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

2456729

Posts

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


    Bold A) And what about those who want to buy it at the actual MSRP+tax and can't because jackasses went and bought up stock to resell at ludicrous profit? Is that fair to them?

    Bold B) No, because Apple didn't do it. A jackass outside the system went in, bought up stock and decided to screw over his fellow consumers for profit.


    A question: What do you think Apple would do if they found out that Authorized Distributors #321543 went and started selling iPads for $1000?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • zilozilo Registered User
    edited April 2010
    I care because I want to buy an iPad but they're sold out at all three Apple stores near me, and there's hundreds of them on eBay, and I'm not willing to pay some douchebag reseller $500 over retail. Bravo, Apple.

    zilo on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    I have no problem with companies blacklisting scalpers. It's not like this guy's actions aren't harming Apple. In the end, Apple gets the same money from the sale of the X iPads they put out thus far, sure. But are you going to be as happy with your $400 iPad (or however much it costs) as with your $3000 iPad? Probably not. Because however much you want it right now, there's a good chance that, down the road, you'll wish you'd waited an extra few months and had an extra $2600 in your pocket. And who are you going to blame for that? The scalper? Maybe. Yourself? Oh, fuck no. Apple? Ding-ding-ding. Because Apple made a product that you, in the end, don't feel was worth what you paid for it. And blaming Apple is stupid, yes, but then people are pretty fucking stupid.

    So Apple is protecting their own interests here, as well as the consumers. I have a hard time faulting them for that. I don't think scalping should be illegal, but I definitely think that companies should be able to blacklist the folks who do it.

    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.
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    That authorized distributor would not be authorized much longer.

    gearn on
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    zilo wrote: »
    I care because I want to buy an iPad but they're sold out at all three Apple stores near me, and there's hundreds of them on eBay, and I'm not willing to pay some douchebag reseller $500 over retail. Bravo, Apple.

    wait

    apple won't sell lots of ipads to one guy

    and you don't want to buy from the guys who bought multiples and are selling them on ebay

    where do those two things intersect?

    Organichu on
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yeah, I'm down with Apple on this.

    Blacklisting resellers? Fine by me because fuck resellers.

    What Apple is doing with their development agreements is a little more objectionable, but that's entirely a separate issue from them blacklisting a known reseller.

    Conflating the two issues as if they are both examples of Apple being some kind of evil corporation can suck a dick.

    Pony on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Clearly people agree its ok for Apple to blacklist a scalper, no questions asked.

    But how about any regular customer?

    Do you think companies in general should be able to blacklist anyone from buying their stuff for whatever reason they see fit?

    gearn on
  • zilozilo Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Organichu wrote: »
    zilo wrote: »
    I care because I want to buy an iPad but they're sold out at all three Apple stores near me, and there's hundreds of them on eBay, and I'm not willing to pay some douchebag reseller $500 over retail. Bravo, Apple.

    wait

    apple won't sell lots of ipads to one guy

    and you don't want to buy from the guys who bought multiples and are selling them on ebay

    where do those two things intersect?

    Because resellers have played a part in locking me out of the market. If it were just sky-high demand eating up supply, that's fine. But right now there are hundreds of iPads sitting on eBay that could be in somebody's house. Maybe my house.

    zilo on
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Clearly people agree its ok for Apple to blacklist a scalper, no questions asked.

    But how about any regular customer?

    Do you think companies should be able to blacklist anyone from buying their stuff for whatever reason they see fit?

    not because they're black or gay or veterans or a number of other classes

    but for other reasons, absolutely, yes

    make a disturbance in my store? yes

    do something i think might effect my company's vitality? yes

    do you suggest that all businesses must have their doors open to all consumers at all times? must fill all orders?

    the customer's always right isn't a law and shouldn't be

    Organichu on
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Clearly people agree its ok for Apple to blacklist a scalper, no questions asked.

    But how about any regular customer?

    Do you think companies in general should be able to blacklist anyone from buying their stuff for whatever reason they see fit?

    as long as the reason doesn't fall under one of the protected groups (race, gender, etc), then yes its fine. They can go right ahead and limit themselves out of the market if they so choose

    ronzo on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    And should the company be allowed to keep the blacklist reason a secret? Simply tell the customer their business is no longer welcome and that's it?

    gearn on
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    And should the company be allowed to keep the blacklist reason a secret? Simply tell the customer their business is no longer welcome and that's it?

    Sure. Although they might want to be ready for lawsuits if someone thinks their rights were violated when they were blacklisted.

    I would equate it to being fired in a at-will state. They can give you a reason for firing you, but they don't have to. And its completely legal as long as they didn't do for a protect class of reasons

    ronzo on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    good

    gearn on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So I guess the previous occurrence of Apple vs. Does consists of, taken at face value, "Apple to Consumers: Fuck you"?

    In which case, thread title might be, more aptly, "Consumers to Apple: Fuck you too"? Just throwing that out there.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    seriously, am I the only one who smells bullshit all over the banned iPad guy?
    I love you forum dudes, I really do, but if you asked me to go out of my way make multiple $500 purchases because you can't wait one month to use a luxury product, I'd tell you to make it worth my while or go fuck yourself.

    This guy was doing it for what looked like at least 7 people.

    Oh and are we also supposed to believe that people are dumb enough to pre pay some random forum fucker for the cost of an iPad plus shipping with no sales contract?

    Sam on
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Clearly people agree its ok for Apple to blacklist a scalper, no questions asked.

    But how about any regular customer?

    Do you think companies in general should be able to blacklist anyone from buying their stuff for whatever reason they see fit?

    When that happens, you have an issue to get fired up about.

    Until then, you're flailing at nothing.

    Pony on
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Clearly people agree its ok for Apple to blacklist a scalper, no questions asked.

    But how about any regular customer?

    Do you think companies in general should be able to blacklist anyone from buying their stuff for whatever reason they see fit?

    When that happens, you have an issue to get fired up about.

    Until then, you're flailing at nothing.

    But Pony, what if Steve Jobs goes around just punching every third person he meets while walking the streets of Cupertino?

    What then?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Clearly people agree its ok for Apple to blacklist a scalper, no questions asked.

    But how about any regular customer?

    Do you think companies in general should be able to blacklist anyone from buying their stuff for whatever reason they see fit?

    When that happens, you have an issue to get fired up about.

    Until then, you're flailing at nothing.

    But Pony, what if Steve Jobs goes around just punching every third person he meets while walking the streets of Cupertino?

    What then?

    Then it's Tuesday, clearly.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong I resent your generic comment and will report it Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Clearly people agree its ok for Apple to blacklist a scalper, no questions asked.

    But how about any regular customer?

    Do you think companies in general should be able to blacklist anyone from buying their stuff for whatever reason they see fit?

    When that happens, you have an issue to get fired up about.

    Until then, you're flailing at nothing.

    But Pony, what if Steve Jobs goes around just punching every third person he meets while walking the streets of Cupertino?

    What then?

    Get together a search party to sweep local bars because another iPhone prototype has gone missing.

    Donkey Kong on
    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It's not like it's that hard for the reseller to generate a bit of cash and get agents to do the work for him, and it's not like people will have a crazy demand for the thing for more than a few months.

    Besides when more people actually use the thing a bit more demand will go down. It is one of the most disappointing "revolutionary" new tech gadgets ever, and this is coming from someone who owns multiple macs and has a fairly favorable outlook on Apple. The thing is a giant ipod.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    From the response so far, it seems like the target audience is people who don't own multiple macs and want to tinker around with an open platform. The thing is like the Wii of tablets/laptops.

    KalTorak on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    Let's make sure to distinguish between illegal practices and douchebag practices. Companies should be able to blacklist people for certain reasons, including reselling for profit, abusing EULAs, and other stuff that pretty clearly can or do harm the company. Companies shouldn't be able to blacklist people for things like race, sex, and so on. And then there are things that are and should be legal, but make the company a fucker, like blacklisting someone because he pissed off the CEO. Just because the company is unethical for doing X doesn't mean X should be illegal.

    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.
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    There's also nothing illegally monopolistic about running your own app store and setting your own rules for what you can do on it.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • retrovmretrovm Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Let's make sure to distinguish between illegal practices and douchebag practices. Companies should be able to blacklist people for certain reasons, including reselling for profit, abusing EULAs, and other stuff that pretty clearly can or do harm the company. Companies shouldn't be able to blacklist people for things like race, sex, and so on. And then there are things that are and should be legal, but make the company a fucker, like blacklisting someone because he pissed off the CEO. Just because the company is unethical for doing X doesn't mean X should be illegal.

    agreed. i don't see the issue here; they're going after a scalper per se.

    retrovm on
    Blackjack wrote: »
    It's like putting an entire bottle of wine inside your five hour energy.
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I am all about anyone doing anything they can to prevent people from acting like dicks. Social contract people!

    Improvolone on
    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • retrovmretrovm Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    what improvolone said.

    retrovm on
    Blackjack wrote: »
    It's like putting an entire bottle of wine inside your five hour energy.
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    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.


    Bold A) And what about those who want to buy it at the actual MSRP+tax and can't because jackasses went and bought up stock to resell at ludicrous profit? Is that fair to them?

    Bold B) No, because Apple didn't do it. A jackass outside the system went in, bought up stock and decided to screw over his fellow consumers for profit.


    A question: What do you think Apple would do if they found out that Authorized Distributors #321543 went and started selling iPads for $1000?

    Don't get me wrong, I also think Apple can sell to whomever they want, and if they want to blacklist a scalper that's totally up to them. Like I said, they're really the only ones who should be pissed.

    A) Those who want to buy it for $500 can wait. I mean really, someone else wanted it more and was willing to pay to get it first. There's a limited supply of ipads right now. In a world without scalpers, there still wouldn't be enough ipads for everyone who wants to buy one. 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.

    I mean really scalpers could be driven out of business if people just refused to buy from them.

    B) I don't really see the difference to the individual consumer whether Apple or a third party captures the premium people are willing to pay to have an ipad first.

    oldsak on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    There's also nothing illegally monopolistic about running your own app store and setting your own rules for what you can do on it.

    The concern that people like Evander had was that if the iPhone gains so much of the market that they will have a monopoly on any mobile Apps worth a damn because they're platform is the only place you can get iPhone apps.

    gearn on
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    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.

    MrMister on
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    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 economic tend to say. It's also an example of how a little economics tends to disconnect people from reality.

    Ha ha, yeah that's probably true.

    I mean I suppose you could say that people who can afford to pay a premium on ipads may just have so much money that their dollars are less significant to them and thus don't necessarily want it more.

    Still, it seems like a pretty basic property of capitalism that resources go to those willing to pay the most for them.

    I mean, if I'm wrong, help me out here.

    oldsak on
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010
    I love how the Apple haters in the previous thread haven't stepped foot in this one.

    I'm basically waiting for AngelHedgie to come in with another article/blog post showing just how evil Apple is.

    Perpetual on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    apple is evil raaaah burn the fruit!



    one of that article guy's friends should just buy him an ipad

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    I love how the Apple haters in the previous thread haven't stepped foot in this one.

    I'm basically waiting for AngelHedgie to come in with another article/blog post showing just how evil Apple is.

    *waves* I'm here. Though "hater" might be too strong. More "suspicious" than "hate".

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    Still, it seems like a pretty basic property of capitalism that resources go to those willing to pay the most for them.

    There are plenty of instances where resources aren't assigned based on willingness to pay. For instance, University housing is typically assigned by lottery, and selling of rooms is prohibited. Same with seats in a classroom, when they're assigned. And, of course, it's actually criminal to buy and sell organs, votes, and sex. The first is also a scarce resource assigned more or less by lottery, and you're on your own entirely for the second and third. Opening a market is not always the best way to allocate a resource.

    In any case, I don't go in for the idea that market forces are a golden calf before which we must lay prostrate. Just because scalpers play some role in a maximization equation somewhere in economics doesn't mean that we should or must tolerate them.

    MrMister on
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    capitialism/free market isn't the best way to allocate resources

    its the best way to use what resources you have to make the most money

    sometimes that means good things for everyone, most of the time its really nice for a small group and tolerable for the rest of us

    ronzo on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ANTVGM64 wrote: »
    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?

    There was more supply than demand at launch. Scalping is a bit of an artificial issue right now. Is there anyone in this thread who wanted an iPad, had the budget for it, but wasn't able to get one?

    My only issue with that particular story from the OP is that Apple refused to inform the customer of the policy that he was in breach of. The guy wasn't hoarding, and he was apparently only making a small profit (if you consider the fact that he was exporting to places where the unit didn't exist, he wasn't scalping at all, he was just charging a fee for his service.) More importantly, there was no way for Apple to know that this guy was making any money off of this. Yes, buying a large number of units seems suspicious, but then again, he could be outfitting a small business, or something. He wasn't buying out their complete stock.

    Apple didn't attempt to find out why he was purchasing so many, and they refused to tell him the details of the policy he was in breach of, only that he had reached a "lifetime limit". I'm wary of lifetime limits, but even that I see as being within Apple's rights impose, my key issue remains the fact that Apple insisted on keeping confidential a policy which was having a direct negative effect on the customer.

    It is a bad precedent to set in the treatment of consumers.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    capitialism/free market isn't the best way to allocate resources

    its the best way to use what resources you have to make the most money

    sometimes that means good things for everyone, most of the time its really nice for a small group and tolerable for the rest of us

    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 combined with regulation as needed is the best option we have. Socialism would be lovely, but it doesn't work long term or large scale.

    Evander on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    This has just taken a really weird turn.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    Still, it seems like a pretty basic property of capitalism that resources go to those willing to pay the most for them.
    Opening a market is not always the best way to allocate a resource.
    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.
    MrMister wrote: »
    In any case, I don't go in for the idea that market forces are a golden calf before which we must lay prostrate. Just because scalpers play some role in a maximization equation somewhere in economics doesn't mean that we should or must tolerate them.

    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.

    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: »
    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?"
    oldsak 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.

    MrMister on
Sign In or Register to comment.