Post by: Texas Mac Man on September 28, 2007, 08:02:15 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 28, 2007, 08:24:31 PM
Gee, I guess I'd better go find a lawyer and sue Circuit City and Panasonic because the plasma TV I bought dropped almost $1000 in 8 months after I bought it, and I'm just emotionally distraught and think it's just so unfair and, and...whine, whine, whine.
Oh yes - and while I'm at it, I'll sue whoever is responsible for the Canadian dollar achieving parity, because now my US money isn't worth as much when I exchange it here...that's a whole lot more than $100 in the past few months! Should be good for a few million, don't you think? And the next time the gas station lowers the price the day after I buy gas, well, watch out! And the next time the grocery store puts ice cream on sale the day after I buy it...well, by then I should have my lawyer on speed dial!
Funny how everyone loves the free market system until it does something they don't like.
Post by: sandbox on September 29, 2007, 02:32:48 PM
The fact that Apple condones and profits from long lines outside their doors makes them complicit. Apple wanted the Free Media that long lines would generate; the media frenzy contributed to Apples $450 million dollar worth of free ads.
The question remains, does a consumer have a reasonable expectation that Apple would not undermine their purchase by 33% in 60 days?
I say they did, Steve Jobs changed the policy, but the question was not answered, nor was the action challenged. It needs to be. Consumers of Apple products need to feel confident that their purchases will not be undermine by the manufacturer.
Even Woz, Apples co-founder, thought the action to be unreasonable.
The maneuver by Apple can be challenged under "Reasonable Expectation" if it can be proven that Apple capitalized on the action, and the resulting media coverage associated with the rebate. If it can be demonstrated that the whole action was premeditated, Apple could suffer.
Post by: swhitset on September 29, 2007, 03:37:06 PM
We can argue all day long about whether it was the right thing or the smart thing for a company to do. But, you will never convince me that a company should not have the legal right to do it.
Steve
Post by: Gregg on September 30, 2007, 07:39:29 PM
Post by: sandbox on September 30, 2007, 11:43:29 PM
QUOTE(swhitset @ Sep 29 2007, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not if I was on the jury.
We can argue all day long about whether it was the right thing or the smart thing for a company to do. But, you will never convince me that a company should not have the legal right to do it.
Steve
We can argue all day long about whether it was the right thing or the smart thing for a company to do. But, you will never convince me that a company should not have the legal right to do it.
Steve
Steve they have the right to do what they want and consumers have the right to challenge what they find is unreasonable.
The action was not consistent with Apples trends and policies, it was unprecedented and therefore the customer could not have expected it, thus s/he could not make a reasonable choice. A court could find that a discount of 33% in 60 days for this item is unreasonable, and restrict future discounts to 25% or 90 days.
Let's say they do it again, the value of Apple will plunge, the consumer will hesitate, and stocks will plummet. It was a one shot opportunity that Apple will not be so willing to repeat. They took advantage of their enthusiasts and lost. They repealed
the discount with a rebate, and took advantage once again with limited options, all the while receiving free media coverage.
Fine, don't assure the consumer that Apple products will not have their residual value undermine by the manufacturer, and Apple will be back in court charged by the stockholders.
Post by: Gregg on October 01, 2007, 07:33:02 AM
Post by: Paddy on October 01, 2007, 08:50:57 AM
Buying high-tech stuff is always a crap shoot - prices keep falling, and new features keep appearing. Apple doesn't owe any of the whining early-adopters an apology, any more than it owes the people who bought the previous generation of laptops and desktops four weeks before a new generation was released an apology. If it became clear to Apple that a price adjustment was necessary and they wanted to make it sooner rather than later, then they should be allowed to do that. Sheesh - legions complained about the high price of the iPhone and now they're complaining because the price was dropped (after they bought it, of course - though nobody forced them to be bleeding-edge early adopters). Can't have it both ways.
Post by: chriskleeman on October 01, 2007, 10:28:46 AM
Products come, products go, products are still produced that are slightly-less-than-present technology. AND THEY ARE ALWAYS CHEAPER LATER, no matter what the time frame is.
Now if one can prove malfeasance on Apple and ATT's part about price-scheming, that's a whole other ballgame.
IAW Paddy.
CK
Post by: Xairbusdriver on October 01, 2007, 02:47:07 PM
Post by: RHPConsult on October 02, 2007, 02:23:51 AM
QUOTE(RHPConsult @ Sep 6 2007, 11:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh, I'm sure there are just phalanxes of compassionate, public-spirited Torts Attorneys out there willing to represent at least 289,473 involuntary super-naive iPhone buyers (who do not live in Europe and have neither reasonable expectations nor wishes to do so) who were hoodwinked/entrapped/beguiled clearly against their will(s) into parting with hard-earned cash for a misrepresented product of inaequate design and execution, so manifestly deficient that some graduate(s) of elite Iry League law schools (before the bar and on the Bench) can, oh so clearly, make the proper assessment of cost/price/value in the modern technological marketplace.
The suit – after countless hearings on motions to combine or separate the case(s) – drags on for years (at $800 per hour, each lawyer and probably at least half that for each member of their regiment of assistants), to a settlement prescribing billions for the attorneys and about $72.43 to each benighted buyer. Who "wins"? Just guess.
Just think of the competing "expert witnesses", the breathless TV coverage by the empty suits and skirts – who probably had never registered for Economics 101, let alone passed the course – forget Statistical Methods in Research Design).
What a country!
The suit – after countless hearings on motions to combine or separate the case(s) – drags on for years (at $800 per hour, each lawyer and probably at least half that for each member of their regiment of assistants), to a settlement prescribing billions for the attorneys and about $72.43 to each benighted buyer. Who "wins"? Just guess.
Just think of the competing "expert witnesses", the breathless TV coverage by the empty suits and skirts – who probably had never registered for Economics 101, let alone passed the course – forget Statistical Methods in Research Design).
What a country!
What probably happened is that the candidate-plaintiff went to the wrong cocktail party a couple of weekends ago (i.e. torts attorneys among the crowd) and the conversation turned to the re-pricing decision/announcement. As I said, "What a country!"
Post by: shadow on October 02, 2007, 03:18:57 AM
Products carry an implied warranty for merchantability and fitness but not for price retention.
Caveat Emptor.
Apple will be punished enough by the loss of consumer confidence regarding new items. There will be more holdouts and 'waiters' who will be leery of trying to be 'first on the block'. At least for awhile.
Post by: sandbox on October 02, 2007, 04:41:04 AM
This is a unique case, and the methods do not reflect the policies of Apple, nor do they reflect the cell phone industry as a whole. Cell Phones at retail are not discounted by the manufacturer buy 1/3 in 60 days, it's unprecedented. They will be susceptible to market forces and loose value over time, but the event itself is not set in motion by the company that sold them.
The providers traditionally lease cell phones to their customers, and because of the saturation point the residual value is lost in a accelerated pace, which are locked into a 1-2 year contract so the market doesn't flood with Obsolete phones, but that is not the case with the iPhone. Apple wanted their money recuperated immediately; it was retailed to the consumer who were put at a disadvantage. Had Jobs not apologized and given a rebate, such as it is, he would be looking at months of bad press and class actions suits that are well deserving. IMO
Yes "let the buyer beware" and now that the world knows to be skeptical when purchasing Apple products, I'm sure they will. Prior to this event Apple had a solid reputation for value, somehow that well deserved reputation has been tarnished.
--
And so the play necessitates
That all you boys participate
In fierce competition to eliminate .....each other.
Ian Anderson
Post by: Gregg on October 02, 2007, 07:32:15 AM
QUOTE(shadow @ Oct 2 2007, 03:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yup, if there's a lawyer within breathing distance, a suit will follow.
Most of the lawyers I see are already wearing suits.
P.S. Is there an introduction that I missed???
Post by: Paddy on October 02, 2007, 09:47:36 AM
As for my plasma, it was hardly sitting on a shelf gathering dust - it was a new model. But as I've noted, I don't feel I have cause for complaint there anyway - that's the way the market for LCD and plasma TVs moved.
Cell phones aren't leased - you buy them from the provider (often at a discount) or get them "free" in many cases along with a two or three year contract. None of the high-end phones similar to the iPhone are "free" or even close to it when new. I don't recall "free" Blackberrys when they first came out!! You can also buy unlocked phones to use on your network of choice. When we moved, I cancelled my contract with Verizon after only 8 months, but because we were moving out of their area entirely, we did not have to pay a cancellation fee. I've certainly still got the two Verizon Motorola phones - and will stick 'em on eBay soon. One of these phones was "free", for the other I paid a small amount. I should be able to sell them for more than I "paid" for them at this point in time, if completed auctions are anything to go by. Just because you have a contract for the phone service and may have a relatively worthless phone (in terms of resale value) at the end of it, does not mean that the phone itself is leased. You're free to do anything you want with it during the time of the service contract or after it ends.
Post by: RHPConsult on October 02, 2007, 10:41:25 AM
One can, of course, get "something" for $19.95 "As Seen On TV", but if you really need a device, the tariff will be juuuust a bit more than that . . . 300-400 times that. For which you get your life back, thank you!
So?
Post by: sandbox on October 02, 2007, 03:15:25 PM
QUOTE
As for my plasma, it was hardly sitting on a shelf gathering dust - it was a new model. But as I've noted, I don't feel I have cause for complaint there anyway - that's the way the market for LCD and plasma TVs moved.
When you say NEW do you mean that day, that month, 3 months? What is the company's history, policies, did you stand outside in a long line? Do you belong to plasma TV user groups?
Maybe leased is too strong a word Paddy, but the phones themselves are incorporated into the contract that you will pay for if you (under normal conditions) prematurely end your contract.
You can charge what you want for your product but…
Under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) the consumer has normal expectations under the Good Faith clause.
It's not as simple as we like to think.
--
As I pointed out, What If Apple did this again?
What If consumer value was lost again?
Would anyone here defend Apple's rights again, and again?
Sure, as a company advocate, and apologist, a person in the Know, could avoid being screwed by this policy again, but what about the unknowing customer (the switcher)? What about their rights under the Good Faith clause? Reasonable expectations are part of any purchase and if those can NOW be undermine by the manufacturer (because That's Technology!) then we will need to establish new laws and a whole new legal specialty.
If you want a civil society you need laws and lawyers. I'm sure Apple has their share.
Oh, but they're Apple so they have Good Lawyers, where the consumer has only the lawyers resurrected from the bottom of the sea. Have you hugged your Apple today?
Post by: Paddy on October 02, 2007, 05:16:08 PM
If this had been a sofa, nobody would have noticed. The ONLY reason this has become a big story, with all the attendant whining and moaning is that the product itself had received huge amounts of publicity before it was released, generating a want-it-now-no-matter-what sort of mentality. It's a cell phone with bells and whistles and very clever marketing (and yes, a nice interface) that became the must have item for every technogeek and fashionista. It was also ridiculously expensive. Beyond the initial frenzy period, you know that price was hardly sustainable. There is plenty of precedent - Motorola Razrs were the hot ticket item a few years ago - people paid hundreds of dollars for them at first. Same with Blackberrys. Now you can get both free with some contracts. The Razr was released in mid-2004 and retailed for $800 without a contract, $500 with one! Needless to say, it has dropped in price markedly since then - maybe not quite so much in the first couple of months, but by December 2005, you could MAKE $50 with rebates and a two-year Cingular contract from Amazon. So what were people's "reasonable expectations" there? Did anyone sue Motorola over that? Did Mot give people who paid the full $500 or $800 a red cent? I don't think so...
However, cell phones aren't computers, they're not sofas - they're kind of like inkjet printers; they sell you the phone at a discount to get you to buy the cell phone contract, just like they sell you the printer to get you to buy the ink. Anyone who thought that the iPhone was going to stay at $599 and $399 was living in the same la-la land that those who thought the Razr would stay at $500. For all we know, next year at this time, iPhones will be $49 with a contract. And then who are you going to sue?
I still think that this case is absolutely without merit - people FREELY and WILLINGLY paid what Apple initially charged. There was no coercion or price guarantee involved. The contract between the buyer and the seller was for an item at an agreed-upon price; nothing less and nothing more. The contract was for the goods - nowhere is there or should there be any assumption that there is a continuing contract regarding the price after the exchange is made unless there is something implicitly stated re: a price guarantee. Some retailers do that - it's usually for a very limited period.
Further, there is no "good faith clause" per se in the U.C.C - at least none that I could find. A definition is given:
QUOTE
Good faith," except as otherwise provided in Article 5, means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.
Not exactly an exact or limiting definition - and I wouldn't go hanging the case against Apple on it. "Reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing" does not preclude lowering prices whenever the vendor feels like it. If it did, I don't think we'd be happy.
And yeah - I would make the same argument for any company - I don't care if it's Apple or not.
Post by: RHPConsult on October 02, 2007, 07:28:29 PM
Post by: sandbox on October 02, 2007, 11:45:28 PM
If Ethan Allen and their own retail store, for example, releases a new design in spring, it would be reasonable for a consumer to speculate that the winter fabric and or design would be different, no doubt, but it would be unreasonable for the manufacturer to discount the Spring Stock in May and sell fabric with pictures of snow drifts and give away earmuffs with every purchase before the kids are out of school, because they want to get an early jump on the holiday frenzy. No one went to the Motorola store to buy a Razr, there are retail mark-up involved in your examples.
Lets say you just dropped $50 grand on a 2008 Infinity, would it be reasonable to assume the Infinity would discount the car 33% before 2008? Would it be reasonable of Infinity to offer a 2009 addition in November of 2007? NO ….Why, because we can use the industries trends to understand the release cycles and make intelligent purchases accordingly. We know new cars are released in August and September and would be foolish enough to buy last years model at full retail knowing that that next years model is on the floor at the same price.
I think Apple took their best shot at the faithful and lost. They used arbitrary excuses about the nature of the industry, bent their own marketing cycles, imposed a Geek tax, reversed the decision, offered a rebate, lit a fire of contempt and suspicion on future products and….if they had not offered the rebate would have done irreparable damage to their image. The case would have been brought to court with a lot more steam behind it and the court would have defined what was reasonable, taking the power away from the industry to exploit consumers when the opportunity suits them.
Because of this action and the losses sustained by a few hundred thousand people, millions of potential Apple customers will have this example to refer too and be able to make a better choice as to what to purchase and when to purchase it.
A few days ago I was speaking to a student who waited in line and purchased an iPhone at the Mall , he was happy with his purchase, but when I asked him if he would buy the first release of the new iWatch, he said it was unlikely. He knows now that Apple is not the company it once was and would make future purchases accordingly. Being an early bird on Apple's Block could cost you dearly.
I've seen many arguments on the subject, most want to compare other products or companies and discount the special relationship the Apple had, this is a strawman argument IMO, it does not include the most important element of the product, which was the Apple consumer.
QUOTE
RHPConsult Posted Yesterday, 08:28 PM
Just how many angels do you propose have a dance on the head of this pin, SB?
Just how many angels do you propose have a dance on the head of this pin, SB?
I don't know Dick, Apple conceded and gave a rebate, all that's left is customer satisfaction, I guess?
Post by: krissel on October 02, 2007, 11:46:47 PM
Add to that the knockoffs that are starting to popup to compete with the iPhone and you have more of an incentive to reduce the price now before too many sales are lost to those imitations.
As to this woman, in fact she is getting a BETTER deal than most of the others who bought the larger model. She is getting a $100 credit which amounts to a 25% 'giveback' on her $399 purchase. Those who got the $599 model only got less than 17% of a 'giveback'.
Apple's reputation has been bruised and it will take a long time for it to heal. But the public is fickle. Eventually it will be up to the journalists to keep the memory of this sudden price drop in the minds of the consumer, at least those who weren't burned by this situation.
Post by: RHPConsult on October 03, 2007, 12:09:53 AM
Mean while, Apple's overall market share now exceeds 6.6%.
Somebody's buying that "stuff".
Post by: sandbox on October 03, 2007, 11:56:55 AM
QUOTE(RHPConsult @ Oct 3 2007, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The Market doesn't appear to share all this angst over Apple, its shares having risen >20% over the past 2 months.
Mean while, Apple's overall market share now exceeds 6.6%.
Somebody's buying that "stuff".
Mean while, Apple's overall market share now exceeds 6.6%.
Somebody's buying that "stuff".
The argument was diverted with a rebate. My objection, as you know, started before the rebate, (such as it is) was offered.
Apple responded to the arguments that were made, some think .....to little to late.
Of course they're selling products, they incorporated the release of the iPhone and iPod together, that was a strategic move, now tell me, which one is the biggest seller?
Apple has a new revenue stream, 30% of the income from telecom providers like at&t - T-Mobile etc....
Apple would have continued to grow without manipulating the market, they should have done their homework.
The iPhone's only superior asset is it's Gui, Dick, the processor is samsung, the flip screen is HTC. They have one technological advantage with memory capacity but lack in many of the popular asset found in 2 year old smartphones, like HP iPaq the HTC's, Samsung or Blackberrys. They need their base to buy substandard products now until they are able to build a business class smartphone.
Post by: RHPConsult on October 03, 2007, 12:16:37 PM
BTW, Apple's touch screen, as I understand it, was designed and developed by Synaptics in San Jose (not Taiwan).
Post by: sandbox on October 03, 2007, 12:35:44 PM
QUOTE(RHPConsult @ Oct 3 2007, 01:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I cannot tease "a point" from your multi-dimensional contribution.
BTW, Apple's touch screen, as I understand it, was designed and developed by Synaptics in San Jose (not Taiwan).
BTW, Apple's touch screen, as I understand it, was designed and developed by Synaptics in San Jose (not Taiwan).
The flip screen was used by HP and HTC long before the iPhone, my point was there's nothing new there. What was new was the memory use at 8GB and the Gui.
The iPhone will need to compete with the likes of the N95 which is Mac compatable, has MMS and GPS, 8GB memory and all that Jazz.
I'm not knocking the product, I see their dilemma, my objection was and is to impose a macAddict tax on the faithful. If it was a plan it was a Bad plan, if it was a mistake they should not have blamed it on the nature of the industry.
Post by: Paddy on October 04, 2007, 12:15:57 AM
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/29/nokias-...-for-your-junk/
QUOTE
Europe-first and ready for action in October for €560/$761
It's a pretty fancy piece of technology, but yikes - if you put that through the wash by mistake...
Post by: RHPConsult on October 04, 2007, 01:12:50 AM
At least one Nobel Prize has been awarded to an economist who studied the personal calculations the customer/consumer applies to any buying/acquisition decision. No lawyers involved.
I may have lots of "wants" but if i can't really afford to "exercise" them, then even those expectations are reasonable . . . to live within my means. No lawyers need apply.
BTW our 52" plasma, was eagerly purchased last Christmas (so I could, of course, see the Bucks defeat the Crocodiles in the BCS championship - no lawyers involved)
. Yup, it's current model "costs" less.
So . . .?
Post by: sandbox on October 04, 2007, 04:49:32 AM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Oct 4 2007, 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And people complained about the cost of the iPhone....
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/29/nokias-...-for-your-junk/
It's a pretty fancy piece of technology, but yikes - if you put that through the wash by mistake...
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/29/nokias-...-for-your-junk/
QUOTE
Europe-first and ready for action in October for €560/$761
It's a pretty fancy piece of technology, but yikes - if you put that through the wash by mistake...
Yes paddy, and if you look closely you will see it incorporates GPS and and a few other do-dads that are hard to find all in one place. LG has a new one, HTC, Samsung, not to mention Blackberry. The treo is the loser, may soon be obsolete.
Dick, I don't see anyone arguing against normal and expected depreciation, nor do I see anyone challenging choice. What I have seen is a reasonable perspective expressed, and advocates objections, but when asked, if the tactic was repeated or if Apple was to make this sort of exploitation of their faithful part of a steady diet, well no one pipes up and says: "Pick Me I want to pay 33% more than everyone else for the luxury of having my Apple product before my neighbor". If it's not something we can praise or agree with as a great marketing strategy going forward, why try to justify it now?
It was tried and failed, defending something that was already admitted too as a mistake and apologized for by Jobs seems to be an exercise in futility.
The person suing Apple has weaker case because Jobs gave an apology and rebate but it doesn't make it right. The suit may create legal barriers against future efforts, or at least examine the policy. If it's a sound policy you have nothing to worry about, if it wasn't then that tactic will be regulated across the industry.
Post by: RHPConsult on October 04, 2007, 10:18:44 AM
Nor do I believe I've read anywhere of anyone
QUOTE
. . . defending something that was already admitted too (sic) as a mistake and apologized for by Jobs
.Straw men do not an argument make.
Post by: sandbox on October 04, 2007, 01:46:02 PM
We don't know any of the mitigating circumstances, all we know is that the outcome is being challenged. I say let the lady have her day in court; you say shoot the Lady's lawyer.
Public outcry caused the grievance to be settled by Jobs, which satisfied some but didn't satisfy all. He created the problem and he determined what the remedy should be, wow, I don't think that will work as a model of jurisprudence. Example:
You go to the Cadillac dealership and pick out a shiny new STS V, during the 30 day checkup at the dealership someone hits the door panel. The dealership offers you another door, your insurance company likes the discounted price but will record the damage, and thus, the value of your shiny new Caddy has just been depreciated as a damaged vehicle. Though I can't see the damage from my house, I'm satisfied with the savings your insurance company received. You want to sue, I laugh at the thought of a lawyer getting involved after the door was fixed. You argue that the depreciation to a brand new Caddy is an unwarranted expense not covered by the arrangement.
So the door was fixed, the insurance company is happy, the dealership is happy, I'm happy, but you have to live with a Caddy that was depreciated by the people who sold it to you. Live with it, I'm not going to be happy if my stocks in GM and AllState go down because you want to file a non-meritorious suit.
Post by: Texas Mac Man on October 04, 2007, 08:37:40 PM
Some states (Texas does) have an insurance clause called Diminished Value - see http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/insurance/20031201a1.asp
If someone else causes damage to your car, their insurance company has to fix your car plus you can get an additional payment for diminished value.
Post by: Dreambird on October 04, 2007, 10:33:13 PM
QUOTE(sandbox @ Oct 4 2007, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So the door was fixed, the insurance company is happy, the dealership is happy, I'm happy, but you have to live with a Caddy that was depreciated by the people who sold it to you. Live with it, I'm not going to be happy if my stocks in GM and AllState go down because you want to file a non-meritorious suit.
Bingo!...
Post by: sandbox on October 05, 2007, 01:23:41 AM
QUOTE(Texas Mac Man @ Oct 4 2007, 09:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Re: sandbox
Some states (Texas does) have an insurance clause called Diminished Value - see http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/insurance/20031201a1.asp
If someone else causes damage to your car, their insurance company has to fix your car plus you can get an additional payment for diminished value.
Some states (Texas does) have an insurance clause called Diminished Value - see http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/insurance/20031201a1.asp
If someone else causes damage to your car, their insurance company has to fix your car plus you can get an additional payment for diminished value.
That's right Tom, and there are insurance laws established by the courts on such matters. How will anyone protect themselves against companies who diminish the value of their own product if we allow the telecom/computer companies too dictate what fair compensation for their misdeeds should be? Apple didn't actually give back $200 to the victims of their misguided policy; they gave credit to limited products contained within their store. Why should Apple tell these people how and where to spend their money? Would a court determine that the rebate should only apply to selected items in the Apple Store? No
This whole activity was a calculate risk that could have only been played out on the type of captured audience that Apple has. The iPhone is integrated with their computers, the system is closed, the provider is locked, you have no choice but to buy or not buy the product presented at the price point determined by Apple. Fine your committed to the product line, but that doesn't mean you have to stand for their abuse. Stealing 33% of the value of your purchase within 60 is not only unheard of in the tradition of Apple marketing, but it's unheard of in the telecom industry as a whole. The consumer, even if s/he did all the right research on the industry, company and product had no reasonable expectation that Apple would devalue their own product by so much and in such a short period of time.
The telecom industry needs more regulation not less; they have a history of screwing the pooch. Apple's in the game for 60 days and what do they do? Lower the bar even further. More lawsuits not less need to be brought up against Apple for their locking policy as well, the consumer fought long and hard to accomplish the right to an unlocked Cell-Phone, Apple comes along and Bricks them under a software agreement. They can do what they want with the software but they can't legally incorporate it with the locking device. Apple may have the FCC in their pocket for now but they don't have the courts just yet.
Post by: RHPConsult on October 05, 2007, 06:17:34 AM
QUOTE
- I think Apple took their best shot at the faithful and lost. They used arbitrary excuses about the nature of the industry, bent their own marketing cycles, imposed a Geek tax, reversed the decision, offered a rebate, lit a fire of contempt and suspicion on future products and….if they had not offered the rebate would have done irreparable damage to their image.
- The case would have been brought to court with a lot more steam behind it and the court would have defined what was reasonable, taking the power away from the industry to exploit consumers when the opportunity suits them.
- Because of this action and the losses sustained by a few hundred thousand people, millions of potential Apple customers will have this example to refer too and be able to make a better choice as to what to purchase and when to purchase it.
- I'm not knocking the product, I see their dilemma, my objection was and is to impose a macAddict tax on the faithful.
- What I have seen is a reasonable perspective expressed, and advocates objections, but when asked, if the tactic was repeated or if Apple was to make this sort of exploitation of their faithful part of a steady diet, well no one pipes up and says: "Pick Me I want to pay 33% more than everyone else for the luxury of having my Apple product before my neighbor". If it's not something we can praise or agree with as a great marketing strategy going forward, why try to justify it now?
- Public outcry caused the grievance to be settled by Jobs, which satisfied some but didn't satisfy all. He created the problem and he determined what the remedy should be, wow, I don't think that will work as a model of jurisprudence.
- . . . How will anyone protect themselves against companies who diminish the value of their own product if we allow the telecom/computer companies too dictate what fair compensation for their misdeeds should be?
- . . . the consumer fought long and hard to accomplish the right to an unlocked Cell-Phone, Apple comes along and Bricks them under a software agreement.
- Stealing 33% of the value of your purchase within 60 is not only unheard of in the tradition of Apple marketing, but it's unheard of in the telecom industry as a whole.
- . . . the consumer fought long and hard to accomplish the right to an unlocked Cell-Phone, Apple comes along and Bricks them under a software agreement.
A quite remarkable rhetorical exercise, but what are you trying to say? What, for example, is a . . .
- bent marketing cycle?
- a Greek tax?
- a fire of contempt?
- a MacAddict tax?
If . . ."the consumer fought long and hard to accomplish the right to an unlocked Cell-Phone . . . " somehow I think I missed that battle, as well as the peace treaty.
I rest my case, I guess.
Post by: sandbox on October 05, 2007, 02:23:28 PM
QUOTE
A quite remarkable rhetorical exercise, but what are you trying to say? What, for example, is a . . .
* bent marketing cycle?
* a Greek tax?
* a fire of contempt?
* a MacAddict tax?
* bent marketing cycle?
* a Greek tax?
* a fire of contempt?
* a MacAddict tax?
Dick, traditionally Apple would introduce a new product and upgrade it or make a price adjustment in about 6 month. 60 days bent the cycle, no one could have seen it coming.
In some circles the devaluation of the iPhone is being called a Geek Tax, a Fanboy Tax, or a MacAddict tax, early adopter tax, or a tax for the Mac enthusiast.
Much of the Apple community was fire up over this devaluation, contempt of the action was expressed by many, even in emails sent to Jobs.
Contempt 1 a: the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : disdain b: lack of respect or reverence for something
QUOTE
How does creating a . . .”problem and . . .(determining) what the remedy should be" constitute "a model of jurisprudence"?
Self regulation is good, determining what your own penalty should be after you violate trust is not a good model.
My statement:
QUOTE
I don't think that will work as a model of jurisprudence.
QUOTE
If . . ."the consumer fought long and hard to accomplish the right to an unlocked Cell-Phone . . . " somehow I think I missed that battle, as well as the peace treaty.
OK, start here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061124-8280.html
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/free...able-216992.php
QUOTE(RHPConsult @ Oct 5 2007, 07:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Your vigorous assertion of presumed truths does not make them real. Then, attempting to weave them together without regard to internal harmony or consistency does not constitute logical argumentation, rather some variety of a word salad.
A quite remarkable rhetorical exercise, but what are you trying to say? What, for example, is a . . .
If . . ."the consumer fought long and hard to accomplish the right to an unlocked Cell-Phone . . . " somehow I think I missed that battle, as well as the peace treaty.
I rest my case, I guess.
QUOTE
- I think Apple took their best shot at the faithful and lost. They used arbitrary excuses about the nature of the industry, bent their own marketing cycles, imposed a Geek tax, reversed the decision, offered a rebate, lit a fire of contempt and suspicion on future products and….if they had not offered the rebate would have done irreparable damage to their image.
- The case would have been brought to court with a lot more steam behind it and the court would have defined what was reasonable, taking the power away from the industry to exploit consumers when the opportunity suits them.
- Because of this action and the losses sustained by a few hundred thousand people, millions of potential Apple customers will have this example to refer too and be able to make a better choice as to what to purchase and when to purchase it.
- I'm not knocking the product, I see their dilemma, my objection was and is to impose a macAddict tax on the faithful.
- What I have seen is a reasonable perspective expressed, and advocates objections, but when asked, if the tactic was repeated or if Apple was to make this sort of exploitation of their faithful part of a steady diet, well no one pipes up and says: "Pick Me I want to pay 33% more than everyone else for the luxury of having my Apple product before my neighbor". If it's not something we can praise or agree with as a great marketing strategy going forward, why try to justify it now?
- Public outcry caused the grievance to be settled by Jobs, which satisfied some but didn't satisfy all. He created the problem and he determined what the remedy should be, wow, I don't think that will work as a model of jurisprudence.
- . . . How will anyone protect themselves against companies who diminish the value of their own product if we allow the telecom/computer companies too dictate what fair compensation for their misdeeds should be?
- . . . the consumer fought long and hard to accomplish the right to an unlocked Cell-Phone, Apple comes along and Bricks them under a software agreement.
- Stealing 33% of the value of your purchase within 60 is not only unheard of in the tradition of Apple marketing, but it's unheard of in the telecom industry as a whole.
- . . . the consumer fought long and hard to accomplish the right to an unlocked Cell-Phone, Apple comes along and Bricks them under a software agreement.
A quite remarkable rhetorical exercise, but what are you trying to say? What, for example, is a . . .
- bent marketing cycle?
- a Greek tax?
- a fire of contempt?
- a MacAddict tax?
If . . ."the consumer fought long and hard to accomplish the right to an unlocked Cell-Phone . . . " somehow I think I missed that battle, as well as the peace treaty.
I rest my case, I guess.
Post by: sandbox on October 05, 2007, 06:08:16 PM
QUOTE
"...we need to do a better job taking care of our early iPhone customers as we aggressively go after new ones with a lower price. Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions in moments like these."
Steve Jobs
He Knows it, why is some missing it?
Why attack the messenger?
Why would an Apple advocate sit by and watch the Company go down the same road as Dell or Compaq?
Well.... some didn't, some had their priorities straight, some advocated for the consumer.
Post by: Dreambird on October 05, 2007, 06:22:15 PM
QUOTE(sandbox @ Oct 5 2007, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Steve Jobs
He Knows it, why is some missing it?
Why attack the messenger?
Why would an Apple advocate sit by and watch the Company go down the same road as Dell or Compaq?
Well.... some didn't, some had their priorities straight, some advocated for the consumer.
He Knows it, why is some missing it?
Why attack the messenger?
Why would an Apple advocate sit by and watch the Company go down the same road as Dell or Compaq?
Well.... some didn't, some had their priorities straight, some advocated for the consumer.
I agree... have been in many situations myself where an advocate was needed, and it ain't easy!
Post by: RNKIII on October 06, 2007, 05:23:39 AM
Having witnessed / participated in / refereed any number of these on going arduous debates (better known by their vernacular term; "Whizzing Contests") and noticing a total lack of any participation by or effect on the originally intended targets, I humbly suggest that a 'draw' be called before someone strains something.
Early points are made, expanded upon, rebutted, re-rebutted.....etc, etc.. and then the targets widen and the accuracy dramatically drops off and the only lasting effect
is... One's own shoes start to stink.
A damp rag and 409 usually will clean things up. In a more wide ranging contes... debate, Pinesol, a mop and bucket may be required.
As to the shoes.... that's left to the individual contestants.
Bob K. rnkiii
Post by: chriskleeman on October 06, 2007, 11:40:55 AM
QUOTE(RNKIII @ Oct 6 2007, 06:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Good evening / morning, (whatever)
Having witnessed / participated in / refereed any number of these on going arduous debates (better known by their vernacular term; "Whizzing Contests") and noticing a total lack of any participation by or effect on the originally intended targets, I humbly suggest that a 'draw' be called before someone strains something.
Early points are made, expanded upon, rebutted, re-rebutted.....etc, etc.. and then the targets widen and the accuracy dramatically drops off and the only lasting effect
is... One's own shoes start to stink.
A damp rag and 409 usually will clean things up. In a more wide ranging contes... debate, Pinesol, a mop and bucket may be required.
As to the shoes.... that's left to the individual contestants.
Bob K. rnkiii
Having witnessed / participated in / refereed any number of these on going arduous debates (better known by their vernacular term; "Whizzing Contests") and noticing a total lack of any participation by or effect on the originally intended targets, I humbly suggest that a 'draw' be called before someone strains something.
Early points are made, expanded upon, rebutted, re-rebutted.....etc, etc.. and then the targets widen and the accuracy dramatically drops off and the only lasting effect
is... One's own shoes start to stink.
A damp rag and 409 usually will clean things up. In a more wide ranging contes... debate, Pinesol, a mop and bucket may be required.
As to the shoes.... that's left to the individual contestants.
Bob K. rnkiii
IAW Bob. Time to call it a draw here.
Chris K
Post by: sandbox on October 06, 2007, 11:54:18 PM
Post by: Dreambird on October 07, 2007, 03:48:26 AM
QUOTE(RHPConsult @ Oct 4 2007, 12:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
At least one Nobel Prize has been awarded to an economist who studied the personal calculations the customer/consumer applies to any buying/acquisition decision. No lawyers involved.
Just something I've thought about now and then... not trying to carry on an argument...
but since you bring up who I "suspect" may be my least favourite economist, if it's who I think it is, he'd have me all pegged wrong anyway.Personally I know why I buy things... it's quite a paradox really. I'm of low income level, stuck where I am as far as where to live goes and surrounded by consumerism. I'm probably within normal range for most people... I want things, so if I can swing it, I get it. I'm restricted but hey... can't complain...
I've thought now and then what I might do if I won some huge lottery (who hasn't)... it's nice to have a fantasy or two. I've always thought I'd surely move for one thing... to somewhere that suits my want for space, a simple life, warm weather and a departure from all the hectic clutter of the western world. So... perhaps Apple may ship to say Namibia, Zambia, Senegal or somewhere like that, I don't know, question is would I really want or need that stuff anymore? I'm pretty sure I'd like to fit into a simple life and learn about how things work in my new surroundings... oh yeah, I may keep a computer if it were possible to find a connection for it but that's about it.
I think if I felt inclined to spent some money, I would love to do something for the poorer people around me, like buy those computers for the kids... help them with their needs... whatever they might be. It would be so much more rewarding being there to see the faces.
Anyway... that's all.
Shoes scrubbed and put away!