1. AnteL0pe's Avatar
    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...

    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

    Do people actually have to hate other devices to convince themselves that their device is decent?
    09-08-2007 05:58 PM
  2. oalvarez's Avatar
    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.
    09-08-2007 07:42 PM
  3. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    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.
    09-08-2007 07:53 PM
  4. oalvarez's Avatar
    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.
    09-08-2007 08:11 PM
  5. AnteL0pe's Avatar
    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.
    09-08-2007 08:13 PM
  6. mikec#IM's Avatar
    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.
    09-08-2007 11:13 PM
  7. oalvarez's Avatar
    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
    09-08-2007 11:26 PM
  8. cmaier's Avatar
    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.
    09-08-2007 11:32 PM
  9. cardfan's Avatar
    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...
    09-09-2007 03:12 AM
  10. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    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!
    09-09-2007 05:30 AM
  11. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    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.
    And with those "full circle" remarks, we find ourselves back at the point where Jobs is arrogant. A point I was trying to disprove (at least in the context of the price shift).

    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.
    Of course there's a planned price cut. There's a thing called Product Life Cycle and while there's no formula for how to apply it (well there is, but THAT formula doesn't have any real numbers in it), there are tried and true methods for managing product life cycle - methods Apple has re-proven time and again. It's what drives their meteoric stock price. They know how to introduce a product, they know how to keep that product viable for a good amount of time, and they generally know how to replace the product with a next-generation new product. They don't generally introduce a wholly new product with a planned 33% price cut in the first quarter of sales. That's too volatile for us stockholders.

    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.
    An interesting viewpoint. I'm trying to decide which market would be most insulted by that kind of marketing plan, the subsidizers or the charity cases? While I agree a product's price will be forced to decrease over time (as it matures), especially in the tech industry, to plan the market shift the second month after introduction is unprecedented...and by unprecedented I mean it's never been done intentionally. Remember, these guys are trying to show quarterly results to a bunch of greedy, hi-expectation stockholders. Intentionally catering to two distinct markets inside of one quarter with a major price chop looks like a mistake and stock prices will likely reflect that.
    09-09-2007 05:57 AM
  12. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Oalveraz,

    People understand my points fine. Some even provide counterarguments. You just ignore because you can't respond. As you say, whatever.

    As for my "pile" of a Treo, it's interesting you can separate the product from the company. I have tons of Apple stuff, and they make so great products...some the actaully have cut and paste.

    That doesn't mean I blindly appologize for their miscues across the board.

    Introducing a product, then 60 days later, whacking it 33% is just not an idea that is well received. Imagine if you bought that new BMW for 66K, and then it was 44K two months later. People just have a gut reaction to that.

    Anyway, let's blame everything on Palm, it solves everything. (seems to work with Bush).

    As for the ringtones, Apple is not being forced to charged - they want to. And to be able to offer "any part of the song", you have to buy the whole song - twice.

    The market will move to buy content once, use (personally) how you want. This is what people will do, regardless of controls put out there, because it goes to the core feeling of "fair". People have no problem paying for content - thet just don't like paying for it over and over and over and over again.
    09-09-2007 11:56 AM
  13. oalvarez's Avatar
    Imagine if you bought that new BMW for 66K, and then it was 44K two months later. People just have a gut reaction to that.
    actually not all that far off!
    09-09-2007 12:39 PM
  14. AnteL0pe's Avatar
    we find ourselves back at the point where Jobs is arrogant.
    Of course he is, who would argue that he isnt?

    They don't generally introduce a wholly new product with a planned 33% price cut in the first quarter of sales. That's too volatile for us stockholders.
    I agree that this price drop was more dramatic and sooner than I expected, but I think everyone knew there would be a price drop before Christmas.

    An interesting viewpoint. I'm trying to decide which market would be most insulted by that kind of marketing plan, the subsidizers or the charity cases?
    Not sure why either would be. Some people want the newest shiny object the second it's released and those people are willing to pay a premium. Others are willing to wait to get it a bit cheaper.

    Intentionally catering to two distinct markets inside of one quarter with a major price chop looks like a mistake and stock prices will likely reflect that.
    No doubt it was a fast reaction, probably because they either sold iPhones to all the early adopters faster than expected or there simply weren't as many early adopters as expected. One of those is great news, one isnt. Their stock price did take a hit.
    09-09-2007 10:17 PM
  15. oalvarez's Avatar
    People understand my points fine. Some even provide counterarguments. You just ignore because you can't respond. As you say, whatever.

    As for my "pile" of a Treo, it's interesting you can separate the product from the company. I have tons of Apple stuff, and they make so great products...some the actaully have cut and paste.

    That doesn't mean I blindly appologize for their miscues across the board.
    Treos are a pile. many here will admit to such, that's why they're here.

    Your writing/spelling makes it difficult to comprehend what you're trying to say.

    Congrats on owning "apple stuff" that "cuts and pastes"

    what is your point again?
    09-09-2007 11:08 PM
  16. mikec#IM's Avatar
    SAND, Oalveraz, SAND.

    My apologies for the typos and spelling mistakes...sucky Treo doesn't have spellcheck, just like most (all?) mobile broswers. (Please note that "word suggest" is not a spellchecker.
    You seem to understand them just fine.

    Apple Desktops have cut and paste. Too bad the iPhone doesn't.

    The Treo has influences every smartphone made in the past 5 years. Pile, yea, whatever.
    09-09-2007 11:41 PM
  17. Pearl_Diva's Avatar
    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?
    Actually it was. I hesitated in buying the $2800 Powerbook that was out at the time, due to that. But that was a while ago(I think 2002 but am not sure), and that's why I forgot the exact details.
    09-10-2007 04:42 AM
  18. AnteL0pe's Avatar
    putting other devices down to make you happier with yours is lame. My 650 was a great phone, it was a love hate relationship, but there was far more love in there. I still keep mine around to run my TomTom software, but havent once been tempted to put my SIM back in it. For me, and many many others, the iPhone is a far better and more capable phone. What it does it does better than any other phone out there IMHO. It has its shortcomings, but these are issues that will most likely be fixed. The ability to add 3rd party apps is something i expect to see. Copy/paste would be nice, but i havent missed it yet.
    09-10-2007 08:01 AM
  19. AnteL0pe's Avatar
    Looks like Apple must not have been far off their 1,000,000th iPhone sale before the price drop because they hit it on Friday.

    http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/09/10iphone.html

    http://forum.phonedifferent.com/show....php?p=1343765
    09-10-2007 09:14 AM
  20. cmaier's Avatar
    I needed some data off my treo 650 last night (it's been sitting in my nightstand drawer for about a month and a half). I plugged it in, because the battery was dead. (Syncing had long since become a crapshoot, so I couldn't get the info off my PC).

    Anyway, last night I left the treo on my nightstand, and go to sleep. Just as my eyes close, I sense a bright light. I look over, and the treo was spontaneously rebooting itself.

    Boy, I don't miss my treo.

    Anyway...

    That 1,000,000 iphone news is very confusing. Unless there was a mad rush after the discount news, it seems they were well on track to hit their sales goals without the discount (at least for the current quarter). And they normally don't announce a discount due to new products until the new products are out. Well, Apple is never boring, at least.

    Update: just noticed a report on gizmodo that apple took the "add a new calendar entry" feature out of the ipod touch. That would be somewhat comical. (And the "add a new contact" feature is apparently still there. If they are trying to make the iphone look better, why not get rid of both?)
    09-10-2007 10:09 AM
  21. mikec#IM's Avatar
    I don't think the price cut pushed it over the 1M mark...they were close already.

    I'd like to see the AT&T activation number as well.

    Maybe we will start seeing more in the wild.

    But good news for Apple and shareholders.
    09-10-2007 10:32 AM
  22. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    Looks like "The Woz" also disgrees with his former partner's price cut/refund approach according to this article. I'm believing more and more it was a poorly-planned, knee-jerk overreaction to stagnated sales. Wonder if the sales numbers were jump-started by that fanboy-insulting price drop?
    09-24-2007 04:36 PM
72 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD