Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Consumers To Apple: Fuck You

1356729

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't think that you understand how market forces work.

    If we as a society don't want the product going for prices that high, then the product won't go for prices that high. The fact that it sells for that much is because people are willing to pay it.



    You want to know how to defeat scalping? Improve supply. It is a very simple equation.

    Evander on
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I don't think that you understand how market forces work.

    If we as a society don't want the product going for prices that high, then the product won't go for prices that high. The fact that it sells for that much is because people are willing to pay it.

    I wasn't using "we as a society" to mean complete and unanimous agreement on behalf of every last one of us. As such, the fact that some people are willing to buy from scalpers at high prices doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

    MrMister on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I don't think that you understand how market forces work.

    If we as a society don't want the product going for prices that high, then the product won't go for prices that high. The fact that it sells for that much is because people are willing to pay it.

    I wasn't using "we as a society" to mean complete and unanimous agreement on behalf of every last one of us. As such, the fact that some people are willing to buy from scalpers at high prices doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

    scalpers exist because of an imbalance in the market.

    Apple has limited supply so that they can keep prices higher. Well, they limited supply too much, and built up too much hype, so consumers are willing to pay a higher price than Apple is charging. Apple has two choices: either release more supply, or raise their prices.

    And I'm still not convinced that scalping is an actual issue with the iPad. I have yet to hear of anyone who wanted a unit not being able to find one.

    Evander on
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    Oh I agree, but it's not like the scalpers are creating a market for ipads. Apple is creating a market for ipads. If I may rephrase my statement: Once resources are released onto the market, those resources generally go to those willing to pay the most for them.

    Your statement is ambiguous. Are you saying "this is how things tend to go," or "this is how things should go?"
    MrMister wrote: »
    Fair enough, but if you're going to say we shouldn't tolerate them then I feel like you should give a compelling reason not to.

    Apple doesn't want the goods going for insane prices (or, alternately, we socially don't want that). As such, distribution will be more similar to the lottery system: if you get lucky, you get one, and if not, then you don't. I'm not going to argue that this is the best way to handle this particular case, but it is a way we handle some things--rooms and seats at university, organ donation--and it has merits as a fair method of distribution.

    Alternate answer: scalpers don't contribute anything to society at large, and the 'service' they provide, which is making sure that certain goods are available only to the rich, is only socially valuable in the imaginations of economists.

    I'm saying, "this is how a market system is designed to work."

    Your examples of "fair distribution" are not market systems. I'm not sure your examples are even examples of fair distribution. They're examples in which everyone has an equal chance of "winning," but for that to be a fair system everyone would have to be equally deserving.

    Scalpers are just speculators. They're making bets that people will be willing to pay higher than the current price for a good. I don't really see a good reason why people should not be allowed to speculate on consumer goods.

    oldsak on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    I don't really see a good reason why people should not be allowed to speculate on consumer goods.

    I think that there are some consumer goods that should be free from speculation. things that are neccesities for life (food, clothing, shelter, education, etc.) The iPad clearly doesn't fall in this category, though.

    Then again, I really abhor speculation. I think it is a good indicator of areas of inefficiency in the market, and tolerate it for that reason, but really, I think that most speculators ought to get a real job, and stop playing with other peoples' money.

    Evander on
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    I'm saying, "this is how a market system is designed to work."

    And I'm saying: "there are lots of different systems which vary in the degree to which they fall under what you call 'a market system.'"

    It is up to us how we want to do things.
    Evander wrote:
    Apple has two choices: either release more supply, or raise their prices.

    Alternately, take anti-scalping measures: for instance, limiting the purchases per customer.

    MrMister on
  • zilozilo Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    And I'm still not convinced that scalping is an actual issue with the iPad. I have yet to hear of anyone who wanted a unit not being able to find one.

    Did you read the whole thread?

    zilo on
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    MrMister wrote: »

    And I'm saying: "there are lots of different systems which vary in the degree to which they fall under what you call 'a market system.'"

    It is up to us how we want to do things.

    I don't really get what you're saying. I mean, lets say Apple didn't care about scalping, but we wanted to prevent, what system would you propose?

    oldsak on
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »

    And I'm saying: "there are lots of different systems which vary in the degree to which they fall under what you call 'a market system.'"

    It is up to us how we want to do things.

    I don't really get what you're saying. I mean, lets say Apple didn't care about scalping, but we wanted to prevent, what system would you propose?

    I dunno; I'm not really in public policy, although from what I understand scalping has been banned for various things at various times.

    I was preceding from the idea that Apple was interested in selling at a particular price and interested in prohibiting scalping. I find it faintly ridiculous to criticize them for not letting the market do its work, and I also find it faintly ridiculous to be upset that the goods apple was selling weren't allocated to the highest bidder.

    MrMister on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »

    And I'm saying: "there are lots of different systems which vary in the degree to which they fall under what you call 'a market system.'"

    It is up to us how we want to do things.

    I don't really get what you're saying. I mean, lets say Apple didn't care about scalping, but we wanted to prevent, what system would you propose?

    I dunno; I'm not really in public policy, although from what I understand scalping has been banned for various things at various times.

    I was preceding from the idea that Apple was interested in selling at a particular price and interested in prohibiting scalping. I find it faintly ridiculous to criticize them for not letting the market do its work, and I also find it faintly ridiculous to be upset that the goods apple was selling weren't allocated to the highest bidder.

    If Apple made more money they could afford more iPad factories. Which employ more people, and produces more iPads, which drives down the price.

    And if Apple makes ALOT more money then Google and Microsoft will pour millions of dollars into making an iPad killer. Which also drives down costs and employs more workers.

    Loklar on
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »

    And I'm saying: "there are lots of different systems which vary in the degree to which they fall under what you call 'a market system.'"

    It is up to us how we want to do things.

    I don't really get what you're saying. I mean, lets say Apple didn't care about scalping, but we wanted to prevent, what system would you propose?

    I dunno; I'm not really in public policy, although from what I understand scalping has been banned for various things at various times.

    I was preceding from the idea that Apple was interested in selling at a particular price and interested in prohibiting scalping. I find it faintly ridiculous to criticize them for not letting the market do its work, and I also find it faintly ridiculous to be upset that the goods apple was selling weren't allocated to the highest bidder.

    Well I don't think anyone is saying Apple shouldn't be able to do as they please, and sell to whomever they want.

    I simply don't understand the ire that so many people harbor towards scalpers. They're just making a bet on the demand for a product. If they lose then they're stuck eating costs.

    Yes they can temporarily increase the price of goods, but only for those willing to pay. Consumers who aren't willing to pay can either wait a couple months or beat the scalpers to the store in the first place. Of course, in my opinion if an ipad is only worth $500 to you, and they're going for $1,000 on ebay, then you'd be a fool not to turn around and resell.

    Like others have said, Apple could also put a stop to it by having more supply available at launch. Of course, then Apple, not the scalper, is taking the risk that demand won't be high, and I'm sure they don't think it does wonders for their image to overestimate demand.

    oldsak on
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    They should just engrave NO FOR RESALE on the back of the iPad. Thats a legally binding contract still, right?

    Improvolone on
    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    I simply don't understand the ire that so many people harbor towards scalpers

    Well, imagine if you're standing 5th in line, but number 3 decides he wants to buy the entire product line, turn around, and start reselling at a markup. Is that no cause for ire? You were about to get the product at a price you wanted, and now you aren't. And for what purpose? So that this dude can line his pockets?

    Are you willing to condemn someone who scalped food during a famine or medical vaccinations during an outbreak?

    MrMister on
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    I simply don't understand the ire that so many people harbor towards scalpers

    Well, imagine if you're standing 5th in line, but number 3 decides he wants to buy the entire product line, turn around, and start reselling at a markup. Is that no cause for ire? You were about to get the product at a price you wanted, and now you aren't. And for what purpose? So that this dude can line his pockets?

    Are you willing to condemn someone who was scalped food during a famine or medical vaccinations during an outbreak?

    Its the "that's not fair!" approach. When the Wii came out for instance, your only options were luck, camping in front of a store, or a scalper. The people who had jobs didn't stand a legitimate chance.

    Improvolone on
    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    what is better than capitalism? Any other system that compares ends up failing due to human corruption. Capitalism has the benefit of being self regulating over time. It is far from perfect, but closer to perfect than anything else.

    Capitalism is already creaking at the seams. We've already reached a post-scarcity society for immaterial goods, but capitalism enforces an artificial scarcity to keep prices up.

    But that's not really for this thread.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • VermVerm Registered User
    edited April 2010
    I have no problem with apple limiting the amount per customer. Based on the linkage in the first post this guy really isn't a scalper though.

    Verm on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    All this rage against arbitrage (which is all 'scalping' is) is pretty silly. Even in a 'fair' system of restricted supply and caps on how much prices are allowed to rise, there is an allocative mechanism. Usually it favors availability of free time. That doesn't make it any more fair than using price as an allocative mechanism. Seeking undue profit is a pretty hilarious charge to level when we are talking about Apple. Their profit margins on products are extremely high.

    So what is the difference between a Joe Middleman making a profit of 400% and Apple making one of 'only' 100%? He is taking on risk and taking on costs in order to make his sale. We are not talking about fundamentals of life in a time of famine or anything here.

    And many of the examples given before for places where we don't allow markets (organs and sex for instance) are areas where at least limited formal markets (there are already informal ones) would probably be of benefit.

    Granted, Apple is well within its rights to refuse to sell to this guy. But I don't really care that he is engaging in arbitrage either.

    Saammiel on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    And many of the examples given before for places where we don't allow markets (organs and sex for instance) are areas where at least limited formal markets (there are already informal ones) would probably be of benefit.

    Where we don't allow markets is where the externalities are highly detrimental. This is the case for organs, and to a lesser extent, sex.

    Luxury goods like iPads hardly fall into this category.

    electricitylikesme on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    And many of the examples given before for places where we don't allow markets (organs and sex for instance) are areas where at least limited formal markets (there are already informal ones) would probably be of benefit.

    Where we don't allow markets is where the externalities are highly detrimental. This is the case for organs, and to a lesser extent, sex. ...

    This strikes me as a "war on drugs" mentality.

    If it was legal to grow and sell drugs, there'd be more of them and the cost would be less. If it were legal to sell organs, more people would offer them (after they're dead) and the cost would be less. The organ waiting list would be smaller.

    Now who gets the organs might skew to older, richer people. Who aruably won't make best use of those organs. But more people would sign their organ donor cards too.

    Loklar on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    And many of the examples given before for places where we don't allow markets (organs and sex for instance) are areas where at least limited formal markets (there are already informal ones) would probably be of benefit.

    Where we don't allow markets is where the externalities are highly detrimental. This is the case for organs, and to a lesser extent, sex. ...

    This strikes me as a "war on drugs" mentality.

    If it was legal to grow and sell drugs, there'd be more of them and the cost would be less. If it were legal to sell organs, more people would offer them (after they're dead) and the cost would be less. The organ waiting list would be smaller.

    Now who gets the organs might skew to older, richer people. Who aruably won't make best use of those organs. But more people would sign their organ donor cards too.

    Errm, also people would start selling pieces of themselves to pay for drug habits/gambling debt/rent this week. It's not good for a healthy society.

    KalTorak on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    And many of the examples given before for places where we don't allow markets (organs and sex for instance) are areas where at least limited formal markets (there are already informal ones) would probably be of benefit.

    Where we don't allow markets is where the externalities are highly detrimental. This is the case for organs, and to a lesser extent, sex. ...

    This strikes me as a "war on drugs" mentality.

    If it was legal to grow and sell drugs, there'd be more of them and the cost would be less. If it were legal to sell organs, more people would offer them (after they're dead) and the cost would be less. The organ waiting list would be smaller.

    Now who gets the organs might skew to older, richer people. Who aruably won't make best use of those organs. But more people would sign their organ donor cards too.

    Drugs are not organs.

    If it were legal to sell organs, then there would be an added incentive for illegal harvesting beyond the current problems. There would be an incentive for the poor to sell their organs to the rich, regardless of the consequences for their health. People would be incentivized to have their seniors die younger so they could get more for their organs.

    The entire enterprise would have a chilling effect on society, and lower the quality of life for many - especially the lower classes. There would be an overall negative effect on the zeitgeist of society as well, in my opinion.

    Not to mention that, simply put, organs are not fungible commodities.

    electricitylikesme on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    And many of the examples given before for places where we don't allow markets (organs and sex for instance) are areas where at least limited formal markets (there are already informal ones) would probably be of benefit.

    Where we don't allow markets is where the externalities are highly detrimental. This is the case for organs, and to a lesser extent, sex. ...

    This strikes me as a "war on drugs" mentality.

    If it was legal to grow and sell drugs, there'd be more of them and the cost would be less. If it were legal to sell organs, more people would offer them (after they're dead) and the cost would be less. The organ waiting list would be smaller.

    Now who gets the organs might skew to older, richer people. Who aruably won't make best use of those organs. But more people would sign their organ donor cards too.

    Errm, also people would start selling pieces of themselves to pay for drug habits/gambling debt/rent this week. It's not good for a healthy society.

    People already sell their homes, their investments, steal from their family, comitt robery, assault people and kill to pay for their drug debts. I'd rather they sell their own liver. Gives them another chance to realize they've hit bottom and get help.

    Really though, they'd probably steal, rob and assault before resorting to selling their own organs. So nothing would change on this front.

    Loklar on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    You shouldn't receive money for your organs, rather, you should get a tax credit or something, so perhaps when you die you pay less inheritance tax or whatever and you can give more of your money to your beneficiaries.

    If organs = money I worry about crime and the results of people getting kidnapped and sliced to pieces to have their organs sold by criminals committing organ fraud.

    It'd be easy, just go onto online dating sites and find poor saps and kill em after the girl brings them to a secluded place.

    gearn on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    There was more supply than demand at launch.

    ...you never set foot into Google to check stuff, do you? I found this in five seconds, I'm sure I could have gotten an even more detailed article if I spent more time.
    Apple's iPad supply problems have been blamed on touchscreen shortages, according to a Bloomberg report. Suppliers are allegedly running into problems meeting strong demand for the 9.7-inch displays utilized in the tablet device. The research firm iSuppli suggests the components are already sourced from three different companies including LG, Samsung, and Seiko Epson.

    “We understand that the yields on the display have been low and that they’re creating a production bottleneck,” iSuppli analyst Andrew Rassweiler told Bloomberg. “That they have been doing it for the iPhone for some time is great, but once you go to 9.7 inches, it is a much more complicated process.”

    Apple recently announced that international sales -- originally scheduled for April -- have been delayed until May, saying that US sales were stronger than expected, with more than 500,000 iPads distributed in seven days.

    The iPad display, which uses in-plane switching (IPS) technology, is claimed to be the most expensive piece of the tablet. iSuppli suggests the touchscreen commands $95, more than twice the cost for similar displays used in typical netbooks.

    “Scaling manufacturing of the iPad has been quite a challenge -- there are a number of key components that go into that device that have never before had to scale to mass-market production,” said Oppenheimer analyst Yair Reiner. "We shouldn't be surprised that some of those start to hit some glitches."

    http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/04/19/suppliers.struggle.to.meet.demand/

    So yes, demand has far outstripped supply for the iPad since the beginning. Hence the worry about scalping. Hell, hence the opportunity for scalpers to begin with.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Maybe we should spin the Organ thing off into it's own thread?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    Scalpers just allocate the ipads to those who want them the most (ie are willing to pay the most for them). If someone's willing to pay more than I am for a product, then yeah it's probably fair that they get it.

    This is something that people who've taken a little economics tend to say. It's also an example of how a little economics tends to disconnect people from reality.

    I have a hard time getting my knickers in a twist over scalping for things like sports games and luxury electronics. oldsak's comment is pretty true - iPad's are being withheld from people who only want them $200 worth and transferred to people who want them $2000 worth. It's an imperfect mechanism, but that's basically what it's doing. And since we're talking about something that, honestly, literally nobody needs, it's not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Scalping iPads isn't really the same as scalping food and water during a famine, or something.

    My main beef with the practice is that it hurts Apple, not that it hurts poor consumers who have to wait an extra month to get their overpriced digitoy.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    My basic issue with scalping is that the scalper isn't adding any value to the transaction; he's profiting from an imperfection in the market.

    The reason capitalism works - in general, with limitations - is that profit motivates people to work; through work we generate wealth; therefore capitalism is good at generating wealth.

    The scalper generates no wealth. He generates nothing. While he is technically playing by the rules of capitalism, he's not doing the thing that makes capitalism good. He might be fulfilling the goal of capitalism by making a profit, but he's not fulfilling the goal that society hopes to accomplish by adopting capitalism.

    TL;DR: Fuck scalpers.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    My basic issue with scalping is that the scalper isn't adding any value to the transaction; he's profiting from an imperfection in the market.

    The reason capitalism works - in general, with limitations - is that profit motivates people to work; through work we generate wealth; therefore capitalism is good at generating wealth.

    The scalper generates no wealth. He generates nothing. While he is technically playing by the rules of capitalism, he's not doing the thing that makes capitalism good. He might be fulfilling the goal of capitalism by making a profit, but he's not fulfilling the goal that society hopes to accomplish by adopting capitalism.

    TL;DR: Fuck scalpers.

    Just consider scalpers as a premium service that holds your item for you in advance.

    Their slogan could be... "Scalpers: We stand in line, so you don't have to."

    Loklar on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    ANTVGM64 wrote: »
    Capitalism. Buy for a dollar, sell for two. Apple's just pissed they can't mark them up and put them on ebay themselves. Is it kind of shitty to do? Yeah, but I mean, if the guy can do it and turn a profit, go for it.

    I think it was the episode of Modern Family where they say "Waiting for Next Week" is the worst thing you can say to an early adopter. If people want IPads enough but can't get them, then yeah, consumers should be able to pay a jacked up price to get what they want.

    You say "should be able to pay a jacked up price to get what they want"

    I see scalpers forcing consumers to pay jacked up prices above what the device is actually worth, because they bought up all the damned stock, preventing other consumers from buying it at the cheaper price.

    That may be capitalism, but it sure as hell isn't a good use of the system.

    Arbitrage is good.

    mrt144 on
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    ANTVGM64 wrote: »
    Capitalism. Buy for a dollar, sell for two. Apple's just pissed they can't mark them up and put them on ebay themselves. Is it kind of shitty to do? Yeah, but I mean, if the guy can do it and turn a profit, go for it.

    I think it was the episode of Modern Family where they say "Waiting for Next Week" is the worst thing you can say to an early adopter. If people want IPads enough but can't get them, then yeah, consumers should be able to pay a jacked up price to get what they want.

    You say "should be able to pay a jacked up price to get what they want"

    I see scalpers forcing consumers to pay jacked up prices above what the device is actually worth, because they bought up all the damned stock, preventing other consumers from buying it at the cheaper price.

    That may be capitalism, but it sure as hell isn't a good use of the system.

    Arbitrage is good.

    For whom and why?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    My basic issue with scalping is that the scalper isn't adding any value to the transaction; he's profiting from an imperfection in the market.

    The reason capitalism works - in general, with limitations - is that profit motivates people to work; through work we generate wealth; therefore capitalism is good at generating wealth.

    The scalper generates no wealth. He generates nothing. While he is technically playing by the rules of capitalism, he's not doing the thing that makes capitalism good. He might be fulfilling the goal of capitalism by making a profit, but he's not fulfilling the goal that society hopes to accomplish by adopting capitalism.

    TL;DR: Fuck scalpers.

    He is giving someone something of value for a price they are willing to pay, presumably because they were unable or unwilling to overcome whatever the original constraint was (likely waiting in line, or being in a certain geographic area for this case) and the scalper was. If the buyer didn't value the product $1000 worth or whatever, he wouldn't pay the mark up.

    This is a reasonably good article on arbitrage. Apple is getting their $200 (or whatever) and the buyer is getting an iPad that they wouldn't otherwise posses at a price they are willing to pay. That is the value, he is providing a good to someone who values it heavily.

    And arbitrage, especially when there is such a heavy temporal component, does expose you to risk. That scalper overcame the initial constraint, likely involving at least some opportunity cost, and had to find a reliable buyer while hoping that the constraints didn't lift before he did so.

    I mean, this isn't to say there are no market imperfections ever. Or that unbounded capitalism isn't problematic. But arbitrage makes most markets work well. There are instances where it doesn't in the face of natural disaster or whatnot, but buying an iPad certainly isn't one of them.

    Saammiel on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Apple is getting their $200 (or whatever) and the buyer is getting an iPad that they wouldn't otherwise posses at a price they are willing to pay.

    They wouldn't otherwise possess it largely because of the actions of the scalper.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Apple is getting their $200 (or whatever) and the buyer is getting an iPad that they wouldn't otherwise posses at a price they are willing to pay.

    They wouldn't otherwise possess it largely because of the actions of the scalper.

    No. If they had the means to overcome the barrier that the scalper overcame for less than the surcharge imposed by that scalper, why wouldn't they?

    Saammiel on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Apple is getting their $200 (or whatever) and the buyer is getting an iPad that they wouldn't otherwise posses at a price they are willing to pay.

    They wouldn't otherwise possess it largely because of the actions of the scalper.

    That's not true. Someone who really really wanted an iPad has one because of the scalper.

    If a well paid doctor wants an iPad on release day, he could take the day off work and sit in line 12 hours with everyone else. Or he could go to work, save lives/make a lot of money, and pay a mark up.

    Also remember that the 500 dollar mark-up is worth less to the doctor than to the people with a lot of free time, because he makes much more money.

    Loklar on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    If a well paid doctor wants an iPad on release day, he could take the day off work and sit in line 12 hours with everyone else. Or he could go to work, save lives/make a lot of money, and pay a mark up.

    You can order them online, so there isn't much of a point in scalping the IPad in America, and if you want it really quick you can pay for express shipping.

    This guy was scalping them overseas, to people who have no way currently of legitimately procuring an IPad short of international travel or a friend in America buying it for them. Which I think is ok. In other cases I would object more though.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    My basic issue with scalping is that the scalper isn't adding any value to the transaction; he's profiting from an imperfection in the market.

    The reason capitalism works - in general, with limitations - is that profit motivates people to work; through work we generate wealth; therefore capitalism is good at generating wealth.

    The scalper generates no wealth. He generates nothing. While he is technically playing by the rules of capitalism, he's not doing the thing that makes capitalism good. He might be fulfilling the goal of capitalism by making a profit, but he's not fulfilling the goal that society hopes to accomplish by adopting capitalism.

    TL;DR: Fuck scalpers.

    Just consider scalpers as a premium service that holds your item for you in advance.

    Their slogan could be... "Scalpers: We stand in line, so you don't have to."

    Exactly. What "social good" or wealth does a pizza delivery guy generate? All he does is get me my pizza so I don't have to go down to the pizza place myself. In return, I pay an extra premium on top of whatever the pizza costs. Why? Because saving the time/effort of going down to the pizza place myself has value to me, just as saving the time/effort of not camping outside of an Apple Store has value to the guy buying an iPad on eBay.

    They should just engrave NO FOR RESALE on the back of the iPad. Thats a legally binding contract still, right?

    As a rule of thumb, no.

    Ruling Affirms Right to Resell Promo CDs
    A federal judge has shot down bogus copyright infringement allegations from Universal Music Group (UMG), affirming an eBay seller's right to resell promotional CDs that he buys from secondhand stores.

    Troy Augusto, represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and law firm Keker & Van Nest, was sued by UMG last year in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for 26 auction listings involving promo CDs. At issue was whether the "promotional use only, not for sale" labels on those CDs could trump Augusto's right to resell materials that he owns, guaranteed by copyright law's "first sale" doctrine.

    It’s Still A Duck: Court Re-Affirms That First Sale Doctrine Can Apply to “Licensed” Software
    a federal court has re-affirmed that a Seattle man was not infringing copyright law by re-selling software he obtained from an Autodesk customer.

    The ruling is bound to frustrate the copyright industries, which have struggled for years to convince courts and their customers that the only thing you “buy" when you buy software is a limited and temporary right to use that software under certain conditions. In other words, they claim buyers aren't owners.

    The distinction is no mere technicality. Under the Copyright Act, owners of copyrighted material are given substantial rights in the particular copies they purchase. One of the most important of these protections is the "first sale" doctrine, which says that once you've acquired a lawfully-made CD or book or DVD, you can lend, sell, or give it away without having to get permission from the copyright owner. Without the first sale doctrine, libraries would be illegal, as would used bookstores, used record stores, video rental shops, CD-swapping communities and so on.

    Frankly, copyright owners would love to be able to sue Obama for pirating music when he gave the Queen of England an iPod full of songs she didn't buy.

    Supreme Court Victory for Patent First Sale Doctrine
    The Supreme Court today ruled against LG Electronics. So the upshot is a victory for the principle of "you bought it, you own it:" a mere unilateral notice to customers is not enough to prevent a patent from being exhausted upon first authorized sale. This should help consumers who purchase patented (and copyrighted) products festooned with "single use only" and "not for resale" notices rest a bit easier. Today's ruling suggests that those kinds of notices, too, would have no force under patent law.

    BubbaT on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Okay, so if you're really looking for something Apple's done that absolutely, 100% paints them as complete dicks, this is it.
    During last week’s iPhone leak saga, Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, reached out to us with a story: The morning of the iPad launch, an engineer showed Woz an iPad for two minutes. For this he was fired.

    http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/steve-wozniak-on-apple-security-employee-termination-and-gray-powell/#ixzz0mEPZJeAb

    I mean, goddamn. Talk about no tolerance.

    The article has Woz pontificating about why this poor engineer got sacked and why Gray Powell, the guy who lost the iPhone prototype, wasn't.

    And the article has this utterly fantastic picture of Woz:

    340x_stevewozgray.jpg

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Woz is like Opposite Steve Jobs.

    KalTorak on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Woz is like Opposite Steve Jobs.

    Too right. Woz is the advocate of openness, Jobs is the advocate of the walled garden. Guess who won?

    Here's a fantastic article on their power struggle:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2249872/

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So it's not Apple's fault at all for failing to foresee the high demand and making sure they could keep up with it?

    nexuscrawler on
Sign In or Register to comment.