Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Likelihood we will get to pre-order the WHITE iPhone 4 TOMORROW?

Appreciate that wicky.

This anxious white iPhone wait is of epic "Tour de France" endurance proportions. --And since Tuesday, we've begun the arduous climb into the steep mountains!

Our team er, "brotherhood" WILL be victorious!!

*collapses*
 
ClutchThese said:
actually...yeah. because that person potentially could have NOT bought that phone. case in point, no one HAS to buy a used phone. they chose to for obvious reasons...its cheaper. Apple may not have had their business otherwise.

its the same reason companies offer discounts, so they entise people to buy their poducts. by offering a discount on a phone that is dubed used, they still make profit. In a perfect world, no one returns anything and everyone buys from one company. That's not the case. Anytime a company sells a product to an individual with a profit, it's good business.
Click to expand...

Does apple even sell refurbished iPhones?

Regardless, Apple would prefer to sell two new phones. They would rather have the option of selling an iPhone for cheap instead of being FORCED to because someone returned a totally non-defective one.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClutchThese
huh?

youre misinformed. anytime someone purchases a product, weather it's full price or discounted...they make money(unless it's below cost-which doesn't happen at apple).

Cheers mate!

Try reading the post next time before you make an idiotic comment.


Quote:
Although you are right that on that single transaction they do not appear to lose profit, they lost the ability to make twice the profit - so they don't gain money that they could have (Thats called losing money).

please tell me how that's idiotic. :)
 
ClutchThese said:
No, they use them to replace "defective" phones that people bring in for repair.

you can purchase refurbished mac's, ipods and other accessories from their site though.
Click to expand...

Ok so I'm definitely right. Apple doesn't want to have to package an iPhone all pretty, have it returned, and then use those parts (after undoubtedly undergoing another round of testing and cleaning -> which costs $$) to replace broken parts when they could have just manufactured the parts.

And by the way from your last post before this... any sale that makes a profit is not always good business. I know Introduction to Microeconomics might make it seem that way - but no. If you sell something for 1/100 the profit you could have made, its NOT good business.
 
ManOfTheHour said:
And by the way from your last post before this... any sale that makes a profit is not always good business. I know Introduction to Microeconomics might make it seem that way - but no. If you sell something for 1/100 the profit you could have made, its NOT good business.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Anytime you need to clean a product and repackage/disassemble it, you loose money.

End of money.
 
ManOfTheHour said:
Ok so I'm definitely right. Apple doesn't want to have to package an iPhone all pretty, have it returned, and then use those parts (after undoubtedly undergoing another round of testing and cleaning -> which costs $$) to replace broken parts when they could have just manufactured the parts.

And by the way from your last post before this... any sale that makes a profit is not always good business. I know Introduction to Microeconomics might make it seem that way - but no. If you sell something for 1/100 the profit you could have made, its NOT good business.
Click to expand...

i disagree with your last paragraph. I know microeconomics also, any profit is good profit. Because that 1/100 is better than no profit. it could be the difference of a company operating in the negative vs positive.

can we please stop talking about this...i'm getting a headache.
 
ClutchThese said:
i disagree with your last paragraph. I know microeconomics also, any profit is good profit. Because that 1/100 is better than no profit. it could be the difference of a company operating in the negative vs positive.

can we please stop talking about this...i'm getting a headache.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to get it, so I'll explain it using simpler terms.

You sell a product for 200 bucks. Customer returns it. You pay to ship the product back and refurbish it. You repackage it and sell it for 150. You just lost 50 bucks, plus the cost of labor and shipping just to sell the same product again.

Tell me how that's desirable.
 
JonBook Pro said:
You don't seem to get it, so I'll explain it using simpler terms.

You sell a product for 200 bucks. Customer returns it. You pay to ship the product back and refurbish it. You repackage it and sell it for 150. You just lost 50 bucks, plus the cost of labor and shipping just to sell the same product again.

Tell me how that's desirable.
Click to expand...

just because it's not desirable, doesn't make it bad business.

in the above scenario, just because you sold it for 50$ less than an original doesn't mean they lost that money...that 50$ was "POTENTIAL" profit. Potential profit is different than actual profit.
 
ClutchThese said:
i disagree with your last paragraph. I know microeconomics also, any profit is good profit. Because that 1/100 is better than no profit. it could be the difference of a company operating in the negative vs positive.
Click to expand...

Holy ****. Ok I don't usually like to bring background into internet forums but you're being fairly stubborn. You might know microeconomics, but I know intermediate and advanced microeconomics in addition to a lot of other econ/acct classes - none of which I need to have learned to know that you're wrong. I might not have been crystal clear in these couple of posts, but its fairly clear Apple would rather sell products at full price than the alternative that they are forced into when people return products. But yes, I agree lets stop talking about this, you have a rudimentary understanding of business that apparently cannot mature to anything but that.
 
JonBook Pro said:
You don't seem to get it, so I'll explain it using simpler terms.

You sell a product for 200 bucks. Customer returns it. You pay to ship the product back and refurbish it. You repackage it and sell it for 150. You just lost 50 bucks, plus the cost of labor and shipping just to sell the same product again.

Tell me how that's desirable.
Click to expand...

I think ClutchThese is suggesting that Steve Jobs has messed up in getting $3.25 B in profit last quarter as it might have been a better idea to sell everything for $0.01 over their cost in hopes that they could sell 326 billion products. We should write him a letter
 
ClutchThese said:
just because it's not desirable, doesn't make it bad business.
Click to expand...

...really?

in the above scenario, just because you sold it for 50$ less than an original doesn't mean they lost that money...that 50$ was "POTENTIAL" profit. Potential profit is different than actual profit.
Click to expand...

You still loose profit in the end. Lost profit is lost profit. You can't spin it any other way.
 
ManOfTheHour said:
Holy ****. Ok I don't usually like to bring background into internet forums but you're being fairly stubborn. You might know microeconomics, but I know intermediate and advanced microeconomics in addition to a lot of other econ/acct classes - none of which I need to have learned to know that you're wrong. I might not have been crystal clear in these couple of posts, but its fairly clear Apple would rather sell products at full price than the alternative that they are forced into when people return products. But yes, I agree lets stop talking about this, you have a rudimentary understanding of business that apparently cannot mature to anything but that.
Click to expand...

ouch!! aren't you a meanie-head.

and i do agree that they would rather sell everything for max profit...but we all know they cant...sooooo they will sell things for a discount and it IS good business(in terms of our discussion).
 
ManOfTheHour said:
I think ClutchThese is suggesting that Steve Jobs has messed up in getting $3.25 B in profit last quarter as it might have been a better idea to sell everything for $0.01 over their cost in hopes that they could sell 326 billion products. We should write him a letter
Click to expand...

lol exactly what i was saying. thank you for summing it up for us. good grief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back