The Macalope Daily: Unshocking deals!
Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:07 AM
Most of the crap stuffs from Forbes are/were of the Apple bashing types.
Had stopped reading their craps quite sometime ago because it is beneath my dignity to give them a hit which is desperately needed by this queen of a hitwhore.
Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:13 PM
My question is this:
"They don’t care if it comes from Walmart, Amazon, the Apple Store, or Mumbly Joe’s iPod Shack"
Is that really true? I mean, I'm sure all the big names Amazon, BestBuy (naturally), B&H, etc are all no problem, but doesn't Apple still have an authorized reseller program? I know outside the US others have run into AppleCare problems with similar issues. My point isn't that you can't find great deals elsewhere (and it should be pretty obvious where to look), but that you should always also know who you're buying from.
Posted 24 November 2012 - 03:02 PM
Yes it's true. The "they" in that sentence is referring to Apple. They don't care if you have warranty issues if you bought from Mumbly Joe. The point was that they've made their money selling the item wholesale and you're now in their ecosystem.
I'm also pretty sure you can go to Apple at any time in the first year of a new product's life and buy the AppleCare directly from them. I don't think they care where you bought the device, just that it's less than a year old (in the US - Europe gets a 2 year warranty, but that's another lawsuit).
There's a difference between the Macalope's point of Apple making money whether they sell direct or through other retailers and your point which seems to be buyer beware of who you buy from...
Posted 24 November 2012 - 03:21 PM
I've been taking stock of my 28-year long love affair with Apple, and you know what? It's turned out pretty good for me. It represents an effort -- never perfect, mind you -- to make a computing device that is interfaced two ways: with difficult-for-humans-to-grasp data, which, like any computing device, is its native language, and the second, and more difficult interface with humans. The competition to Apple takes the opposite perspective: they sell ads, or e-books, or an Internet Service, or whatever; they offer to me an ever-escalating exploration, in the same way an artist does, of the Apple model. I think that's the right way for corporations to go, not the slash-and-burn and desperate run for the exit of most of our big money. Don't make money from something other than the thing you make. Keep on innovating with the human interface. Let others join them in a business model that's ambitious.
People seriously complain that the Microsoft model produces cheaper computers. Yes, but they're less useful. They represent the '80s American business model, which, in case you haven't noticed, hasn't been winning any big victories lately. Microsoft is still drowning in money. But they've turned to hardware too. I don't know if it's too late for them. Windows 8 is schizo.
I'm not saying that selling very expensive RAM or "walling you off" is great, but it does help the business model: the intersection of art and science. I'll still pay more for the sweet model with the great interface.
Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:46 PM
Apple will make more money if you buy an item directly from Apple than if you buy it from a third party, given the same price on the item. In third party sales, the retailer gets a cut. In direct sales, Apple gets that cut.
Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:17 PM
True, but accounting methods would indicate their own overhead wouldn't be that much less than the paltry retailer margins they offer retailers on Apple products. Pretty much a wash for Apple either way.
Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:02 PM
1. Pick a topic.
2. Find or make up a contrary position to your main topic.
3. Promote, develop or embellish the conflict between 1 and 2.
This is how I was trained to be a "reporter" for a newspaper when I was in my late teens. If Forbes had simply said, "Don't buy directly from Apple, you might possibly get it cheaper from other retailers if you're willing to fight the mobs." you'd have a ho-hum article of about 2 paragraphs which isn't really news to anyone.
Instead, let's throw a little sex, violence and skulduggery into the mix to develop the apparent "conflict" by intimating that Apple has a "dirty secret it doesn't want you to know". By merely suggesting some type of impropriety on Apple's part, the whole story starts to get some steam in it. "Apple found in love nest with former rival." "Top executives at Apple are really aliens in disguise" (how else have they been able to come out with such out of this world concepts for so many years?).
Reporters are trained to "find and develop the conflict" even where none exists simply because it makes for more interesting reading. This is what passes for "news" on this planet. Pay no attention to the man behind the screen. It's articles like these in Forbes that make me snort in derision at Steve Jobs being accused of having "reality distortion field."
Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:12 PM
Nothing compared to Steve Ballmer's. You can fish out quotes of his all through the '90s, after the launch of each iDevice, that this wouldn't work, it's expensive, Apple tax. Everybody has a reality distortion field. Ballmer's is a bummer.