This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Why I hate apple
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
pezz
Strictly speaking, not really. Price gouging is jacking up the price when there is some unusual reason for a supply shock of a good. So charging a bunch for water after a natural disaster, hotel rates spiking during a once-every-five-years event, etc.
It depends on the level of increase for what you're talking about. Both of those scenarios involve an increase in demand with either no change or a decrease in supply. That means the free market price goes up. If you increase your price past what is reasonable, that is price gouging. Charging twice as much for bottled water when twice as many people want to buy it and half as much is coming in is completely fair. In a true free market, you could get away with charging four times the price.
Actually, neither scenario involves a long term decrease or stability in supply. Prices are the market's automatic signals. Price goes way up, either because of a supply decrease or a monopolist, that's a signal to every supplier and entrepreneur in the market to come supply the product themselves (as well as, after a natural disaster, a signal for the consumers to ration scarce and important goods fairly). If Apple can charge more than their competitors in the long term, it means Apple is selling products no one can replicate. Namely, the Apple brand.
Post by
Pwntiff
No, neither scenario involves a long-term decrease, which is why any price jumps like that are temporary. Assume there is a large Leap Day Fesitival in a town. This festival is only held on February 29. Hotels will charge more for rooms for the week surrounding every Feb. 29 because there is an increased demand for hotel rooms that week, but the number of hotel rooms stays constant. The same hotels don't charge Leap Day prices the rest of the year or on years that don't have Leap Days. Because demand affects free market price as much as supply does.
That's why gas goes up every summer, more people are driving so there is an increased demand. The amount of the increase has other factors, but increased demand with a stable or decreasing supply means a price increase. In order for price to remain constant with a demand increase, supply has to increase proportionally; in order for price to remain constant with a supply decrease, demand has to decrease proportionally.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
Right, but why is Apple unlikable for that? Is it their fault that individuals acting in the market are willing to pay several hundred dollars more for a brand name that is not actually synonymous with quality or luxury?
Plus, we're all sort of just assuming that Apple has a massive profit margin, here.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
For general use, I would agree that the Mac is not any better than a PC. But my boyfriend is a graphic designer, and I know for what he does he considers the Mac to be superior. Also, when I was taking music theory in high school, I remember that we always used the Mac's when we needed a MIDI because the sound quality was superior. I think that, for some uses, they are better machines.
Also, not every item that is higher priced is better. I go to the New York Fancy Food Show every year for work, and I get to taste a lot of expensive chocolates, cheeses, etc. They're good, but most of the chocolate doesn't hold up to a Symphony Bar, IMO, and most of the cheeses could be replaced with similar types and half the price and not be too different.
There are a lot of reasons they can be more expensive:
1) Volume. It costs a lot less per pound of chocolate to make 50,000 pounds than to make 500 pounds. You get a discount on the ingredients when you buy in bulk, the shipping is less and you spend less on labor because the cost of setting up and cleaning up for each run is spread out over more units.
2) Novelty. If you're the only person who makes chocolate pesto rigatoni, and someone really wants to try chocolate pesto rigatoni, then they're going to pay $10 or $12 a pound for it, because they're paying for the novelty of the experience. Mac may not be all that different to use, but for people for whom style is a concern, they'd often rather pay a little more to have the lime green or bright pink computer, or the sleek design where the tower is built into the monitor.
3) Advertising. McDonald's sucks. Their burger's are terrible. Almost any place in the US that's not a chain will have burgers 10 times better than McDonalds. But, they're hugely successful because they've beaten us over the head with their name enough times that we associate them with lunch. The $4.99 we pay for a Quarter Pounder is only partially paying for the ingredients- the rest is paying for all those billboards and magazine ads and fliers that they sent us to convince us to go there. Creating a brand that's recognized costs almost as much money per unit as creating a better product.
I don't know what Apple's profit margins are. I do know that they have done a lot more to promote the brand than many computer companies, they offer cosmetic options that most computer companies don't and as such offer more novelty than other computers, and other than music players I would think that the volume of computers that the make is much smaller than a similarly sized PC company, so the material and labor costs would end up being more.
At the end of the day, a company will charge what people are willing to pay. If enough people value the lime green cases, the better graphic design programs and the ability to tell their friends they have an IPod enough to justify the prices that they sell for now, then they're filling a specific market niche. If you're annoyed about it, the niche isn't you.
Post by
pezz
<snip>
Also, there is plenty to dislike about people selling something for a lot of money for no reason. As I noted, expensive cars are generally expensive for a reason - ridiculously crazy engineering, hand-crafted, etc... There is nothing special or different about a Mac from any other PC other than the OS, so there is no reason to charge any more for the machine. Especially, not the typically DOUBLE that Macs do cost compared to an equivalent Windows PC.
Okay, assumptions over.
I still don't see how you're justifying the jump from 'Apple is charging far more money than their products cost to make' to 'Apple is doing something distasteful.' Obviously, Apple products are (to each individual consumer) worth less than the amount of money that individual exchanges for them, otherwise no one would buy them. There's no coercion of any sort going on, just voluntary trade.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
There's no coercion of any sort going on, just voluntary trade.
The question is whether it is voluntary informed trade or not. Obviously Apple pays a lot of money for what amounts to propaganda. Is the average purchaser of an iPod buying one after making a sober analysis of sound quality and storage space or because other people have bought them? If Apple is making more profit off of an inferior product than its competitors, then people have every right to criticise them for it.
Also, as a consumer, which of the five plausible routes for apple's net profit benefits you most: executive pay, worker pay, research and development, increased advertising or reduced product costs?
It's not a rhetorical question, one could argue plausibly for at least a few of those.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
Gamer: In that instance, you're levelling criticism against the wrong source. Blame the idiot who bought the iPod for giving into peer pressure and/or not investing the time to research the best product for his purposes, rather than the company for trying to sell their product.
Why blame him at all? I know nothing about cars, so my criteria for what I want in a car are vastly different than someone who knows everything about them. I don't think that's a problem at all.
Post by
pezz
<snip>
You mean worth
more
, right?
Actually I meant to put herp derp there, but your thing makes more sense than either of my things.
Otherwise I agree with what you said. It isn't Apple's job to have a guy in every Apple store who hands out product quizzes and says 'sorry, you are too stupid to own an Apple product' if people don't score high enough.
Plus, talking about information isn't fixing the problem, it's just taking it a step back. Maybe I value not doing research for every little thing I buy more than avoiding getting suckered every once in a while.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
But you would be a fool if you went for a car that someone else bought under the assumption that your criteria and their criteria synced perfectly, even if they are within your peer group -- unless you researched it beforehand to determine whether it was the most suitable choice for your needs.
The differing stuff that the average person needs in any item, luxury or otherwise, are always easy to find -- manufacturers of things like this make those specs easy to access to allow people to compare, contrast, and make their own decisions. If people don't do that, and end up buying a product that doesn't match up with what they need, they're going to feel ripped off -- but that will be their own fault.
I think the point is that they aren't feeling ripped off, it's you as someone who "knows better" who feels ripped off for them. I bought my car and my first motorcycle because I had friends with both of them, and my familiarity gave me a level of comfort that I felt was important, lacking any real knowledge of the specifications. I might very well have been ripped off, but I don't know and I don't care.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, I'd say there's a discrepancy between legality and morality in the instance of advertising. I don't think Apple is alone in that regard, nor is their advertising the most objectionable out there.
I would probably feel Apple's absence all the more acutely if it meant a choice between Windows or a Gnu/Linux based operating system (I'd probably still go with Windows, I'd just feel even more guilty).
What worries me more is how certain things I do enjoy are burgeoned by advertising, a concept that on the whole I disagree with (I can't blame individuals for not resisting massive insidious corporate pressure). Perhaps I'd feel more comfortable if the laws against libel and slander couldn't apply to corporations (i.e they weren't defined as legal persons).
Edit: I agree that consumers probably perform a cost/benefit analysis when deciding which product to go for (computing relative benefit of increased research against probability of deriving increased pleasure out of product vs. social status gains of having said product), but they may be using a faulty heuristic such as an appeal to authority/popularity.
Post by
pezz
You know, I think our versions of dystopia probably look like complete opposites of each other.
Edit: Please to check my signature.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.