Still More Apple Pwnage

[Agathon]

Originally posted by thesilentone

4. counter proposal - that apple slashed the price because much of the same functionality is in the new ipod touch, a possibly fair comment but also short sighted - people WILL pay a premium to have 1 device in their pockets instead of two. How is a $400 ipod an equal competitor to a $400 dollar iphone with the same capabilities plus being a phone?

The $400 iPod has twice as much storage as the phone. The $300 iPod has the same storage as the iPhone. $100 for phone functionality seems reasonable to me.

What was unreasonable was charging $300 for an 8GB touch screen iPod and $600 for the same thing plus a phone.

[Asher]

What is unreasonable is assuming the iPod Touch's price was set in stone before its release. I think it's very clear its price will always be relative to the iPhone's.

[thesilentone]

Originally posted by Agathon


The $400 iPod has twice as much storage as the phone. The $300 iPod has the same storage as the iPhone. $100 for phone functionality seems reasonable to me.

What was unreasonable was charging $300 for an 8GB touch screen iPod and $600 for the same thing plus a phone.

Ok, that seems reasonable (bet you don't hear THAT too often on here..) it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth though, I know i'd be majorly p'd off if someone dropped $200 off the price barely 2 months after it came out.

I still see two problems though, that they priced it so high to start with if they could cut prices so quickly (or even planned to as seems likely) and that the high tech conscious fashionistas would still be paying that $600 for quite a few months more if not for the cut, so why cut so soon? More market share quickly? Ok... but if you're willing to annoy your early adopters so much for a quick cash grab, why not be fully capitalist, wait 6 months before the drop and p*ss less people off?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by thesilentone


Ok, that seems reasonable (bet you don't hear THAT too often on here..) it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth though, I know i'd be majorly p'd off if someone dropped $200 off the price barely 2 months after it came out.

I still see two problems though, that they priced it so high to start with if they could cut prices so quickly (or even planned to as seems likely) and that the high tech conscious fashionistas would still be paying that $600 for quite a few months more if not for the cut, so why cut so soon? More market share quickly? Ok... but if you're willing to annoy your early adopters so much for a quick cash grab, why not be fully capitalist, wait 6 months before the drop and p*ss less people off?

As I said in the previous thread. The price drop is somewhat illusory. If you buy an iPhone, you've committed yourself to paying over $2000 over the course of 2 years. $200 off that isn't that much.

I expect the iPhone to cost $200 within a year and probably less. Motorola's RAZR was $500 when it came out and was down to $100 within the year.

[Asher]

As I said in the previous thread. The price drop is somewhat illusory.

Face it, Aggy, Apple pricegouged its loyal early adopters to earn an extra buck. Why bother trying to excuse it? $200 is a lot of money, there's nothing illusionary about it.

[Pekka]

Wait. $2000 for AT&T and this doesn't yet include the iPhone itself?

[Kidlicious]

Who can look at this for free at their institution?

The Right to Return
Eugene Kandel
Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Apr., 1996), pp. 329-356
This article consists of 28 page(s).

[Asher]

Not me. So much for finding a link.

[thesilentone]

Originally posted by Agathon


As I said in the previous thread. The price drop is somewhat illusory. If you buy an iPhone, you've committed yourself to paying over $2000 over the course of 2 years. $200 off that isn't that much.

I expect the iPhone to cost $200 within a year and probably less. Motorola's RAZR was $500 when it came out and was down to $100 within the year.

I could be way off here, but from other discussions i've seen, only the $600/400 iphone is abnormal, the ATT monthly costs are broadly similar to the other phones they offer. So the line rental fee is irrelevant.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
Not me. So much for finding a link.

No, I didn't think you would look at it. That would be inconvenient for you.

[Asher]

Considering I work for a software consulting company, exactly how would I look at it?

I also doubt an article from 11 years ago would contain adequate information on cell phone industry policies anyway, don't you think?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
Considering I work for a software consulting company, exactly how would I look at it?

If someone were to tell you what it said, you would say something like....

I also doubt an article from 11 years ago would contain adequate information on cell phone industry policies anyway, don't you think?

It would just be inconvenient for you, like the other sources I posted. You found some reason that they didn't mean anything.

[Asher]

You're not fooling anyone. You said you could easily find a link to support your claim, and you simply have not.

You can not.

[thesilentone]

Originally posted by Kidicious

If someone were to tell you what it said, you would say something like....


It would just be inconvenient for you, like the other sources I posted. You found some reason that they didn't mean anything.

Do you always live in a world of absolutes? No grey areas? Or have ideas like "fast evolving markets" or "not binded by history" completely evaded you?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by thesilentone


Do you always live in a world of absolutes? No grey areas? Or have ideas like "fast evolving markets" or "not binded by history" completely evaded you?

I see the world pretty black and white (actually blacker than white), and believe that my preceptions are correct.

People often accuse me of that, and it's true.