Not everyone, I think this is a pretty lame thing to do (and yeah, lots of people do it). What I particularly don't like here is that they're pretending this is for your own good and it has nothing to do with their bottom line.
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.
Orbitz Presenting More Expensive Hotels to Mac Users
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not everyone, I think this is a pretty lame thing to do (and yeah, lots of people do it). What I particularly don't like here is that they're pretending this is for your own good and it has nothing to do with their bottom line.
Dude, don't tell him the Powerbook G5 isn't going to come out...oh whoops, my bad.
Fine, but they ALL do it. See that banner ad up at the top of this forum? You must not like this because I guarantee you that right now my banner ad is different than the one being shown to you.
How exactly are you being "ripped off" because Orbitz pushes a higher priced hotel offering to you? The cheaper hotels are right there, you just have to scroll down a bit further than say a Windows user.
Where exactly is the "ripoff" occurring? Did you pay some special fee to use Orbitz that the rest of us don't? Did they take control of your keyboard and force you to cough up a credit card purchase for the higher priced location?
If anyone is getting pissy, its you....and by your remarks, the opinion you are expressing is based on inaccurate information. Which, more than likely, is where you are most comfortable in life.
Notice the word "try" in front of the word "rip off".
Read before you speak.
Anyway I'm done arguing. I don't like companies trying to upsell me based on the computer I use. If you like it fine but I think its a shady practice.
On average, they do, so I think it's fair to assume that. It's like how ads on Facebook tend to be related to your interests. By the way, the guy who made that FB advertising system (or at least part of it) went to my school.
----------
Nope.
----------
PowerBook G5... now THAT is a bad idea. I think it would melt.
Lets pretend you and your friend go to a car dealership. You get quoted a fair price. Your friend gets quoted a higher price (pick a reason, female, old, young, whatever) and must haggle to get it down because they don't need the super expensive floor mats. When confronted on the issue the person claims that data shows that female, old, young, whatever people prefer expensive floor mats.
We all know what is going on here. They aren't doing it for you. They're doing it to pad their bottom line and they're lying to a subset of their customers. That is the problem.
Good thing I don't use Orbitz. I'm a Marriott & Wyndam club member so I wouldn't be eligible for the double points booking through the discount site anyway.
I don't know much about Orbitz, but their tactics mentioned on this article are not unethical. I thought Orbitz was a gum brand...
----------
I'm more worried about the heightened auto insurance costs that are imposed simply because I am male. If statistics showed that females were more aggressive drivers, I'll bet they wouldn't raise the price for them anyway.
First: This is how car dealerships have worked for decades. So I'm not sure why you find this a hypothetical situation at all.
Second: So are you _REALLY_ trying to make a case that age/sex discriminatory practices are equivalent to Mac/Windows 'profiling' practices? One is illegal and unethical. The other is called "marketing." Caveat emptor.
Businesses trying to improve their sell thru? Wow....color me shocked. That's equivalent to high treason!
Nope.
You fancy Flash-blocking-plugin-user you.....
On an unrelated note, I just realized what your signature is talking about.
----------
It's not discrimination. They just show certain people the more expensive models. They can still opt for cheaper ones.
this is no different than a tourist town charging more for a product than a center of the state town. It's not fair, ethical, etc- but it's very common and there are numerous ways to not pay more money if you don't want to. They are not excluding you from the less expensive options, they are just making you dig for them. I agree it's sleazy to make assumptions based on the computer someone owns, but companies are companies because they did well at making profits.
Example- there used to be an amazing restaurant that I frequented. The owner was an amazing cook and a great person. She undercharged and over-served, which kept the loyal people coming back again and again. But it was terrible for her bottom line and the business went belly up. She did everything she could to please her customers and it was her undoing- that's where the moral to all this is.
Example- there used to be an amazing restaurant that I frequented. The owner was an amazing cook and a great person. She undercharged and over-served, which kept the loyal people coming back again and again. But it was terrible for her bottom line and the business went belly up. She did everything she could to please her customers and it was her undoing- that's where the moral to all this is.
Doesn't mean we have to like it. Seriously, there are a couple people in this thread saying they don't like this practice and wish they'd stop lying. You then come in and say "you fool, everyone does this and it isn't unethical". You might as well just start screaming "bananas" over and over because it makes just as much sense.
Both cases are discrimination based on correlation in an effort to increase margins. Both are have the ability to get the other price but must take more time and effort to get the same final price. I never suggested that the gender or age or education level (all used as differentiators, as you admitted) is being used to completely deny the price or to prevent the person from owning property or voting. Feel free to say that I'm comparing this to Orbitz removing customers' constitutional rights, though. You'd be wrong but you can go ahead and say that.
Customers wanting to be treated with respect and not lied to? Wow...color me shocked. That's equivalent to high treason!
I noticed you didn't quote the second paragraph because contained my point and not something you could easily turn into a straw man. Pity, I was hoping for a real conversation.
That isn't comparable. She could have instead of undercharging attempted to charge a sustainable rate. What we're dealing with here would be equivalent to her arbitrarily changing the menu with no input from the customers and then explaining/lying how she did it to make their lives easier when she got caught.
And one company really does increase your rate if you have PhD. The entire thing is based completely on correlation with no thought of causation.
Last edited:
This is an example of the value of technology appropriately applied in marketing. It's target marketing done right. The same concept Apple & other highly successful companies deploy.
The good news is this story is likely to fade quickly, and they'll be able to continue. It's good for the market, the business and the economy.
I have no problem paying the premium prices I have consistently paid over the years for PowerBooks & MacBook Pro's. I get what I want & Apple benefits from the sales.
Price is relative and irrelevant in many cases. For verification of this fact, one need only go to your favorite search engine & compare prices on luxury goods.
It's as simple as that
The good news is this story is likely to fade quickly, and they'll be able to continue. It's good for the market, the business and the economy.
I have no problem paying the premium prices I have consistently paid over the years for PowerBooks & MacBook Pro's. I get what I want & Apple benefits from the sales.
Price is relative and irrelevant in many cases. For verification of this fact, one need only go to your favorite search engine & compare prices on luxury goods.
It's as simple as that
And yet people whine when an app is more than 99 cents.
Only PC users with iPhones do that.
Yes Mac users do tend to like better hotels and be able to pay for them.
Lets be for real, do any real long time Mac users whine about prices, I doubt it.
Cheap hotels for Apple Retail clerks?
Oh wow, wondering if Orbitz has an algorithm in place that will differentiate Macs owned by Apple retail clerks (probably older hardware since they can't afford what customers buy) from those of, say, the Tim Cooks of the universe and that, consequently and in kind, will spew out very cheap hotel recommendations in the seediest areas of town? And hey, if those clerks don't like their pay they can always apply for Mr. Cook's position or similar. No one is blocking them.
Oh wow, wondering if Orbitz has an algorithm in place that will differentiate Macs owned by Apple retail clerks (probably older hardware since they can't afford what customers buy) from those of, say, the Tim Cooks of the universe and that, consequently and in kind, will spew out very cheap hotel recommendations in the seediest areas of town? And hey, if those clerks don't like their pay they can always apply for Mr. Cook's position or similar. No one is blocking them.
The site has an explicitly stated goal of attempting to save the customer money. They then hide prices that are cheaper and most likely have a smaller margin for them. Their stated purpose to the customer is in conflict with that action. Either their statement is a lie or they are incompetent.
This is an example of the value of technology appropriately applied in marketing. It's target marketing done right. The same concept Apple & other highly successful companies deploy.
The good news is this story is likely to fade quickly, and they'll be able to continue. It's good for the market, the business and the economy.
I have no problem paying the premium prices I have consistently paid over the years for PowerBooks & MacBook Pro's. I get what I want & Apple benefits from the sales.
Price is relative and irrelevant in many cases. For verification of this fact, one need only go to your favorite search engine & compare prices on luxury goods.
It's as simple as that
You're conflating paying for quality with deal hunting being obscured based on sloppy correlation.