iPod Tax and Greedy Apples
Is the iPod tax for real, and if so, how broad is it? CNN reports today that Apple gets 10% for each car installation, accessory, etc.
Does the tax only cover hardware? Or, if someone comes up with a new product such as a case or one that is video based and wants to target iPod owners, is she charged if she wants to say "It works on an iPod"?
A slightly different note: What is it with Apple thse days and turning proprietory? The AV cable for the 5G iPod is expensive and very low quality; it's mini-plug is simply rearranged, but they claim it is "made especially for the iPod". What a rip off!
Is the iPod too much of an icon or will actions like this eventually backfire?
Does the tax only cover hardware? Or, if someone comes up with a new product such as a case or one that is video based and wants to target iPod owners, is she charged if she wants to say "It works on an iPod"?
A slightly different note: What is it with Apple thse days and turning proprietory? The AV cable for the 5G iPod is expensive and very low quality; it's mini-plug is simply rearranged, but they claim it is "made especially for the iPod". What a rip off!
Is the iPod too much of an icon or will actions like this eventually backfire?
Comments
Originally posted by e1618978
I don't mind them ripping us off - it gives them more ammo to fight Microsoft with.
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Is the iPod tax for real, and if so, how broad is it? CNN reports today that Apple gets 10% for each car installation, accessory, etc.
Does the tax only cover hardware?
I *believe* it is only for products that use the dock connector, which is Apple only hardware to begin with. So, you need to license the connector for your product, and that's where the fees come in.
I don't *think* that this applies to things like cases and such, but I could be wrong. There may be a license fee for using the name 'iPod' in advertising, etc.
Originally posted by Anders
10% for each car installation? Of what? The price of the car?
Most likely the cost of the option. But your suggestion would be nice.
Originally posted by e1618978
I don't mind them ripping us off
Who is "ripping off" who exactly? I missed that part.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Most likely the cost of the option. But your suggestion would be nice.
But isn´t it standard? Thats how I understand it.
I just don´t get how they would set a price on it.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Who is "ripping off" who exactly? I missed that part.
Presumably Apple, with all its "Made for iPod!11!!" after-market add-ons.
Originally posted by Anders
But isn´t it standard? Thats how I understand it.
I just don´t get how they would set a price on it.
It is an option on Volvos - but I don't know how much it costs.
Originally posted by Anders
But isn´t it standard? Thats how I understand it.
I just don´t get how they would set a price on it.
I thought they were (mostly) options. But I haven't gone shopping for a car in a while so I don't know.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Presumably Apple, with all its "Made for iPod!11!!" after-market add-ons.
Ah...If that is it, then it seems that the bar for "ripping us off" has been lowered significantly.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Ah...If that is it, then it seems that the bar for "ripping us off" has been lowered significantly.
Well, if you don't mind paying $49 for an FM tuner, then you have no bar at all. But it's not just that: other non-Apple add-ons are made artificially more expensive by adding 10% on top of the original price because, well, um, they used the word iPod on it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Well, if you don't mind paying $49 for an FM tuner, then you have no bar at all.
Well...first you are changing the subject (it was car accessories made by someone else). Second, if I don't buy the thing I am not getting ripped off. Third, if I do, evidentally, I have made some value-choice that suggests that the $49 (in your example) is worth it to me and thus I am not getting "ripped off"
Originally posted by Gene Clean
But it's not just that: other non-Apple add-ons are made artificially more expensive by adding 10% on top of the original price because, well, um, they used the word iPod on it.
Then don't buy them.
They aren't doing anything nefarious, illegal, deceitful or even unethical. One or more of these seems to be necessary prerequisites for the "ripping off" charge. Unless, of course, the bar fo "ripping off" is so low that it is basically "they are charging more for something that I wnat them to."
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
[B]Well...first you are changing the subject (it was car accessories made by someone else). Second, if I don't buy the thing I am not getting ripped off. Third, if I do, evidentally, I have made some value-choice that suggests that the $49 (in your example) is worth it to me and thus I am not getting "ripped off"
Well, seeing as the claim "ripping me off" is not mine; I'm only talking about hypothetical situations that could be used to justify "ripping me off".
e#s made the claim: I'm only speculating on his reason(s) to say that.
Then don't buy them.
You'll get far with this attitude. What if tomorrow they crancked up the price of OS X 10.5 to eleventybillion dollars. What are you supposed to do, "don't buy it"? That's an easy thing to say, but not as easy to do.
They aren't doing anything nefarious, illegal, deceitful or even unethical. One or more of these seems to be necessary prerequisites for the "ripping off" charge. Unless, of course, the bar fo "ripping off" is so low that it is basically "they are charging more for something that I wnat them to."
Of course. But "ripping off" was not meant to signify illegal activity, rather, it was a metaphore for "overcharging". Where you got the "nefarious, illegal, deceitful or even unethical" escapes me.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Well, seeing as the claim "ripping me off" is not mine; I'm only talking about hypothetical situations that could be used to justify "ripping me off".
e#s made the claim: I'm only speculating on his reason(s) to say that.
Well, you appeared to be arguing in agreement with e#s.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You'll get far with this attitude. What if tomorrow they crancked up the price of OS X 10.5 to eleventybillion dollars. What are you supposed to do, "don't buy it"? That's an easy thing to say, but not as easy to do.
Actually...no...quite easy. Just don't buy it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Of course. But "ripping off" was not meant to signify illegal activity, rather, it was a metaphore for "overcharging".
Um...then it isn't Apple (car makers case) and...if they are selling the product (whatever other example you wish to offer), then, obviously they are not overcharging. Ripping off is clearly about being unfair or cheating in some way. Apple is doing neither.
P.S. It actually is not a metaphor.
If someone is overcharging, then the market won't buy it.
If the market is buying it, then obviously, enough people think it *is* worth the price, and, therefore, it isn't overcharging.
*You* may not think it is worth the price, but if the market will bear it, then obviously, others do. They buy it, and you... don't. Simple. It truly is as simple as "If you think it's too much, don't buy it, and find an alternative." That's how you let a company know that their competition is the better value, and they'll have to adapt, or fade.
Free market and all that, y'know?
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark...rdparties.html
It is unclear, however, if you must first become a developer before having the right to use the "works with..." phrase. Legal-speak is so pursposefully vague!
There are other pages around this one that are interesting to read, too.
For example, it seems that noone can use the image of an apple for anything anymore because BigApple has bought rights to the image of an apple. I wonder if they will ask apple juice manufacturers to pay a 10% "made for iPod" tax.
A slightly different angle: does Apple have to pay the Macintosh Growers Association a 10% tax for the use of the Macintosh name?
Originally posted by Kickaha
Assuming a non-monopolistic market:
Yes, well, with an 83% of market share, that's a pretty big assumption.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yes, well, with an 83% of market share, that's a pretty big assumption.
Er... are there other options? Yes.
Are there other *reasonable* options? Yes.
Are there other options that are priced highly enough such that the companies selling them are still making money? Yes.
Not really a monopoly yet. What's your cutoff, percentage-wise, for a market leader to have a monopoly?
Definition from investorwords.com:
A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare.
Well, 83% is certainly not all, and not even reasonably 'nearly all'. The barriers for competition are not high, IMO. MP3 players are still pretty simple to make, it's all about the usability. There's also little to be gained from economies of scale, as I see it - any company, say, Creative, who is making players is going to have large enough orders to manufacturers to do pretty well on that front. And there's no governmental regulation.
So no, I don't think it's a monopoly, nor do I think that it's yet to the point of being an intertwined ecosystem that makes insurmountable barriers to competition.
Heck, I keep hearing about how the iPod is *more* expensive, so there are obviously cheaper, more feature-filled players out there. Options exist. Pick the one that fits your needs at the price you want. Don't buy the ones that don't. Vote with your wallet. Yay capitalism.
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Is the iPod tax for real, and if so, how broad is it? CNN reports today that Apple gets 10% for each car installation, accessory, etc.
If it says iPOD compatible and has the logo, they pay a fee to apple for using their trademark, and there is a certim level of QC that Apple enforces I would assume they themselves test each product to make sure the ipod logo isnt just slapped on any crap. if it just says "compatible devices include ipod" or some such, they pay nothing. It is like the windows logo, you can say anything is "windows compatible" or "runs on windows" but the logo has a fee and quality testing tied to it. People pay for the windows logo and people pay for the ipod logo.