Decaflon

There are software tools to put your own ringtones on for free. You're right in that apple is following the current cell business model, and I'd almost be willing to put money on it being a stipulation in the cingular contract somewhere. You're right, it isn't very apple. It would've been a much better model to destroy the competition completely just by allowing you to use any of your purchased music with no additional charge.

i don't understand why you buy a ringtone. Mine is here.

DALE

There are solutions to BUY ringtones and there are solutions to make them and install them for free.

What's your beef? I've been a Cingular customer for years and I can tell you, $0.99 for a ringtone is WELCOME... I recall paying $1.99 for a ringtone from Cingular.

That is a little disgusting that you can buy a whole song on iTunes for $0.99 or you can buy a 30 second clip for $0.99. Music shouldn't be like packaged food--buying small shouldn't hurt.

@RightOn

It's unscrupulous, unethical, unnecessary profiteering.

US fair use laws are pretty open minded. Using a piece of music you have bought legitimately as a ring tone for your own personal use to alert you to an incoming call or text message is clearly 'fair use'.

charging money for the privilege is pathetic, Apple's going down the wrong road with this crap. They should have stayed out of the cell phone business, nothing there but trouble.

Apple is the same company that charges $1.99 to unlock 802.11n, a function that is built into the $1,100+ machine that you JUST PAID FOR!!

Are you really that surprised?

It's unscrupulous, unethical, unnecessary profiteering.

BULL SQUEEZE

It is a proven fact that you CAN take music you already own and make it into a ringtone FREE OF CHARGE and install it on your iPhone.

Charging money for a service, and a product is not evil, it's how you make money to put towards future R&D to bring more innovation to your industry.

They're not charging money for the "privilege" they're charging money because it's not FREE for them to provide the service to MILLIONS of people.

I don't know what "bull squeeze" is and I probably don't want to know either. (if you want to say bull shit then just come out with it!)

For Apple to create a software device to make a ringtone from a piece of music would require about 24 hours R&D to achieve, it's the same mechanism they use on the itunes store to play the 30 second previews.

Besides, they already screwed their customers out of about $150million with the artificially high price of the iPhone, so I think they got the R&D cost covered.

And i say this as someone who has spent $15,000 on Apple products and software. They make good kit, there's no need for them to behave like republican congressman who needs a new boat! (couldn't resist that!)

Jackosh,

Apple charges $1.99 for 802.11n because they have to charge something. It's not an approved spec, so they don't release it by default. They give people that want it anyway a way to get it. They could do it cheaper, sure, but because of all the sabarnes-oxeley accounting regulations, if they don't charge for it they're in danger. I'm sure the $1.99 price point was come up as a way to recoup bandwidth, transaction fees, and help support the development of further enhancements on their wifi hardware.

Article19,

I think Apple could have done things better with the ringtones, but it's entirely in their court what they do. It's not in any way unethical. Making profit is not evil. They could charge $10 a ringtone and it would be completely ethical. Sure, no one would buy them, but that's the point isn't it? If a year from now ringtone sales are abysmal, I bet they'll lower the price or make it free.

I don't think there's such a thing as "unecessary profiteering." If people are willing to pay for it, then you win. If they're not, you lose. It's entirely up to the customer. I might use that term if Apple decided to place a surcharge on every call you made, but again, that model would fail so it'd be silly to do. Apple's been extravagantly successful with their media and media player business, more so than any competitor. It won't be long before they're the #1 music retailer in the USA. Why do you think that is? Because people want what they offer, and like the way they offer it.

it's the same mechanism they use on the itunes store to play the 30 second previews.

PURE conjecture... it may very well be but I'd like to see your proof on that one.

they already screwed their customers out of about $150million with the artificially high price of the iPhone

Yet another jab at that pure evil, acid laden concept of RETAIL PROFIT. It eats away at liberal brains faster than LSD I swear. Since when did making profit on goods and services become a BAD thing. If the price was too high, NO ONE WOULD HAVE BOUGHT ONE!

It's supply and demand... if Apple had set the price for the iPhone too low on opening day, not only would demand have increased but they would have faced MAJOR shortfalls on product and a MOUNTAIN of bad press that would have damaged profits across the board.

I've spent BOATLOADS on Apple products in my lifetime and I've never taken issue with their prices.

...and it's NOT a shocker that you would take a swipe like that. It's par for the course with you so it was about time.

of course you don't believe that corporations have ethical responsibilities toward their customers, you're a republican, that's par for the course.

you're basically saying that Apple kept the price high to keep people away from the iphone, an absurd, contradictory argument.

they knew months in advance that they would drop the price of the iphone. they knew months in advance that they were going to pull this crap with the ringtones.

any idiot with a basic understanding of marketing will tell you that hundreds of thousands of people will buy anything Apple sells at any price.

they can take the high road and refuse to cash in, because they don't need the money and the product is clearly not worth $599 because they can sell it for $399, or they can gouge the price and cash in. they chose to cash in.

You can drink all the Apple KoolAid™ you like it doesn't change the fact they they take advantage of their customers and a lot of customers defend them for it.

you're a republican, that's par for the course.

Do I NEED to scan my voter ID to show you that I am NOT a republican?

GEEZ I left that party YEARS ago. How many times do I need to say this. Just because I have conservative beliefs does NOT mean I am a Republican.

you're basically saying that Apple kept the price high to keep people away from the iphone, an absurd, contradictory argument.

Do you not understand supply/demand?

Lets say I have a widget business. Demand is SUPER high for my widget and I will be putting it on the market this Friday. I know that I have a limited supply of my widgets and an extremely high demand for them. If I price them too low, I will run out quickly and face the miserable wrath of the people who NEED one but cannot buy one and my profit will suffer. If I price them too high, no amount of demand in the world will sell them because people won't want to shell out enormous gobs of cash for them... thus a backlog in supply happens and I lose customers, again... my profit suffers.

There is ALWAYS a sweet spot for pricing that WILL curb off the impulsive buyers that don't really NEED what you're selling but WANT one. This is NEEDED in a free market system to balance out supply with demand. It's BASIC economics that you should learn in 5th grade!

There will always be people that will buy anything at any price but there are far more people out there that will stop and THINK before they buy... these are the people who will bleed you dry if you set your prices too low.

It's not surprising at all that they drop the price now... demand has leveled off and they have ample supply... if they kept it @ $599 sales would drop and *gasp* damage their profits on their product.

As an early iPhone adopter, I'm obviously not happy about the $200 price drop. Am I ready to start talking conspiracy theory? No. I think that's a little paranoid.

I think that, because Apple is getting a lot of buzz lately, people fault find more than they should. Dropping the price of a new gadget isn't an Apple specific strategy. It's a response to the market. Just like when Microsoft lowered the price of the X-Box and X=Box 360, then Sony with the entire PS line. (PS3 anyone?) If you want to talk cellular, look at the Sidekick or the Treo line.

Do I think the iPhone was priced too high? Obviously not, I bought one. But obviously Apple had to re-evaluate their own business strategy and do what they thought was best. Who are we to dictate what they should do to continue to thrive?

The choice is simple: support them or don't. But they are a company based in the retail of electronic gadgets. They are not a public service company. Their entire purpose is to make money, so don't fault them when they are successful at it.

And about the ringtones: what's the big deal? I came from Sprint. I had to pay up to $2.99 for a ring tone, no matter if it was a song I already owned. Now, I can buy a song I want for $.99, make it a ring tone for another $.99 and then keep the song forever. To me, that's a much better deal.

But that's not mandatory. I use iFuntastic already, which allows me to set my own music as ringtones - no additional cost.

good grief, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's commerce, $150million makes sense if they can get away with it. It's how oil companies get away with high fuel prices even though fuel is in huge demand.

"Who are we to dictate what they should do to continue to thrive?"

you're their customer, that's who you are. not questioning the ethics or the behaviour of companies (makers or cute phones, ipods cars or whatever) or anything else is how things end up in a mess, it's how you just got ripped off for $200.

Apple tried the same trick with Aperture. Sold it at $299 then dropped the price to $199 and gave everybody a $100 store credit. Why? because they didn't think they would get away with it (to say nothing of the competition from Lightroom). Users were mostly pro photographers who would have raised hell, but your average consumer shrugs their shoulders and moves on.

As you have illustrated!

I guess we're not seeing eye to eye. I don't see this as an ethical situation. It was a business decision that Apple made to guarantee the brand's continued success. It's not like anyone was forced to buy a product. We're all responsible for our choices and how we spend our money, no one else is.

Apple has every right to do business how they see fit. Like I said, if you don't agree with them, don't support the company. It's as simple as that. But going around and implying that changing a product line or price point is unethical is just absurd! If we applied your logic to all corporations, we'd be hard-pressed to find one you'd deem ethical.

Wal-Mart cuts their prices on perishable items as the expiration dates approach. Should they hunt down every person who bought the same item earlier and offer a refund on the difference? I bought a car earlier this year that now, because of the year model change, is cheaper. Should I go back to the dealer and demand my money back? I bought a polo at Banana Republic in May that's now on end-of-season clearance. Should I go back and demand a refund, even though I know they offer a 30-day price guarantee (as a note: Apple offers a 14 day guarantee).

All of these companies knew they'd eventually have to adjust their price to move their merchandise so, by your definition, they are unethical.

And I didn't get ripped off, that's a pretty silly assumption. That implies that, for one reason or another, I didn't fully consent to the price I paid for my phone. Obviously I did. I knew it was $599 and, in all likelihood, it would be cheaper at a later date. I still made the decision and paid the asking price. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I love this little phone - it's one of the best investments I've ever made.

of course you don't believe that corporations have ethical responsibilities toward their customers, you're a republican, that's par for the course.

Corporations have an ethical responsibility to deliver what they say they are going to deliver, for the price they say they're going to deliver it. That can change at any time. No one is tricked into this, or forced to buy a product. You can't quantify a company's ethics when all it's products are luxury items and everyone is free to buy or not buy what they judge is worth the asking cost. It's perfectly just already.

they knew months in advance that they would drop the price of the iphone. they knew months in advance that they were going to pull this crap with the ringtones.

While this may be likely, you have absolutely no idea if it's true or not, nor do I. Apple is one of the most agile technology companies around today, as evidenced by their rapid growth and success in recent years, along with the speed they're putting out new and revised products. They could have decided on the price drop last week... Easily and realistically. They probably didn't, but unless you're on the payroll in upper management, you've got absolutely no clue.

Ethics, flaming, and RightOn's political status aside...

What's your beef? I've been a Cingular customer for years and I can tell you, $0.99 for a ringtone is WELCOME... I recall paying $1.99 for a ringtone from Cingular.

No offense, seriously RightOn, but I can't see how paying $1.99 for a ringtone is anywhere reasonable when an entire song is $.99. Not to mention that you're not paying $.99 for the ringtone, you're paying $1.98 because you have to first buy the song, then pay to have it turned into a ringtone. Ask yourself this:

• Is a ringtone worth more than an entire song? Is it worth as much? It is definitely less of a product.
• When a device can already play music, why is that device purposely made to not allow that music to be played in different ways?
• Why would a device be restricted from purchasing downloads through AT&T's other ringtone outlets, there are many of them, some are free, others are through AT&T themselves and cost $$. None are available to iPhone users.

It is a proven fact that you CAN take music you already own and make it into a ringtone FREE OF CHARGE and install it on your iPhone.

But this also likely violates your terms of service, eh? And while it may be possible, I'm a little wary of hacking a $600 just so I can hear Snoop Dogg playing while my mom calls to check if I've been getting enough protein.

When it does come to ethics, I think that corporations are free to pick and choose what "Beliefs" they have or not. And lets face it, any corporation that is making big cash and has investors probably has a primary belief, which is to make money, and that's an ethical responsibility to the investor. Ethics, however, has nothing to do with this conversation, in my opinion, but simply that it just doesn't make sense to limit this device in so many ways.

It's billed as a small computer, they're saying it's running OS X, but show me a computer that you can't install software on, show me an OS at all that doesn't allow you to manage your own files and manipulate as you'd like.

Someone forgot to close his strong! :)

Sorry, I've been working out. All fixed.

So you were getting strong... ;)

You mean... people pay for ringtones...?
And don't just use bitpim to edit a short clip of an MP3?

Weird...

Feeling guilty Steve?

So, now are you bitching about Apple doing something nice? I bought an iMac a couple years ago, now I can get 4 times the machine for the same price... do I get a refund? I think this is silly. Yeah a big price drop that quickly hurts more than usual, and I'd be ticked too. I wouldn't think Apple owed me anything though. I've been there before with other companies. It's the technology world.

Yeah, Article19...you seriously need to pick a point of view and stick with it. You've been calling Apple unethical. Well, they just did something to take care of their customers and that seems to meet your standards either.

No, try gloating because they did something generous because they're supposedly evil for "gouging" their customers when they were forced to buy the iPhone for $600.

to quote righton from another thread:

HOLY CRAP.... seriously.

Do we REALLY have nothing better to do?

y'all sure like to talk about Apples alot! i guess it is like me and my saws.

no...... words.....

so I'm confused

Wow

just kidden y'all with the tree. it was a dead poplar and it got hung up good when i cut it. i made a photo before jim got the atv on it.

DALE

damn. did I delete my tree photo?

DALE

No I did. Please stay on topic from now on and if someone has a problem with any other member bring it up to me without asking if they are retarded. That will not be tolerated. And as I kindly asked you in a PM please stop "signing" your notes with Dale, we know who is posting.

jesus h. christ, really took an intelligence dump around here.

giving the money back (or store credit) proves the point, bad PR from hiking the price artificially for new adopters.

get a damn clue!

No I did

do ya want me to link it again then?

DALE

jesus h. christ, really took an intelligence dump around here.

theres no need to get blastfomus. he probably just made a mistake when he deleted it.

DALE

We all can't be geniuses like you Article19... sorry we stepped out of line.

Dale, this is the last time I will respond to you about your posting habits (since we have done so numerous times over PM already). I do not delete things for you to repost them or link them again. Everyone else, I apologize this topic got derailed. If you can not understand how this community works and the discussions that take place here, you might want to read around a bit before posting anymore.

sorry. i can't seem to do much right today.

jesus h. christ, really took an intelligence dump around here.

giving the money back (or store credit) proves the point, bad PR from hiking the price artificially for new adopters.

get a damn clue!

I find people resort to obscenities when they run out of logical points for the debate.

I don't think we're the ones without a clue. I think you're unhappy with Apple either way, given the history of your comments, so it's more about a personal situation than about a company's actions.

Even if this is a PR stunt to negate the response to the price drop, isn't that exactly what you wanted? The consumer to hold them responsible.

I'm just at a loss with your retorts because you constantly contradict yourself.

*Tyme wishes there was a merge discussion button because I feel like I'm repeating myself...all these Apple notes...*

Ok let's play devil's advocate here a second. The only reason the price is dropping is because sales did not meet their goals. Companies do not drop prices for fits and giggles. If the iPhone had a true worth of $600 then there would not be a price drop. The phone was overvalued.

That doesn't mean the people who paid (like Ryan.who.better.not.kill.me) doesn't feel he got value from the phone. It means, based on consumers, the price was off - $200 off - 1/3 off. That's a big costly mistake. See, it's not only the money difference that is an issue. It's great the credit is being issued (or whatever it is) but it's only because all hell broke loose and for many even with the refund the trust is broken. If they could have gotten away with it they would have. It's very Microsoftish and I hate to see Apple go down that path. I guess I felt Apple was better than that.

And I'm not hating - I'm looking at it from a business standpoint. Ethically it is not a move I would have felt comfortable doing but the guys will tell you I probably drive them nuts with my ethics.

You know I love my Tyme, even if she uses a PC. :)

Phew...that's a relief. I love my Ryan. :)

Wow, Apple's stock dropped more today. Perhaps the credit announcement came too late in the day for it to rebound.

The only reason the price is dropping is because sales did not meet their goals. Companies do not drop prices for fits and giggles. If the iPhone had a true worth of $600 then there would not be a price drop. The phone was overvalued.

Sorry I'm not so sure about this one. They are going to sell their millionth iPhone by the end of the month so that makes 1 million sold in 3 months which is astonishing to me. The fact is the demand was so high they knew they could milk $150M out of people and struggle to keep up with demand, but now that they have corrected the bugs and I'm sure go the supply up to par they are getting aggressive for the holiday season. The fact that the iPod Touch is almost identical and uses the same parts means that they get a great discount on production and therefore can lower the price all they want.

As for the ringtones debate, you have an option to pay for it or not so I'm not sure why people are getting upset about this one. Sure you can do it for free by configuring everything on your own, but I know a ton of people that would love to pay $0.99 just to do it quickly and make it exactly how they want. I think what some of you are forgetting is that Apple has to pay the labels and artists even for ringtone sells so there really isn't an option to give them away for free or else every song in the iTunes store would have that capability.

And it was the #1 selling smartphone in July AT the original price so saying it was overvalued for its price only applies to the people who never bought one.

All of this is not to say that Apple was happy with how many they are pushing out, but holiday season means price cuts all over the tech sector.

i do not see the big deal in this case. i can not offer any fancy logic. but if you did not think it was worth what ya paid for it then why did you buy it?

DALE

If you paid for it, you don't have a leg to stand on if you're arguing that it was overvalued. You bought the damn thing; it can't have been that much overvalued.

Not at anyone in particular, just sayin'.

Yes 1M phones in a month is nice but it's not enough to compete in the market, hence the price drop. Remember even with the price drop they are making a nice profit on the phone.

It was expected to be the #1 selling phone, especially with the issue of 3G phones not being able to be produced (not sure what happened as an end result with that). It's Sept. holiday shopping hasn't begun to come up yet.

They dropped the price to increase sales. It's the only reason why a company does it. That doesn't take away from the fact that:

1) They knew the new iPods were coming out.
2) They knew the new iPod was going to use the same parts.
3) Buying in bulk like that for the iPod would mean a reduction in expenses, meaning the cell phone would be cheaper.
4) 1+2+3=Apple being able to sell the phone for less than $600. They knew it was over-valued.

What you're saying is that they knew the demand would be high and played on the loyalty of their customers. Thanks for helping me prove my argument Scrivs. :)

Scrivs just got Tyme'd!

Apple has to pay the labels and artists even for ringtone sells so there really isn't an option to give them away for free or else every song in the iTunes store would have that capability.

I can't be sure on whether Apple would need to pay royalties to labels and artists for ringtones, but you can't buy a ringtone for $.99 - you first have to buy the song or use one you already own (can you even use a song that you got from outside of the Apple store?)

So you're paying for the royalties of a song twice.

As for being an early adopter and the price drop, well that's not really the issue at hand. I assume that's the reason for multiple iPhone/iPod posts on this site: different topics for each. What is the point of allowing multiple notes if people aren't allowed to bring up different points about the same subject?

For example, this note is about Ringtones. It's not about whether or not you want an iPod Touch or an Nano. It's not about organizational features of the iPhone or even that the iPhone has dropped in price. If there should only be one thread about iPods/iPhones where every single aspect of those subjects must be discussed, then perhaps that should be made clear. I realize that this post in itself gets off subject, but I'm slightly weirded out about making it into its own note for what the comment repercussion might spawn.

I don't really see the issue with having lots of notes about the same subject, anyway. A lot of people on this site like Apple products. Apparently a lot of people like to talk about movies and photography and dead fat singers and WordPress, many of which are topics I don't care about, but having a plethora of things to discuss has always been a primary reason for visiting this site.

Sorry if that's all a bit forward, it just seems that there are a lot of pseudo-restrictions popping up here, unwritten rules type stuff that either needs to be made clear or else should be let slide.

Edit: Sorry this is a little off-topic from the ringtones. The "ethics" talk drives me nuts.

Business:

1. Create a product people will want.
2. Create major buzz about said product.
3. Sell it at the highest price point you can where customers still feel they're getting value.
4. Product flies off shelves
5. Time Passes
6. Sales Slow
7. LOWER PRICE
8. Sales pick back up again
9. Time Passes
10. Release new version of product

Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Welcome to commerce people. I'm sorry if making $150 million because demand is high enough is now unethical but that's the way shit works.