“I love love love the fact that Apple cares enough about its products – and me – to put a specified price on each of its products, clearly marked, unchanged by locale or season or aggressively savvy salespersons,” Brian S.Hall writes for TechPinions.
“Want a Mac? An iPad? Want to download that song on iTunes? Want to purchase that book on iBooks? Want that newest app? The price is obvious. No games, no gaming,” Hall writes. “Why is it that so few tech companies, even (supposedly) great ones, are unable to match this simple act?”
Hall writes, “Apple seemingly stands alone in standing behind its products. The price is listed, take it or leave it… Steve Jobs was on our side. Too many others are not.”
Read more in the full article here.
Sounds like Apple uses the “agency model” for selling its own products. Just wait until the DoJ hears about this.
You may (or may not) have noticed, despite your anti-DOJ rant, that the President vetoed the patent injunction brought by Samsung’s lawyers over the weekend. But why pay any attention to what the government does right when you can claim that everything it does is wrong? Can’t go against that teabag philosophy can you.
The DoJ is seeking the right to directly control Apples business practices. Reflecting on their actions is hardly a rant.
As far as expanding that general reflection to a general stance against the Obama Administration, you are full of it. What makes the DoJ situation so noticeable is that is is absolutely out of character, and therefore remarkable.
And, in keeping with teabag philosophy, is another claim that the government cannot regulate business. I would have been shocked if you had suggested anything else.
Wake up, the tea party is over, coffee is now the rage
Grow up, will you. You’re as bad as the tea partiers, their correct name. Using teabaggers, libtards, etc only make a poster look stupid irregardless of how valid their point is.
‘Irregardless’ is not a word. ‘Regardless’ is what you were looking for.
Thank you. “Irregardless” is a constant annoyance. That and people saying “nucular” for nuclear. And don’t forget the idiot reporters who, dispute clear pronunciation direction from the Oxford English, insist that the city of Moscow is pronounced “moscowe”. It’s really “cow” like a moo cow. 🐮
“Irregardless” belongs in the same dust bin as “once and a while”, “take a new tact”, and “honing in”.
Thank you language police! The real Mike would not make this mistake.
This is one of my favorite things about Apple. I routinely sell old Apple gear for terrific prices on the used market. If it was anyone else’s tech, I’d have to pay people to take it away (check Craigslist for prices of “brand new” Kindles as an example).
It’s true! There are many intangibles like this that have made Apple great.
Or they could operate like the cable and satellite companies where they won’t even tell you the “regular” price of services and just keep harping on the “promotional pricing”. Frankly, I’d be a whole lot more inclined to go back to cable or satellite if they weren’t always gaming, and nickel and diming their customers.
Now if they would just drop the silly 99 part of their pricing. Why does a MacBook Air start at 999 and not a thousand dollars? They have done away with the silly 99 cents, but why not go the full distance?
I think it has something to do with the market psychology. Think of it, which seems more affordable.. $2.99 or $3.00? or $999.99 or $1,000.00? 🙂
If you are an Apple customer you are smart enough to know that $999 is same as $1000 or $998….give or take a dollar.
Agree. For us (Mac users), this should make no diff to us. However, for “regular folks”, it does make some sort of psychological diff. 🙂
That’s marketing (not market) psychology… but you’re right. It’s something that has been surveyed, studied, and tested repeatedly over many decades.
Generally speaking, people will buy based on a relatively minor price differential per your examples.
Conversely, however, people also show a willingness to buy something at a higher price than they would at a significantly lower price… paying $20 for something they wouldn’t buy for $5.
It’s all just the perception of value in the eye of the buyer.
What?!?!?
Pay that extra dollar? 😉
I’d have to agree that this is another reason I like Apple. I never have to think I didn’t get something someone else got – we all get the very same thing when you buy an Apple product. Period, end of story. As SJ would probably say, if you don’t like it, go buy someone else’s product but Apple is giving you the best product there is, so good luck with your on sale brand D purchase. Ron Johnson tried this same basic approach at JCP, but the gullible public did not understand it and instead wanted the mind blowing, confusing pricing situation of Target and Kohl’s. Thank you once again Apple!
In France and the UK, manufacturers would stamp the prices on to their products. They prevented shops from selling the products at a cheaper price. It was called the Retail Price Mechanism. It prevented competition between shops and resulted in higher prices for consumer goods.
The practice of the RPM was outlawed in the UK by a right-wing government who considered it to be a market distortion which operated against the public interest. Consumer products in UK are competitively priced and there is real competition between shops.
In France, this practice was never abandoned. In fact, there are now proposals to stop Amazon from offering free delivery in order to protect small bookshops. The price of consumer durables in France is high compared to England.
Bezos just bought the Washington Post for $250 billion, yet Amazon doesn’t make a profit, or little profit.
Actually, Amazon as a whole does make a profit… it’s just the book selling division that (supposedly) still isn’t profitable.
At least, according to the last report on Amazon’s profitability that I read… about 18 months or so ago.
Apple is expensive to most people in this world. There is nothing philanthropic about their pricing, Apple is just a business trying to be as successful as it can. Yes, they make awesome products but the bottom line is that their products are out of reach to most people in this world.
Not really. It depends on your priorities. The same Fandroid who complains about a $600 iPhone spends $3000 for custom wheels on his $3000 used Honda Civic. I think $1400 is a bargain for a Desktop computer with 16GB memory, 2 TB HD, and OS X Server. Try specifying those options on a Dell (with Windows 8) and you come up with $1550.
Fair and philanthropic do not mean the same thing. The article says nothing about Apple acting like a charity… just that their prices are fair.
Macs etc are not commodity items, compare to the high end watch business. Try getting a Rolex on a discount…..
But PCs are or have become commodity items and that makes the prices difficult to control. Same goes for TV, white goods etc.