The complaint, as I have stated numerous times, is the time frame. Dropping the cost of a huge, new product line out by 33% within 60 days of its release it setting a dangerous precedent for how soon technological advancements may determine the costs of new products. What's next, a month? two weeks? a day?
When the customers hyped up and paid money for a product and helped make it a success, that's great, and if in a few months the price drops, that's how the market has always been. However, 60 days after a launch is extreme. This didn't happen within 60 days of the RAZR's release, or the De Lorean, or chipsets, or the numerous other examples that have been erroneously used. The issue is precedent. Determining that a product is of lesser value within shorter and shorter time frames is a silly as seeing Fall clothing displayed in July in retail stores. The consumer will begin losing faith in the company it invests in, as was the case with Apple's iPhone announcement, and we all know in the banking industry just how fragile stocks are when faced with news (case in point, the misleading information regarding iPhone sales and how they quickly effected Apple stock within hours).
I'm not arguing that technological advancements will inevitably drop costs of products, my issue was with how soon is a reasonable timeframe for those costs to lower. More over, it has been documented that Jobs planned on lowering the price since day one with the iPod release, which doesn't fair well in regards to how Apple may view its more loyal customer base. This would surely result in those individuals who ponied up more money to make it an initial success to think twice before doing so, as has been stated by many irate $599 iPhone purchasers.
In the end, I believe Apple made a good move by crediting early buyers with a store credit. More money back in their pocket, customers will be happy and the stock should remain as it has. That was my only issue.