Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates

[Texas Mac Man]

Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates

[Paddy]

This case is so laughably without merit that I hope the judge tosses it out and makes HER pay APPLE'S legal fees. What on earth is the matter with people that they think that they can get away with this sort of thing? (I know...opportunistic lawyers...)

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.

[sandbox]

Though I do not see her case winning on the brief stated, a case can be made on the facts. The 33% discount in 60 days was unreasonable on it's face. Consumers have rights subject to reasonable expectations.

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.

[swhitset]

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

[Gregg]

The only surprise is that it took so long.

[sandbox]

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

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.

[Gregg]

I think the court will rule on what is legal, not on the reasonable expectations of the consumer, unless the trial is in California, where all bets are off....

[Paddy]

Any declaration by the courts that states that a company's pricing decisions don't meet "reasonable expectations" is a trip down a slippery slope of price regulations and controls. Did I have a reasonable expectation that the plasma TV I bought in November 2005 would cost almost 50% LESS in about 6 or 8 months? No, not really. I had some "reasonable expectation" that the price would fall, but the amount it fell was a lot more than I expected. So - are you saying that because my "reasonable expectations" weren't met, that I should rush off and sue Panasonic or Circuit City? I certainly can't sell my plasma TV at anywhere near what I paid for it! I've "lost" a heck of a lot more than $200 too.

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.

[chriskleeman]

This whole business with Apple is so classic in the present day marketplace! You're going to pay a price if you want to be the first one to have newer technology!  

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

[Xairbusdriver]

I keep seeing references to 'free media coverage.' Is that inferring that the coverage was/is positive? Seemed just the opposite to me. What coverage they got was less than positive and not what they would want. I think that was their biggest mistake in this whole thing. They hurt themselves by making some of their customers unhappy. An unhappy customer is worse than no customer; they do much more damage to future sales, IMHO.

[RHPConsult]

Oh let us return to those days of yesteryear . . . well, maybe just September 6 last, and revisit my Modest Prophesy, to wit:

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!

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!"

[shadow]

Yup, if there's a lawyer within breathing distance, a suit will follow.  


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.

[sandbox]

Paddy, the plasma TV you bought, in no way reflects the iPhone event that was created by Apple. The TV model you bought was most likely gathering dust on the shelf for a year before you bought it. It certainly was not a new innovative technology, Plasma TV's are on their way out.

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

[Gregg]

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???

[Paddy]

I can't argue with the damage Apple has done to their own reputation, but I stand by my assertion that under a free market economy, they can do whatever they wish regarding pricing (with the exception of price-fixing, of course). Stupid does not by definition equal illegal.

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.