The nonesense is that to be early was to be a "sucker." To the contrary, to be early was to pay $200- to be early without having to stand in line. There is a distinction there for those who can see it.
It took IBM two decades to figure out that many of their customers would pay a premium to be early. Apple understands pricing better than anyone else in the business; they are the only vendor in consumer electronics that says what the retail price of their product will be and makes it stick. Microsoft would die for that power. Competition from Apple determines the price of the Zune. Carriers price the Treo and whoa be unto Palm if they try to underprice the carriers to the consumer.
I have paid a premium for every Treo but still have had to wait for GSM. Apple did not make me both pay a premium and wait.
You are probably right that "a lot of people are glad they waited." A few are probably sorry that they did not. Most will not buy at any price. That does not make the early people "suckers."
We are the "heat seekers" and we know that we always pay a price to be early. It is nice to be able to afford it.
Nice spin, bur $200 lighter in the wallet sucks.
Technology (beta products, imho) are sold at a premium to the early adopter. Fine if you can afford it.
But Apple's 33% price cut is very drastic, and it can't help but generate buyers remorse. I think some folks feel suckered, esp. since Apple's pricing track record indicates that this was not the ecpected action they would take.
I still think they aren't selling as many as expected - possibly a lot fewer than expected - and this price cut is to fuel more sales.
What's really interesting is that now, the "phone" function is only "worth" $99, if you use Apple logic (Touch+99=iPhone).
Anyway, I don't think anyone predicted this price hack (I certainly thought Apple would keep price high), but they also realize (smartly) that now is the time to get as many iPhones out there as possible, and if price cuts do it, so be it.