Forums | MacLife

thugmoni wrote:

So you thought Apple was not for profit?

It isn't listed on the stock exchange as AAPL?

They don't have shareholders that would fire Steve if they don't make enough money?

They don't have a board of directors just like any other corporation looking to up the bottom line?

More to the point of the article, "You thought the RIAA wasn't evil and that Apple wasn't cooperating with them?"

There's nothing greedier than cutting the price of a product by $200 bucks a couple of months after its release.

thugmoni wrote:

So you thought Apple was not for profit?

It isn't listed on the stock exchange as AAPL?

You know, these people give valid complaints and reasons (and the article is written by Wil Shipley), and the best you can do is insinuate that the original poster is too dumb to understand basic concepts like that? Why is it so hard to have a mature discussion when anything even remotely anti-Apple is brought up?

Fair enough. I guess we'll have to wait for Cobalt60 to present his case. I figured we were supposed to go off of what Wil Shipley said.

Wait. You want them to charge a premium for something cool, right? Well, a while ago the premium cool iPod cost $300. It was cool, and it was Apple selling to us at a premium.

This device is totally cool. It surfs the web, plays movies, and plays music. And guess what? It's $300.

Why are you upset again? How is this not Apple selling us something cool at a premium?

[edit] Oh, and they just cut the iPhone's price by $200. Price gouging? I don't think so. (forget the first two months of the increased price. it's the world of tech. it happens. that's why you wait for the second gen product. can't wait? you pay the price. suck it up.)

Last edited by Shadowless (2007-09-21 6:59 pm)

He's referencing how people gladly shell out cash to own the latest Apple gizmos (even if they don't really need it), as opposed to buying something because you don't have much of a choice.

Anyway, did you really have to quote him as "what a flawed point" and suggest he's stupid just because you disagree with him? You're only proving my point about how it's nearly impossible to have a civilized discussion here.

Last edited by imikedaman (2007-09-22 5:24 am)

imikedaman wrote:

He's referencing how people gladly shell out cash to own the latest Apple gizmos (even if they don't really need it), as opposed to buying something because you don't have much of a choice.

Anyway, did you really have to quote him as "what a flawed point" and suggest he's stupid just because you disagree with him? You're only proving my point about how it's nearly impossible to have a civilized discussion here.

Disagreement has nothing to do with his own flawed point.  Is it impossible now to point out a fallacy around here without someone brining up the challenges of having a civilized conversation?  Oh well - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't quite pick up on the complete flawed logic of his closing statement.

"The point of any company should be to make customers want to give it money, NOT to get money from customers (when they don't want to give it money)."

The parenthesis added by me, because they are implied by the structure of the statement and were not added to avoid redundancy.  This is what makes him look foolish - he wrote the statement with certain words and a certain structure that asks a question that can only have stupid answers.  You can never be forced to give a company money if you don't want to.

Why didn't he just say it the way you did - that was well written and makes sense - I agree with it.  We want Apple to make great products we want to buy.  Totally agree with that.  Don't use tactics that appear to try get us locked in or appear to be strong-armed.  (Notice I used the word appear).

But don't tell me anyone is forced to buy iPods, iTunes Music, or for that matter, even windows.  It is completely flawed logic.  They have choices - in the case of the Apple products - a lot of them.  That is why it is just an "apperance".  At the end of the day, you can always not buy them.

Last edited by Czachorski (2007-09-22 7:58 am)

Cobalt60 wrote:

My own experience in researching the iPhone and the Touch has led me to tentatively conclude that because only Apple makes the iPhone and because only AT&T provides the service they have exploited their position to charge a fairly high rate for the service.

You don't think that if the iPhone were open that competing cell companies wouldn't offer a cheaper rate plan?

So it's the sudden reality hitting you that is stinging.  Apple is not the defender of the consumer.  They are out to make a profit like anyone else.  I've accpeted that a long time ago.  If they can make it appear that they are aligning with the consumer, by battling the record companies to keep simple, low prices, so they can sell iPods, they will certainly do it.  But make no mistake, they are not doing it out of their love and passion for consumer rights.

Czachorski wrote:

Is it impossible now to point out a fallacy around here without someone brining up the challenges of having a civilized conversation?

Oh come on, you know I was referencing how you were suggesting the guy is stupid. There's just no need for things like that.

You can never be forced to give a company money if you don't want to.

I see; I didn't realize the disagreement was over the literal interpretation of the statement - technically "make" is synonymous with "force", which of course would mean "force people to want to pay", and that doesn't make much sense.

Even then, I definitely feel forced to pay my taxes and repay my loans. I might be wrong on this, but can't they repossess your belongings and throw you in jail? Plus those times I gladly sign up for a service, then realize there are unexpected hidden charges and cancelation fees that can't seem to be avoided.

The guy is more or less a troll a la Rob Enderle, John Dvorak, or Kim Commando style, drumming up his own business by bashing others

Not really - the guy is a pretty big Apple fan, and has been for ages. I didn't think he had it in him to rant about Apple to the degree he did. I guess I just don't see the big picture, but how would harming his target market drum up his own business? He's just pissed off.

imikedaman wrote:

He's referencing how people gladly shell out cash to own the latest Apple gizmos (even if they don't really need it), as opposed to buying something because you don't have much of a choice.

Anyway, did you really have to quote him as "what a flawed point" and suggest he's stupid just because you disagree with him? You're only proving my point about how it's nearly impossible to have a civilized discussion here.

Now you're making it sound like opinions should go unchallenged, lest the conversation become "uncivilized." 

I got one (Star Spangled Banner) for free from Nokia and that was it. All the others would've costed me a buck. I really miss Nokia's ringtone composer (settled on a POS Motorola).

...can't you do it on an iPhone without paying for it?