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

gearngearn __BANNED USERS
edited August 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
ipadko.jpg


A derailed line of discussion was started in the Apple to Developers thread.

The discussion begain with this article.

Tl;dr: A dude was banned from buying iPads forever because he was buying way too many and was reselling them on Ebay.

Apparently, many people in the Apple thread cried foul, saying you should be able to purchase as many iPads as you want and blacklisting undesirable customers forever from buying things you make is an evil practice that should be made illegal through government interaction: See this quote tree.

Evander wrote: »
gearn wrote: »
Evander wrote: »
Perpetual wrote: »
Evander wrote: »
Perpetual wrote: »
Evander wrote: »
gearn wrote: »
taeric wrote: »
gearn wrote: »
Drez wrote: »
Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

Corporations are not governments.

You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

absolutely true

but the story doesn't end right there.

When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

The guy who wrote that article said it himself that he's not angry or even annoyed.

So yeah. You guys are definitely making too big a deal about this.

The fact that Apple has a lifetime ban policy that they refuse to inform customers about is a serious thing. So what if the guy doesn't care?

I don't see what's so serious about it. Like I said, many companies have blacklist policies for people who try to circumvent terms of service and similar rules. And they don't go around advertising those blacklist policies either.

They had no proof of him reselling, so there was nothing at all wrong that he was doing, as per their posted rules.

I know that people tend to treat suppliers as though they are in charge of all transactions, but that is not true. It is a transaction involving equal partners. What Apple is doing by refusing to inform consumers of their policy is showing a GREAT disrespect, and as a consumer, I take issue with that.

Go walk in to a store, start a transaction, and then walk out at the last minute, right before you were supposed to pay, not giving any reason. Technically, that is within your right, but can you imagine how those actions on your part would be taken? Why is it any different the other way around?



If you have a problem with it, you can just decide not to buy anything from them anymore. Stop buying stuff from people who don't respect you. It's that simple.

You must be really pissed off that the consumerist webpage exists, aren't you.

I mean, why don't all of those people just not buy things, instead of informing each other.




But before this, there was been general discontent brewing toward Apple.

Apparently, many people in that thread also want the FCC to investigate Apple because they believe the Appstore is creating a monopoly on iPhone and iPad apps. With the banning of third party iPhone app compilers developers are now being FORCED to learn how to make iPhoneOS apps the traditional way in order to sell anything on the privately owned Apple app store. It is now much more difficult for developers to make apps that can run on many platforms, because they now have to make their software specifically for other platforms from the ground up!


As a result, Adobe has terminated any possibility of ever bringing Flash to the iPhone or iPad.

Adobe will no longer pursue its plans to bring Flash to Apple’s iPhone and the iPad.

Adobe on Tuesday evening said it is ceasing investment in a software tool that enables Flash developers to port software into native iPhone and iPad apps, according to Mike Chambers, Adobe’s principal product manager for Flash developer relations.

“The primary goal of Flash has always been to enable cross-browser, platform and device development,” Chambers wrote in a blog post. “This is the exact opposite of what Apple wants. They want to tie developers down to their platform, and restrict their options to make it difficult for developers to target other platforms.”

Adobe is reacting to a new rule in the iPhone developer agreement, which stipulates that iPhone and iPad apps must be coded with Apple-approved programming languages, such as C++ or Objective C. If enforced, the rule would effectively ban any apps coded with Adobe’s Packager for iPhone, a tool enabling Flash-coded software to be easily converted into native iPhone apps, released last week with Adobe CS5.

Faced with Apple’s new rule, Adobe pulled the plug on Packager for iPhone. That ends, for now, any hope that Flash apps (or apps that incorporate Flash) will ever be able to run on the iPad or iPhone.

Apple’s new app policy has been met with furious debate. Critics say Apple is depriving consumers of choice, because Flash apps that could have been on the iPhone will never see the light of day. Supporters of Apple’s decision, including Steve Jobs, say the move was necessary to retain quality of apps in the App Store and nimbleness of updating the platform.

Apple has been steadfast with its lack of support for Flash on the iPhone OS. Some customers have complained that without Flash, iPhone and iPad users are missing out on a big chunk of the internet. Jobs said during a staff meeting that Flash was not supported because it is “buggy” and frequently causes crashes on the Mac OS, according to a secondhand account first reported by Wired.com.

Rather than supporting Flash, Apple has reportedly pushed website creators to use alternative web standards, including HTML5, CSS and JavaScript, which are all supported by the iPhone and iPad browser.

Apple said Adobe was incorrect to accuse Apple of locking in developers by not supporting Flash.

“Someone has it backwards — it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe’s Flash is closed and proprietary,” an Apple representative said in a statement provided to CNET.


However, as simple as it may sound for web developers to switch to different standards, Wired.com’s Webmonkey editor Mike Calore said the transition to HTML5 for video playback would be complex. He explained that there’s no agreed upon video format for HTML5, and support varies greatly from browser to browser.

“Not to be overly critical of Apple — anyone pushing for open web standards deserves kudos — but the company seems more deeply concerned with digging Flash’s grave than it does with promoting semantic markup,” Calore wrote.



Is Apple evil? Or chaotic neutral?

gearn on
«13456729

Posts

  • ANTVGM64ANTVGM64 regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    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.

    ANTVGM64 on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Government intervention isn't neccessary.

    If Apple wants to sell the iPad below what the market deems it is worth, that's their silly choice. And if they want to put a limit on how many iPads a person can buy, that's their choice too.

    Loklar on
  • ThreepioThreepio regular New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Apple, in 1997, was on the brink of shutting down. Their market cap was negligible, their stock was in the shitter, and there was no positive direction for the company. At all. In anything.

    Steve returned in the most daring reverse-acquisition in American business history. He brought with him the design and technology strategy that has seen Apple become one of the world's largest consumer electronics manufacturers - certainly the most well known.

    Their stock has jumped from $14 in 1997 to over $300... and that's after a split. Their market cap (adjusted) now exceeds Microsoft, and their warchest in ready cash is in the billions.

    Part of that equation is the trust of the market. People feel good about Apple products and they feel good about Apple (the angry apple-hating nerd subset is inconsequential). Apple does not want news stories about how iPads are going for $3000 on eBay. They're content to leave that to Sony and Nintendo. Instead, they took steps to ensure that customers could buy their product for the advertised price.

    Was it fair? Irrelevant. As a merchant I can see to whomever I choose. I do not have to give you a reason; I can ask you to leave my store at any time and I can decline your transaction for any reason. You are not entitled to my justification; merely letting you know that your custom is not welcome is enough.

    "Consumers should be able to pay a jacked up price if they want". Certainly, they should, and Apple's not stopping anyone from doing that. They are saying to the one man who was buying large quantities of these that they will no longer supply them to him because they don't approve of what he's doing to their potential customers. That's their right.

    Threepio on
    142.jpg
  • LanzLanz regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    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.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • CadeCade regular Eppur si muove.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Didn't Microsoft bail out Apple at one point with Gates even appearing on screen at one of Apples big shows which revolted the Mac fans, I seem to recall that.

    Cade on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    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.

    This is so backwards.

    The "value" of a ticket is what people will pay for it. Not what is printed on the stub. I've never seen someone forced to buy scalped tickets.

    A bucket might cost you 5 dollars. But if you're on a sinking ship, it's value is your life.

    Loklar on
  • KhavallKhavall regular British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    forcing consumers

    I'm sorry, are the scalpers pulling a gun on the consumers? If the consumers don't want to wait for the next batch of iPads, or if the consumers don't want to put in the effort to find out when shipments come in, then yes, the only immediately available products are higher priced. However, it's not like Apple only made x iPads and now that there's demand for more have just decided to not make anymore, it's not like stores won't get more stock, and it's not like the iPad is a life or death time-sensitive product.

    The scalpers are only forcing consumers to do anything if the consumer isn't willing to wait.

    Khavall 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
    I'm not exactly a big fan of Apple, but I'm even less of a fan of scalpers, so Apple gets a cookie from me for telling this dude to fuck off.

    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.
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong I resent your generic comment and will report it Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't have a comprehensive personal policy on hand that outlines when it is and is not appropriate to blacklist a customer, but "buying lots of a high-demand product and scalping them on ebay" would fall cleanly in the ok to blacklist category.

    So don't come at me trying to knock down this house of cards reasoning with "well what if..." blah blah blah.

    I don't know. I haven't sat down and organized my thoughts into legalistic, logical rules on this matter. All I know is that product scalping is really lame and any company is totally in the right to stop it since it hurts both them and customers alike. Scalpers are one of the free market's parasites and I don't believe in a fully unchecked free market.

    Donkey Kong on
    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It's entirely within Apple's right to see to certain people and not others, especially in cases like this where there's a damn good reason for it. Regardless of how you feel about Apple (I don't like it, myself) and regardless of how you feel about scalping (I think people should feel free to do it if others are willing to pay), it's irrelevant. This is well within Apple's rights as a manufacturer.

    Solomaxwell6 on
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong I resent your generic comment and will report it Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cade wrote: »
    Didn't Microsoft bail out Apple at one point with Gates even appearing on screen at one of Apples big shows which revolted the Mac fans, I seem to recall that.

    Microsoft and Apple brokered a deal whereby Microsoft bought token, non-voting stake in Apple (which they promptly sold off a bit later for a handsome profit) and in exchange, founded the Mac Business Unit at Microsoft, where they would be committed to developing native Mac version of Office products.

    The Mac versions of Office products have been MUCH better maintained than they were before the deal and Microsoft got to stay out of anti-trust hot water because the leading office suite had an acceptable, full featured version on an alternative operating system to theirs.

    It was never a monetary bailout, really. The Apple stock was just a token for one reason or another.

    Donkey Kong on
    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
  • LanzLanz regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Khavall wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    forcing consumers

    I'm sorry, are the scalpers pulling a gun on the consumers? If the consumers don't want to wait for the next batch of iPads, or if the consumers don't want to put in the effort to find out when shipments come in, then yes, the only immediately available products are higher priced. However, it's not like Apple only made x iPads and now that there's demand for more have just decided to not make anymore, it's not like stores won't get more stock, and it's not like the iPad is a life or death time-sensitive product.

    The scalpers are only forcing consumers to do anything if the consumer isn't willing to wait.

    Perhaps "forcing" isn't the best choice of words, but as far as my lexicon goes it's the best word I can find to describe a situation in which an item of limited production, depleted through a mix of popularity and scalper hoarding, is sold to consumers at marked up prices because the scalpers selling it have become, for an indefinite duration, the only game in town.

    They are not forced at gunpoint or under threat, but the action of these people does have a negative impact on consumers, in my opinion, at large and honestly I'm rather surprised to see people around here defending that kind of behavior under the guise of capitalism and free trade

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • WMain00WMain00 Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Wasn't there a topic on this not that long ago?

    Apple being bashful towards consumers, the industry and everyone else? It's not surprising really. They have a monopoly in the particular markets they're aiming for, so they feel they can do whatever they want and nobody is going to stop them. Sure, you get a few complaints and hosility, but what's a lowly consumer going to do?

    It's just how capitalist groups like Apple work sadly. They are no more worse than when Microsoft was stomping about in there early years, or IBM. It's a dog eat dog world out there.

    WMain00 on
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong I resent your generic comment and will report it Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Technically, if scalpers can make any money, then Apple priced the iPad below free-market price because there is more demand than supply. Scalpers correct this imbalance.

    Donkey Kong on
    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
  • ANTVGM64ANTVGM64 regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Also, this scalping thing goes the way of the dinosaur in a few months anyway. It's because it's the hot new thing. Once supply catches up with demand, it's all good.

    Right now the IPad is a tickle me elmo. Dig it?

    if you want to pay the normal price, and didn't wait in line like everyone else, well, whose fault is that?

    ANTVGM64 on
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Technically, if scalpers can make any money, then Apple priced the iPad below free-market price because there is more demand than supply. Scalpers correct this imbalance.
    Except they don't. Correcting the imbalance would mean either increasing supply or decreasing demand; scalpers do neither, merely exploiting the imbalance to obtain profit.

    Mr_Rose on
    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    Technically, if scalpers can make any money, then Apple priced the iPad below free-market price because there is more demand than supply. Scalpers correct this imbalance.
    Except they don't. Correcting the imbalance would mean either increasing supply or decreasing demand; scalpers do neither, merely exploiting the imbalance to obtain profit.

    Raising the price decreases demand.

    Loklar on
  • LanzLanz regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    Technically, if scalpers can make any money, then Apple priced the iPad below free-market price because there is more demand than supply. Scalpers correct this imbalance.
    Except they don't. Correcting the imbalance would mean either increasing supply or decreasing demand; scalpers do neither, merely exploiting the imbalance to obtain profit.

    Raising the price decreases demand.

    In what way?

    EDIT: I could see it, perhaps, if it was raised by the original supplier, but again these are scalpers.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    Technically, if scalpers can make any money, then Apple priced the iPad below free-market price because there is more demand than supply. Scalpers correct this imbalance.
    Except they don't. Correcting the imbalance would mean either increasing supply or decreasing demand; scalpers do neither, merely exploiting the imbalance to obtain profit.

    Raising the price decreases demand.

    In what way?

    Because at some point an iPad would be so expensive you wouldn't want one. If it cost more than a laptop, most people would just buy a laptop.

    Edit to your edit: It doesn't really matter if Apple raises the price or a scalper raises the price. Apple has the advantage though, because they can make the product. Eventually there will be so many iPads that scalping would be a waste of time.

    Loklar 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
    My biggest pet peeve about threads on business practices is that people conflate legally permissible with morally acceptable so much it becomes impossible to unravel who's saying what.

    My second pet peeve is that people act like capitalism morally excuses businesses to engage in any practices whatsoever as long as it is profitable.

    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.
  • LanzLanz regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    My biggest pet peeve about threads on business practices is that people conflate legally permissible with morally acceptable so much it becomes impossible to unravel who's saying what.

    My second pet peeve is that people act like capitalism morally excuses businesses to engage in any practices whatsoever as long as it is profitable.

    My opinion is that Businesses should act in a way that is fair and equitable for the consumer base.

    This includes limiting purchases on scarce items (examples: consoles, iPad, etc.) in order to allow as many purchases by individual consumers as possible and to prevent instances such as scalpers attempting to make a profit off the scarcity of a product by fleecing their fellow consumers.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Captain VashCaptain Vash regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I would say that a company defining and acting on a policy that restricts consumer's ability to purchase an item is a) completely legal b) completely morally acceptable c) completely logical.


    How many times did you see a sale sign that said "limit 2 bottles of soda at special pricing"... is it really hurting the consumer that you can't buy 10? what if I wanted to buy 100 so I could resell them to my friends? how is it any different just because this is an ipad and not sugar water?

    I think ya'll are stupid for even arguing about this.

    Captain Vash on
    twitterforweb.Stuckens.1,1,500,f4f4f4,0,c4c4c4,000000.png
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    My biggest pet peeve about threads on business practices is that people conflate legally permissible with morally acceptable so much it becomes impossible to unravel who's saying what.

    My second pet peeve is that people act like capitalism morally excuses businesses to engage in any practices whatsoever as long as it is profitable.

    i don't see why it is morally problematic for a business to exclude people from buying their products

    there is no ethical obligation to let anyone buy what you are selling

    Evil Multifarious on
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • 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
    Lanz wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    My biggest pet peeve about threads on business practices is that people conflate legally permissible with morally acceptable so much it becomes impossible to unravel who's saying what.

    My second pet peeve is that people act like capitalism morally excuses businesses to engage in any practices whatsoever as long as it is profitable.

    My opinion is that Businesses should act in a way that is fair and equitable for the consumer base.

    This includes limiting purchases on scarce items (examples: consoles, iPad, etc.) in order to allow as many purchases by individual consumers as possible and to prevent instances such as scalpers attempting to make a profit off the scarcity of a product by fleecing their fellow consumers.

    Oh, I totally agree.
    I would say that a company defining and acting on a policy that restricts consumer's ability to purchase an item is a) completely legal b) completely morally acceptable c) completely logical.

    Depends on the policy.

    But in this case, I don't see anything wrong.

    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.
  • EgoEgo regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Guess I'm crazy, but I have no problem with Apple going after a blatant reseller, and wish console makers could as easily do the same thing to avoid people eating up supply to boost demand for their own profit. I've never been a big fan of middle-men, after all.

    You guys are angry that someone was barred from the electronic version of ticket scalping? Well, ok.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    This is going to become a giant socialism vs capitalism clusterfuck.

    Loklar on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    My biggest pet peeve about threads on business practices is that people conflate legally permissible with morally acceptable so much it becomes impossible to unravel who's saying what.

    My second pet peeve is that people act like capitalism morally excuses businesses to engage in any practices whatsoever as long as it is profitable.

    i don't see why it is morally problematic for a business to exclude people from buying their products

    there is no ethical obligation to let anyone buy what you are selling

    Well it depends on what you're selling. But given this is a guy buying a scarce luxury good to resell yeah there isn't much moral obligation. It's not like the life time ban means much anyway. There'll be a new model in a year or two and he could always just use cash.

    Edit: Or hey, if he really wants one he could always ask one of his European friends to buy him one and sell it to him.

    Quid 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
    Feral wrote: »
    My biggest pet peeve about threads on business practices is that people conflate legally permissible with morally acceptable so much it becomes impossible to unravel who's saying what.

    My second pet peeve is that people act like capitalism morally excuses businesses to engage in any practices whatsoever as long as it is profitable.

    i don't see why it is morally problematic for a business to exclude people from buying their products

    there is no ethical obligation to let anyone buy what you are selling

    Depends on what you're selling and who you're excluding.

    Establishing such a broad moral principle results in more questionable cases like realtors refusing to sell houses to black people, or pharmacists refusing to provide birth control to single women.

    But in this case we're talking about a luxury product being withheld from people whose actions are deleterious to other consumers, so I don't have a problem with it.

    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.
  • japanjapan regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    My biggest pet peeve about threads on business practices is that people conflate legally permissible with morally acceptable so much it becomes impossible to unravel who's saying what.

    My second pet peeve is that people act like capitalism morally excuses businesses to engage in any practices whatsoever as long as it is profitable.

    i don't see why it is morally problematic for a business to exclude people from buying their products

    there is no ethical obligation to let anyone buy what you are selling

    Depends what you're selling. I know that electricity utilities here can't legally cut off someone's supply whatever happens. The strongest sanction they have is replacing their electricity meter with a pre-payment meter.

    japan on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited April 2010
    japan wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    My biggest pet peeve about threads on business practices is that people conflate legally permissible with morally acceptable so much it becomes impossible to unravel who's saying what.

    My second pet peeve is that people act like capitalism morally excuses businesses to engage in any practices whatsoever as long as it is profitable.

    i don't see why it is morally problematic for a business to exclude people from buying their products

    there is no ethical obligation to let anyone buy what you are selling

    Depends what you're selling. I know that electricity utilities here can't legally cut off someone's supply whatever happens. The strongest sanction they have is replacing their electricity meter with a pre-payment meter.

    That's a legal issue though. It is not legal to cut off someone's electricity even if they're a deadbeat. That doesn't make it immoral. Deadbeats raise the price of electricity for everyone else.

    Loklar on
  • japanjapan regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    My biggest pet peeve about threads on business practices is that people conflate legally permissible with morally acceptable so much it becomes impossible to unravel who's saying what.

    My second pet peeve is that people act like capitalism morally excuses businesses to engage in any practices whatsoever as long as it is profitable.

    i don't see why it is morally problematic for a business to exclude people from buying their products

    there is no ethical obligation to let anyone buy what you are selling

    Depends what you're selling. I know that electricity utilities here can't legally cut off someone's supply whatever happens. The strongest sanction they have is replacing their electricity meter with a pre-payment meter.

    That's a legal issue though. It is not legal to cut off someone's electricity even if they're a deadbeat. That doesn't make it immoral.

    I would say it is. Back home cutting off someone's electricity in winter could potentially be a death sentence.

    japan on
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    Technically, if scalpers can make any money, then Apple priced the iPad below free-market price because there is more demand than supply. Scalpers correct this imbalance.
    Except they don't. Correcting the imbalance would mean either increasing supply or decreasing demand; scalpers do neither, merely exploiting the imbalance to obtain profit.

    Raising the price decreases demand.

    One scalper can't raise the price across the whole system, nor can he raise his prices enough to decrease overall demand, therefore he can't decrease demand enough to matter. A slightly flawed analogy would be putting a resistor into a circuit in parallel to an existing wire; the total resistance is proportional to 1 over the sum of all routes, so adding a second one increases the overall not very much at all.

    As such, he becomes extraneous wiring, a pointless element that adds complexity for no good purpose. Cutting him out is the only logical solution.

    Mr_Rose on
    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • ronzoronzo regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalpers only really piss me off in a few instances, mostly when there is limited supply of a product.

    Like the wii, or the 360 when it launched, there might have been enough stock to meet demand after the first few months, but scalpers would just swoop in and buy up the whole stock and relist them on ebay, which prolonged the problem for months longer than it should have, benefitting no one but the scalpers.

    On a similar note, fuck the assholes who go and buy up all of the limited release $10 transformers and sell them for $40 on ebay.

    ronzo on
  • OtakuD00DOtakuD00D Can I hit the exploding rocks? San DiegoRegistered 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.

    It's the consumers' fault for being desperate enough to agree to the jacked up prices. Their fault for wanting such as shitty product anyway.

    If I had the money to do it, I'd be reselling them too.

    OtakuD00D on
    makosig.jpg
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    My biggest pet peeve about threads on business practices is that people conflate legally permissible with morally acceptable so much it becomes impossible to unravel who's saying what.

    My second pet peeve is that people act like capitalism morally excuses businesses to engage in any practices whatsoever as long as it is profitable.

    i don't see why it is morally problematic for a business to exclude people from buying their products

    there is no ethical obligation to let anyone buy what you are selling

    Depends on what you're selling and who you're excluding.

    Establishing such a broad moral principle results in more questionable cases like realtors refusing to sell houses to black people, or pharmacists refusing to provide birth control to single women.

    But in this case we're talking about a luxury product being withheld from people whose actions are deleterious to other consumers, so I don't have a problem with it.

    agents of sales refusing to sell vital-to-life products or services based on discriminatory reasons are very different, yes

    i don't think it even needs to be harmful to other consumers; they'd be justified if they did it entirely out of self-interest

    i don't particularly have a problem with people essentially scalping electronics, although i think the attitude that compels people to pay exorbitant prices for instant gratification is pretty disturbing

    Evil Multifarious on
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    My biggest pet peeve about threads on business practices is that people conflate legally permissible with morally acceptable so much it becomes impossible to unravel who's saying what.

    It's probably because morality is highly subjective so arguing that angle is going to result in a clusterfuck, whereas legality is fairly straight-forward.

    Perpetual on
  • EchoEcho mod Moderator mod
    edited April 2010
    japan wrote: »
    I would say it is. Back home cutting off someone's electricity in winter could potentially be a death sentence.

    Someone did die like that this winter.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • oldsakoldsak regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't really see what all the fuss is about scalpers. They're just speculators who essentially make bets on what demand will be. If they're wrong then they're stuck with merchandise they can't move or end up having to do a bunch of leg work for no profit.

    So what if the only way to get an ipad is by paying $1,000 for it on ebay?
    The only one who should be upset is Apple, because they could've done a better job at price discrimination.
    The buyer shouldn't be upset because if he was willing to pay $1,000 for an ipad than it's probably worth that much to him.
    People who aren't willing to spend $1,000 on an ipad should consider the fact that people who are ponying up for them essentially value ipads more. The effect to them is the same as if Apple had initially released them for $1,000 and then eventually reduced the price.

    oldsak on
  • PonyPony regular Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    bahahahaahha

    some of you are pissed that apple blacklisted a known ipad scalper?

    seriously?

    god, you should see the sort of thing credit card companies do with blacklists

    when i was working fraud investigation i regularly used credit blacklisting as a... compliance statement to get companies that were jerking us around to play ball.

    Pony on
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    the guy isn't a protected class

    they're not blacklisting on the lines of race or sexuality

    there is no reason for anyone to care

    Organichu on
Sign In or Register to comment.