"Why do you feel cheated if an item's price is dropped after you've purchased one? Presumably you bought it because you felt that the value it gave you exceeded the price they asked for it. What about that equation changes if the price for some other person or at some other time is different?"
I appreciate the inquiry. Let me explain my complaint.
It has nothing to do with what someone else bought it for. I wouldn't have been a buyer in the first place if I had any suspicion that the price would drop. I trusted Apple to follow the pricing structure that they have followed with every other product they have sold. The have a fixed price that they stick to until they release something better, usually many months later. You knew that buying it the day it comes out, or 6 months later, it's going to be very near to the original price. So there was no incentive for me to wait to buy their product.
"They did, with the original iPod. The difference was that the time interval was greater and that they introduced a newer model to occupy the original high price point rather than completely eliminate the price point. Of course, Apple may yet announce a new and improved model for the $5xx price point."
The time interval was 4 1/2 times as long actually. 2 months vs. 9 months.
5GB G1 iPod at launch = $399
5GB G2 at launch 9 months later = $299 (Who remembers how much the G1's sold for just before the G2 launch?)
So, twice the drop in price 4 1/2 times as quickly?
This would be a particularly poor time to sell me a new phone.
That's the way a lot of retail works, I understand. But that's not how Apple worked.
I bought a Nano from Apple when it first came out. It cost $249, and it was worth $249. That's why I bought it. The thing sold for $249 for quite some time, right about until the new one came out a year and a half later.
If Apple would have been known for releasing items, then cutting the price, I wouldn't have bought it. And if the price would have dropped to $166 in 8 weeks they would have lost a customer then instead of now.
Apple is better than that. When they said they weren't going to allow the carriers to subsidize the phones (Ala RAZR) they were making a firm statement that the iPhone will cost $499 and $599. Period. No $99 iPhone BS like you saw with the RAZR. Hell, that's the reason I never got a RAZR either.
They really need to realize that they are burning a lot of consumer capital here.
The whole reason I have no issue with paying the retail price for an Apple product. I bought my Nano the day it came out, and until the 2nd gen version came out it cost $249. I wouldn't have bought the Nano if it was going to come down in price in a few weeks, and I wouldn't ever buy another of their products if it dropped to $166 in 2 months.
I understand that is the way a lot of retail works. I literally expect it from every other company except Apple. Rest assured, if they don't do something about it, it will be the most expensive $200 they ever get from me.
Or you want to wait 2 months for Apple drop the price by a third, thus punishing the early adopters that did their beta testing and protheletizing for them.
Thanks again Apple! That will be the most expensive $200 you ever get out of me.
Seriously. Substitute those numbers and imagine this was for cars instead.
The new %CAR% is out... so what are your plans?
2% said they are already have a new %CAR%
9% said they planned to buy a new %CAR% in the next three months.
87% said they would stay with the car they have now.
8% of those polled thought about building their own car from a kit.
4% said they were trying to find a way to afford a McLaren F1.
Now what would you call a line that took those numbers and said "...many will 'either stick with the car they have, or build their own, or buy a McLaren F1'...?
You don't own your license plate. You drive on public roads. In public, you have no expectation of privacy. The government has every right to monitor their plate in public. The ACLU is doing the right thing by bringing this to light, but I don't see what they have to stand on.
On that note, there's not much that would stop a company from doing the same thing. For instance, the toll road company here in California records your plate. So what's to stop a company from putting a high-res camera on billboards, for instance, collecting the same data and selling it? There wouldn't even have to be a correlation to the plate info at the DMV. So that tells you where that car was, or more accurately, only where that plate was. So this company could charge nothing for the data on where the plate was and when, then charge for the hi-res frames showing the driver/car/passengers and cars it might be following or cars following it.
What I would love about such a system is the ability to start a moderation system for cars. That idiot who was yapping on a cell and nearly clipped me at 90MPH in a 9 ton mallrunner SUV? -1 Inconsiderate asshole. The guy who stopped in time for the crosswalk? +1 Paying Attention. I could check on the plate before buying a car. I could report drunk or reckless drivers. People would have a reason to pay some attention again.
This is already available from a technological standpoint. Hell, I'd be surprised if there wasn't already something in place at some level.
1. Someone will fix some bugs. If someone feels like it. Maybe... Someday... (Pack a lunch... the 8618 open defects in the issue list, spanning several years, takes a while to open.)
2. The next version might emulate half of the look and feel that MS office had 5 years ago. Poorly. Oh, is that memory? I'll just take that.
3. If it takes you more than 5 years to get comforatble with a product, this is the one for you. We'll never change a thing. And we'll keep up the same level of support forever! (See item #1.)
4. And a bonus... it's Open! So the other two OO users can read your documents too! For "Free"!
...Is what sold for the LEAST. Did they have a scarf that Dustin Hoffman wore in "Ishtar"? Kevin Bacon's Bike from "Quicksilver"? Someone had to get some bargains there.
"I myself downloaded IE7 because I just missed checkbox in the custom download options while getting security updates. That doesn't mean I'm actually using it."
Damnit! Now we'll have to change the title to "After 100 million IE7 downloads and 99,999,999 installations...";)
"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."'"
Why in the hell did the reporter continue to listen after "...14,000 years old". If the person had started to say "...I believe I am Napoleon and therefore global warming is wrong..." they would have backed away from that nutjob and looked for a more salient point of view. What the hell does any one's silly religious superstitions have to do with showing a science based documentary in a school? Seems to me that they can't attack the science so they make it about condoms and Al Gore.
In closing, I hope this guy gets vicious, painful ass-cancer.
I used to love to read the political stories and just read through the comments that would get posted. The truly cream-of-the-crop crazies are all over those boards. You couldn't ask for a more truly represenative slice of Americana. Some of my favorites:
1. The subject line only flamebaiters. Say the most offensive thing possible in one line and leave.
2. The "HOW DARE YOU" right wingers. Usually taking the bait from #1 forming a poorly written 3000 word essay that #1 will never read.
3. The super-christians (Cape included) who capitolize LORD, GOD, WORD, TRUTH. Cherry pick parts they want to argue about from #2.
4. The super-non christians who take every opportunity to tell #3 how silly they are.
5. The Israel/Zionist/N.W.O. connection conspiricy theorists. ...on and on.
That's the only thing I'm going to miss. That when a good story came through it was better than a car crash, it's like watching a motorcycle and a car wreck with a train and then having a helicopter crash into it followed by a jetliner. How can you NOT watch!
"But only three of those probabilities have to be 1 in 100 for you to end with 1 advanced civilisation. From whose ass does he pull the 1 in 10 probabilities for everything?"
Yes, but if you consider that there are roughly 140 billion visible galaxies in the universe, and typical galaxies contain ten million to one trillion stars, you can easily overcome even the 1/100 odds.
Not that it really matters, with the distances involved we'll be swallowed by the sun before most of them could hear us say "Hello".
Re:Paris Hilton should be on every list
on
Top Ten Geek Girls
·
· Score: 1
"What exactly do you mean?!? "wouldn't" used in conjunction with "isn't" is a double negative and makes your statement difficult to follow, even though the second part of the statement suggests you meant to use only one negative..."
Therefore, you should do something like this:
"... but I wouldn't be surprised if Paris isn't not the first female US president..." Thus forming a triple negative and restoring order to the universe.
"I disagree. I believe it is quite relevant. I believe that the most educated, qualified, intelligent and scrupulous candidate should win out over the tallest. I believe that an informed voting base would be a proper step in realizing that goal. Disabling the uninformed would also further that goal."
I think that physical fitness is important to a president. After all, we don't want some really fat president keeling over with a heart attack.
My co-worker thinks that shouldn't matter, and the less time the president spends on himself, the better. After all, he's got a country to run.
My mom thinks a female should be president.
My dad thinks Bush is doing a bang-up job and deserves 2 more terms.
So tell me, which of these people is qualified to vote? Disabling the uninformed does nothing more than create an elitist governing board who will no doubt become corrupt in no time at all. While I understand your point, and I cringe when I hear someone say they voted for [Insert Politician/Party/Prop. I hate] too, I don't think this is the way to solve it. I'd like to see some way that would work, it's simply unworkable.
For example, you are obviously looking at this from the point of view that you are one of the "Qualified Voters". So what if you weren't? What if the requirements become so restrictive that only a few thousand people can get that status? What if lobbyists were the only ones "Qualified"? I guarantee that they know more about politics and issues than you or I, right?
Sadly, the stupid people of this country deserve a vote too.
Exactly. The test will be just as corrupt as the ability to count votes or make a fair voting machine. Not to mention, you still have to somehow grade those tests accurately, which brings you to yet another sum that can be altered. Then you need a system for appeals. All of that, altered anywhere along the way by the powers on any side. No thanks.
Fundamentally, any time you remove the right to vote from any person that will be governed, you are less democratic.
That said, I don't like the idea of faster feedback either. There are already measures to remove someone from power. Once you start trying to make it easier to remove people, we'll get even less done, even more secrecy, and it will turn into one big campaign. (Even more than it already has.) I think 4 years is about the perfect amount of time to really make sure someone is either doing well, or needs to be replaced. Anything less, and they just blame the problems on inheritance from the last guy. Anything more, and they can get into too much trouble.
On my previous post: Compulsory voting, while not perfect, would certainly solve the problem I was referring to. It won't solve the problem of "crowd behavior" though, because that's not a problem. The accurate capture of the opinions about leadership of this nation at a single point in time is the problem. The sad fact that far too many people have little or no interest in that, and are woefully uninformed or, arguably, misinformed is irrelevant. Just because a voter believes John Kerry should win because he's taller, that shouldn't be more important than your vote. Nor should your vote be more important just because you took the time to learn about the issues. And if you want a test of that idea, consider how many people would like to remove your vote because you are considered immoral by their standards? Is that really any different?
Come to think of it, you could even argue that the system works too well if people don't have the passion to change it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Politicians are..." yields more accurate results.
Bravo AC! You have managed to deftly avoid the point that I made, and misunderstand the entire arguement. Great job.
I appreciate the inquiry. Let me explain my complaint.
It has nothing to do with what someone else bought it for. I wouldn't have been a buyer in the first place if I had any suspicion that the price would drop. I trusted Apple to follow the pricing structure that they have followed with every other product they have sold. The have a fixed price that they stick to until they release something better, usually many months later. You knew that buying it the day it comes out, or 6 months later, it's going to be very near to the original price. So there was no incentive for me to wait to buy their product.
The time interval was 4 1/2 times as long actually. 2 months vs. 9 months.
5GB G1 iPod at launch = $399
5GB G2 at launch 9 months later = $299 (Who remembers how much the G1's sold for just before the G2 launch?)
So, twice the drop in price 4 1/2 times as quickly?
This would be a particularly poor time to sell me a new phone.
I bought a Nano from Apple when it first came out. It cost $249, and it was worth $249. That's why I bought it. The thing sold for $249 for quite some time, right about until the new one came out a year and a half later.
If Apple would have been known for releasing items, then cutting the price, I wouldn't have bought it. And if the price would have dropped to $166 in 8 weeks they would have lost a customer then instead of now.
Apple is better than that. When they said they weren't going to allow the carriers to subsidize the phones (Ala RAZR) they were making a firm statement that the iPhone will cost $499 and $599. Period. No $99 iPhone BS like you saw with the RAZR. Hell, that's the reason I never got a RAZR either.
They really need to realize that they are burning a lot of consumer capital here.
The whole reason I have no issue with paying the retail price for an Apple product. I bought my Nano the day it came out, and until the 2nd gen version came out it cost $249. I wouldn't have bought the Nano if it was going to come down in price in a few weeks, and I wouldn't ever buy another of their products if it dropped to $166 in 2 months.
I understand that is the way a lot of retail works. I literally expect it from every other company except Apple. Rest assured, if they don't do something about it, it will be the most expensive $200 they ever get from me.
Thanks again Apple! That will be the most expensive $200 you ever get out of me.
And they didn't have the drug to sell, so they hadn't invented the disease yet.
Monkeys in tuxedos fighting penguins in monkey suits.
(Please do not go see this movie if you haven't yet. It's really not worth getting the joke if you have to see this movie.)
The new %CAR% is out... so what are your plans?
2% said they are already have a new %CAR%
9% said they planned to buy a new %CAR% in the next three months.
87% said they would stay with the car they have now.
8% of those polled thought about building their own car from a kit.
4% said they were trying to find a way to afford a McLaren F1.
Now what would you call a line that took those numbers and said "...many will 'either stick with the car they have, or build their own, or buy a McLaren F1'...?
On that note, there's not much that would stop a company from doing the same thing. For instance, the toll road company here in California records your plate. So what's to stop a company from putting a high-res camera on billboards, for instance, collecting the same data and selling it? There wouldn't even have to be a correlation to the plate info at the DMV. So that tells you where that car was, or more accurately, only where that plate was. So this company could charge nothing for the data on where the plate was and when, then charge for the hi-res frames showing the driver/car/passengers and cars it might be following or cars following it.
What I would love about such a system is the ability to start a moderation system for cars. That idiot who was yapping on a cell and nearly clipped me at 90MPH in a 9 ton mallrunner SUV? -1 Inconsiderate asshole. The guy who stopped in time for the crosswalk? +1 Paying Attention. I could check on the plate before buying a car. I could report drunk or reckless drivers. People would have a reason to pay some attention again.
This is already available from a technological standpoint. Hell, I'd be surprised if there wasn't already something in place at some level.
1. Someone will fix some bugs. If someone feels like it. Maybe... Someday... (Pack a lunch... the 8618 open defects in the issue list, spanning several years, takes a while to open.)
2. The next version might emulate half of the look and feel that MS office had 5 years ago. Poorly. Oh, is that memory? I'll just take that.
3. If it takes you more than 5 years to get comforatble with a product, this is the one for you. We'll never change a thing. And we'll keep up the same level of support forever! (See item #1.)
4. And a bonus... it's Open! So the other two OO users can read your documents too! For "Free"!
Entrapment isn't illegal. It's a legal defense.
Spyware isn't illegal either per se.
You missed a perfect opportunity to point out that the grandmotherboard has a ZIF socket.
...Is what sold for the LEAST. Did they have a scarf that Dustin Hoffman wore in "Ishtar"? Kevin Bacon's Bike from "Quicksilver"? Someone had to get some bargains there.
...someone could do the same study for people that have won Time's Man of the Year!
Damnit! Now we'll have to change the title to "After 100 million IE7 downloads and 99,999,999 installations..." ;)
Why in the hell did the reporter continue to listen after "...14,000 years old". If the person had started to say "...I believe I am Napoleon and therefore global warming is wrong..." they would have backed away from that nutjob and looked for a more salient point of view. What the hell does any one's silly religious superstitions have to do with showing a science based documentary in a school? Seems to me that they can't attack the science so they make it about condoms and Al Gore.
In closing, I hope this guy gets vicious, painful ass-cancer.
1. The subject line only flamebaiters. Say the most offensive thing possible in one line and leave.
...on and on.
2. The "HOW DARE YOU" right wingers. Usually taking the bait from #1 forming a poorly written 3000 word essay that #1 will never read.
3. The super-christians (Cape included) who capitolize LORD, GOD, WORD, TRUTH. Cherry pick parts they want to argue about from #2.
4. The super-non christians who take every opportunity to tell #3 how silly they are.
5. The Israel/Zionist/N.W.O. connection conspiricy theorists.
That's the only thing I'm going to miss. That when a good story came through it was better than a car crash, it's like watching a motorcycle and a car wreck with a train and then having a helicopter crash into it followed by a jetliner. How can you NOT watch!
Yes, but if you consider that there are roughly 140 billion visible galaxies in the universe, and typical galaxies contain ten million to one trillion stars, you can easily overcome even the 1/100 odds.
Not that it really matters, with the distances involved we'll be swallowed by the sun before most of them could hear us say "Hello".
Therefore, you should do something like this:
"... but I wouldn't be surprised if Paris isn't not the first female US president..." Thus forming a triple negative and restoring order to the universe.
I think that physical fitness is important to a president. After all, we don't want some really fat president keeling over with a heart attack.
My co-worker thinks that shouldn't matter, and the less time the president spends on himself, the better. After all, he's got a country to run.
My mom thinks a female should be president.
My dad thinks Bush is doing a bang-up job and deserves 2 more terms.
So tell me, which of these people is qualified to vote? Disabling the uninformed does nothing more than create an elitist governing board who will no doubt become corrupt in no time at all. While I understand your point, and I cringe when I hear someone say they voted for [Insert Politician/Party/Prop. I hate] too, I don't think this is the way to solve it. I'd like to see some way that would work, it's simply unworkable.
For example, you are obviously looking at this from the point of view that you are one of the "Qualified Voters". So what if you weren't? What if the requirements become so restrictive that only a few thousand people can get that status? What if lobbyists were the only ones "Qualified"? I guarantee that they know more about politics and issues than you or I, right?
Sadly, the stupid people of this country deserve a vote too.
Fundamentally, any time you remove the right to vote from any person that will be governed, you are less democratic.
That said, I don't like the idea of faster feedback either. There are already measures to remove someone from power. Once you start trying to make it easier to remove people, we'll get even less done, even more secrecy, and it will turn into one big campaign. (Even more than it already has.) I think 4 years is about the perfect amount of time to really make sure someone is either doing well, or needs to be replaced. Anything less, and they just blame the problems on inheritance from the last guy. Anything more, and they can get into too much trouble.
On my previous post: Compulsory voting, while not perfect, would certainly solve the problem I was referring to. It won't solve the problem of "crowd behavior" though, because that's not a problem. The accurate capture of the opinions about leadership of this nation at a single point in time is the problem. The sad fact that far too many people have little or no interest in that, and are woefully uninformed or, arguably, misinformed is irrelevant. Just because a voter believes John Kerry should win because he's taller, that shouldn't be more important than your vote. Nor should your vote be more important just because you took the time to learn about the issues. And if you want a test of that idea, consider how many people would like to remove your vote because you are considered immoral by their standards? Is that really any different?
Come to think of it, you could even argue that the system works too well if people don't have the passion to change it.