svanstrom

jingo said:

@Svanstrom - your frankly hysterical post gets things totally out of proportion. Do you REALLY, seriously, think that some "moron with a knife" will read about an Apple vulnerability and then decide to target you? You have some serious issues, man. Come on, get some sense of proportion!

CloudTalkin said:

svanstrom said:

CloudTalkin said:

bestkeptsecret said:

CloudTalkin said:

mark fearing said:

The fact is, the third party items are always cheaper online. I've overheard Apple store employees dozens of times let customers know that. And more and more customers can shop on their phone. Since it's not a good deal, not sure they should be there at all. When Sony had a store (do they still?) I don't remember a selection of Samsung devices. And of course Apple stores don't offer the best price on Apple hardware anyway. If you just want the best price, you shop online or check out a retailer. The Apple store has a better shopping experience most of the time and I feel like that's why you would shop at one.

They even still sell Logitech 3rd party accessories that compete with their own.  Just not speakers, cuz new devices coming and they want them to succeed.  At all costs apparently.

And there's nothing wrong with that. They are not going to sink just because they are not selling 3rd party speakers and headphones. How much money does Apple seriously make on those? The "at all costs" you refer to does not affect the bottom line in any significant manner.

Having a dedicated space for its new range is a good move. 

Again, they can decide what they want to sell at their stores. They aren't stopping anyone from buying 3rd party speakers and headphones from other places.

Please don't parse my quote and remove the entire context.  No one said or implied anything was wrong with what they did.  My quote is about the flawed logic that people are using in an attempt to justify Apple's decision.  This is nothing like Sonos not selling Bose in their store or Sony not selling Samsung in theirs.  Those were things that never occurred.  Comparing them to what Apple did (sell 3rd party products that compete with their own) and still does makes no sense at all.   

The "at all cost" I referred to had nothing to do with the bottom line.  It referred to the optics of removing competing products.

Having dedicated space for a new range of products isn't a good move.  It isn't a move at all.  It standard operating procedure.  It's what they've always done for every new product they've introduced.  What is new/different/unique/rare is the removal of competing products.  

What do you expect them to do if they are going to give a prominent position to a new/expanded line of products in a not unlimited amount of space; remove one of their other lines of products just to keep the competition in?

The obvious objection to my logic there is of course that a webstore could be viewed as having an "unlimited amount of space", but reality isn't always that simple; there are huge deals behind everything, and there are lots of reasons why one might want to match what's available in the physical and the online stores.

It's a restructuring, and some products from some third parties no longer fit; why is that making some people think of conspiracies and evilness and anti-competitiveness etc…?

I don't care what they do to give prominent position to new products.  They can do what they want.  It's their storefronts.  That's irrelevant to the point I was making.  

You're right.  Online removal is the obvious -and valid- objection to your logic.  Your matching logic doesn't work either.  Apple's online store inventory has never matched their physical stores and won't after the removal.  Chiefly because their physical stores inventories don't all match each other.   Also there are items that don't make sense taking up valuable retail space.  Matching inventory is not a reason. 

It's obviously not a restructuring and the products obviously still fit.  Bose and Sonos just recently upgraded to AirPlay 2.  People think of conspiracies because the only products being removed happen to, not so coincidentally, compete with Apple's rumored upcoming products.  

I think everyone sees this for what it is:  Apple trying to ensure their new products have an unencumbered chance at success.  It's their right to do so.  If there's blowback, they'll deal with it.
I also think people are trying to make excuses for it because they feel their favorite company is doing something they can't quite reconcile internally.

CloudTalkin said:

bestkeptsecret said:

CloudTalkin said:

mark fearing said:

The fact is, the third party items are always cheaper online. I've overheard Apple store employees dozens of times let customers know that. And more and more customers can shop on their phone. Since it's not a good deal, not sure they should be there at all. When Sony had a store (do they still?) I don't remember a selection of Samsung devices. And of course Apple stores don't offer the best price on Apple hardware anyway. If you just want the best price, you shop online or check out a retailer. The Apple store has a better shopping experience most of the time and I feel like that's why you would shop at one.

They even still sell Logitech 3rd party accessories that compete with their own.  Just not speakers, cuz new devices coming and they want them to succeed.  At all costs apparently.

And there's nothing wrong with that. They are not going to sink just because they are not selling 3rd party speakers and headphones. How much money does Apple seriously make on those? The "at all costs" you refer to does not affect the bottom line in any significant manner.

Having a dedicated space for its new range is a good move. 

Again, they can decide what they want to sell at their stores. They aren't stopping anyone from buying 3rd party speakers and headphones from other places.

Please don't parse my quote and remove the entire context.  No one said or implied anything was wrong with what they did.  My quote is about the flawed logic that people are using in an attempt to justify Apple's decision.  This is nothing like Sonos not selling Bose in their store or Sony not selling Samsung in theirs.  Those were things that never occurred.  Comparing them to what Apple did (sell 3rd party products that compete with their own) and still does makes no sense at all.   

The "at all cost" I referred to had nothing to do with the bottom line.  It referred to the optics of removing competing products.

Having dedicated space for a new range of products isn't a good move.  It isn't a move at all.  It standard operating procedure.  It's what they've always done for every new product they've introduced.  What is new/different/unique/rare is the removal of competing products.  

chuck burr said:

Apple is opening itself for an antitrust case by removing competition from the store.