> Wired is so full of s***. Their "blog" postings are > done by retards.. Certainly not intelligent > journalists by any means...

Just like the Don Reisinger iPhone blogs on here. The guy's a r*****.

Each iPhone owner is registered at Apple so all they will have to do is click "Buy Now" to redeem there credit. Thats totally different from handing out $27 vouchers with proof of purchase.

Why should Apple be held accountable for the stupidity of some of it's customers. Early adopters are pillocks almost by definition. Anyone who knows anything about technology, knows about the potential flaws in the 1.0 of anything and the premium price at which it is sold to cover R&D, Promotion and manufacturing ramp. Aside from the fact that prices drop all the time. I bought a 36" LCD and two months later it was $200 dollars cheaper, ain't no way Toshiba or Powercity are giving me a rebate!!!!

I love my iphone, it's totally worth the price I paid for it and it does what it's supposed to do. That's ok to me. Does a price drop means that this product is not "worth" 600$? No, but if Apple continues this kind of behavior why would anyone buy something newly delivered- if they believe the price will drop DRAMATICALLY in a couple of months. This is just Bad Business Behavior. Apple should embrace the folks willing to drop $$ on their products, not embarrass their willing support. Folks who say early adopters are stupid - I think exemplify the worst of our human condition. Apple has a great product- it gets released and it is great! But anyone who thinks that the act of buying a newly released product from Apple is asking for trouble- is just plain envious. Look at all the folks with Palm 650s who thought a new Palm 700 would be better. Boy were they wrong. Apple is not Palm.

My feeling is this 100$ "rebate" should be at least 150$. We don't get our state tax refunded either..(so you're double taxed on this 100$ unless you live in a taxfree state).

benj, as Jobs said, Apple isn't trying to put the screws to its customers, but to the competition. It decided to invest early profits (sales were much better than expected according to them) and manufacturing improvements, into new sales. When I purchased my $600 phone, it was WORTH it for me. Now that its $400, it was STILL worth it for me. "Too soon"? Holiday season is coming up. If iPhone came out in January, it would definitely have been at least 6 months before they did anything with the price. As it stands, they either do it now, or wait a whole year. Somehow I don't think this confluence of events (like a one of a kind product) will happen again for at least 3-5 years. Moreover, I personally was curious how they'd handle the problem with the HUGE gains on Flash memory prices they successfully acquired. When it wasn't at launch, I knew they'd do somthing. We're still waiting for the 16GB shoe to drop.

benj, as Jobs said, Apple isn't trying to put the screws to its customers, but to the competition. It decided to invest early profits (sales were much better than expected according to them) and manufacturing improvements, into new sales.

Steve also indicated that the iPhone's success is what's letting them order in quantity, which let's them get better pricing, which in turn lets them drop prices.

Do people actually believe Apple's 33% reduction in price is due to being able to buy in bulk? Which, BTW, would imply they somehow managed to swing a huge bulk price reduction from certain suppliers (as some components of the device were already bought in bulk).

That's ridiculous. As has been said by Apple's head people already (see previous articles), Apple PLANNED the price drop when the set the price in the first place.

And why bother reducing the price if its selling so well already at the $600 price? Just to be kind? If they were so kind, why didn't they just sell it low to begin with (component prices be damned!).

It's hard to gauge sales of a new product. Order too many, only to find once it's out that there some major change is needed, and you're screwed. Anyone remember the vast numbers of Performa's that had to be scrapped, all built on the assumption that Sears was going to be a major distribution channel?

OK, but this doesn't happen with any other Apple product. Apple has been notorious for under-estimating demand for products, thus leaving potential customers waiting months for a new computer. But since when does Apple drop prices once they realize the imac, say, is a real big seller and they can bulk purchase its parts? Never.

How come no one postulates that the price drop might be due to sales just flattening once the early adopters bought up their share.

I missed that one. You're not referring to the Cringely article, are you?

I believe that any manufacturer of any product anticipated to be in high demand plans on a high introduction price to capitalize on the "must-have-it-now" consumers, and plan to drop the price as it makes sense to do so. So I absolutely believe Apple 'planned' on dropping the price of the iPhone, maybe even this early, but I'm not sure they 'planned' on a 33% price drop. Positioning the iPhone for pre-holiday sales makes total sense. To say that Apple knew from the introduction point that they were going to drop the price of the iPhone by $200 dollars is saying that Apple knew exactly how well the iPhone was going to sell and planned this whole thing in perfectly time stages. While I'm sure Apple, and any other company for that matter, would love to be able to do that, I seriously doubt it can be done. The iPhone was an entry into a new market for Apple and there was a huge potential for failure, I think if anything the introduction price points were probably planned as a means to hedge their bets more than anything else, and then, yes, as 'desired' sales objectives were being met/exceeded, the price drop, and in this case, credit, makes sense. This notion, however, of Apple being this ultra scheming company with this amazing, perfectly orchestrated publicity stunt, well, I'm just not buying it.

...yes, boo! hoo! I'm so sorry and jealous that I didn't get reamed to the tune of $200 on a 1.0 product. Sniff!

I can't really understand your (yearly) comments (as a "target" point of view).. You look like more some macnn bot that gets unleashed whenever they need to generate more "traffic" or whatever... I don't really understand what's your general point of view; sometimes your args are good, sometime are "args without args" a-la "beppegrillo"... I've nothing against your comments, just wondering... You can message me privately if you want.. Have a nice day

This was obviously badly handled by AAPL. The poor theatrics of "we care" afterwards is planned, pathetic and contrite. AAPL should count it's blessings that it received millions of media exposure on the pods announcements. Even Longhorn never received such attention. Zune anyone? I remember the days when the only reason AAPL would ever get in the media was another stock price slide.

Some have commented that they buy new Apple products as soon as they are released, but will no longer do this because of the drastic iPhone price drop. C'mon, we're talking phones here. This is a standard practice for cell phones, dropping the prices as time goes on. Do you really think Apple will apply this practice to the rest of their producst? Can you see Apple dropping the price on a Powerbook or iPod by $200 two months after it debuts? I think not. I have never seen Apple reduce the price of their products.

"Do people actually believe Apple's 33% reduction in price is due to being able to buy in bulk? Which, BTW, would imply they somehow managed to swing a huge bulk price reduction from certain suppliers (as some components of the device were already bought in bulk).

That's ridiculous. As has been said by Apple's head people already (see previous articles), Apple PLANNED the price drop when the set the price in the first place.

And why bother reducing the price if its selling so well already at the $600 price? Just to be kind? If they were so kind, why didn't they just sell it low to begin with (component prices be damned!). "

See Testudo, this is where you dont think..

What if the iPhone didn't sell? Apple could haven taken a HUGE bath on it... and the $600 price point would have seemed low in comparison. So they are taking a big risk.

Also, they are new to the cell phone industry.

Not to mention it is a revolutionary device. The first item on the market of it's type is ALWAYS over priced. (go look up prices for HD-DVD players - $799 compared to a $30 DVD player.. can u honestly tell me the components for HD-DVD players costs $even $500.. HA!

And yea.. Apple probably DID plan to drop the price.. IF IT SOLD WELL!! Unlike you, apple could not have gauged if it was going to sell or not (think the overpriced Cube)

Go sit on the can... cause youre full of sh*t!

Also

"Which, BTW, would imply they somehow managed to swing a huge bulk price reduction from certain suppliers (as some components of the device were already bought in bulk). "

Ummm.. what if they upped the order? I just bougt some business cards. 250 for $3.99 each... yes 500 for $3.99 and 1000 for $1.99...

yea.. ordering more could never get u a discount. And if you order more of a new device, no one would ever figure out a way to make it cheaper.

Lame argument..

Geez, what is it with the never-ending whining from both journalists and customers about this?

Obviously people thought it was worth $600. Now apparently it's not?

Who's the hypocrite now then?

Testdo -

Your comment just don't hold water

1) I've seen no quote from an Apple head saying this was planned. If you refer to the Crinley article I had to get a message after reading that as my arms were so sore from digging to try to find ANY facts.

2) They have tremendously upped most of the manufacturing for the iPhone - its called the iPod touch. Many of the expensive element - screen, memory, processor, seem to be common to the two units. This was brilliant (from a manufacturing perspective) on Apple's part.

One important factor not yet outlined is that Apple didn't know what type of subsidies they could get from cellular partners (in particular European partners) - Apple is after all new to this market with a new flavor of device, unproven, etc. - so they had to price it high enough to ensure they could get the margins they wanted. In fact I wouldn't be surprised that the Apple / AT&T contract has a trigger in it that would bump Apple's subsidy if certain account signup numbers took place.

Now that Apple is farther along with European partners they likely know more about type of subsidies they will get. Mix in increased volumes (and related amortization/efficiency items), having much better visibility into the market given sales numbers, and most importantly Apple wanting to hit the market hard this holiday season it is easy to see why they did the price drop.

If you're p.o.'ed about having a price drop so quick, then DON'T BY THE STUPID THING THE DAY IT COMES OUT. There's too many people out there that "have to have IT NOW". Just because you're not the first person on the block to have one doesn't mean your a tard. Those of us who have to wait (either for financial reasons or because there just might be some SERIOUS BUGS) are rewarded. If you DO buy, quit yer bit#$hing. It's the way of electronics.

It's a business. You buy the thing early and pay a few extra dollars. Apple throws you a $100- credit that will cost them $50- to dispense. And in providing a credit for an Apple store, increase their market share & store volume. You should be happy, folks getting the thing for 399- should be happy, and Apple definitely should be happy, having spent $50- to make $150, sell more product, gain share, and generate publicity. That's why Apple is kicking a$$.

I'm tired of people not taking responsibility for their actions and bitching. Look. You HAD TO HAVE IT THE DAY IT CAME OUT. GET OVER IT. Electronics (and lots of other things) go down in price quickly (video games come to mind). I think Apple was generous to give the vouchers. GET OVER IT and get on with your life. Stop blaming everyone but yourselves.

See Testudo, this is where you dont think..

What if the iPhone didn't sell? Apple could haven taken a HUGE bath on it... and the $600 price point would have seemed low in comparison. So they are taking a big risk.

So you're argument is "It might not sell, so let's sell it at an outrageous price so we'll have an excuse if it doesn't sell? Or we'll be able to make up some of the shortfall by the high price? But I thought the price was high because of components, not because they were fearful it wasn't going to sell.

And in case you didn't notice, Apple has put A LOT of time and money into the iPhone. Do you really think they did all this, but did no market research to figure out how well it would sell? Or would go "Damn, its not selling. Oh well, let's Newton the device." I don't think so.

Not to mention it is a revolutionary device. The first item on the market of it's type is ALWAYS over priced. (go look up prices for HD-DVD players - $799 compared to a $30 DVD player.. can u honestly tell me the components for HD-DVD players costs $even $500.. HA!

Hate to tell you, but I think you're proving my point, not yours. My point was it was overpriced to be overpriced, not because they magically reduced costs by buying in bulk.

And yea.. Apple probably DID plan to drop the price.. IF IT SOLD WELL!! Unlike you, apple could not have gauged if it was going to sell or not (think the overpriced Cube)

I just love people who claim "You don't think, testudo!" and then go off and post comments the same way. You're argument is that they were going to lower prices "IF IT SOLD WELL". So if it didn't sell well, what were they going to do, keep the price the same? Um, I think its supposed to work the other way. Keeping the price high would only do one thing, continuing it not selling.

The cube is a perfect example. It went on sale for $1799. It didn't sell. And as long as it stayed at $1799, it still didn't sell. It only sold when they dropped the price (which, unfortunately for the cube, was when they also discontinued it).

But the cube was one of many options/products Apple had in the computer market. The iPhone is the only phone they have. And they've shown that they're gearing a lot around it.

@testudo.. Ummm.. what if they upped the order? I just bougt some business cards. 250 for $3.99 each... yes 500 for $3.99 and 1000 for $1.99...

yea.. ordering more could never get u a discount. And if you order more of a new device, no one would ever figure out a way to make it cheaper.

Lame argument..

Wow, you're right. And to think some people trying to compare a paper-based product with high-tech components would be stretching things to a lame argument. But you've convinced me!

2) They have tremendously upped most of the manufacturing for the iPhone - its called the iPod touch. Many of the expensive element - screen, memory, processor, seem to be common to the two units. This was brilliant (from a manufacturing perspective) on Apple's part.

"Brilliant"? Yes, it is 'brilliant' to make two products looks close to the same, so that they can share parts and other pieces. No other company ever had thought of that. Every cell phone and portable device manufacturer usually use all different types of parts and components for each of their products. Man, I hope Apple patented this 'brilliant' concept, they'll make a million licensing it to others.

Sarcasm is a defense mechanism... why so defensive?? Dont like to be wrong maybe? step up from the basement and talk to your mom about it. maybe see a shrink...

If youre going to argue a point, try using facts. You argue that Apple is not getting a great bulk discount. Prove it or shut up. Otherwise, in almost all transactions, when u buy in bulk, you get a cheaper discount. That is FACT! Everyone else seems to know this but you. Funny how no one here agrees with you... maybe u should just leave. Or go over to the wired forums. You might be more comfortable there..

and hey, you might even find your first friend! :)

...about how Apple "shafted" early adopters.

They offered a product for $599. People snapped it up. Good for them! The lowering of the price seems aimed at more aggressive marketing, not poor sales. Was this planned from the outset, as some claim? Don't know; but I'm pretty sure that a $399 product launch would have been a PR disaster, with supply and distribution nightmares, and phone activation issues much worse than those that were reported. It would have been the equivalent of the rhetorical question: what if everyone in New York flushed at once?

Is Apple passing newfound savings on to new buyers? Unknown. Then again, there is no magic law about what constitutes a "maximum" gross margin. As I said before, if you can sell as much of your product as you want for a given price, go for it! (Still, I'm happy to receive the store credit :-) )

This is differentiated from the Microsoft case, not only by the "legal" aspect of the former, but also that the MS case had to do with their behavior after having effectively cornered a market. This is just the opposite, as Apple is just entering one.

Apple, in this case, is offering a discretionary, or even a "luxury" item. The Microsoft case has more to do with their conduct toward a captive market. I would feel worse about Apple's pricing strategy if HAD to buy an iPhone when it first came out (well, it did coincide with my real need for a new phone, but that was an excuse), but it's not like I had to eat it to survive, or the like. That's where arguments about predatory pricing hold more water.

If youre going to argue a point, try using facts. You argue that Apple is not getting a great bulk discount. Prove it or shut up. Otherwise, in almost all transactions, when u buy in bulk, you get a cheaper discount. That is FACT! Everyone else seems to know this but you. Funny how no one here agrees with you... maybe u should just leave. Or go over to the wired forums. You might be more comfortable there..

Or, prove they did get such an incredible discount on parts (and it would have to be huge, because they're not getting a discount on everything, since some parts, like memory, were already being bought in bulk.

I just don't buy Apple's bulk deal could somehow magically gain them 33% off their stock.

I think the price cut was exactly the way the poster "sales" said. The sales have gone well and they can afford to make the price cut. You cannot gauge the sales of a new product, and that is so true. Stop bitching and be happy.