5 ms·

Apple price increase in 3,2,1... For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

by jbuzbee 13y ago

kalleboo 13y ago
Hopefully with a corresponding product quality increase to 2 years planned obsolescence instead of only 1.
ruytlm 13y ago
Good thing we've got this regulation to protect consumers! Meanwhile, in the bitcoin thread... ..wait, is that the sort of equal and opposite reaction you meant?
NickNameNick 13y ago
Apple are already charging extra an AU to cover this.
nl 13y ago
Apple price increase in 3,2,1... It shouldn't. Apple were already legally liable to repair the products for that long (or longer) under Australian law. This just stops them misrepresenting their responsibilities. (And if it leads to an increase in claims, which does force them to increase their prices, then yes, I agree: Apple products must have been underpriced originally. Or another way of looking at it is that it explains how they maintain their high margins)
anigbrowl 13y ago
No, not necessarily. What's true in physics is not necessarily true in economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
danielbarla 13y ago
> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction Yes, like (probable) loss of market share when you increase prices arbitrarily. It all balances out eventually.
- naturalethic 13y ago
  Government mandates are indeed arbitrary. Gold star.
  - danielbarla 13y ago
    Granted, the Aus government has a history of over-protective, arbitrary mandates (e.g. hot tap regulations [1]). I don't feel strongly in either direction, although I have an aversion to silly and wasteful rules. That said, in the case of mandatory warranty policy, I can definitely see some merit. It definitely seems like certain appliances are being sold in a lemon market [2] (think blenders, etc), where the market is flooded with sub-standard, cheap products. These can become the norm and set overly low price expectations, making it difficult for good products to compete. How this applies to top-end smartphones is another discussion. I don't see why it should be difficult for a them to honor the policy, given their focus on quality. What's important is that all companies honor the mandate, and compete on an equal footing w.r.t. consumer expectations. [1] http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/130201_Hot%20Tap%20Water%20Temperature%20and%20Scalds%20Policy%20FINAL.pdf http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/130201_Hot%20Tap%20Water%20... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
    - venus 13y ago
      What's so arbitrary and over-protective about the tap regulations you linked to? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and the statistics presented about the decline in third degree burns is a great outcome. Isn't that exactly what government is supposed to do?
      - danielbarla 13y ago
        Perhaps it wasn't the best example in that sense, it seems they have done their homework. It was just the first one that came to mind, and I've heard several people express disgust with it (and other, similar regulations). Personally, I don't have a strong feeling about these types of things; on the one hand, they are probably correct, and they probably do more good than harm. On the other hand, having an over-regulated country might have a negative effect on both the competitiveness of the economy (companies having to navigate a minefield of regulations, driving costs up), as well as coming at the cost of personal freedoms (along the lines of: hey, if I want to have a tap running at 70 degrees, should I not be allowed to?). These are just silly examples, but I think you get the idea.

Apple price increase in 3,2,1... For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

by jbuzbee 13y ago

Apple price increase in 3,2,1... For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

kalleboo 13y ago

Hopefully with a corresponding product quality increase to 2 years planned obsolescence instead of only 1.

ruytlm 13y ago

Good thing we've got this regulation to protect consumers! Meanwhile, in the bitcoin thread... ..wait, is that the sort of equal and opposite reaction you meant?

NickNameNick 13y ago

Apple are already charging extra an AU to cover this.

nl 13y ago

Apple price increase in 3,2,1... It shouldn't. Apple were already legally liable to repair the products for that long (or longer) under Australian law. This just stops them misrepresenting their responsibilities. (And if it leads to an increase in claims, which does force them to increase their prices, then yes, I agree: Apple products must have been underpriced originally. Or another way of looking at it is that it explains how they maintain their high margins)

anigbrowl 13y ago

No, not necessarily. What's true in physics is not necessarily true in economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand

danielbarla 13y ago

> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction Yes, like (probable) loss of market share when you increase prices arbitrarily. It all balances out eventually.

naturalethic 13y ago
Government mandates are indeed arbitrary. Gold star.
- danielbarla 13y ago
  Granted, the Aus government has a history of over-protective, arbitrary mandates (e.g. hot tap regulations [1]). I don't feel strongly in either direction, although I have an aversion to silly and wasteful rules. That said, in the case of mandatory warranty policy, I can definitely see some merit. It definitely seems like certain appliances are being sold in a lemon market [2] (think blenders, etc), where the market is flooded with sub-standard, cheap products. These can become the norm and set overly low price expectations, making it difficult for good products to compete. How this applies to top-end smartphones is another discussion. I don't see why it should be difficult for a them to honor the policy, given their focus on quality. What's important is that all companies honor the mandate, and compete on an equal footing w.r.t. consumer expectations. [1] http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/130201_Hot%20Tap%20Water%20Temperature%20and%20Scalds%20Policy%20FINAL.pdf http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/130201_Hot%20Tap%20Water%20... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
  - venus 13y ago
    What's so arbitrary and over-protective about the tap regulations you linked to? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and the statistics presented about the decline in third degree burns is a great outcome. Isn't that exactly what government is supposed to do?
    - danielbarla 13y ago
      Perhaps it wasn't the best example in that sense, it seems they have done their homework. It was just the first one that came to mind, and I've heard several people express disgust with it (and other, similar regulations). Personally, I don't have a strong feeling about these types of things; on the one hand, they are probably correct, and they probably do more good than harm. On the other hand, having an over-regulated country might have a negative effect on both the competitiveness of the economy (companies having to navigate a minefield of regulations, driving costs up), as well as coming at the cost of personal freedoms (along the lines of: hey, if I want to have a tap running at 70 degrees, should I not be allowed to?). These are just silly examples, but I think you get the idea.