Don't think so. When I was at BB earlier this week I thought it was part of their pre-Thanksgiving sale.
Their black Friday specials don't include Macs...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Best Buy's Mac Sale Over
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't think so. When I was at BB earlier this week I thought it was part of their pre-Thanksgiving sale.
Their black Friday specials don't include Macs...
Okay, lets just get this straight. Price fixing involves a supplier mandating a price that a retailer must sell a product at. In other words Supplier A tells retailer B that product X must be sold at $500, otherwise they'll stop supplying it.
That conduct is illegal in here Australia, as a breach of the Trade Practices Act, and I'm sure it'd be illegal everywhere else.
All Apple does is sell its products to retailers at a price not much less than the retailers sell it at, as some here have already alluded to. In other words, Supplier A sells product X to Retailer B for $450. Supplier A recommends a retail price (amazingly called the "recommended retail price" or "rrp"
) of $500. To hammer the point home, Supplier A sells product X for $500 on their own website.
The effect, totally legal and legitimate, is that most retailers would sell the product at the recommended price of $500 and rarely discount it. Of course, like others have already said, there is nothing stopping a retailer from discounting it, even to the point of being below cost - as a loss leader, for example.
To suggest otherwise is not only plainly wrong, but tends towards defamation as it suggests Apple conducts criminal activity in its pricing structures, which it doesn't.
That conduct is illegal in here Australia, as a breach of the Trade Practices Act, and I'm sure it'd be illegal everywhere else.
All Apple does is sell its products to retailers at a price not much less than the retailers sell it at, as some here have already alluded to. In other words, Supplier A sells product X to Retailer B for $450. Supplier A recommends a retail price (amazingly called the "recommended retail price" or "rrp"
) of $500. To hammer the point home, Supplier A sells product X for $500 on their own website.The effect, totally legal and legitimate, is that most retailers would sell the product at the recommended price of $500 and rarely discount it. Of course, like others have already said, there is nothing stopping a retailer from discounting it, even to the point of being below cost - as a loss leader, for example.
To suggest otherwise is not only plainly wrong, but tends towards defamation as it suggests Apple conducts criminal activity in its pricing structures, which it doesn't.
Haha, thanks.
And people wonder why sales of music CDs plummeted so far, so fast, to electronic pirating, when small record stores that charged $10-13 for CDs were simultaneously replaced by Best Buy and Tower (rest not in peace) that charged $15-19.
And if Best Buy takes Monster Cables down with it, all the better.
So I hear this kind of thing about BB all the time; we all do. But my experience with them is that they're fine. They often don't have the best price, so for larger purchases I go online. They have a lot of morons working for them (and I do mean a lot), but that's the hit or miss world of retail. But they are convenient and offer great financing. Additionally, I think they've made their financing policies very clear, and in practice with clear, informative statements, they go above and beyond most CC companies to make sure you are NOT late on payments or paying finance charges.
*Best Buy Apple Sale is Not Over!!!***
HEY: TO THE GUY THAT SAID HE WANTED BEST BUY TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS.. If you get your facts straight Best Buy Currently sells 175% more apple products than Apple Retail Stores. May Be you didn't get informed that Apple is currently Laying Employees off...
HEY: TO THE GUY THAT SAID HE WANTED BEST BUY TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS.. If you get your facts straight Best Buy Currently sells 175% more apple products than Apple Retail Stores. May Be you didn't get informed that Apple is currently Laying Employees off...
I found out the hard way. I went down to Sarasota's Best Buy yesterday to buy a MacBook and then came home and ordered from Apple when I saw the price there. Mind you I am not sure I could have waited even if they had still had the sale on. The Mac sales guy (yes one guy) was talking away to a man and his son for the 20 minutes I was browsing around. I saw several folks give up waiting and leave after making shrugs and facial grimaces. The Best Buy guy was oblivious as he showed off his knowledge on Macs but also his total lack of sales ability.
HEY: TO THE GUY THAT SAID HE WANTED BEST BUY TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS.. If you get your facts straight Best Buy Currently sells 175% more apple products than Apple Retail Stores. May Be you didn't get informed that Apple is currently Laying Employees off...
Source for either of these claims?
Your presumption is incorrect, at least here in the United States.
The Sherman antitrust act, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1911 in the Dr. Miles Medical case, held that an AGREEMENT among the mfr and dealers to establish minimum prices led to the "destruction of competition and the fixing of prices, are injurious to the public interest and void."
However, under the Colgate doctrine (named for the 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case), a mfr may unilaterally set minimum resale prices, and if a dealer refused to comply, the mfr can simply terminate such dealers without running afoul of the law. In other words, so long as there is no AGREEMENT among the mfr and resellers on a minimum resale price scheme, there is no violation of the Sherman Act.
Many mfrs of products that are relatively unique, exclusive and non-fungible have enforced minimum resale prices under the Colgate doctrine. Most are mfrs of high-end, designer brand goods.
In the case of Apple, they have succeeded in developing products that in the eyes of many consumers are non-fungible. The iPod is an example where most consumers will not settle for an alternative mp3 player. This gives Apple power to dictate to dealers what prices they may sell the iPod at or they risk being cut off as an authorized reseller.
BTW, the Dr. Miles case was overturned this year in the Leegin case, so that even if there is an agreement between the mfr and dealer, it is not presumptively illegal; i.e., the court will consider whether it is in violation of the Sherman Act on a case-by-case basis.
In fact, his presumption is not incorrect, but simply incomplete. Either an agreement or a mandate is unlawful.
A firm may decline to sell to a particular reseller for any reason, including selling prices below what the manufacturing firm would like, but it cannot use any means to require a reseller to obey its suggested pricing. That includes more than agreements alone, as s. 1 of the Sherman Act deals with any contract or combination (agreement or practice).
That is the extent of the Colgate doctrine as it relates to price maintenance. Anything beyond simple (reactive) termination becomes problematic. See e.g. Parke-Davis and Bausch & Lomb.
The retailer must comply with the pricing guidelines "as a product of free choice" and not as a result of a precondition, mandate, or threat.
This is where the courts/academia and the real world diverge. A threat need not be explicit to achieve the goal of resale price maintenance. A few well-publicized reseller terminations on the basis of their selling below mfr suggested retail price is all that will be necessary to send a message through the rest of the mfr's authorized dealer network that they had better tow the line. Whether that act is intended to be pro-active or reactive is something that only the mfr will know. It's a foolish distinction that the courts have created, and an impossible one to try and enforce with any predictability as to the outcome.
True, but the effect is not the principal focus, so it's irrelevant.
And?
No, it's not. It's quite readily apparent. If a company says "you will be cut off if you don't sell your stock above MSRP", it's an a priori threat. If the company terminates a posteriori, saying "you didn't generate enough profit per unit for us to resupply you in the future", it's the market at work.
On the contrary, it's a critical distinction necessary to protect the application of market forces. Just as the manufacturer is entitled to solid returns and to optimize their distribution chain to get the profit they want, the downstream seller must be free to make their own judgments and decisions on the inventory it possesses. Limiting, as you suggest, price maintenance cases solely to contract neglects both consumers and resellers as well as permits economic duress beyond the rights of a manufacturer.
A precondition or mandate removes the choice of the reseller. A consequential termination does not. The removal of choice is actionable. The application of market forces is not.