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

[Texas Mac Man]

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.

[Dreambird]

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!...

[sandbox]

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.

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.

[RHPConsult]

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.

QUOTE

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. I'm not knocking the product, I see their dilemma, my objection was and is to impose a macAddict tax on the faithful.
5. 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?
6. 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.
7. . . . 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?
8. . . . 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.
9. 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.
10. . . . 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?

How does creating a . . .”problem and . . .(determining) what the remedy should be" constitute "a model of jurisprudence"?

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.

[sandbox]

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?

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.

QUOTE

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. I'm not knocking the product, I see their dilemma, my objection was and is to impose a macAddict tax on the faithful.
5. 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?
6. 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.
7. . . . 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?
8. . . . 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.
9. 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.
10. . . . 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?

How does creating a . . .”problem and . . .(determining) what the remedy should be" constitute "a model of jurisprudence"?

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.

[sandbox]

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.

[Dreambird]

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.

I agree... have been in many situations myself where an advocate was needed, and it ain't easy!  

[RNKIII]

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

[chriskleeman]

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

IAW Bob. Time to call it a draw here.

Chris K

[sandbox]

Simple Green  

[Dreambird]

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!