Pete Mortensen of Cult of Mac points out something disturbing about the iPhone price cut fuss: it sets a dangerous precedent. Why, indeed, should anyone care about the buyers' remorse of those who paid a premium to be the coolest kids on the cellular block?
"It’s unprecedented and creates a dangerous expectation that the same will happen the next time Apple cuts a product’s price," Pete says, and he's right. It establishes the idea that consumers aren't responsible for their own purchasing decisions, and that price cuts are evidence of earlier gouging for which they're entitled to be remunerated.
What, did you think there was really $600 worth of juice in that little box? Did you think Apple wasn't creaming a fat profit margin off of it, ready to be aggressively eaten into when it wanted to convert early-adopter buzz into general success? Did you think that paying a premium amounted to a little deal between you and Cupertino that it would serve the cult and forget all about the mass-market?
The most aggressively stupid example of this sense of entitlement turns out to be a Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, who's written an article in which the claim is made that the iPhone's high price tag was supposed to "guarantee a decent period of exclusivity."
Apple's decision to throw store credit at people notwithstanding, let me answer that one for you: *no, it wasn't. *
Hilarity: 'iRate' Columnist Doesn't Own iPhone [Cult of Mac]
.png){kind=logo}
