Author Topic: Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates  (Read 8132 times)

Offline RHPConsult

  • TS Addict
  • Posts: 7859
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2007, 10:41:25 AM »
Cycles of electronic innovation (and obsolescence) are also reflected in hearing aids.

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?

Offline sandbox

  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 7825
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #16 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?  toothgrin.gif

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? wink.gif

Offline Paddy

  • Administrator
  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 13797
    • View Profile
    • https://www.paddyduncan.com
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2007, 05:16:08 PM »
SB, price cuts - sometimes quite drastic - happen all the time. I go to the store today and buy a sofa at $999. Tomorrow, unbeknownst to me, they're permanently reducing the price to $799 - with a bigger choice of upholstery material. What recourse do I have? Generally, not much (yes, I know, there are a few stores that offer price guarantees for a set period, but most don't) This is no different than what Apple has done. It doesn't matter one whit that it was a "new" product that had only been out for two months! Heck - that's almost a whole season in some retail cycles.

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. wink.gif

And yeah - I would make the same argument for any company - I don't care if it's Apple or not. wink.gif
« Last Edit: October 02, 2007, 07:43:28 PM by Paddy »
"If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into committees. That'll do them in." ~Author unknown •iMac 5K, 27" 3.6Ghz i9 (2019) • 16" M1 MBP(2021) • 9.7" iPad Pro • iPhone 13

Offline RHPConsult

  • TS Addict
  • Posts: 7859
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2007, 07:28:29 PM »
Just how many angels do you propose have a dance on the head of this pin, SB?

Offline sandbox

  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 7825
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2007, 11:45:28 PM »
Paddy going to a retail store which has an independent pricing structure and mark-up, V -buying from the manufacturer is quite different.

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?


I don't know Dick, Apple conceded and gave a rebate, all that's left is customer satisfaction, I guess? wink.gif
« Last Edit: October 02, 2007, 11:48:26 PM by sandbox »

Offline krissel

  • Administrator
  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 14736
    • View Profile
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2007, 11:46:47 PM »
I think the main reason Apple reduced prices when they did was not so much to increase sales here in the US but to provide a reasonable price in foreign markets.  Had they left the $600 tag they would have had a tough time selling the iPhone in Europe. The lower price needed to be in place before the announcement of the iPhone in the UK and Germany. Europeans are not normally subject to the same restrictions as we are here concerning usage of the phone with a particular company. So they had to make it more appealing price wise.

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.



A Techsurvivors founder

Offline RHPConsult

  • TS Addict
  • Posts: 7859
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2007, 12:09:53 AM »
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".

Offline sandbox

  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 7825
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #22 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".


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. wink.gif
« Last Edit: October 03, 2007, 11:57:56 AM by sandbox »

Offline RHPConsult

  • TS Addict
  • Posts: 7859
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2007, 12:16:37 PM »
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).

Offline sandbox

  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 7825
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #24 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).


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.


Offline Paddy

  • Administrator
  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 13797
    • View Profile
    • https://www.paddyduncan.com
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2007, 12:15:57 AM »
And people complained about the cost of the iPhone....

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... eek2.gif
« Last Edit: October 04, 2007, 12:17:48 AM by Paddy »
"If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into committees. That'll do them in." ~Author unknown •iMac 5K, 27" 3.6Ghz i9 (2019) • 16" M1 MBP(2021) • 9.7" iPad Pro • iPhone 13

Offline RHPConsult

  • TS Addict
  • Posts: 7859
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2007, 01:12:50 AM »
The continual references herein to "reasonable expectations" seems to me to be working at the wrong end of the transaction. Why do we (all) purchase things in the first instance . . . because we need, or even more interestingly, we "want" them.

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) mad.gif   ohmy.gif .

Yup, it's current model "costs" less.  

So . . .?


Offline sandbox

  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 7825
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #27 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/

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... eek2.gif


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.

Offline RHPConsult

  • TS Addict
  • Posts: 7859
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2007, 10:18:44 AM »
Given that the First Amendment guarantees everyone's right to file non-meritorious suits, I fail to see how a mistake (or even a failed marketing "decision", even if archly-characterized as a ploy) produces "legal barriers" against future errors of judgment.

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.

Offline sandbox

  • TS Addict
  • *****
  • Posts: 7825
    • View Profile
    • http://
Apple, Jobs, AT&T sued over iPhone price cut, rebates
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2007, 01:46:02 PM »
Ah yes, the old constitutional argument that allows for meritorious suits as well. Now we get down to who has rights if "WE" give the grievance no merit.

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. wink.gif
« Last Edit: October 04, 2007, 02:49:26 PM by sandbox »