Decaflon

@clicknathan: Let me clarify what this topic is about: ethics and business practices of Apple...because that is how you started the conversation.

Shame on Apple for charging us extra for what should have been an inherent feature from the beginning. Shame on them for "selling" us these phones and then not letting us customize them how we want to. And shame on them for hiding behind the guise of what AT&T or Big Music will "allow" them to do, simply so we can continue to pretend like they're a "really cool company."

It's dead on topic. Now if you wanted to talk about ring tones then perhaps you should have made a post in the Music community and talked about ring tones.

That's not what you did. You complained about Apple's business strategy. Which lead to a discussion (which is on point) allegedly making the same mistake with the iPhone/iPod.

And for the record there were a lot of topics made that aren't showing up on the Apple situation because we deleted them. They started off being separate issues with Apple but they ended up (because of their announcement yesterday) blending together under...

wait for it...

Business strategy/planning/ethics, etc. It happens in a community.

@rjc29: Here's the problem that people had (I am not one of those people because I did not buy the phone):

4. Product flies off shelves
5. Time Passes

Time ended up being 8 weeks and 1/3 off. People knew the phone would decrease in value but not in 2 mos and not for 1/3 off. It's understandable they are upset. I think the 100 credit is a good solution but it doesn't change the fact it could have been avoided. The profits they made were bitten into dearly with the credit, the extra employee compensation, the frustration of their users, the drop in stock price, etc.

Okay, I guess you're right, Tyme. I was questioning Apple's business practices, albeit specifically towards one feature. I'm completely cool with the fact that things get off topic, that's how most real world conversations go, and I in fact relish that.

Sorry if my response to how things seem, from my perspective, to be going around here upset you in some personal way and good job deleting all of those notes. I'm sure the people who posted them are all McDonald's slogans over that.

Naw not upset at all. I came at you like you came at us. No harm done. :)

Agreed and touche.

What you're saying is that they knew the demand would be high and played on the loyalty of their customers.

The price was set in January if I recall, so technically the price change came over 9 months later. It's not known "hey we are going to make the exact same type of iPod so we know what type of future deals we can get to negotiate a new price on parts". Everyone seems to forget that these things were basically ready at the beginning of the year, but they had to wait for FCC approval. This was their first entry in a brand new market. It's volatile and they are reacting accordingly. If this was the music player or computer market I can see everyone going crazy, but again this was a first trial type of thing.

They weren't playing off the loyalty of anyone. You knew the price in January and if you bought one you decided back then you were willing to pay that price. I have no problem changing the price this quickly after launch considering how long we've known about the iPhone. Your point was that they knew everything in the future and I'm saying I'm not so sure they did. If one of us worked at Apple or slept with Steve Jobs then we would know how evil/naive he was in this situation.

Yes it was set in January and how much in advance did they know about the new iPod? How much in advance did they know the price will go down? It doesn't change the fact they knew and they could have reduced the price before launch. It's been done before.

And if you read his response he said, "that's technology". It's naive to think something that is manufactured doesn't have months in advance planning. Tis all.

It's naive to think something that is manufactured doesn't have months in advance planning.

Not naive to think pricing of goods and demand changes and therefore alters those months of planning.

Absolutely not but to continue when one knows it is over-priced does raise ethical questions. Some companies voluntarily lower the price. Obviously, Apple opted not to do it but ended up having to do it in the end, costing them more money than if they did it in the first place.

Apple could sell their computers and ipods at $1 profit if they wanted to. Technically nothing is "over priced" unless people simply aren't buying it.

Lower sales than projected is a great reason to lower price as long as you have the margin to do so, but only to a point. If you cut to far, you start cutting corners to compete which no one is succesfull at for long.

I'm not sure Apple had to do this. Of course they didn't do it out of any ethical sense or as a give away, just to further fuel their engine. Being the #1 selling smartphone in July doesn't sound like they're in a bad position--even if sales were under what they wanted. Their marketing guys are way better than I am at this game though, so I tend to think they always have something else up their sleeve.

To me, it makes a lot morse sense that the price drop was specifically to keep their sales of iphone high after releasing the iPod Touch. The products are so similar that if the price difference was still so extreme, the new iPod would totally cannibalize the iPhone sales. Most iPhone buyers want the cool gadgets and features of the iPod Touch. The phone abilities ARE quite nice on their own, but I'm betting your typical gadget geek would opt for the iPod Touch and a cheap phone over an iPhone if the price had remained the same.

Does anyone else see the $100 store credit as an incredible strategy by apple? Think about it. They cut the prices by $200, so you're only getting half your money back. Now they give you $100 store credit, meaning you have to spend that $100 on Apple products. How many Apple products are less than $100 dollars? Not many. (2? 3? not counting accessories) I'm sure there are plenty of iPhone owners out there who are now being more enticed to buy a new desktop, laptop, ipod (maybe the the new touch?) than they would have if they had not gotten a coupon for money off that next investment. It's a method to pull customers back into their store, and not just ordinary customers, but generally their most loyal and enthusiatic customers. Of course, that's just my opinion. It looks like a nice gesture until you consider how many new products they are going to sell because of it.

*Note: I'm not sure if anyone else has already mentioned this. There are so many Apple threads on here lately that I may have missed it.

it's a financial move and a PR move. The bad PR will be muted somewhat by the the store credit and not everybody will cash in (time, don't know about it, can't be bothered filling out a form or whatever).

they could have saved themselves a lot of hassle and bad PR by just pricing the phone fairly to begin with. The product is fine (it's just a fancy phone but it's a well made fancy phone) they could have sold a lot more of them with a lower price point and people would have waited for it if stocks had run low.

Apple has a history of making good products and poor business decisions that p*ss a lot of people off. The iPhone is Aperture all over again and they don't appear to learn.

As for the ringtone thing. I watched the Apple presentation for the press and you are essentially paying $0.99 to edit the music track you already have.

Whether or not you have to buy into Apples way of making ringtones or use the free hack version a product as high tech as the iPhone shouldn't be making you jump through hoops so you can make it play a sound when your phone rings.

I also find it annoying that the "press" are applauding new product releases from Apple, what they should be doing is listening and asking pointed questions, but that's for another note I suppose.

@Tyme & Scrivs: I'm assuming you guys work in the same office. Maybe that's an incorrect assumption, but if you do, is there some sort of inter-office rule:

"No discussing notes outside of the notespace."

Certainly not that I'm saying you shouldn't be doing it here, I just think it'd be hilarious if you're both peaking over the other's shoulders "Did he reply yet?" "She'll never suspect this one!" "Ooh, that's it, he's getting artificial creamer in his soy latte!"