The "blowback" was about Apple not being honest about the price when it stated $799 during the event, and then posted $799 with an asterisk on its website, when in fact, those prices required an account with certain carriers. And it continues to advertise $799 even though the price is still $829.
In Apple's defense, they have always said "starting at" which is a very common and universally applied advertising ploy for most any purchase. That gives them the discretion to have higher priced configurations as long as at least one of them does actually "start at" the advertised price. It's all part of the silly little game that's been played since the dawn of salesmanship and something all adults should be very familiar with and have an immunity to. It's no different than using "x99" in pricing to make you think you're not buying an $800 phone because it's advertised as $799, use of the term "up to" when describing payouts, use of asterisks, and "limited quantities at this price" sorts of things.
Are these advertising ploys just part of a silly game that I'd rather not play? Sure, but do they convey dishonesty, i.e., a deeply concerning character flaw? I don't think so.
No we must be outraged! Rawr!
All of these ploys like "Starting at," "Up to," "Plus tax and fees," and all those extra details and disclaimers buried under asterisks are all part of a broad brush of marketing gimmicks that have been slathered over us since the first salesperson appeared on the planet. Trying to say that one specific gimmick tied to a specific nuance is any different than all of the others doesn't transform that specific nuance from being a "sales gimmick" into being vendor "dishonesty." Maybe we can talk about "Unlimited Data" where there are actually hard "limits" like throttling that occur at a certain data usage threshold, or low-ball mobile data plans that require you to subscribe to home internet service, or, my favorite, lowball deals only available to new subscribers and switchers. Let's then look at all of those disclaimers flashed in micro-sized fonts on the bottom of TV ads or sped-up audio disclaimers on the radio.
Hey, if we want to say that ALL of these sales gimmicks are instances of dishonesty, I'm willing to consider that as a possibility. Perhaps we have all lowered our standards too far. Maybe we are too tolerant of gimmicks and other forms of blatant BS. Perhaps our immunity to gimmicks and BS is actually a bad thing. Maybe we shouldn't take it anymore. But to single out one narrowly-scoped sales gimmick as an act of dishonesty doesn't make sense to me, especially when it's surrounded by a classic gimmick like "starting at." That was my whole point, why are we questioning the moral character of Apple for one specific gimmick in a vast sea of gimmicks that we are somehow able to tolerate on a daily basis without making any moral judgements against the purveyors of gimmicks in general?
Comments
Hey, if we want to say that ALL of these sales gimmicks are instances of dishonesty, I'm willing to consider that as a possibility. Perhaps we have all lowered our standards too far. Maybe we are too tolerant of gimmicks and other forms of blatant BS. Perhaps our immunity to gimmicks and BS is actually a bad thing. Maybe we shouldn't take it anymore. But to single out one narrowly-scoped sales gimmick as an act of dishonesty doesn't make sense to me, especially when it's surrounded by a classic gimmick like "starting at." That was my whole point, why are we questioning the moral character of Apple for one specific gimmick in a vast sea of gimmicks that we are somehow able to tolerate on a daily basis without making any moral judgements against the purveyors of gimmicks in general?