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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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, 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.
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.
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....
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.
Comments
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
test.
Good look in your test
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.
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.
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....
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.