or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple slashes 8GB iPhone price to $399, 4GB model to fade
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple slashes 8GB iPhone price to $399, 4GB model to fade - Page 9

post #321 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

How are you enjoying your iPhone any less today than you did 2 days ago, from a functionality and visual standpoint?

OK. Has this happened to anyone else?

I woke up this morning and went to make a call on my iPhone.

The multitouch surface had been replaced by an old fashioned rotary dial!!!

Also, the glass is no longer glass, but a cheap plastic and the back is now Zune brown (possibly tainted with lead paint from you know where?!).

When I tried to take a picture using the built in camera, no matter what I pointed it at, I kept getting the same happy face image with text across it saying "My First Camera"!!!

When I try to use the calculator, I keep getting a fixed screen that says "2+2=4 Math is fun!"

WTF??!!

What happened to my iPhone????
post #322 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post

It doesn't matter how long the contract is - any party to a contract can breach it's obligations during the term of the contract. The breached party has the ability to seek a rememdy at the time of breach. There is no obligation to wait until the end of the term of the contract.

True, it doesn't matter how long the contract period is, and that any party can breach its obligations during the term of the contract (otherwise, how would have you a breach of contract, if the contract is concluded without any breach during its term?). Yes, you can seek a remedy at the time of breach, without waiting for the conclusion of the contract (this is a very general statement, of course, with a number of exceptions, depending on context).

HOWEVER, the point of this is that there has been NO BREACH OF CONTRACT here. Your frustration does not give rise to a breach. What specific obligation, or duty, did Apple breach vis a vis the "contract" between you and Apple. You purchased a phone at a price mutually agreed upon. They provided it, along with a limited warranty. You used it and/or are still using it as it was intended to be used.

Based upon what you are saying, you seem to be trying to make a case that Apple fraudulently induced you into purchasing this iPhone based upon some vague promises of future enhancements (in that regard, what time period did Apple set forth when these enhancements would arrive, and what specific enhancements did APPLE say would be provided?).

If your claim is for fraudulent inducement into the purchase...then, good luck and be wary of whatever state you file a lawsuit in, as that state very well may have penalties for the filing of unmeritorious lawsuits. Again, since I mentioned Florida before, I can tell you that Florida does pursuant to Fla.Stat. s57.105. Surely, this statute does not stop crap lawsuits from being filed, but penalities can, and many times, are attached for doing so.

Additionally, I never reviewed the terms of my "contract" with Apple...wait, I don't have one. I have one with AT&T. However, if you actually have a contract with Apple you may want to check provisions such as an award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing party and/or arbitration clauses. Apple is not stupid, and you can rest assured that they are prepared to handle what comes at them in the way of angry customers. Personally, I don't think it was smart of Apple to "do this" to their loyal or enthusiastic customers. However, they may have something in mind, or they simply may not be concerned. Either way, time will tell how, or if, this ever affects Apple (yesterday's stock price dip notwithstanding).

Lawsuits are not the way to handle a situation like this. They are not cheap (in terms of out of pocket costs, or lost time dealing with it), and you can bet Apple will fight like hell.

Thus, as I said before I think you should be able to vent all you want here about the perceived inequities of Apple's action yesterday; however, advocating the filing of a lawsuit over this is foolhardy, especially when you have no true basis for such a lawsuit. At the end of the day, even if you were able to muster up an attorney who would take the case (likely a class action lawsuit, to make it financially worthwhile to the attorney), and even if you "win," you would see very little in return.
post #323 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Of course it matters. There are some clauses that you can tell have been breached before the period is up e.g. if one of the clauses states "we won't slap you in the face with a kipper", then if they do slap you in the face with a kipper, the contract is breached. But if they say "we will provide you with software updates", you cannot say that they haven't provided any if the contract duration is not up yet. Besides that, they have provided software updates so the point is moot and you have no leg to stand on.

They apple and att committed (publicly commented) to "feature enhancemnets" some of which would be available shortly after the iphone was introduced. "Shortly" by any reasonable standard has to be sooner than the the time it takes to effect the most substantial price drop in the history of cell phones relative to the launch of sales of a cell phone. Clearly, consumers have more than two strong legs to stand on.
post #324 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits View Post

Bigal is right, just look at Cory's post quoted above. The "value" issue works both ways. Just as some people who bought it for $600 now think it's only worth $400, some people contemplating it for $400 think it's worth $600. The $200 price drop compensates them for early termination fees and encourages contract-breaking: "A $600 phone for $400? Great. That takes care of the early termination fee."

No, it's a $400 phone period. It's not a $600 phone for $400.. it's a $400 phone for $400.
That's like saying if you bought apple stock now, you are paying $133 for a $10 stock cause at some point in history, it was $10.
post #325 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post

They apple and att committed (publicly commented) to "feature enhancemnets" some of which would be available shortly after the iphone was introduced. "Shortly" by any reasonable standard has to be sooner than the the time it takes to effect the most substantial price drop in the history of cell phones relative to the launch of sales of a cell phone. Clearly, consumers have more than two strong legs to stand on.

Except that feature enhancements have already been delivered so you are talking nonsense.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #326 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

How are you enjoying your iPhone any less today than you did 2 days ago, from a functionality and visual standpoint?

That's the limits of an allegory... No change in the love I have for my iPhone, just disappointment that it sold itself to me for more than it knew it was worth...

"On Wednesday, Apple executives insisted that the price cut had been planned long ago and that the strategy had been conceived in part to keep the iPhones pricing in line with its new iPod Touch, a music player that looks like the iPhone but lacks the phone-calling ability."
NYT today.
post #327 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrightm View Post

True, it doesn't matter how long the contract period is, and that any party can breach its obligations during the term of the contract (otherwise, how would have you a breach of contract, if the contract is concluded without any breach during its term?). Yes, you can seek a remedy at the time of breach, without waiting for the conclusion of the contract (this is a very general statement, of course, with a number of exceptions, depending on context).

HOWEVER, the point of this is that there has been NO BREACH OF CONTRACT here. Your frustration does not give rise to a breach. What specific obligation, or duty, did Apple breach vis a vis the "contract" between you and Apple. You purchased a phone at a price mutually agreed upon. They provided it, along with a limited warranty. You used it and/or are still using it as it was intended to be used.

Based upon what you are saying, you seem to be trying to make a case that Apple fraudulently induced you into purchasing this iPhone based upon some vague promises of future enhancements (in that regard, what time period did Apple set forth when these enhancements would arrive, and what specific enhancements did APPLE say would be provided?).

If your claim is for fraudulent inducement into the purchase...then, good luck and be wary of whatever state you file a lawsuit in, as that state very well may have penalties for the filing of unmeritorious lawsuits. Again, since I mentioned Florida before, I can tell you that Florida does pursuant to Fla.Stat. s57.105. Surely, this statute does not stop crap lawsuits from being filed, but penalities can, and many times, are attached for doing so.

Additionally, I never reviewed the terms of my "contract" with Apple...wait, I don't have one. I have one with AT&T. However, if you actually have a contract with Apple you may want to check provisions such as an award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing party and/or arbitration clauses. Apple is not stupid, and you can rest assured that they are prepared to handle what comes at them in the way of angry customers. Personally, I don't think it was smart of Apple to "do this" to their loyal or enthusiastic customers. However, they may have something in mind, or they simply may not be concerned. Either way, time will tell how, or if, this ever affects Apple (yesterday's stock price dip notwithstanding).

Lawsuits are not the way to handle a situation like this. They are not cheap (in terms of out of pocket costs, or lost time dealing with it), and you can bet Apple will fight like hell.

Thus, as I said before I think you should be able to vent all you want here about the perceived inequities of Apple's action yesterday; however, advocating the filing of a lawsuit over this is foolhardy, especially when you have no true basis for such a lawsuit. At the end of the day, even if you were able to muster up an attorney who would take the case (likely a class action lawsuit, to make it financially worthwhile to the attorney), and even if you "win," you would see very little in return.

,
Advocating a lawsuit? I'm simply suggesting that if we had the discipline, the folks who are out the net $200 could act together to refrain from making purchases to let apple feel our wrath. I'm also suggesting that the 2 year contract with ATT and Apple has been breached because of failed promises - shame on Apple for not being more clear about what they meant by feature enhancements - but there is no doubt in my mind that those publice statements were intended to induce people into purchasing iPhones. By the way - assuming you own one, how did you activate your iPhone - did you use iTunes? My guess is yet - if you did - Apple is in privity along with ATT with respect to your two year contract. Apple is even recognizing revenue related to the iPhone over the two year contract period because they understand they have contractual obligations over the period. Assuming someone did file a lawsuit - i'd be very surprised if Apple were able to sustain that the lawsuit were frivolous - in any US jurisdiction (UK a different matter).
post #328 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Except that feature enhancements have already been delivered so you are talking nonsense.

Go back and listen to SJ speech just days before the release - also go back and look at the speculation around the nature and breadth of enhancements that would be released - they're all very weighty. Interesting that you're so defensive of Apple.
post #329 of 404
Like a lot of people who purchased the iPhone when it first came out I feel betrayed by the recent price drop of the iPhone. Not because it happened but because it happened by a brand I trusted and admire: Apple. If Apple wishes to take care of it's installed base it should offer a program for these people of free songs or discounts on at the Apple store. I would have expected this from other brands but not Apple.
post #330 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

No, it's a $400 phone period. It's not a $600 phone for $400.. it's a $400 phone for $400.

You are confusing price and value.

How would you define a "bargain"? It is something that is priced lower than the value you attach to it, or in other words is priced lower than the price you would be willing to pay. (e.g. you see something in a shop, you like it, you think "I'd pay $600 for that", you ask how much it is and find it's $400 - bargain!).

So, for people out there who regard the iPhone as worth $599 or more to them, but have not yet purchased, this price reduction has made the iPhone a bargain to them.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #331 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

No, it's a $400 phone period. It's not a $600 phone for $400.. it's a $400 phone for $400.

He was (and you were) talking about perception. Some people will perceive the price drop as an incentive to break a contract with another network in order to buy an iPhone. The $200 covers the termination fee and encourages migration. That's exactly what Cory said and I bet a lot of people will feel the same way.
post #332 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

You are confusing price and value.

How would you define a "bargain"? It is something that is priced lower than the value you attach to it, or in other words is priced lower than the price you would be willing to pay. (e.g. you see something in a shop, you like it, you think "I'd pay $600 for that", you ask how much it is and find it's $400 - bargain!).

So, for people out there who regard the iPhone as worth $599 or more to them, but have not yet purchased, this price reduction has made the iPhone a bargain to them.

You are confused, assuming that the iphone is a $600 phone.. poor deluded soul. It's a $400 phone that apple charged $600 so as to gorge their loyal fans. It was never really worth $600. Apple fan base distorts apple product value (hence why apple detractors constantly refer to the Jobs reality distortion field).

Maybe you consider you are getting $200 to break a contract but regular Joe does not think of it that way. If he wanted to break his contract, he's still paying to break his contract to buy a $400 phone. Also if you consider the value of a product to be what an individual would pay for it, then it's value is $400 cause i would not pay $600 for it (maybe only the imminent threat of bodily harm would have forced me to buy that phone at $600).

So now what?. You say it's worth $600.. i say $400. Obviously, the value of a product is not dependent on what one individual would have paid for it (can you imagine the nightmare economist would have if they asked everyone what they would pay for a specific product?.. they would never arrive at the product value in any reasonable time).

The value of a product is what a company sells that product for (and have sufficient people buy it). Apple is now selling the iphone for $400, hence the value of the iphone is $400.

It's not a $600 phone for $400.. it's a $400 phone period. You can personally chose to look at it whatever way you want, does not change the economics.
post #333 of 404
There's nothing like a controversial decision to get Apple's customers to turn on each other like rabid animals.
post #334 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

The value of a product is what a company sells that product for (and have sufficient people buy it).

No. That's the price. Not the value. The value is "in the eye of the beholder". Note we are talking about a consumer electronics product, not an investment.

I have not made any statements as to what the iPhone's value is to me. You've asserted that it's $600, but actually to me the value is $0 because I don't want or need one.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #335 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits View Post

He was (and you were) talking about perception. Some people will perceive the price drop as an incentive to break a contract with another network in order to buy an iPhone. The $200 covers the termination fee and encourages migration. That's exactly what Cory said and I bet a lot of people will feel the same way.

That's a foolish way to feel. That assumes that you can then turn around and sell the phone for $600. If you cannot sell the phone for $600, how is it then a $600 phone being sold for $400?. The value of an object is what you can get on the market for it. You can't sell an iphone today for $600.. (maybe unlocked you could) so then what you are really getting is a $400 phone.

Now for a real example of what you were thinking.. imagine getting a $40,000 bmw for $20,000. Is the car worth $20,000?.. no!!.. becuase you can immediately turn around and sell it for $40,000 (or at least more than $20,000). That is a true case of where you are getting incentive to buy a product at below value. The value of the iphone is $400. Doesn't matter how you feel about it. Value of an object is independent of feelings. It's dependent on what you can sell the object for immediately or what you would have to pay for that object if you wanted to buy in the open market.
post #336 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

No. That's the price. Not the value. The value is "in the eye of the beholder". Note we are talking about a consumer electronics product, not an investment.

I have not made any statements as to what the iPhone's value is to me. You've asserted that it's $600, but actually to me the value is $0 because I don't want or need one.

Ok whatever, well then all the people bitching don't feel their iphone value is $599?.. now will you shut up?. Doesn't matter what original value they attached to the phone, as of today, it's value is not $599. Stop with this silly point already.
post #337 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by f.duane View Post

That's the limits of an allegory... No change in the love I have for my iPhone, just disappointment that it sold itself to me for more than it knew it was worth...

Well if it wasn't worth $600 to you when you bought it, then you shouldn't have bought it

The features, visual appeal, and functionality has not diminished. It just costs less now. The phone is easily worth $400 to me. If I buy one next week for $400, and the following week they start giving them away for free, I'd still have paid what I felt the phone was worth, and thusly wouldn't be upset with anyone.
post #338 of 404
Curious whether it's enforceable - (the $200 cancellation fee) - after all - you didn't receive condieration from ATT other than future service - since you could buy a phone and never hook it up - or cancel after a period of time and keep the phone with no penalty. More curious would be whether ATT's attorney's were smart enough to think through a scenario where everyone that paid $599 or $499 defected for cause. if they did hopefully, they got a make whole kicker from Apple - if not - a massive defection might have the (perverse) effect of pumping up Apple's revenue since upon defection from ATT there wouldn't be any remaining two year contractual obligation other than for regular warranty claims... maybe Mr. Jobs and his attorneys pulled one over on ATT as well...
post #339 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Ok whatever, well then all the people bitching don't feel their iphone value is $599?.. now will you shut up?.

No, sorry.

If they didn't or don't feel the iPhone as worth $599 to them, they shouldn't have paid $599 for it, should they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Doesn't matter what original value they attached to the phone, as of today, it's value is not $599. Stop with this silly point already.

What, the "silly point" that price and value are two totally different things? Sorry, but they are. Just because you do not understand that doesn't change it. The iPhone's price is $399. It's value is in the eye of the beholder. Those who feel it is worth $399 or more to them will buy it, those who feel it is worth less than $399 will not buy it.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #340 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

No, sorry.

If they didn't or don't feel the iPhone as worth $599 to them, they shouldn't have paid $599 for it, should they?



What, the "silly point" that price and value are two totally different things? Sorry, but they are. Just because you do not understand that doesn't change it. The iPhone's price is $399. It's value is in the eye of the beholder. Those who feel it is worth $399 or more to them will buy it, those who feel it is worth less than $399 will not buy it.


I agree with Mr. H- price and value are not the same - let's not forget the story of the emperor's clothes!
post #341 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

What, the "silly point" that price and value are two totally different things? Sorry, but they are. Just because you do not understand that doesn't change it. The iPhone's price is $399. It's value is in the eye of the beholder. Those who feel it is worth $399 or more to them will buy it, those who feel it is worth less than $399 will not buy it.

I wonder if those who pay more than retail (sometimes astronomically so) on eBay for hot Holiday items feel ripped off and outraged for agreeing to a heightened price?
post #342 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

I wonder if those who pay more than retail (sometimes astronomically so) on eBay for hot Holiday items feel ripped off and outraged for agreeing to a heightened price?

Great question - of course, when doing so - they know what the price is - they have knowledge of the exact premium they are paying for immediate gratification.
post #343 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

No, sorry.

If they didn't or don't feel the iPhone as worth $599 to them, they shouldn't have paid $599 for it, should they?



What, the "silly point" that price and value are two totally different things? Sorry, but they are. Just because you do not understand that doesn't change it. The iPhone's price is $399. It's value is in the eye of the beholder. Those who feel it is worth $399 or more to them will buy it, those who feel it is worth less than $399 will not buy it.

Hmmm, no flipflopping eh?. I guess it's illegal to change one view of the value of a product you bought. Watch out folks, MR H, the Value police, gonna arrest you if you suddenly perceive your iphone is worth less than you paid for it. In Mr H world, there is no such thing as fraud. I feel so much better.. i can now go out and defraud the ederly. Sell them insurance for $1 million that is not worth squat. When they complain, I'll just say "hey, if you think it was not worth 1 million, why did you buy it?". I applaud your efforts to defend apple. It must be an extremely streneous task lately with all the anti-apple post).

Apple could use you on their boards. I hear they deleted over 2000 messages in a day and still there were thousands pouring in. They had to take the board down. You can lend a hand over there. In the meantime, i gotta go.. gotta sell some ederly people worthless stuff cause they "value" it at the price i scammed them at. So much money to make, so little time.
post #344 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post

Great question - of course, when doing so - they know what the price is - they have knowledge of the exact premium they are paying for immediate gratification.

Was anyone so naive as to believe they weren't already paying a significant premium when they dropped $600 on a phone?

Will those same angered buyers feel better about their purchases if iPhone supply becomes sparse this Christmas and scalpers are selling them on eBay for $599 again?
post #345 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

That's a foolish way to feel.

You may think so, but a lot of people will feel that way (price reduction encourages migration by compensating early termination fees).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

That assumes that you can then turn around and sell the phone for $600.

You are judging the value of the iPhone on what you would get if you turned around and sold it. However, people are not buying iPhones to turn around and sell them. People are buying iPhones to use. Do you understand the distinction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

If you cannot sell the phone for $600, how is it then a $600 phone being sold for $400?.

It's not. However, because it used to sell for $600, and people are aware of that, that makes its new price at $400 seem like a bargain to new customers or compensate them for $175 early termination fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

The value of an object is what you can get on the market for it. You can't sell an iphone today for $600.. (maybe unlocked you could) so then what you are really getting is a $400 phone.

The value of an object is only what it sells for in the market if you are selling it in the market. I have an iPhone, am not selling it, and its value to me is more than $600. (of course, I'd rather pay less, but I'm just saying...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Now for a real example of what you were thinking.. imagine getting a $40,000 bmw for $20,000. Is the car worth $20,000?.. no!!.. becuase you can immediately turn around and sell it for $40,000 (or at least more than $20,000). That is a true case of where you are getting incentive to buy a product at below value. The value of the iphone is $400. Doesn't matter how you feel about it. Value of an object is independent of feelings. It's dependent on what you can sell the object for immediately or what you would have to pay for that object if you wanted to buy in the open market.

People don't buy and sell iPhones like stock or even cars. It's not an investment, or a resale opportunity. It's all about what it is. Cory's post speaks for itself, and many people feel the same way. They may have been on the fence about buying an iPhone, and the lowered price will convert the sale and justifies an early termination fee for switching.
post #346 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits View Post


People don't buy and sell iPhones like stock or even cars. It's not an investment, or a resale opportunity. It's all about what it is. Cory's post speaks for itself, and many people feel the same way. They may have been on the fence about buying an iPhone, and the lowered price will convert the sale and justifies an early termination fee for switching.

Speak for yourself, have you visited ebay lately? The people that bought iphones to resell surely thought the value lay in what they can sell the product for in the open market. You go tell them about your cute definition of value.
post #347 of 404
Actually, i have a solution to our argument about value. MR H, you should find someone who paid $600 for the phone and offer that person $600 since you seem to value the phone that much otherwise, allow that person to revalue their phone and then bitch about it.

Either put up or shut up.
post #348 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits View Post

Cory's post speaks for itself, and many people feel the same way. They may have been on the fence about buying an iPhone, and the lowered price will convert the sale and justifies an early termination fee for switching.

Yep. If I make the leap, I'll be paying $600 just like the rest of the iPhone early adopters, only $200 of that will go to T-Mobile.
post #349 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Speak for yourself, have you visited ebay lately? The people that bought iphones to resell surely thought the value lay in what they can sell the product for in the open market. You go tell them about your cute definition of value.

Who cares about them?

They're such a puny, tiny, insignificant, portion of iPhone buyers, they're not what we're talking about.

My "cute defination" applies to virtually 100% of users and everyone who's posted here. No one has complained about their iPhone ebay store.
post #350 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post

,
Advocating a lawsuit? I'm simply suggesting that if we had the discipline, the folks who are out the net $200 could act together to refrain from making purchases to let apple feel our wrath. I'm also suggesting that the 2 year contract with ATT and Apple has been breached because of failed promises - shame on Apple for not being more clear about what they meant by feature enhancements - but there is no doubt in my mind that those publice statements were intended to induce people into purchasing iPhones. By the way - assuming you own one, how did you activate your iPhone - did you use iTunes? My guess is yet - if you did - Apple is in privity along with ATT with respect to your two year contract. Apple is even recognizing revenue related to the iPhone over the two year contract period because they understand they have contractual obligations over the period. Assuming someone did file a lawsuit - i'd be very surprised if Apple were able to sustain that the lawsuit were frivolous - in any US jurisdiction (UK a different matter).


Yes, advocate a lawsuit. That's exactly what you have been doing. Otherwise what is the point of your mentioning breach of contract or some other sort of silly claim--continuously.

Yes, I own an iPhone and bought the day it came out. Yes, I activated through iTunes. However, if that is the extent of your privity argument, again, I say good luck, Chief. Nonetheless, where in that 2 year contract does it mention these future feature enhancements that you have been talking about? There isn't anything to that effect. The 2 year contract pertains to the cell service, not continued support of the iPhone product, by means of additional enhancements.

You say that you would be very surprised if Apple could sustain that a lawsuit (containing the claims you envision) is frivolous? Yet, you are also surprised at Apple's recent price drop? Will the surprises for you ever end, or just keep coming because you have your head buried in the sand?

By the way, the $200 you have "lost" would be a lesser amount than most filing fees to simply file your complaint. Just keep the losses coming, huh?
post #351 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Actually, i have a solution to our argument about value. MR H, you should find someone who paid $600 for the phone and offer that person $600 since you seem to value the phone that much otherwise, allow that person to revalue their phone and then bitch about it.

Either put up or shut up.

Are you being a moron on purpose?

Didn't I already tell you that the value of the iPhone to me is $0?

Of course no-one is now going to pay $599 for an iPhone when they can get one for $399. But if they value the iPhone more than that, they've got themselves a bargain.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Hmmm, no flipflopping eh?. I guess it's illegal to change one view of the value of a product you bought. Watch out folks, MR H, the Value police, gonna arrest you if you suddenly perceive your iphone is worth less than you paid for it. In Mr H world, there is no such thing as fraud. I feel so much better.. i can now go out and defraud the ederly. Sell them insurance for $1 million that is not worth squat.

In the meantime, i gotta go.. gotta sell some ederly people worthless stuff cause they "value" it at the price i scammed them at. So much money to make, so little time.

My arguments imply that I think there is no such thing as fraud? You are completely incapable of logical reasoning.

Your example of selling useless insurance is in no way a parallel of the iPhone situation. The value of insurance is in its "function" - that it pays out if something goes wrong. If the insurance will never actually pay out, its function has been misrepresented. The iPhone's function has not been misrepresented and is still able to perform all the functions it was able to on the day of purchase. No fraud has been perpetrated.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #352 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Are you being a moron on purpose?

Didn't I already tell you that the value of the iPhone to me is $0?

Of course no-one is now going to pay $599 for an iPhone when they can get one for $399. But if they value the iPhone more than that, they've got themselves a bargain.




My arguments imply that I think there is no such thing as fraud? You are completely incapable of logical reasoning.

Your example of selling useless insurance is in no way a parallel of the iPhone situation. The value of insurance is in its "function" - that it pays out if something goes wrong. If the insurance will never actually pay out, its function has been misrepresented. The iPhone's function has not been misrepresented and is still able to perform all the functions it was able to on the day of purchase. No fraud has been perpetrated.

Oh really?. Gasoline has a simple function. If you put it in a car, it allows you to get from point A to B. So by your logic, Exxon can start selling gas for $10 a gallon. Actually by your logic, congress or no other authority should ever look into price gouging because if a consumer buys gas expecting his car to go from point A to B, then it is not fraud because Exxon did not force that person to pay $10. What if every gas station started selling gas for $10 a gallon tomorrow?. Would that work for you too?. What if you took the train, would that make the value of gas $0?. What about the value of microsoft stock, is it too $0?.
You are being idiotic for the sake of argument. Yes, we get it.. you support apple.. hooray for you!!.. lets give you a cookie.

BTW, i can sell the ederly 1 million insurance that is not worth a million because i will tell them exactly what they are buying in legalese and they will not understand what the hell i said (happens every day in America.. some prosecutors foolishly call it fraud.. i should let them contact you for a true definition of fraud).

Just because someone told you what you are buying and you bought it and it performed that function does not mean fraud was not involved. This is so basic, a 10 year old would get this. I can only surmise you are doing the following

1. Purposely being dense so as to continue the discussion
2. You really don't understand.
3. You are baiting
4. You didn't buy an iphone so this is all theoretical to you.. what do you care? you can say anything you want.. you are not the one holding a $399 iphone you paid $599 for.

Whatever, go on.. i promise this is my last reply to you.. go ahead, have your fun with the folks bitching (hey, you didn't get one so they really value your opinion).
post #353 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrightm View Post

Yes, advocate a lawsuit. That's exactly what you have been doing. Otherwise what is the point of your mentioning breach of contract or some other sort of silly claim--continuously.

Yes, I own an iPhone and bought the day it came out. Yes, I activated through iTunes. However, if that is the extent of your privity argument, again, I say good luck, Chief. Nonetheless, where in that 2 year contract does it mention these future feature enhancements that you have been talking about? There isn't anything to that effect. The 2 year contract pertains to the cell service, not continued support of the iPhone product, by means of additional enhancements.

You say that you would be very surprised if Apple could sustain that a lawsuit (containing the claims you envision) is frivolous? Yet, you are also surprised at Apple's recent price drop? Will the surprises for you ever end, or just keep coming because you have your head buried in the sand?

By the way, the $200 you have "lost" would be a lesser amount than most filing fees to simply file your complaint. Just keep the losses coming, huh?

if you want to get out of your contract - you have to have a basis for doing that to avoid the cancellation fee. I believe Apple and ATT's agreement on a sbustantial (33%) price cut and failure to meet promises they made related to quickly ehance the functionality of the phone provide an iPhone owner with a reasonable argument to void the contract and avoid any cancellation fee. who needs to file a complaint - just spend some time writing letters and having phone calls with ATT - not hard at all. People should stand up for themselves if they feel dissatisfied with how they are being treated by vendors they do business with. Incidentally, your suggestion that claims made against a contracting party are invalid if they relate to promises other than in a written contract is completely bogus in any jusridiction in the US. I believe you're also incorrect to think that Apple doesn't have any relation to the service contract.
post #354 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

What if every gas station started selling gas for $10 a gallon tomorrow?. Would that work for you too?

That's called price fixing. It involves the anti-competive collusion of multiple parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

What about the value of microsoft stock, is it too $0?.

Microsoft stock is an investment. Its value is determined by what people are willing to pay for it. The iPhone is a consumer electronics product, not an investment. You don't buy it hoping you will be able to sell it later for more money.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Yes, we get it.. you support apple

I support Apple in this instance not through blind loyalty but through a simple application of logic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

BTW, i can sell the ederly 1 million insurance that is not worth a million because i will tell them exactly what they are buying in legalese and they will not understand what the hell i said (happens every day in America.. some prosecutors foolishly call it fraud.. i should let them contact you for a true definition of fraud).

Just because someone told you what you are buying and you bought it and it performed that function does not mean fraud was not involved. This is so basic, a 10 year old would get this.

Obviously you do not understand the part of my previous post where I state: "its function has been misrepresented".


Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

I can only surmise you are doing the following

1. Purposely being dense so as to continue the discussion
2. You really don't understand.
3. You are baiting

That's funny, I thought all the same things about you.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #355 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Oh really?. Gasoline has a simple function. If you put it in a car, it allows you to get from point A to B. So by your logic, Exxon can start selling gas for $10 a gallon. Actually by your logic, congress or no other authority should ever look into price gouging because if a consumer buys gas expecting his car to go from point A to B, then it is not fraud because Exxon did not force that person to pay $10. What if every gas station started selling gas for $10 a gallon tomorrow?. Would that work for you too?. What if you took the train, would that make the value of gas $0?. What about the value of microsoft stock, is it too $0?.

Um...there are infinite alternatives to spending $599 on a phone. Like, for instance, just keeping the one you already own. Or taking the one the service provider will give you for free with a new contract. Furthermore, a phone is a one-time purchase; gasoline is a weekly purchase for most people. Gasoline suddenly increasing to $10 a gallon would be like AT&T upping your cell phone bill to $200 a month, not like dropping the price of a $600 toy to $400.
post #356 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Um...there are infinite alternatives to spending $599 on a phone. Like, for instance, just keeping the one you already own. Or taking the one the service provider will give you for free with a new contract. Furthermore, a phone is a one-time purchase; gasoline is a weekly purchase for most people. Gasoline suddenly increasing to $10 a gallon would be like AT&T upping your cell phone bill to $200 a month, not like dropping the price of a $600 toy to $400.

Why not move to today's thread on Jobs saying he's not paying refunds - more AI users will likely see posts
post #357 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

There's nothing like a controversial decision to get Apple's customers to turn on each other like rabid animals.

And we're reaping the benefits!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #358 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post

if you want to get out of your contract - you have to have a basis for doing that to avoid the cancellation fee. I believe Apple and ATT's agreement on a sbustantial (33%) price cut and failure to meet promises they made related to quickly ehance the functionality of the phone provide an iPhone owner with a reasonable argument to void the contract and avoid any cancellation fee. who needs to file a complaint - just spend some time writing letters and having phone calls with ATT - not hard at all. People should stand up for themselves if they feel dissatisfied with how they are being treated by vendors they do business with. Incidentally, your suggestion that claims made against a contracting party are invalid if they relate to promises other than in a written contract is completely bogus in any jusridiction in the US. I believe you're also incorrect to think that Apple doesn't have any relation to the service contract.

Okay. Fabulous. Whatever. Write all the letters you want, but if you argument is premised upon the arguments (and your complete misunderstanding of the law in most jurisdictions), have at it. You will end up with no relief, other than continued frustration.

In any event, if that contract has a merger clause (do you know what that is? Doubtful that you do), it would generally preclude you from arguing about what you are incorrectly calling "promises," other than what is in the written contract. However, you don't have a contract with Apple.

I'm done arguing with you, since it is obvious that you are completely clueless about the law "in any jurisdiction in the U.S." Good luck.
post #359 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrightm View Post

Okay. Fabulous. Whatever. Write all the letters you want, but if you argument is premised upon the arguments (and your complete misunderstanding of the law in most jurisdictions), have at it. You will end up with no relief, other than continued frustration.

In any event, if that contract has a merger clause (do you know what that is? Doubtful that you do), it would generally preclude you from arguing about what you are incorrectly calling "promises," other than what is in the written contract. However, you don't have a contract with Apple.

I'm done arguing with you, since it is obvious that you are completely clueless about the law "in any jurisdiction in the U.S." Good luck.

Thanks for the best wishes - I respectfully disagree with your analysis. Merger clauses are about as enforceable as exculpatory clauses. Even less so when obviated by comments by an officer of the company responsible for issuing the boilerplate paper.
post #360 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post

Thanks for the best wishes - I respectfully disagree with your analysis. Merger clauses are about as enforceable as exculpatory clauses. Even less so when obviated by comments by an officer of the company responsible for issuing the boilerplate paper.

What state are you located in? Maybe your state is different. But, here in Florida merger clauses are absolutely enforceable, whereas exculpatory clauses, while enforceable, are really difficult unless drafted properly.

Nonetheless, have said all of this, and in view of my complete disagreement with you about your view of law (since mine is based upon years of practice dealing with these very issues---successfully), you are obviously determined and not easily dissuaded, so I think if you are as determined against Apple and AT&T, you might get something for your efforts. It won't be $200, but maybe something (just don't threaten them with specific legal action...they likely won't respond, or at least not in a manner you want).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple slashes 8GB iPhone price to $399, 4GB model to fade