I supported Apple not because the products only but because I delighted in an American Brand doing great design and creating a community around its products. in essence counter cultural. I thought their marketing ability was excellent and they were an underdog company I wanted to see win. Yes, if they want to behave like all other large entities, they should be treated as such. The $200 only matters to me as principle. I pay lots of money for products I like. Hell, I buy Bang and Olufsen and they are highly overpriced! Apple for me WAS different but they lost me on this move.
Now they are just a company to me whose products I will now buy on price as one does with commodities.
As Apple grows, it needs to rely less on fanboys and more on selling great products at great prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tutumiles1
Anyone want to buy some used Apple Products?
You think you have a personal relationship with Apple, like it is your girlfriend, and she betrayed you, and you are so mad you are packing up all her clothes, hairbrush, books, and petrified snot collection and putting them on the curb?
If it was worth $599 to you, how have you been ripped off?
...
So I fail to see how a $200 price reduction, at any point during your ownership, makes any difference.
...
What is happening here is that with the benefit of hindsight you are wishing you'd waited two months, because two months' usage of an iPhone isn't worth $200 to 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.
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.
How are you enjoying your iPhone any less today than you did 2 days ago, from a functionality and visual standpoint?
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.
I empathise with you to the extent that I understand that you might be mad. But I do not sympathise with any feelings that Apple in some way wronged you.
Your example is utterly ridiculous. I say again that your iPhone has not changed in any way. It's the same iPhone you paid $599 for. Sure, you wish you'd only had to pay $399. But then you would have had to wait. Did you wait? No. You chose to spend your $599. If you didn't need the iPhone, why did you buy it?
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 iPhone?s pricing in line with its new iPod Touch, a music player that looks like the iPhone but lacks the phone-calling ability."
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
I supported Apple not because the products only but because I delighted in an American Brand doing great design and creating a community around its products. in essence counter cultural. I thought their marketing ability was excellent and they were an underdog company I wanted to see win. Yes, if they want to behave like all other large entities, they should be treated as such. The $200 only matters to me as principle. I pay lots of money for products I like. Hell, I buy Bang and Olufsen and they are highly overpriced! Apple for me WAS different but they lost me on this move.
Now they are just a company to me whose products I will now buy on price as one does with commodities.
As Apple grows, it needs to rely less on fanboys and more on selling great products at great prices.
Anyone want to buy some used Apple Products?
You think you have a personal relationship with Apple, like it is your girlfriend, and she betrayed you, and you are so mad you are packing up all her clothes, hairbrush, books, and petrified snot collection and putting them on the curb?
If it was worth $599 to you, how have you been ripped off?
...
So I fail to see how a $200 price reduction, at any point during your ownership, makes any difference.
...
What is happening here is that with the benefit of hindsight you are wishing you'd waited two months, because two months' usage of an iPhone isn't worth $200 to 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.
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.
How are you enjoying your iPhone any less today than you did 2 days ago, from a functionality and visual standpoint?
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.
I empathise with you to the extent that I understand that you might be mad. But I do not sympathise with any feelings that Apple in some way wronged you.
Your example is utterly ridiculous. I say again that your iPhone has not changed in any way. It's the same iPhone you paid $599 for. Sure, you wish you'd only had to pay $399. But then you would have had to wait. Did you wait? No. You chose to spend your $599. If you didn't need the iPhone, why did you buy it?
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????
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 iPhone?s pricing in line with its new iPod Touch, a music player that looks like the iPhone but lacks the phone-calling ability."
NYT today.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.