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 10

post #361 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective) we have many legal defenses, particluarly where commitments and promises are made and we act based on those commitments and promises and they aren't fulfilled. I believe Apple opened itself up to risk (and this was a business decision) based on it's choice to dramatically reduce the price of a recently introduced product - particularly when it had made significant promises regarding the device and quick feature improvements.

What does this have to do with what I said? I wasn't addressing anything other than the question of where sales may be now.

Quote:
With respect to my comments regarding sales (note the new paragraph) - I'm simply distilling Company comments (1M shipped by end of Sept (note some significant number of those will be sold at reduced price) and analyst comments regarding views on sales based on sales channel checks. Apple has a stock price, even after a 5% decrease, that is based on aggressive future sales assumptions - reducing the price this significantly, I believe, is an effort to stimulate sales through the end of this month. Given a portion of each sale is deferred because of the underlying ATT contract - such a significant price reduction suggests to me that Apple is trying to make up a huge deficit to planned earnings for the period ending this September.

While I think that you may be responding to the wrong post, I'll get into this anyway.

I think you are wrong about that.

There is no evidence that Apple is responding to a serious (or possibly any) decline in earnings this quarter.

If anything can be believed about the price drop of the phone, and the subsequent stock drop, which still isn't proven (I'll get into that afterwards), it is that the fear of the investor community is that the drop in the price of the iPhone will PRECIPITATE a drop in earnings. A drop that wouldn't have otherwise occurred.

Quote:
They also need evidence of increased media delivery device penetratrion (iPhone, iPod) to protect their iTune franchise and avoid defects similar to NBC and Universal.

I disagree with that as well. There is also no evidence that there has been a drop, or a slowdown in purchases through iTunes., or a slowdown in the increase.

There is a fight between Apple and these companies for the future control of the channel. This is something I've been prediction in these forums for a long time now. I'm not surprised by it. Apple's selling more iPhones is not going to change that equation in Apple's favor. In fact, the opposite will occur, as these, and other, companies will have even more fear over the prospect of Apple's control over the distribution of their goods. So, if anything, they will be less eager to enter into deals that they believe are favorable to Apple, but also restrict their own ability to do what that want with their own products.

As to the stock drop. One might notice when looking at yesterday's charts, tht Apple's price began to drop just BEFORE the announcements started shortly after 1:00 pm Eastern time. By the time Jobs made the announcement of the drop in the iPhones price, a hour later, the stock, along with the rest of the market was clearly down. The stock continued down in a straight line, indicating to me, that this announcement had no immediate effect on the price. If it did, surely the stock price drop would have accelerated, but it didn't.

I won't argue that the price not moving back up could have been partly due to this price drop for the phone, but again, not for the reasons a couple of people have given. The reason as being stated in several placed in the papers, and I agree, is that Apple's earnings for the iPhone will now be depressed compared to what they would have been if the price had not been dropped.

That's partly why the price has dropped a bit further today. We'll see what happens over a longer term, which is what really matters.
post #362 of 404
I believe the price drop has more to do with three factors.

1) Since Apple has ramped up production the cost of the components is going down.

2) Apple is moving quickly to position the iPhone/Safari as the mobile web standard.

3) Apple's goal of 10 million iPhones by the end of 2008 (18 months) = 555K iPhones/month
Even with all the pent up demand they weren't able to sell even 1 million in the first 2 months.
post #363 of 404
Absurd tortured reasoning by some on this thread.. "But Apple is sooo smart and Stevie loves us all soooo much that..."

Price drop annoys most that bought the phone at a much higher price. Our bag, we're the idiots, not Apple. I imagine that the hit to margins will not be that significant as earning are being driven by computer an iPod, but some models will ned to readjust.

Thought this was quite amusing. But where is the love for the early adopters? (Ah well, there will be fewer to bite next time for sure)

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/ads/apple...-ad-297100.php
post #364 of 404
To clarify my second point...Apple wants to cannibalize it's (dumb)iPod marketshare.

The reason is because the iPod touch(smartPod) and iPhone(smartPhone) are going to build an even larger ecosystem of products and services than the original (dumb)iPod did.
post #365 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

3) Apple's goal of 10 million iPhones by the end of 2008 (18 months) = 555K iPhones/month
Even with all the pent up demand they weren't able to sell even 1 million in the first 2 months.

I've been saying this and everyone said I'm an idiot.
post #366 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I've been saying this and everyone said I'm an idiot.

Because you're an idiot.
post #367 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Perhaps negotiations with the European carriers aren't going well. I don't know and I doubt you do as well. What if European sales don't begin until next summer (because of unresolved carrier negotiations)?

I will conceded that it's possible that Apple dropped the price to make it difficult for a competitor to introduce a similar product. I can't ever recall a company doing a similar move when they had a product that was meeting expectations.

Price drops like we just witnessed on the iPhone are almost always associated with disappointing sales.

I agree that we don't know if negotiations are going well, or not, though from the news about them, they seem to be coming to a conclusion.

But, since we don't know, for a fact, that they are not going well, the only proper thing to assume, in our forward looking analysis, is to go by the announcements that were made as regards to Apples' plans.

Therefore, we must use numbers that would be consistant with those plans, which would be about double at the end of this year, and possibly triple, or more before the middle of next year.

Only if you want to assume the very worst, which would be that Apple has no expansion anywhere other than the US through the end of 2008, can you project the US sales only numbers through the end of 2008.

I don't see that as being tenable.

As for the price drop, I se no evidence of what you are saying. All of the sales numbers that have come out so far from those that do forecasts with indirect evidence, show that the iPhone's sales are very good. Jobs just said, in an interview after the presentation, that Apple would have made the 1 million mark end of September even without the price drop. Disingenuous? Perhaps. But we can't argue with it either without hard evidence to the contrary, which isn't here.

I think that the price to produce the product dropped enough for Apple to decide that it wanted to make a big push for the holiday season, and kill any resurgence from the other phone manufacturers who will be introducing competitive products during this time frame.

From some other analysis I've read, it also looks possible that Apple wanted to have the pricing for the iPod Touch 16 GB model the same as for the iPhone.
post #368 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

<Original Quote>: Originally Posted by Duddits: Why do we value our own stuff based on how much other people pay for their stuff? <Unquote>



Not really.

Ever tried to sell a house? Stock? A car? Anything?

A phone has no resale value after any reasonable period of use, no matter what the original price was. Are you saying that after the average ownership time of 18 months, you think the original model iPhone will still be worth much?

This isn't a house, or anything that is used for more that a couple of years.
post #369 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

Why doesn't Apple drop $200 off of their ridiculously high priced computers...

I have said it once and I will say it again. Apple is all about gouging its customers. Almost every aspect of their business reflects this. Yay for corporate profits.

Apple is serious need of competition....

If you feel so strongly about this, then don't buy their products.

When their sales decline to miniscule levels, as seems to be happening, as the sales figures for the past few years supports, because of people with your opinion, they will change, and come out with $499 towers, and $399 notebooks.

You can only hope.
post #370 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by f.duane View Post

This is what makes me so mad: I have no problem with the price drop per se, I have a problem with the fact that Apple has been planning to screw over their most devoted customers from the get go: we payed 200 bucks more than what they sell for a mere two months later; we stood in line, manufacturing a media event for Apple; we spent the last two months explaining to people why the iPhone is NOT overpriced - and now we look like idiots (contrary to what many seem to believe, I tended to hide the phone, so I wouldn't have to explain all the time). Great, thank you very much, I feel used.

Those who can't empathize with this, just shut up.

So, you think that you have the right to complain loudly, and cry publically about your obsession about getting "screwed", but then tell us that we have no right, on that same public forum, to tell you how we feel about your opinion?

Grow up!'

If you come here to cry, then don't expect everyone to pat you on the pack, and give you a tissue to blow your nose in.

Some agree with you, but the vast majority here think it is ludicrous.

Suck it up and go on to the next thing!
post #371 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post

Jobs may be pumping up his products - but he's also CEO of the company selling the products - he and ATT made commitments for feature enhancements - because of his position, consumers have the ability to rely on promises he makes as an officer of the company. Apple and ATT both tactily agreed to a substantial price reduction (and by the way - I too am aware of price reductions in cell phones - but am not aware of any reduction in excess of 30% less than 3 months after sales launch (if the device were selling as planned it would be unlikely someone would do this)) which set the stage for a defeinition of time relative to all matters iPhone. No feature enhancements within the period of time - lack of follow though on public commitments = breach of contract. My guess is any consumer could use this as a basis for cancelling a 2 year contract because apple and ATT breached their commitment. Incidentally, why do you think the two companies have a return policy to begin with? They owe a duty of care to the consumer and even if they didn't have a policy - i bet from a legal standpoint, they'd be required to make a given consumer whole for a price discount that occurred a "reasonable" amount of time after they contracted (purchased from) with the selling party.

You're wrong in that. Companies always reserve the right to improve their products without incorporating those improvements into products already sold, and they also reserve the right to change the price without returning the difference to those who already bought one.

Many warrantees state this clearly.

When companies do agree to update products, as Apple sometimes does,or offers purchasers the right to receive the difference in price for a period of time, that's over and above what they must do, by law.
post #372 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix E. Martinez View Post

While I'm peeved at the price drop, I've had it since iDay. I personally wouldn't buy an iPhone between now and December. Looks like they're clearing out inventory. Such an early price cut to me hints that a new iPhone is just around the corner, maybe in time for holiday season (two models on the shelves - 8gb and 16gb) or early '08. Let's wait and see what it is.

They should've cut $100 yesterday, and another $100 a month from now. Then maybe introduce a 16gb version at $599 Nov. 1 to have both 8 and 16gb models in time for the holidays.

So, dropping it $100 now, and another $100 later would make some purshasers feel better? Is that a reason why Apple should do things?

I don't think so. No matter how Apple did this, people yould scream.

Doing it now gives more people a chance to get this at a much better price, rather than a better price, which would have become only a much better price a month later.

We would be going over this same argument in a months time.
post #373 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.


Boy, you really do finagle reality, don't you?
post #374 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by f.duane View Post

Hm. You indeed didn't get it... You are stuck in your way of looking at it, and fail to employ a little empathy. Let's give it one more shot, maybe this one works:

So you get married. You know that over a lifetime the appearance of your partner is not going to be as nice as it is right now. A fact of life, totally expected, nothing that wouldn't stop you marrying him/her. You love him/her, right? But then, after only two months, your partner gains 50 percent weight. After two months! And tells you that he/she had planned on doing that from the beginning, since it's more comfortable being fat, and that's just the way marriage works!
Does it matter that your spouse gained that much weight in that short a time? Yes, because it's a slap in your face.

Hello!

This is a phone, people.

Don't try to bring this to the level of a marrage. It's not.

Your argument is of no value.

If you want to compare this to a Tv purchase, then fine, because that's what it's comparable to, even if you had to get cable with it.

But a marriage? Please!

Even in your own argument, it doesn't make sense.

Ar you saying that the phone suddenly gained weight? Or that it no longer does what it did?

What exactly ARE you saying?

If you want to make some argument about this being a personal relationship with money at stake, we can do that, though I don't agree with the idea in general.

Let's say you have money, and your girlfriend marries you.

Now, your investments go sour, and you lose 33%.

The question is: Should your wife now divorce you because you are BOTH worth less than when you got married.

In other words, did she marry you because of your value as a person, or partly because of your value in dollars (or whatever)?

Conversely, would you divorce her if it happened to her money? Would her value be less to you?
post #375 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.

So far, Apple has done exactly what they said they would do. I can't see what you are talking about.

One can noe buy tunes from iTunes for $0.99, as so many have said they wanted.

You can now have video out, which is also something many people were surprised wasn't there, but now is.

Other minor improvements have been made as well. It's two months, and the improvements are coming!

You are pissed, which is your right, but you are just making up this other stuff.

When Apple comes out with Leopard, do you think they will incorporate all of the fixes and improvements within 2 months? No, of course not. It takes time to find all of the problems and fix them. It also takes some tim to identify what features most people want, and to write them.

Apple seems to be doing well on that front so far. Give them a break.

And none of this has anything to do with the price drop.
post #376 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).

You do have an imagination.

Unless Apple promised specific enhancements at a certain time, which they didn't, you ave no leg to stand on.

MS delivered Vista almost 3 years late, minus specific features that were to be the main reason for the new upgrades purpose. Those major features didn't make it.

It looks as though they will never make it.

How many lawsuits are there over that?

There are major companies who pay for software subscriptions that would have included this upgrade, if it came out on time, but are not now receiving it. Not one of them have sued. Why? Because that's the nature of the business.

Apple is giving late ourchasers the difference back. That's good enough.

If you are patient, you will get more upgrades to the software. Apple is not on your unreasonable schedule.
post #377 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post

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.

You are either extremely unreasonable, or just so frustrated, that you can't think straight about this, and are just lashing out.
post #378 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

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.

That's an absurd argument. You can't turn around and sell any phone for anything near what you paid for it.

If you bought the phone to turn it around, tough!
post #379 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?

Don't you agree that they were foolish in the first place, as the MUST have known that the phone would be widely available just days after they paid those outrageous prices?

This doesn't change that equation much since they overpaid far too much in the first place.

It just makes them look even more foolish than they were.
post #380 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?.
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).

so now your logic bring you to the point of doing what, exactly?

Are you going to go back to the gas station and demand a refund? Have you ever done that?

Yes seling insurance like that is fraud. Why? because you aren't getting what you paid for.

By that logic, no one who bought the iPhone got what they paid for, whis would be a foofish thing to say, as everyone who bought the phone kew what they were buying, and got what they new what they were buying.

Neither argument is valid. Find one that is.
post #381 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.


You're maing things up again.

Find Job's EXACT words regarding the updates to the iPhones software, and feature enhancements. Then come back and attempt to defend your statements.

Again, price cuts are not even in the slightest, a reason for breach of contract.
post #382 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I've been saying this and everyone said I'm an idiot.

I don't agree with you, but I don't think you're an idiot.
post #383 of 404
What happened to all the other posters after 3:07 New York time. I expected my posts to be buried in everyone else's?
post #384 of 404
test.
post #385 of 404
While I don't think Apple was doing anything terrible or illegal by dropping the price so severely, I don't agree it was the best move. It might be what makes them the most money for the time being, and of course Apple's goal is to make money and lots of it—but I don't think that making their most loyal customers feel so crummy is a good move for them. I won't be altogether surprised if they are impacted negatively in the future because of it. Several customers have already stated that this will affect their readiness to purchase hardware further down the road, and we can only assume they are representative of a large number of Apple fans.

Hopefully this doesn't fall on deaf ears, or an empty forum thread. We need to make a distinction between what's good for Apple this month and what's good for Apple in a couple of years, when iPhone 2 comes out. Anyone who has taken high school microeconomics knows the laws of supply and demand. Certainly as demand shrinks, Apple must raise prices to find a new equilibrium. But will this affect the company in the long-run?

I'm no economist, but at least that's the point I hope people don't miss. I feel a little frustrated personally for having shown my support of Apple so early on in the game, and I don't feel like they've rewarded me as a company. The product has been very rewarding, but I also feel like they owe me something.

Lawsuits? Now that's just stupid. Apple has in no way breached their contract.
post #386 of 404
Well, I must say that today's $100 credit announcement was unexpected, but I'm sure it's welcomed by early adopters of the iPhone. I also feel vindicated. It was an uphill battle for me to defend rightful "complainers" in this forum whose crime was simple "venting anger." The tide was against me, with many of you posting the most terrible things about early adopters, even calling them "babies." But today, Apple slams all of you spiteful folk to the ground while doing a very good deed to boost customer sentiment. Not everyone may be happy with a credit, but it's sure better than nothing!

So despite the fact that some of you out there yesterday tried with all your might to "justify" Apple's TWO MONTH price drop, today we see that even Apple itself recognized the price drop occurred "too soon" hence the credit.

So spiteful folk, when you read any complaints on this site in the future, just hold your tongue, sit back, and see what happens. Sometimes when people complain loud enough (especially when speaking directly to Apple), change happens! But even when change doesn't happen, your fellow Mac lovers need encouraging, not hateful words and name calling.
post #387 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by atchius@yahoo.com View Post

While I don't think Apple was doing anything terrible or illegal by dropping the price so severely, I don't agree it was the best move. It might be what makes them the most money for the time being, and of course Apple's goal is to make money and lots of it—but I don't think that making their most loyal customers feel so crummy is a good move for them. I won't be altogether surprised if they are impacted negatively in the future because of it. Several customers have already stated that this will affect their readiness to purchase hardware further down the road, and we can only assume they are representative of a large number of Apple fans.

Hopefully this doesn't fall on deaf ears, or an empty forum thread. We need to make a distinction between what's good for Apple this month and what's good for Apple in a couple of years, when iPhone 2 comes out. Anyone who has taken high school microeconomics knows the laws of supply and demand. Certainly as demand shrinks, Apple must raise prices to find a new equilibrium. But will this affect the company in the long-run?

I'm no economist, but at least that's the point I hope people don't miss. I feel a little frustrated personally for having shown my support of Apple so early on in the game, and I don't feel like they've rewarded me as a company. The product has been very rewarding, but I also feel like they owe me something.

Lawsuits? Now that's just stupid. Apple has in no way breached their contract.

Well, you've now got a $100 store credit.
post #388 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW View Post

Well, I must say that today's $100 credit announcement was unexpected, but I'm sure it's welcomed by early adopters of the iPhone. I also feel vindicated. It was an uphill battle for me to defend rightful "complainers" in this forum whose crime was simple "venting anger." The tide was against me, with many of you posting the most terrible things about early adopters, even calling them "babies." But today, Apple slams all of you spiteful folk to the ground while doing a very good deed to boost customer sentiment. Not everyone may be happy with a credit, but it's sure better than nothing!

So despite the fact that some of you out there yesterday tried with all your might to "justify" Apple's TWO MONTH price drop, today we see that even Apple itself recognized the price drop occurred "too soon" hence the credit.

So spiteful folk, when you read any complaints on this site in the future, just hold your tongue, sit back, and see what happens. Sometimes when people complain loud enough (especially when speaking directly to Apple), change happens! But even when change doesn't happen, your fellow Mac lovers need encouraging, not hateful words and name calling.

No, they realized that there are a number of people who are more vocal than they had hoped, and are keeping them quiet with this.

It's great publicity.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had discussed this, and decided that if the loudness level was too high, they would give a rebate.
post #389 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

There's a difference between price and value, you know.

There could be, sure. But either can be (and often is) benchmarked against the price (or value at which sold) of comparable transactions.
post #390 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by guppy737 View Post

test.

Good look in your test
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #391 of 404
Well I personally am satisified for now with a $100 store credit. Until timemachine works for real life too it'll have to do.
Mac Pro 2.66, 8GB RAM, 250GBx4, Apple 30", MacBook Pro (Uni) 15" 2.4, 4GB, iPhone 3G 16GB Black
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 8GB RAM, 250GBx4, Apple 30", MacBook Pro (Uni) 15" 2.4, 4GB, iPhone 3G 16GB Black
Reply
post #392 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's an absurd argument. You can't turn around and sell any phone for anything near what you paid for it.

If you bought the phone to turn it around, tough!

Really, why not?. Explain professor.
post #393 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

so now your logic bring you to the point of doing what, exactly?

Are you going to go back to the gas station and demand a refund? Have you ever done that?

Yes seling insurance like that is fraud. Why? because you aren't getting what you paid for.

By that logic, no one who bought the iPhone got what they paid for, whis would be a foofish thing to say, as everyone who bought the phone kew what they were buying, and got what they new what they were buying.

Neither argument is valid. Find one that is.

It's one thing to reply to a post, it's another thing to reply unintelligently. Very, very carefully, reread the post. In fact, you might want to read the prior replies that lead to the post.

First of all, i was making an analogy that buying something at any price, even if you knew what the function of that item was in advance does not preclude fraud. Who said anything about getting a refund for gasoline?. Can the early adopters who bought from day 1 demand a refund?. what was your point exactly?.

2. Of course selling insurance like that is a fraud, duh!!!.. that was my point. The original point was that because iphone users knew what they got, any price apple charges was ok. My point was that if i then told a senior person exactly what they got but overcharged them anyway, it is fraud. Just because someone explains to you exactly what you are buying does not mean they cannot perpetrate a fraud!!!..
Reading and comprehending is fundamental. That's why i said read the previous replies. I was being sarcastic. Had you not jumped in the argument at the end with your smart alec reply, you wouldn't be looking like an A$$ right now.

3. I agreed that everyone who bought an iphone got what they paid for.. that was not the point!!.. again, just because you got what you paid for does not mean fraud was not perpetuated.

Mel, usually you are more intelligent than this. I'll chalk this up to fatigue.. you have been posting non-stop all day yesterday defending apple. It's a thankless job i know.
post #394 of 404
This is for those of you who've paid the price for being an early adopter this time around.
post #395 of 404
i don't hear the same grief from other corporations that have done this....the fact that people do says something about apple and it's relationship with their customers much better. how many youtube video's are made for credit card companies, car companies that do the same thing. you have a voice that's listened to by apple. some have said this was planned so to get more press. well they did, and you got something back, and it also tells people for future products apple will listen. i think as apple moves to consumer products more and more then this may have been an inexpensive way to say "buy apple". some companies entice you to buy from them with a 30 price guarantee, like sears. but when i bought my toshiba dlp 55" and it went down i got the difference, but after 3-4 months the price for similar specs tanked. that's technology for you. and what about the many posts saying waiting for rev2 for any product......buyer beware. decide in haste repent at your leisure is what my sage dad says.

oh come on, people actually thought buying the iphone when they did was NOT going to come with a price reduction for christmas......and these are experienced cell carrier customers. well i wonder what the 25% switchers from verizon said aboaut the cost of getting "in". they are the same that bought phones with bluetooth that didn't work. what needs to be done is take SJ's approach to the cellular market. unlocked phones bought then purchase cellular service. the war is just beginning to give customers MORE freedom. apple iphone and the apple experience is the first of many salvo's.......

freedom to the people.....cell phone users unite against the cellular monopoly. let them compete on service .....end the two year contract.

this is a much bigger story than a $100 rebate. and gee any notice this experience is independent of the carrier.....go apple go......no other manufacturer has done this for a reason our relationship is really with apple not at&t.....apple is prepping for the future. the carriers don't like this lack of control....
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #396 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Really, why not?. Explain professor.

If you don't know that all phones lose almost all of their value a year to 18 months after they are bought, then there is nothing that I, or anyone else, can teach you. But, I will try.

The Times has a good article about this argument today.

In it they point out the RAZR "problem" that Moto had.

Originally selling for $499, with a 2 year contract, six months later, the price was cut to $199, a 60% price cut. By the end of 2005, less than a year after it came out, it was selling for $99. This was all intended to make an extremely popular phone more widespread.

Between those times, my friend bought two, for a total of $300, shortly afterwards, early 2006, they were going for $29.95 apiece.

This is not that untypical for hot selling phones. It isn't that untypical for most phones in general.

A phone that I bought for my wife for $179.95, from Sprint, a Samsung, though I forget which model, was being sold by Sprint for $49.95 by the end of that year.

The point is that you should never buy a phone and worry where the price is going. There is little resale value after some time.

This was a bit early, I know, but the timing is that the holiday season is coming up, and these things are being bought for gifts. If Apple's costs have dropped, as Jobs said, and as I've been saying, with Flash going down, and manufacturing efficiencies, then this was the time to do it.

I would imagine that Apple had a price cut planned, as he said the did, but that it wasn't going to be as drastic as it was, likely because the price of Flash was rising two or three months ago.

So, you can drop your attempted sarcasm.
post #397 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

It's one thing to reply to a post, it's another thing to reply unintelligently. Very, very carefully, reread the post. In fact, you might want to read the prior replies that lead to the post.

I understood what the post was about. As you must have noticed, several here have been complaining loudly, that they are due a refund (some of which they have now gotten).
I was showing that you simply can't expect one all of the time, no matter what product, and price it may go to. I thought that was obvious. I guess not.

Quote:
First of all, i was making an analogy that buying something at any price, even if you knew what the function of that item was in advance does not preclude fraud. Who said anything about getting a refund for gasoline?. Can the early adopters who bought from day 1 demand a refund?. what was your point exactly?.


I really don't even consider the idea of fraud to be one worthy of addressing. You are attempting to take normal business practice, abet rushed to some extent, and extend to it the monica of fraud,. I didn't want to abet that allegation. You must have noticed that I've already tried to put that accusation out to pasture, but a couple of you here keep trying to bring it up again, with no evidence.

So yes, I'm trying to steer the conversation away from that, back to where it belongs, one's reaction to the situation.

Quote:
2. Of course selling insurance like that is a fraud, duh!!!.. that was my point. The original point was that because iphone users knew what they got, any price apple charges was ok. My point was that if i then told a senior person exactly what they got but overcharged them anyway, it is fraud. Just because someone explains to you exactly what you are buying does not mean they cannot perpetrate a fraud!!!..

I know that was your intention. At that point, I felt I had to address it, or just blank out that part of your post, and ignore it.

Quote:
Reading and comprehending is fundamental. That's why i said read the previous replies. I was being sarcastic. Had you not jumped in the argument at the end with your smart alec reply, you wouldn't be looking like an A$$ right now.

It's not my posts that look that way, but rather those of you who keep trying to make the same tired points, over and over again, even though the vast majority of us here are not going to let you get away with it.

Quote:
3. I agreed that everyone who bought an iphone got what they paid for.. that was not the point!!.. again, just because you got what you paid for does not mean fraud was not perpetuated.

The point is worth repeating, because you don't understand, or aren't willing to understand, the reality.

Quote:
Mel, usually you are more intelligent than this. I'll chalk this up to fatigue.. you have been posting non-stop all day yesterday defending apple. It's a thankless job i know.

I try hard. My posting a response was not intended to shore up your argument. I responded the way I felt it should be responded to.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate that.

I
post #398 of 404
Honestly, Apple should have raised the price of the iPhone just to keep the early adopters satiated. I'm sure that would have been a better solution.
post #399 of 404
Since I bought my iPhone at the higher price, if I ever want to sell it, is it worth more than iPhones bought at the lower price?

iPhone classic?

Will people be willing to pay more for an iPhone bought during the first two months than the same model bought after the first two months?

And if I do ever sell it, will I have to give the buyer a $100 refund off the selling price two months after they buy it?

post #400 of 404
At least you can get the iPhone in the US, us English can't even get it and, as usual, when it becomes available it will be double the price that it is in the US at any one time! So you think you have problems, trying living in the UK!

Apple's move is understandable... ever heard of creaming? They need to get their R&D costs back somehow and the first 2 months of purchases by the Apple fan base allowed them to do this, gain a reputation and lower the cost so they could gain market share.

Dissapointed? Wait next time!
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