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.
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.
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).
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.
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)
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.
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.
<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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Comments
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!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I've been saying this and everyone said I'm an idiot.
Because you're an idiot.
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.
<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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
,
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.