iPhone users crying for refunds already..

oalvarez

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2004
825
0
0
Visit site
they make a lot of sense, i'm sorry you don't understand them.

Mr. Jobs didn't force anyone to spend $600 on the original devices. He and his company can do as they see fit in terms of the rebates. Apple has most probably profited from the initial sales and will most probably continue to profit from sales at the reduced prices. Remember, supply and demand forces aren't usually static, they are dynamic, they obviously were right in charging what they did at inception as they sold hundreds of thousands at that price point. I'm sure they'll continue to sell millions more at the current price levels.

why not compare palm to apple in terms of its officer's judgement calls? it's perfectly acceptable, it's easy to show palm's misgivings and weaknesses in circumstances such as these.

jobs is arroganct towards its customers? really? how so? is he so arrogant that he keeps america away from buying its products? what are you really trying to say? i personally don't base my buying decisions by who runs a company...do you? :confused: if you own a Treo, then you surely do not.
 

Pearl_Diva

Well-known member
Mar 24, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
He's been proven to be pretty callous toward those who already paid, until a backlash happens. A while ago there was something about him telling certain Powerbook customers ":censored: 'em" basically. I wish I remembered the deatils better but it had something to do with buyers not being able to get service on defective laptops, but the defect was an actual manufacturer defect, so they should have corrected that no matter what.
 

oalvarez

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2004
825
0
0
Visit site
but surprisingly america continues to buy their products (such as yourself). i'm not familiar with the example which you point to, but i'm sure there's an explanation for it. maybe it wasn't that important and that is why you don't remember the details surrounding it?
 

Kupe#WP

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2000
343
1
0
Visit site
jobs is arroganct towards its customers? really? how so? is he so arrogant that he keeps america away from buying its products?
It's actually quite impressive if not entertaining:
1. Steve overcharges for his device, the fanboys line up in droves to contribute to Steve's wealth.
2. A separate, yet very large portion of the market votes with its wallet and stays away from the device in droves. Sales in July are stagnant after the late June fanboy explosion.
3. Steve recognizes he's not going to make the promised sales goals (perhaps he overestimated the size of the fanboy-base?) and makes the right business decision - he chops the price...a lot.
4. Sales will probably pick up again with the lowered price, but the fanboys become fickle fanboys and wonder, "what the heck?!?" Early buyers who couldn't afford the 8 GB model now see it being sold for less than they paid for their puny 4 GB model! Stock analysts can't help but notice their original estimates of high-volume, high-margin product sales indicate they were just plain high when they made them.
5. Steve, in a stroke of genius, offers the fanboys the opportunity to get half of their overcharge money back...sort of. They must use their "compensation" to buy overpriced accessories in the Apple (boss man's) stores. The 4GB device holders stand in stunned silence, their lips silently mouthing, "but...but...but..."

Is that about how it went down? You're right - Steve's not really arrogant. Callous maybe, overconfident certainly, but he's actually very sweet on us stockholders.

i personally don't base my buying decisions by who runs a company...do you?
Depends on what I know about who runs the company. If Dick Cheney returns to Halliburton, I think I'll look elsewhere for my "country-building" products. ;) But in general, a company's products reflect the spirit/personality/innovation of it's driving force(s). In Apple's case this is clearly Steve Jobs and he has a pretty good nose for high-quality, feature-laden products. Of course, Steve hasn't always been perfect!
 

mikec#IM

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2002
890
0
0
Visit site
they make a lot of sense, i'm sorry you don't understand them.

Mr. Jobs didn't force anyone to spend $600 on the original devices. He and his company can do as they see fit in terms of the rebates. Apple has most probably profited from the initial sales and will most probably continue to profit from sales at the reduced prices. Remember, supply and demand forces aren't usually static, they are dynamic, they obviously were right in charging what they did at inception as they sold hundreds of thousands at that price point. I'm sure they'll continue to sell millions more at the current price levels.

why not compare palm to apple in terms of its officer's judgement calls? it's perfectly acceptable, it's easy to show palm's misgivings and weaknesses in circumstances such as these.

jobs is arroganct towards its customers? really? how so? is he so arrogant that he keeps america away from buying its products? what are you really trying to say? i personally don't base my buying decisions by who runs a company...do you? :confused: if you own a Treo, then you surely do not.

Um, they don't make sense in the context of the thread.

It wasn't about Jobs forcing someone to buy something (rediculous, although so of the Mac faithful do act like addicts).

Supply and demand is at work; supply is exceeding demand, so they chop the price to spur demand.

My comment was about Jobs's comments about his customers. While I have no love for Palm execs, I don't see why you insist on comparing them in this specific incident, as Palm is not involved.

If you want to see Jobs arrogance, just read the OP I made or read the articles. He pooh-poohed them (users) initially. It just shows his attitude, that's all.

As for buing products based on who runs the company, that is rediculous as well. Not sure why you brought it up.

Perceptio is reality in the mass marketplace, and the perception is that Apple hosed early adopters.

But I could really care less about that. I think the real story is that the iPhone is not selling as well as expected, and they really need to boost sales - hence the price cut.
 

mikec#IM

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2002
890
0
0
Visit site
but surprisingly america continues to buy their products (such as yourself). i'm not familiar with the example which you point to, but i'm sure there's an explanation for it. maybe it wasn't that important and that is why you don't remember the details surrounding it?

Appologist never cease to amaze me...
 

mikec#IM

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2002
890
0
0
Visit site
It's actually quite impressive if not entertaining:
1. Steve overcharges for his device, the fanboys line up in droves to contribute to Steve's wealth.
2. A separate, yet very large portion of the market votes with its wallet and stays away from the device in droves. Sales in July are stagnant after the late June fanboy explosion.
3. Steve recognizes he's not going to make the promised sales goals (perhaps he overestimated the size of the fanboy-base?) and makes the right business decision - he chops the price...a lot.
4. Sales will probably pick up again with the lowered price, but the fanboys become fickle fanboys and wonder, "what the heck?!?" Early buyers who couldn't afford the 8 GB model now see it being sold for less than they paid for their puny 4 GB model! Stock analysts can't help but notice their original estimates of high-volume, high-margin product sales indicate they were just plain high when they made them.
5. Steve, in a stroke of genius, offers the fanboys the opportunity to get half of their overcharge money back...sort of. They must use their "compensation" to buy overpriced accessories in the Apple (boss man's) stores. The 4GB device holders stand in stunned silence, their lips silently mouthing, "but...but...but..."

Is that about how it went down? You're right - Steve's not really arrogant. Callous maybe, overconfident certainly, but he's actually very sweet on us stockholders.

Depends on what I know about who runs the company. If Dick Cheney returns to Halliburton, I think I'll look elsewhere for my "country-building" products. ;) But in general, a company's products reflect the spirit/personality/innovation of it's driving force(s). In Apple's case this is clearly Steve Jobs and he has a pretty good nose for high-quality, feature-laden products. Of course, Steve hasn't always been perfect!

Ding ding ding...we have a winner!
 

oalvarez

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2004
825
0
0
Visit site
Um, they don't make sense in the context of the thread.

It wasn't about Jobs forcing someone to buy something (rediculous, although so of the Mac faithful do act like addicts).

Supply and demand is at work; supply is exceeding demand, so they chop the price to spur demand.

My comment was about Jobs's comments about his customers. While I have no love for Palm execs, I don't see why you insist on comparing them in this specific incident, as Palm is not involved.

If you want to see Jobs arrogance, just read the OP I made or read the articles. He pooh-poohed them (users) initially. It just shows his attitude, that's all.

As for buing products based on who runs the company, that is rediculous as well. Not sure why you brought it up.

Perceptio is reality in the mass marketplace, and the perception is that Apple hosed early adopters.

But I could really care less about that. I think the real story is that the iPhone is not selling as well as expected, and they really need to boost sales - hence the price cut.

sure, whatever you say.
 

AnteL0pe

Well-known member
Jul 21, 2005
227
0
0
Visit site
1. Steve overcharges for his device, the fanboys line up in droves to contribute to Steve's wealth.
You've contradicted yourself. Things are worth what people are willing to pay. Apparently many thousands of people had no issues with the iPhone's price.

2. A separate, yet very large portion of the market votes with its wallet and stays away from the device in droves. Sales in July are stagnant after the late June fanboy explosion.
Hahaha, "fanboy explosion" or "unprecedented release weekend sales" its really a matter of which way you want to slant your statement. My question is why do you insist on slanting your statement? Presenting actual facts will make your argument stronger.

3. Steve recognizes he's not going to make the promised sales goals (perhaps he overestimated the size of the fanboy-base?) and makes the right business decision - he chops the price...a lot.
Apple clearly has a sales goal it wants to hit and it's worth it to them to slash the price. Standard business decision IMHO.

4. Sales will probably pick up again with the lowered price, but the fanboys become fickle fanboys and wonder, "what the heck?!?" Early buyers who couldn't afford the 8 GB model now see it being sold for less than they paid for their puny 4 GB model! Stock analysts can't help but notice their original estimates of high-volume, high-margin product sales indicate they were just plain high when they made them.
Clearly if Apple planned on hitting their sales goal without a planned price drop then they overestimated demand. If, on the other hand, they had planned a price drop all along then i don't see the issue.

5. Steve, in a stroke of genius, offers the fanboys the opportunity to get half of their overcharge money back...sort of. They must use their "compensation" to buy overpriced accessories in the Apple (boss man's) stores. The 4GB device holders stand in stunned silence, their lips silently mouthing, "but...but...but..."
Again, the slant you are putting on your statements invalidates the small bit of rationality they contain. You cant blanket the entire early adopter market as "fanboys" thats just silly. And, again, the iPhone wasn't overpriced.
 

Kupe#WP

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2000
343
1
0
Visit site
Again, the slant you are putting on your statements invalidates the small bit of rationality they contain. You cant blanket the entire early adopter market as "fanboys" thats just silly. And, again, the iPhone wasn't overpriced.
Oh my - I think someone took that fictional narrative just a little bit too seriously. OK. You're right. There was (probably) one early adopter who wasn't a fanboy. There. Are you less troubled now? :bow:

Apple has a product marketing plan that contains very specific sales goals for the iPhone. Clearly the current pace of sales is falling short of those goals. Apple drops the price of the iPhone in order to "pick up the pace" on sales. OK, are you with me so far? Good - here's the easy part:

Apple believes one factor in the stagnant sales is the price of the device - it's too high for the market, so it has been lowered. It's not about what YOU or a bunch of other "early adopters" (at least one of which was NOT a fanboy) paid for the device - it's about how APPLE perceives their marketing plan is progressing. They clearly thought it was overpriced so they made a correction - time will tell if the phone is still overpriced or not.

Why to fanboys always think it's about THEM? Not you, of course, Antelope. I'm only referring to early-adopting, over-price paying fanboys. :cool:
 

AnteL0pe

Well-known member
Jul 21, 2005
227
0
0
Visit site
Oh my - I think someone took that fictional narrative just a little bit too seriously. OK. You're right. There was (probably) one early adopter who wasn't a fanboy. There. Are you less troubled now? :bow:
Hah! Sure... :D

Apple has a product marketing plan that contains very specific sales goals for the iPhone. Clearly the current pace of sales is falling short of those goals. Apple drops the price of the iPhone in order to "pick up the pace" on sales. OK, are you with me so far? Good - here's the easy part:

Apple believes one factor in the stagnant sales is the price of the device - it's too high for the market, so it has been lowered.
Pssst, i already said that, i understand why he lowered the price. But do you have inside info that the price drop wasn't planned? Perhaps this is going according to plan. I don't think it's likely that a $200 price drop was planned this early, but it isn't out of the question that a $100 price drop was.

Apple clearly has a sales goal it wants to hit and it's worth it to them to slash the price. Standard business decision IMHO.
I'm still wondering why there is so much pretension and labeling in your post, but maybe thats just the kinda guy you are :( Youre sounding like some of these other trolls who seem personally offended by the success of the iPhone or the fact that people might be actually happy with them :eek:

Do people actually have to hate other devices to convince themselves that their device is decent?
 

oalvarez

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2004
825
0
0
Visit site
they hang out here as well because they must give validation to whatever it is that they own. they continue to label, spin, RE-state the obvious/point already made, and misdirect. it's rather amusing, really, here it is in play:

Um, they don't make sense in the context of the thread.
ahh, it's pretty clear that the original comments made perfect sense, but ya gotta continue to try and derail.

It wasn't about Jobs forcing someone to buy something (rediculous, although so of the Mac faithful do act like addicts)
further labeling, attempts to confuse and redirect..

Supply and demand is at work; supply is exceeding demand, so they chop the price to spur demand.
ahh, i think it was i who originally brought up this point...restating of the obvious

My comment was about Jobs's comments about his customers. While I have no love for Palm execs, I don't see why you insist on comparing them in this specific incident, as Palm is not involved.
more confusion and redirection....like i can't compare the two? ha.

As for buing products based on who runs the company, that is rediculous as well. Not sure why you brought it up.
once again the "not sure why you brought it up"....."ridiculous" (it's spelled that way)..more labeling...

why i find it easier to just say "sure, whatever you say"....afterall, they are always right and the rest of us are all so very wrong.
 

Kupe#WP

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2000
343
1
0
Visit site
Pssst, i already said that, i understand why he lowered the price. But do you have inside info that the price drop wasn't planned? Perhaps this is going according to plan.
Considering the general industry consensus shows Apple behind their 1,000,000 units sold by the end of their fiscal year pace, it doesn't take an insider to see this price cut wasn't planned. I'm pretty sure Apple wouldn't drop the price 1 penny if they were on their projections. I also suspect Apple is savvy enough to know the buzz isn't going to grow any higher as time goes on.

Instead, it looks like Apple simply set the price point higher than the market would support - only a subset of their target market proved willing to fork over Apple's original asking price. I arbitrarily generalized by calling this market subset the fanboys for the fun of it. That you consistently take exception to this term speaks volumes about you. ;)
 

oalvarez

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2004
825
0
0
Visit site
it doesn't take an insider to see this price cut wasn't planned. I'm pretty sure Apple wouldn't drop the price 1 penny if they were on their projections.

ah, isn't that obvious for any company? if sales don't show success at a given price point, prices can be lowered.

Instead, it looks like Apple simply set the price point higher than the market would support - only a subset of their target market proved willing to fork over Apple's original asking price.

no, the market supported it, hundreds of thousands were sold. was it a market clearing price, no, but so what? they put their item on sale just as any other company would. weren't there countless members here saying that it was overpriced to begin with and that they wouldn't buy it because of? others were ok spending the $600 at launch. now there are some that are willing to give it a try at the lower price....no surprise here either.

I arbitrarily generalized by calling this market subset the fanboys for the fun of it. That you consistently take exception to this term speaks volumes about you. ;)

and the labeling and derision continues from the Treo camp....i suppose it's understandable given what Palm has not given them.
 

AnteL0pe

Well-known member
Jul 21, 2005
227
0
0
Visit site
Considering the general industry consensus shows Apple behind their 1,000,000 units sold by the end of their fiscal year pace, it doesn't take an insider to see this price cut wasn't planned.
Being behind the pace means they didn't plan the price drop? It could very well be the case that Apple planned on setting a higher price for the early adopters and then dropping it so that they could then pick up more sales and hit their mark. It's very possible that Apple knew that there was no way they would sell 1M iPhones at the price they initially set and knew they would have to adjust it after they had collected the "early adopter tax." There is no rule that said Apple would sell 1M phone at the price they initially set.

I'm pretty sure Apple wouldn't drop the price 1 penny if they were on their projections
They could very well be on their projections. Why do you assume that they didn't factor in a price drop? They knew they would sell a certain number of phones at $600 and a certain number of additional units at a lower price.

only a subset of their target market proved willing to fork over Apple's original asking price.
Don't look at it as a subset, though that is valid, look at it as a totally different market. Apple had the early adopter market who would pay $600 and another market who will jump on at $400. they're picking up both markets.

That you consistently take exception to this term speaks volumes about you. ;)
Meh, ok if you say so, i just think it detracts from your points.
 

mikec#IM

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2002
890
0
0
Visit site
ha

Oalveraz,

Instead of addressing my points, you are the one with the digeression and redirection.

You and Antelope are the best Apologists out there. Heaven forbid there be any criticism again Apple or Jobs.

Kupe is spot on with his comments, but the spin Ant puts on it is amazing.

"Apple planned to drop the price all along". GMAFB. You don't plan lower prices - you see what the market does and decide from there. In this case Apple is behind on their sales, and their research said $399 was the magic number.

Business 101 folks...

I know that there is a lot of Palm hatred here (and I for one have criticized them more than most), but Palm isn't selling the iPhone - Apple is. That is the topic. Sorry you have a tough time accepting it.

The ringtone raping is just another example of Apple's anti-customer attitude...hence the hacks.

It's all about thr $$$ and Apple will squeeze ya dry. But if you are happy, then it's all good.
 

oalvarez

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2004
825
0
0
Visit site
and now it's all about the "ringtone raping"

no one thinks much about your points, that's why they don't get addressed.

and sure enough, more labeling..."we're the best apologists out there."

and then your tired wanton attempts......"business 101 folks"

the lengths to which you go.....they're quite comical...like the Treo which you love. what a pile.

poor palm
 

cmaier

Well-known member
Jun 29, 2007
728
0
0
Visit site
I really don't think apple wants to be charging for ringtones. It seems far more likely it's being foisted on them by the RIAA as a condition of being permitted to sell stuff on itunes. Just because you and I think that a ring tone is fair use for a song we already own, doesn't mean the studios agree. (in fact, it may or may not be. One of the factors the courts look at is whether there is a market for the copy. If everyone would kindly just stop paying for it, we could probably all get it for free. Game theory at work?)

I am curious as to whether they will reach a deal to allow some songs to be used as ringtones for "free." Maybe when you fork over the extra dough for the drm-free stuff.
 

cardfan

Well-known member
Oct 26, 2004
2,234
57
48
Visit site
I don't get the demand with ringtones myself. Don't care. But if people are willing to pay for them, then Apple would be dumb not to sell em...
 

Kupe#WP

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2000
343
1
0
Visit site
ah, isn't that obvious for any company? if sales don't show success at a given price point, prices can be lowered.
Exactly

no, the market supported it, hundreds of thousands were sold.
Yes, hundreds of thousands were sold. Apple's target "market" was much larger than that so no, the "market" didn't support the higher price.

and the labeling and derision continues from the Treo camp....i suppose it's understandable given what Palm has not given them.
I know - don't you just hate those labeling, deriding Treo folks? Their behavior is positively labelous!
 

Trending Posts

Forum statistics

Threads
260,011
Messages
1,765,302
Members
441,220
Latest member
waeriyadh