Proposal to Apple: Hold an Auction for Launch Day iPhone Xs

[edfoo]

Income is a product of skill and effort, so it is fairer.

Those Columbian drug cartels love your idea

 

[lotsalag]

Still don't think you can have Apple say 'ok good, you've paid $10,000 for your iPhone, we'll pass $9,000 of that on to charity after we've taken our cut' - that looks all kinds of wrong!

Why not? Who could reasonably be opposed to donating to people in need? No one is forced to bid.

What is your objection to the wealthy getting access to a product before other people?

You're saying "a product" like we're talking about any or all products. We're talking about the iPhone and my problem with doing this for the iPhone is it would alienate the majority the iPhone buyers in favor of the rich. Maybe if this was a new company and a new product, but the iPhone is an established product with an established base and this would be a slap in the face to that base. As already mentioned, if you want to be guaranteed an iPhone at launch and willing to pay 4 times above retail then you have other paths.


Did you also object to the wealthy getting access to air bags in cars before other people?

Yes, are you really asking this?

You make an interesting empirical claim, though I'm not sure I agree. I don't think the proposal would alienate Apple's user base. Apple make plenty of controversial decisions and still sell tens of millions of iPhones because people love their products. At the end of the day, only a tiny fraction of users are interested in getting a launch day iPhone.

As for the air bag example, you need to write the automotive industry and tell them to stop making cars because car makers always put new safety features in their most expensive cars first.

The irony of your objection is that capitalism brought you the iPhone, but now you are objecting to using capitalism to resolve a problem with the distribution of iPhones!

Those Columbian drug cartels love your idea

Haha you are very right. I will happily concede that wealth is not always a product of effort and skill. Inherited wealth is also a problem. Fortunately, most wealth comes from effort and skill.

 

[thedropout]

Thanks for the terrific response. I really enjoyed reading it.

It would be a blind or silent auction. People are given a week to submit their bid. They do not know what others have bid. There's no need to worry about people submitting bids at the last minute.

1. It would be a simple change. A form to submit your desired price. The backend sorts the top 1 million bids (if 1 million launch day iPhone Xs are available) and processes their orders first.
2. No. A single auction.
3. No. As I said, it would be a blind or silent auction.
4. No. Just take submissions via the Internet like orders are taken now. If you win, the money is taken from your credit card.
5. Irrelevant to my proposal.
6. The advantages of my proposal are set out in the original post.
7. Every time there is a new flagship model, so once a year. And only for launch day phones, because that is where demand exceeds supply.
8. The bidding of minors could be dealt with in the same way as the purchasing by minors is dealt with now.

Heres where your logic fails. Currently there are 700+million iphones in use world wide. lets say 5 million people want the iphone x which im sure is very low. do you think apple wants to piss off everyone else who doesnt get a fair chance at getting one? Apples stock would plummet from the people outraged that apple is catering to the wealthy. Not to mention plenty of wealthy people out there would love the tax deduction of dropping ridiculous coin on an iphone.

Just stop trying to hide your greed under the idea of money going to charity. You couldnt care less where the money went as long as you are the first to have an iphone.

 

[lotsalag]

Heres where your logic fails. Currently there are 700+million iphones in use world wide. lets say 5 million people want the iphone x which im sure is very low. do you think apple wants to piss off everyone else who doesnt get a fair chance at getting one? Apples stock would plummet from the people outraged that apple is catering to the wealthy. Not to mention plenty of wealthy people out there would love the tax deduction of dropping ridiculous coin on an iphone.

Just stop trying to hide your greed under the idea of money going to charity. You couldnt care less where the money went as long as you are the first to have an iphone.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I appreciate it.

I addressed your criticism in response to another poster above. I don't think this would alienate the Apple user base.

And I do care where the money goes. Maximizing opportunities to raise money for charity is important. Do you not agree?

 

[missbing]

You make an interesting empirical claim, though I'm not sure I agree. I don't think the proposal would alienate Apple's user base. Apple make plenty of controversial decisions and still sell tens of millions of iPhones because people love their products. At the end of the day, only a tiny fraction of users are interested in getting a launch day iPhone.

You really don't think this would alienate iPhone users? Just look to this forum showing how upset people are that the X is delayed.

 

[Loge]

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...d-and-arent-priced-just-for-the-rich.2065942/

How would that look, only a week later?

 

[missbing]

The irony of your objection is that capitalism brought you the iPhone, but now you are objecting to using capitalism to resolve a problem with the distribution of iPhones!

I'm not going to argue with you about capitalism because this isn't a pure capitalist economy and thankfully we have some controls in place so that not only the rich gets what they want or need.

 

[michael9891]

Thanks for your considerate response.

Randomness is not fair. Again, you need to present an argument as to why. As I showed you with the restaurant example, randomness is not fair.

And you misconstrue the ambit of my proposal. It would not place the iPhone X out of reach from ordinary iPhone users. That would hurt Apple's bottom line and is not in anyone's interest. Instead, it would determine access to the first set of iPhone Xs.

I said you still have to be a but lucky in the sense that lots of people are trying at once. But it's still fair because many will try as soon as pre orders begin. Those who decide to try hours later miss out.

You said to have these auctions while the phone is in high demand and short supply. If that lasts for 6 months (people can still get them, just have to wait a little during those 6 months), then yes, it would be taking them out of the reach of ordinary people.

I'm sure many people wouldn't want to spend £1,149 on a 6/7 month old product when a new one would be be only 5/6 months away when Apple would be more prepared with OLED screens.

You can dress it up however you like, talk about charity or whatever, you feel you should be able to do whatever you want because you have money.

The current system works. Place an order, get it when it arrives. Simple.

 

[thedropout]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I appreciate it.

I addressed your criticism in response to another poster above. I don't think this would alienate the Apple user base.

And I do care where the money goes. Maximizing opportunities to raise money for charity is important. Do you not agree?

If you're so for maximizing opportunities for charities why don't you buy an iPhone x and raffle it off with all proceeds going to charity? You claim you're well off, just think how much money you could raise raffling tickets for$10 a pop on here. Or you could take your money and donate it directly to charity. There are a lot of charities setup to help people hurt by the hurricanes.

You're not fooling anyone. Your first post briefly mentioned charity thrown in at the end.

 

[ventmore]

...but now you are objecting to using capitalism to resolve a problem with the distribution of iPhones!

The thing is, there isn't a problem with the distribution of iPhones......it's setup to work on a first come first served basis so everyone gets a shot at grabbing one. You only believe there's a problem because you're under the illusion that you deserve one more than all the normal hard working people that have been saving all year to buy a new iPhone.

Also......if there was an auction, and you were only willing to go to $4k, then there's a good chance you wouldn't be getting one from the first wave anyway.

 

[snatefinch]

So let me get this straight OP, because I can only afford to pay the $1000 for the phone but you can afford to pay $4000, you deserve the phone more than I do? Because I can't afford as much you want the phone more than I do? I think the fact that I will be up at 3 AM EST time to pre-order as early as possible shows I want it more than you paying 4 times the price. This sure would alienate an Apple user like myself. You are basically saying people who make more money deserve things before people like me who make a comfortable amount of money, but not enough to overpay for a phone.

Your idea is elitist in nature and there is no way you can explain yourself around that one.

 

[FunkyTang]

The first month of iPhone sales should be sold at +$200 over list price to weed out the masses and hit the scalpers.

 

[ventmore]

Say on any one night in the United States 5% of people eat out (at a restaurant or get take out) and 95% of people eat at home. Would you say it is fair if the 5% of people who eat out were randomly assigned? Of course not. Instead, we use the market to determine who eats out. People determine whether the desire to eat out is sufficiently important to them to spend their money on it. This proposal is the same.

Your restaurant analogy doesn't work when you look closer.

5% of people may be eating out, but they may not be eating at their first choice of restaurant. They may have had to go elsewhere because their first choice was fully booked due to limited places and high demand. Sound familiar!?