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

1246729

Posts

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    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.

    This comparison would be apt were scalpers employees of Apple and their scalping of Apple products a service Apple had them provide. Since, you know, a Pizza Delivery guy is an employee of a restaurant and performing a service they offer.

    You pay a "premium" because paying that employee, as well as any other expenses that the service entails to the restaurant, because the restaurant would like to recoup that cost to not run into the red.

    Is that even a "premium," though? You're just utilizing another service offered by the restaurant and they're charging you a fee for that service which is added to your final bill.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • zilozilo Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    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?

    The barrier is artificial, created by the scalpers to enrich themselves. Guys, this isn't the free market at work. It's market manipulation, an artificial monopoly exploiting hype to enrich a middle man that adds nothing to the value proposition and makes the market considerably less efficient, as scalped products need to be sold twice to reach a consumer.

    Seems like a lot of people in this thread have taken just enough macroeconomics to be dangerous.

    zilo on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    zilo wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    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?

    The barrier is artificial, created by the scalpers to enrich themselves. Guys, this isn't the free market at work. It's market manipulation, an artificial monopoly exploiting hype to enrich a middle man that adds nothing to the value proposition and makes the market considerably less efficient, as scalped products need to be sold twice to reach a consumer.

    So when I buy gold from a gold-mining company, I have to use that gold. Rite? I can't sell it again because that'd be "market manipulation".
    Seems like a lot of people in this thread have taken just enough macroeconomics to be dangerous.

    This is a great rebuttal, and can be used in almost any situation. "Seems like you have taken just enough of [subject] to be dangerous!" Thank you, I'll use that when trolling 4chan.

    Loklar on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    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/



    Apple wouldn't be shit today if it kept that policy of openness.

    gearn on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    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/



    Apple wouldn't be shit today if it kept that policy of openness.

    Clone Macs and a string of poor OSs actually almost killed Apple and it wasn't until Jobs came back and they closed off the market did they make a come back.

    Only having to worry about a few key hardware combinations instead of billions like Windows has to deal with is incredibly useful when making a stable OS.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    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.

    This comparison would be apt were scalpers employees of Apple and their scalping of Apple products a service Apple had them provide. Since, you know, a Pizza Delivery guy is an employee of a restaurant and performing a service they offer.

    You pay a "premium" because paying that employee, as well as any other expenses that the service entails to the restaurant, because the restaurant would like to recoup that cost to not run into the red.

    Is that even a "premium," though? You're just utilizing another service offered by the restaurant and they're charging you a fee for that service which is added to your final bill.

    That seems a pretty flimsy distinction. So if instead of "official pizza delivery guy" I gave my brother some money to pick up the pizza and bring it back to me, that would be him "scalping" me?

    BubbaT on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    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/



    Apple wouldn't be shit today if it kept that policy of openness.

    Clone Macs and a string of poor OSs actually almost killed Apple and it wasn't until Jobs came back and they closed off the market did they make a come back.

    Only having to worry about a few key hardware combinations instead of billions like Windows has to deal with is incredibly useful when making a stable OS.

    But my Windows machine has never crashed ever EVER I guess that means Apple sucks paying for branding and shinies hurgle burgle furgle.

    KalTorak on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    This comparison would be apt were scalpers employees of Apple and their scalping of Apple products a service Apple had them provide. Since, you know, a Pizza Delivery guy is an employee of a restaurant and performing a service they offer.

    You pay a "premium" because paying that employee, as well as any other expenses that the service entails to the restaurant, because the restaurant would like to recoup that cost to not run into the red.

    Is that even a "premium," though? You're just utilizing another service offered by the restaurant and they're charging you a fee for that service which is added to your final bill.

    That seems a pretty flimsy distinction. So if instead of "official pizza delivery guy" I gave my brother some money to pick up the pizza and bring it back to me, that would be him "scalping" me?

    And your brother is ruining the economy... He's probably going to spend that 5 bucks and you're going to sit there enjoying your pizza like a log?

    ?

    Loklar on
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    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.

    This comparison would be apt were scalpers employees of Apple and their scalping of Apple products a service Apple had them provide. Since, you know, a Pizza Delivery guy is an employee of a restaurant and performing a service they offer.

    You pay a "premium" because paying that employee, as well as any other expenses that the service entails to the restaurant, because the restaurant would like to recoup that cost to not run into the red.

    Is that even a "premium," though? You're just utilizing another service offered by the restaurant and they're charging you a fee for that service which is added to your final bill.

    That seems a pretty flimsy distinction. So if instead of "official pizza delivery guy" I gave my brother some money to pick up the pizza and bring it back to me, that would be him "scalping" me?

    No, the scalper would pre-order a bunch of the latest manager's special from the pizza place two towns over then turn up at your house with the special you were going to have to wait a month to order from your local pizza place and charge you double the list price for the privilege.

    And now you know why pizza scalping never happens.

    Mr_Rose on
    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Macs crash and when they do it is usually spectacularly. Also a lot of their notebooks have serious heat issues that while not enough to lead to constant crashing in all cases do usually lead to processor rot.

    But point stands that Apple tried to go open for awhile (mid to late 90's) and it basically brought them to the point of bankruptcy.



    Back on the main point though; nothing wrong with scaplers in my book, so long as they aren't colluding with the original sellers of the product to drive up prices. I've got no problem with the guy selling his tickets for a bit over cost right outside the venue but I've got a huge issue with Ticketmaster and their horrible "we own this market, pay these outrageous pure profit making service charges"

    Same goes with a good like the iPad. Someone wants to invest their time and capital into buying up ipads to resell them at a profit? What's the problem? It's what the stores are doing anyways. You can't walk straight up to an Apple factory in China and buy a iPad straight off the presses, life doesn't work that way. What's wrong with one middleman decided to by at retail and extend his product out to a level of lazy/foreign people who don't mind paying extra for a good to get it without any extra work? Time is money.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Can't we just agree that trying to compare scalping to a service actually offered by a business and performed by it's employees is a silly thing?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Can't we just agree that trying to compare scalping to a service actually offered by a business and performed by it's employees is a silly thing?

    Depends on the comparison. Sure, they're different in that a company can legitimately be pissed off by scalpers and unauthorized resellers even if they offer similar such services themselves. But they're pretty comparable as far as social utility goes, to a point.

    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.
  • zilozilo Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    zilo wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    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?

    The barrier is artificial, created by the scalpers to enrich themselves. Guys, this isn't the free market at work. It's market manipulation, an artificial monopoly exploiting hype to enrich a middle man that adds nothing to the value proposition and makes the market considerably less efficient, as scalped products need to be sold twice to reach a consumer.

    So when I buy gold from a gold-mining company, I have to use that gold. Rite? I can't sell it again because that'd be "market manipulation".
    Seems like a lot of people in this thread have taken just enough macroeconomics to be dangerous.

    This is a great rebuttal, and can be used in almost any situation. "Seems like you have taken just enough of [subject] to be dangerous!" Thank you, I'll use that when trolling 4chan.

    If you can't see the difference between commodities markets and consumer electronics and concert tickets, I'm not really sure how to respond. There are middlemen that add value, and middlemen that don't. The latter has no place in an efficient market.

    Just because a rebuttal is pithy and infinitely configurable, doesn't make it untrue.

    zilo on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    This comparison would be apt were scalpers employees of Apple and their scalping of Apple products a service Apple had them provide. Since, you know, a Pizza Delivery guy is an employee of a restaurant and performing a service they offer.

    You pay a "premium" because paying that employee, as well as any other expenses that the service entails to the restaurant, because the restaurant would like to recoup that cost to not run into the red.

    Is that even a "premium," though? You're just utilizing another service offered by the restaurant and they're charging you a fee for that service which is added to your final bill.

    That seems a pretty flimsy distinction. So if instead of "official pizza delivery guy" I gave my brother some money to pick up the pizza and bring it back to me, that would be him "scalping" me?

    And your brother is ruining the economy... He's probably going to spend that 5 bucks and you're going to sit there enjoying your pizza like a log?

    ?

    No, I'd enjoy the pizza by eating it. I wouldn't eat the log.

    BubbaT on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Can't we just agree that trying to compare scalping to a service actually offered by a business and performed by it's employees is a silly thing?

    Depends on the comparison. Sure, they're different in that a company can legitimately be pissed off by scalpers and unauthorized resellers even if they offer similar such services themselves. But they're pretty comparable as far as social utility goes, to a point.

    As with most things you have to take it on a case by case basis.

    Scalping an IPad so you can sell it overseas where it hasn't been released and people can't buy one yet. Thats ok.

    A really extreme example would be like someone running a bot to buy up all orders of a limited release online, then reselling it over ebay. There is no convenience offered by the scalper, since it would be shipped to the customer anyways.

    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!".
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    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?

    Not really, generally speaking. There's no possible way to meet demand for things like new game consoles or new Apple gadgets within reason. I mean, they could shell out an extra fortune for manufacturing, but that's expensive as hell and eats into profit margin. They could sit on their inventory until they have enough on hand to meet initial demand, but that costs a lot of money as well, both in terms of storage and delayed revenue. Or they could charge a high enough price to curtail demand, but that has pretty terrible PR ramifications.

    So I mean yeah, I guess it's Apple's "fault", but there's really not a good way for them to keep demand from outstripping supply.

    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.
  • zilozilo Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Back on the main point though; nothing wrong with scaplers in my book, so long as they aren't colluding with the original sellers of the product to drive up prices. I've got no problem with the guy selling his tickets for a bit over cost right outside the venue but I've got a huge issue with Ticketmaster and their horrible "we own this market, pay these outrageous pure profit making service charges"

    Same goes with a good like the iPad. Someone wants to invest their time and capital into buying up ipads to resell them at a profit? What's the problem? It's what the stores are doing anyways. You can't walk straight up to an Apple factory in China and buy a iPad straight off the presses, life doesn't work that way. What's wrong with one middleman decided to by at retail and extend his product out to a level of lazy/foreign people who don't mind paying extra for a good to get it without any extra work? Time is money.

    That's not what scalpers do. They artificially raise prices by buying up all available stock. You either pay their price or go wanting. In the case of, say, Cubs baseball tickets the scalpers have an "in" with the ticket office (and huge blocks of season tickets), which they use to buy up all of the best seats to sell at double or triple the face value. A bunch of seats won't sell, but the scalpers don't care because they sold 2/3 of their tickets at twice what they paid, so they can afford to let a third sit empty. That's why they can say that Wrigley Field has sold out every game for years and years but you'll see huge blocks of empty seats on televised games.

    The same goes for iPads. They'll eventually have to unload a bunch at retail price or slightly below, but they'll make more than enough off of the smaller segment of the market willing to pay the higher price in the meantime.

    That's not quite what's happening in the OP- the guy was buying iPads to sell to people who couldn't get them any other way which, by my definition, isn't scalping. Nor is it impossible to get one at retail price now, you just have to get on a waiting list and wait a few days. But in principle, scalping is not capitalism and it shouldn't be treated as such.

    zilo on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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?

    Not really, generally speaking. There's no possible way to meet demand for things like new game consoles or new Apple gadgets within reason. I mean, they could shell out an extra fortune for manufacturing, but that's expensive as hell and eats into profit margin. They could sit on their inventory until they have enough on hand to meet initial demand, but that costs a lot of money as well, both in terms of storage and delayed revenue. Or they could charge a high enough price to curtail demand, but that has pretty terrible PR ramifications.

    So I mean yeah, I guess it's Apple's "fault", but there's really not a good way for them to keep demand from outstripping supply.

    It's even worse than that, really. When they're forecasting their release numbers, they don't merely have to produce enough devices - which you rightly note would be practically impossible alone - they have to produce enough devices without producing too many, which would be a PR disaster even worse than jacking the price skyward. It's gotten to the point where not only is the release-day madness an inevitable consequence of high-profile releases like the iPad's, it's an expected and critical part of the marketing for such devices. It's good business to make noise about how awful it is that assholes are trying to sell iPads for a grand on eBay, but Apple is thrilled that their release has had this effect, just as Sony was whenever Playstations did the same thing.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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?

    Not really, generally speaking. There's no possible way to meet demand for things like new game consoles or new Apple gadgets within reason. I mean, they could shell out an extra fortune for manufacturing, but that's expensive as hell and eats into profit margin. They could sit on their inventory until they have enough on hand to meet initial demand, but that costs a lot of money as well, both in terms of storage and delayed revenue. Or they could charge a high enough price to curtail demand, but that has pretty terrible PR ramifications.

    So I mean yeah, I guess it's Apple's "fault", but there's really not a good way for them to keep demand from outstripping supply.

    Obviously the solution is for Apple to only talk about the bad parts of the iPad, thereby lowering demand to levels that can be met by supply.

    But then that would lead to Microsoft and Google and HP all talking about how awesome the iPad is, in an attempt to spark demand beyond what Apple's supply can accommodate and thus make Apple look bad.

    BubbaT on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    zilo wrote: »

    That's not what scalpers do. They artificially raise prices by buying up all available stock. You either pay their price or go wanting.

    There is nothing artificial about that scenario. Stadium and civic centers don't allow the price to float because if they did people would get mad and stop using tax revenue to fund their arenas and additionally there is a perceived value to them in filling as many seats as possible to make the act/team seem popular and accessible. That isn't altruism and it isn't any more 'natural' than arbitrage.
    That's not quite what's happening in the OP- the guy was buying iPads to sell to people who couldn't get them any other way which, by my definition, isn't scalping. Nor is it impossible to get one at retail price now, you just have to get on a waiting list and wait a few days. But in principle, scalping is not capitalism and it shouldn't be treated as such.

    How is arbitrage not capitalism?

    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
    zilo wrote: »
    That's not quite what's happening in the OP- the guy was buying iPads to sell to people who couldn't get them any other way which, by my definition, isn't scalping. Nor is it impossible to get one at retail price now, you just have to get on a waiting list and wait a few days. But in principle, scalping is not capitalism and it shouldn't be treated as such.

    I must have missed this.

    Yes, you're right, in that case he is performing a service, and he is not scalping.

    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.
  • zilozilo Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    zilo wrote: »

    That's not what scalpers do. They artificially raise prices by buying up all available stock. You either pay their price or go wanting.

    There is nothing artificial about that scenario. Stadium and civic centers don't allow the price to float because if they did people would get mad and stop using tax revenue to fund their arenas and additionally there is a perceived value to them in filling as many seats as possible to make the act/team seem popular and accessible. That isn't altruism and it isn't any more 'natural' than arbitrage.
    That's not quite what's happening in the OP- the guy was buying iPads to sell to people who couldn't get them any other way which, by my definition, isn't scalping. Nor is it impossible to get one at retail price now, you just have to get on a waiting list and wait a few days. But in principle, scalping is not capitalism and it shouldn't be treated as such.

    How is arbitrage not capitalism?

    Well, more like "not a good and useful part of capitalism". Normal eBay-style arbitrage adds something to the proposition. Scalping adds nothing.

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

    Well, more like "not a good and useful part of capitalism". Normal eBay-style arbitrage adds something to the proposition. Scalping adds nothing.

    Oh, so it is ok to transfer goods as long as you just wait some indeterminate amount of time. How long do I have to wait before e-baying something I own before I add value to the proposition? Or maybe there is some profit ceiling you want to place on the transaction that makes one ok and the other not (that should be pretty funny considering we are discussing Apple).

    Saammiel on
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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?

    Not really, generally speaking. There's no possible way to meet demand for things like new game consoles or new Apple gadgets within reason. I mean, they could shell out an extra fortune for manufacturing, but that's expensive as hell and eats into profit margin. They could sit on their inventory until they have enough on hand to meet initial demand, but that costs a lot of money as well, both in terms of storage and delayed revenue. Or they could charge a high enough price to curtail demand, but that has pretty terrible PR ramifications.

    So I mean yeah, I guess it's Apple's "fault", but there's really not a good way for them to keep demand from outstripping supply.

    Wait, when did the supply run out? I know the local Best Buy has had no problem keeping them in stock... their initial shipment took almost a week to sell, and by that point they'd already received more.

    Unless we're talking about a delayed international release, and then, that's normal for tech. I almost imported a DS for the wife so she could have it in blue. :P

    Shadowfire on
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    electricitylikesme on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?
    PR. Whereas the non-controversy about scalping in this thread is the best PR they could possibly imagine. Seriously, anyone with substantial amounts of Apple stock should pop a stiffy when they see a thread like this.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    They'd rather keep everyone excited. It's free marketing. Also if you have a 600 dollar ipad and they are selling on eBay for 1500, you get to feel like you have a 1500 dollar toy for awhile (until the eBay price comes down).

    If I were apple, i'd sell them for 600 dollars in stores and with my left-hand sell them for 1500 on eBay under different, unbranded, account names. Then I'd publicly deride the "eBay scalpers" that I secretly endorse to appear as a hero to the consumers.

    Mwahahaha

    Loklar on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    They'd rather keep everyone excited. It's free marketing. Also if you have a 600 dollar ipad and they are selling on eBay for 1500, you get to feel like you have a 1500 dollar toy for awhile (until the eBay price comes down).

    If I were apple, i'd sell them for 600 dollars in stores and with my left-hand sell them for 1500 on eBay under different, unbranded, account names. Then I'd publicly deride the "eBay scalpers" that I secretly endorse to appear as a hero to the consumers.

    Mwahahaha

    Hypothesis: they could be doing this anyway, hence the anti-scalper store policy.

    Counter-hypothesis: this would be devestating if it ever came out, and if I were the guy employed to do it, that would be my plan for a severence package.

    electricitylikesme on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    someone will be caught doing that in the next decade, if we even still have the capacity to figure shit like that out

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    Tell me, what fucking company have you ever seen deliberately doing this, and why should Apple start the trend now?


    Do you see game consoles rolling out at ridiculously high prices on launch days because "olol too much demand"? Or any other mobile phones or tablets?

    I don't think anybody who sells shit at bricks and mortar uses trending prices.


    I can actually only think of two quasi-examples: One is Intel SSDs on newegg. Intel sells their SSDs for rape$ because the "demand" is so high, but thats mostly because they also aren't producing them in high volumes at the moment either. And Two, the other market you see this happen is in exotic cars, but thats only because when brand new models of supercars are hitting the market the dealers are marking them up like hell, basically acting like scalpers. 3 years ago, if you wanted an Audi R8 you'd be placed on a 2 year waiting list and would have to pay about 60,000-80,000$USD over MSRP for the privilege. Now? If you want one you can have it easily for about 114k$USD in a matter of months.

    gearn on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Pretty much all computer components are sold like this. Hence the nigh-weekly variations in the cost of things like RAM and hard disks. Graphics cards and processors too.

    EDIT: Also what the hell is with the "this is how it is" stick up your ass?

    electricitylikesme on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    I've been buying components for years and have never seen any of that shit.

    The only reason prices seem to drop on computer parts is because newer and better competition is coming out at cheaper levels.

    gearn on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    Tell me, what fucking company have you ever seen deliberately doing this, and why should Apple start the trend now?

    Do you see game consoles rolling out at ridiculously high prices on launch days because "olol too much demand"? Or any other mobile phones or tablets?

    Video games drop in price the longer they are out. They start at a given price point, and drop at a speed relative to their popularity. Granted the don't suffer from quite the same constraints as those that face Apple, but the idea that no one discriminates in pricing over time is wrong.

    Saammiel on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    And yet the companies do not sell the older stuff at a loss for a good long while even as the prices drop. They lower prices as supply ramps up and as they need to clear stock at higher volume to maintain profits. It's the same thing.

    RAM very much demonstrates this - if I recall correctly DDR2 is starting to get more expensive now as supplies dry up because the volume is falling off as people move to DDR3. RDRAM was very notable for this.

    electricitylikesme on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    Tell me, what fucking company have you ever seen deliberately doing this, and why should Apple start the trend now?

    Do you see game consoles rolling out at ridiculously high prices on launch days because "olol too much demand"? Or any other mobile phones or tablets?

    Video games drop in price the longer they are out. They start at a given price point, and drop at a speed relative to their popularity. Granted the don't suffer from quite the same constraints as those that face Apple, but the idea that no one discriminates in pricing over time is wrong.

    Games drop in price as the demand drops.

    What people would be suggesting is for games to raise their price higher than the starting price when the demand is simply too high to satisfy.

    gearn on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    Tell me, what fucking company have you ever seen deliberately doing this, and why should Apple start the trend now?

    Do you see game consoles rolling out at ridiculously high prices on launch days because "olol too much demand"? Or any other mobile phones or tablets?

    Video games drop in price the longer they are out. They start at a given price point, and drop at a speed relative to their popularity. Granted the don't suffer from quite the same constraints as those that face Apple, but the idea that no one discriminates in pricing over time is wrong.

    Games drop in price as the demand drops.

    What people would be suggesting is for games to raise their price higher than the starting price when the demand is simply too high to satisfy.

    Why do you assume that the "starting price" is the only price? If they can be sold profitably at lower prices, doesn't it imply the starting price is in fact low, and raised artificially?

    EDIT: If I buy Mass Effect on Steam for $5 a year after release, Bioware still make money off of it. So why is it higher initially? It's intangible - via digital distribution it has close to zero costs to manufacture.

    electricitylikesme on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    Tell me, what fucking company have you ever seen deliberately doing this, and why should Apple start the trend now?

    Do you see game consoles rolling out at ridiculously high prices on launch days because "olol too much demand"? Or any other mobile phones or tablets?

    Video games drop in price the longer they are out. They start at a given price point, and drop at a speed relative to their popularity. Granted the don't suffer from quite the same constraints as those that face Apple, but the idea that no one discriminates in pricing over time is wrong.

    Games drop in price as the demand drops.

    What people would be suggesting is for games to raise their price higher than the starting price when the demand is simply too high to satisfy.

    Why do you assume that the "starting price" is the only price? If they can be sold profitably at lower prices, doesn't it imply the starting price is in fact low, and raised artificially?

    no.

    gearn on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    Tell me, what fucking company have you ever seen deliberately doing this, and why should Apple start the trend now?

    Do you see game consoles rolling out at ridiculously high prices on launch days because "olol too much demand"? Or any other mobile phones or tablets?

    Video games drop in price the longer they are out. They start at a given price point, and drop at a speed relative to their popularity. Granted the don't suffer from quite the same constraints as those that face Apple, but the idea that no one discriminates in pricing over time is wrong.

    Games drop in price as the demand drops.

    What people would be suggesting is for games to raise their price higher than the starting price when the demand is simply too high to satisfy.

    Why do you assume that the "starting price" is the only price? If they can be sold profitably at lower prices, doesn't it imply the starting price is in fact low, and raised artificially?

    no.

    Wow. You totally convinced me there! There's no possible flaws in this cunning rebuttal.

    electricitylikesme on
  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    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.

    And you think there would not be a whole damn slew of negative externalities? Poor people selling their organs? the Mob forcing people to sell their organs under threat. Creating a positive incentive for someone to die.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    fjafjan 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.

    And you think there would not be a whole damn slew of negative externalities? Poor people selling their organs? the Mob forcing people to sell their organs under threat. Creating a positive incentive for someone to die.

    It would add to the incentive for people to die, but not by much.

    Think of it this way. If livers sell for 4 thousand dollars on the open market, then effectively every human is walking around with a nice watch inside their gut. Does this change the insentive to murder someone drastically?No.

    Some people get killed for jewelery. Imagine killing someone for a 4 thousand dollar organ... And you need a doctor in on it... And you have to sell this liver without raising any questions. It would be such a hard crime to comit. Murder is still illigal. The DNA of the liver could be judged against a donor-list. If the person wasn't a donor, or died susspeciously, then the cops have people to investigate (the person selling the liver).

    It would happen, but not a lot. And definently not as much as we see petty murders happen. If you wanted to murder for 4 thousand dollars, it'd be way easier to mug a rich woman. It's faster, you can do it alone, the cops won't chase you as hard, if you're caught you don't go to jail as long.

    Murdering or coercing desperate people on the fringes of society might be a problem. I'll conscede that.

    Loklar on
Sign In or Register to comment.