Nonsense. It is certainly not a strawman to test whether your logic and argumentation holds water. One of the classic ways to do that is to see where else that argument will fit, and to what extend that same logic can be applied. To check if it can be used to support (or go against, as it were) absurdities. And your argument, that the only reason you're defending the corporation is that people think the motivation is greed can be used to defend even monopolies bad behaviour. It's called reductio ad absurdium and let me remind you that r-a-d is not a logical fallacy, it's a method to test whether an argument holds water.
Yet, you apply it in ways that it isn't meant to be applied. I intend to maybe get someone to think outside the box of 'it must be greed, there is no other explanation that is simple.' If people were willing to accept other likely possibilities as just that, possibilities, I wouldn't even be in this thread.
Hmm. Abuse of a monopoly-like position doesn't have to "further cement" anything. It just has to be abuse, you know.
Point taken, as there are two ways to abuse a monopoly, price gouging and anti-competitive behavior. Both are illegal.
However, when raising prices causes you to lose sales on a product to competitors, like what sounds to be happening here... it becomes harder to argue they are really in a monopoly position if it is just that easy to move away from their product.
Again. I am certainly not twisting words, and I think it's about time you looked up "strawman argument", as this isn't one either.
You're generalising in the comment I react to, by saying thing's are never that simple. That you have seen stupidity etc in both consumers and corporations, and you thereby imply, that this is also the consumers fault. That there can never be "a screwer" and "a screwee": In other words, there can never be a clear cut attacker and victim.
Still misunderstanding. Situations are never as simple as they appear on the surface. Without showing evidence for the motivation, you cannot prove malice. You cannot claim malice by lack of evidence either.
I may imply that there is an aspect that the consumer is getting worked up about, yes. But I don't imply this is solely the consumer's fault. Hell, in my example of employee stupidity leading to consumer malice, well... it is still clearly the fault of the company that they screwed up. However, the consumer still directed malice at the company for trying to fix the complaints with the v1 device early on the development of the v2 device!
Ah, well. Stretching it a bit, methinks. If you recall, my argument is that this defending Apple and blaming SOX for any and all business practices is bull, and that people have no reason to believe this is anything more or other than business practices Especially considering their recent past and their competitor's practices.
In that light your argument is at best irrelevant, at worst a (true) strawman argument.
Yet, it does apply. It is a possibility. What we have here is consumer malice due to something that happened in the company. What was it that happened internal to the company that pushed them down this road? Whom was responsible for the multiple steps down this path? I know that with SJ's level of OCD, you can very likely count him in... but is this classic SJ where he makes a decision based on aesthetics rather than consumer wants or what makes business sense? Is this actual greed? Is it something else?
What I am simply suggesting is that the consumer malice currently permeating this thread may be a result of a mistake or simple arrogance that the iPod Touch /must/ be like the other iPods on the part of Apple, rather than pure malice trying to suck you dry of your monies.
You have to remember, that most of what you're arguing for a corporation. You're defending a corporation by all means, just like any of all the rest who claims they're forced by SOX to do these things. Hell, I even read that they "had to" remove the Disk Mode because otherwise they couldn't live up to SOX because of the accounting.
I hope you don't plan to attribute that argument about disk mode to me, it
is pretty absurd. Hell, while we are at it, I concede that my earlier claims about SOX were wrong.
But to say I am defending a corporation by all means, I have stated my position that I don't think a large charge for 2.0 in this case
is defensible. So please don't get into personal attacks or lumping me in with people like you allude to.
LOL. I really don't care which part of the monopoly-like company screws customers over. It's still the company that screws people people over. You're saying that until each and every department and employee have screwed you over, you cannot claim that a (any) company is screwing their customers over. Great logic.
You misunderstand again. I don't claim that, but one individual can ruin the company's image in the face of the consumer for everyone else. What really sucks is that you get a bunch of great people working together, and you can still royally screw yourself over because Bob decided plan X would be 'okay' when it really wasn't, and didn't bother to clear plan X with anyone else.
It's reality, and it sucks. What is even worse, is that unless there is a scandal that outs a particular person, you will never hear about that guy getting fired as to not completely screw over that employee's hiring prospects elsewhere.
It's true that common sense dictates that. However, you have to look at what is happening. If you write too much off as "stupidity on their behalf", you, yourself will quickly be fit for the monicker "naive".
How can you write this off as "stupidity"? You're telling me that the crippling of the touch and the iphone should be written off as "stupidty". That the tie-ins and lock downs should be written off as "stupidty", that the "pay if you want a less crippled Touch" should be written off as "stupidity" and on and on. No, frankly, that is extremely naive, considering this is not a new, small company, that is coming to market. This is huge corporation, with 18 billions in cash, with some of the best marketing in the world, with enough lawyers and business strategists to think this true. How anyone can even think these things happen because of error (or "stupidity", if you will) is laughable.
The problem here is that the people working on the product, and the people in the consumer space have two different ideas for what the product will look like. Apple is notorious for holding pre-release products close to the chest. We can't assume our expectations for the product will always make it clearly enough to the people working on it.
To assume that 'crippling' was what was done (a conscious choice to remove functionality in order to sell it back to you later)... well, I'd love to see evidence that it was. Otherwise I fall into the category that believes they seriously misjudged a possibly large segment of their target audience with the Touch at first.
And while you can call me naive all you want, having worked on products, I know exactly how frustrating it can be to work while separated from your customer. You have a hard time understanding what they want, their expected usage patterns, etc... you wind up having to make guesses. And sometimes these guesses are flat out wrong. Oh, and forget asking other people on your team for a lot of help if you get suck on user scenarios, they are just as sheltered from the customer for the most part as you are. Including the guy writing the use cases for you.
I didn't miss anything. I chose to go after the premise, the foundation. Building atop invalid premises doesn't suddenly make it valid. It the giant on clay feet.
It's still just blaming SOX for everything crap Apple does. It's still just blindly writing things of as something Apple are forced to because of SOX. It's still defending any and all business practices, no matter how they screw people over, by blaming SOX even though other companies practices are the proof in the pudding: If it were SOX, the other companies would have to do it too. And it really doesn't matter how much you add to that premise. Your premise is just that. Clay feet.
Screw SOX in this case... SOX doesn't even apply to the up-front vs subscription accounting models argument. Seriously.
I see we interpret "generalities" differently. When defined like you do, then I can see your point in that area. However, I defined it as "equality" (you cannot make a law that only applies to white people. That only applies to black people, only to women, only to men, etc.). You have to make a law, that includes or excludes everyone - you can't go "Only black/white/yellow/pink/cream people may apply" or "This grass is off limits to pink people" and so on. Either the grass is off limits, or it's not.
Yes, but you are attempting to generalize to a higher extent than the problem requires. If accounting practices are involved here, then we must be willing to debate with that in mind. In which case, a lack of knowledge of the ins and outs of corporate accounting do nothing but hurt both of our arguments, especially if be begin to overgeneralize.
Again, a few posts back, I listed a bunch of questions that if we could find the answer for, we could make some sort of educated guess as to what the hell Apple did. It isn't if more knowledge before making a final conclusion hurts at all.
Yes it does suck. What I cannot for the life of me fathom, that even when presented with examples of other companies that do not do it like Apple is doing, you're still blaiming it on accounting. Yet, you somehow utterly fail to recognise even as you're saying it - that the only ones to blame for this set-up is indeed Apple. How can you argue that it's because of accounting, yet blame SOX, and all the while arguing it's _not_ a choice on Apple's part, that they're not the ones to blame?
When other companies can do even more, without having people pay extra to get a less-crippled product, it's obvious Apple chose this model - not out of "stupidity", but because they chose this business strategy with their eyes open and on purpose.
Stupidity and mistakes can come in all forms, even when you walk into a decision with eyes open and on purpose. It is stupid to believe that consumers won't want lots of upgrades on their Touch, because it is just an iPod. It is malicious to decide that you can use that to your financial benefit.
Again, I am not saying Apple is blameless here. I am saying that the consumer malice may not be as warranted as you claim it is.
Ah, yes. Well, then there's no problem with lock-downs, tie-ins and crippling
The iPod has been sold as a closed device. It need not be, true, since software tends to change everything... but cavet emptor. Don't buy a product based on what you think you might be able to use it for if the company will be nice, buy it for what you can use it for today.
Nope. We don't. But we do know that other companies are able to provide upgrades, even to hardware, to add many and very large upgrades to functionality without the consumer paying for it. With that knowledge, we can deduct that it's certainly not necessary to charge for these things, especially at the price Apple charges, that it can be done. And because of this, we can deduct, that this is a business strategy. Unless, of course, you're trying to argue that all the rest of the companies out there, are simply too stupid to recognise what SOX is about. In that case, I guess we cannot blame Apple, it's all the rest that is not going by the law, and all of this is because Apple is just following the law
Not all products are handled equally in the eyes of accounting and business. So unless we find two comparable products, accounted for on the business end in the same way, the comparison may not apply.
That's not putting words into your mouth. The reality is, you're using the accounting model as an excuse. As if the accounting model is something that dictates the business model and strategy to the extent that Apple's hands are tied.
The difference being, that your conclusions, that Apple's hands are tied because of accounting, and we are to blame SOX (and therefore the accounting), that Apple had no choice in this, is contrary to the facts. Just because we both conclude, doesn't mean, that any speculation and conclusion is equally valid. In fact, why is it, that you think that you can blame this on accounting, yet utterly fail to see, that the way these things are accounted for is entiurely Apple's choice especially given that other companies can do it?
I have posted in this thread your answer. Yes, it was Apple's choice, but the question is
which choice was it that got them into this mess now? The choice you claim it is, and the choice I think it could very well be just happen to be different choices that may or may not even be mutually exclusive.
I just didn't like the hysterics of uninformed malice. Granted, I have done a really poor job informing when I am not really better informed.
Ah, yes. So because you claim to have seen corporations from within, these choices (business strategy, how they're accounted, and all the crippling) is likely to be just one individual making mistakes. Once again, you utterly fail to recognise that this is not some employee leaking false information, creating a PR-disaster as per your example. This is a busines strategy. YOu cannot write it off as stupidity of one empleyer, when both the crippling (for instance the no Disk Mode), the Tie-Ins, The lock downs, and the "pay-extra" modus is so clear cut. This is by no means a mistake each and every indicator points in the direction of "strategy". Writing it off as "it could just as well be one employee turning it sour" is so far fetched and out of touch with reality, no matter how much you claim to know corporations from the inside.
Well, now you want to attribute further decisions to the same individual I want to attribute the stupid decision to account for the Touch like other fully closed iPods.
It doesn't work that way.
The problem here is that you take a large grouping of decisions, and claim that because they all happened, it must be strategy. It is a logical fallacy to assume that because one corporation did all these things, that they must be connected.
Hell, I'd love to work for a company as well run as that, at least that way I wouldn't have to be dealing with the infighting trying to fund projects that are key to keeping our customers happy.
