They need to paint the body a colour anyway, why can't I have lime green?¡

Inspiration begins with google

Reply

Inspiration begins with google

Reply
post #117 of 142
@justmeblue: you should've used 0,0,255

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillie View Post

You think Mercedes charges near cost price for a different paint job? They need to paint the body a colour anyway, why can't I have lime green?¡

Brilliant!
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #118 of 142

It's just Samsung customers that can't figure it out

post #119 of 142

Happy New Year, folks!

 

3 things here:

1. Don't treat one poster like they're the only ones with the problem.  v5v is not the only one with the sentiment that some Apple products are priced too high.  I'm not the only one either.  So stop your condescending/personal attacks (esp. you, Solipism).  Many of us pose questions/issues in order to present a point that is general sentiment, not necessarily a point that we personally 100% believe in.  You can call us stupid an/or an idiot, and you can tell us "just don't buy it"...but I prefer that you address the important points, not dismiss us.

 

2. In regards to "high price", TS said it himself (in response to v5v), that "high" profit margins is subjective.  So there you are...and I agree...it's subjective as far as the consumer's perspective.  I appreciate examples and explanation, but to just make one argument and then think everyone else is stupid for not "getting it" is just pure arrogance.

 

3. While I don't like feeding the trolls, I also am not afraid or upset by them.  Many of us are Apple lovers but are not Apple purists or Apple cultists.  We engage here at this site to get to the truth and to gain balanced information.  Stop treating posters like they're either Apple purists or Apple haters.  Some are happily in between.

 

May your 2013 be one of good health and happiness.

post #120 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillie View Post


I don't think you fully understand Apple is a premium brand.
Much the same with other types of designer brands, the cost is much greater than BoM
You think Mercedes charges near cost price for a different paint job? They need to paint the body a colour anyway, why can't I have lime green?¡
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

@justmeblue: you should've used 0,0,255
Brilliant!

 

Do I get that Apple is more of a premium brand?...yes.  But to make the analogy of Mercedes and paint jobs?...that's not brilliant, it's highly inaccurate.

In many cases, Apple offers similar products at VERY similar price points to the main stream.  Apple absolutely knows that they cannot be both "the Mercedes" brand AND a successful computer company at the same time...and that's why things have changed over the last 7 years.  I would say that 90% of new Mercedes car owners are wealthy (I just made up that 90% btw).  And Mercedes does just fine with that strategy.  But I don't that will work in today's computer industry/environment.

 

Stop thinking that Apple is like Mercedes.   It's not.

 

And I won't even address the color paint job...unless you can explain why that analogy even makes sense.  Don't mean to be rude, I just don't get your analogy.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Customers say Apple's online store has become less satisfying to shop