I think it really is simply that Apple is going for market share, especially for video-playing devices, and also wifi devices. The more video-playing devices, the more influence Apple has with video content creators to get content, which will help sell AppleTVs. So the pricing of the nano at 149 and 199 (8GB) is crucial, which leads to the iPod touch being priced at 299 (8GB), and thus the iPhone has to be priced at 399, to keep them all in balance, and allow for upsell.

Also, the more wifi devices sold, the more likely wifi hotspots will appear (whether independently or in partnership with Apple), which will help Apple eventually shake loose of the cell industry. So the iPod touch has to be sold at an attractive price, which again causes the iPhone to be priced correspondingly.

Apple has got one ever-increasing web of related properties – merging media, Internet, computing, and mobile, along with retail. And the more Apple grows in one area, the more leverage Apple gains with related companies already in the space. Apple has been pricing aggressively every Christmas, and it is doing so again.

I am starting to think that this whole scenario was planned from the get-go. Remember the press coverage when the iPhone came out. It was voluminous and generally positive–EXCEPT–there was considerable coverage particularly in the non-Mac-centric press about the price being way too high.

Apple is VERY good at pricing. Think about how they have priced iPods (and iMacs) over the years. They are masters at hitting the price point. Almost without exception they have priced the various models of the iPod to elicit the exact response they want–moving pontential buyers up to a higher level model then the might have purchased, based on price (and value). With this backdrop of near perfect pricing strategy–framed by the announcement last quarter of upcoming lower margins–the evidence leans toward a deliberate plan to lower the price.

If Apple is great at pricing, they are fantabulous at getting good bang for the buck at product release time. They massage the press (and the public) like no other company can. This price LOWERING is getting a lot of press, just like the HIGH PRICE did earlier. To me at least, this appears to be their cunning, masterful way to get TWICE the publicity that they might have. Their PR group (or whoever devised this plan–Steve?) deserves a raise.

Anyone else believe this is possible?

-Nate

-Nate

I, too, have ruminated and have read many many sites. First, I want to throw out one speculative point about the stock price. As most everyone knows, the share price always drops the instant the rumor becomes real. Looking at the Yahoo “beta” share-price site the other day, the day of the show, I saw that the price dropped precipitously at one o’clock. (And if it was the West Coast investors, why did they wait until Eastern Standard Time, at one, to sell?) This was in advance of Jobs’s announcing the price drop. In other words, I believe the share price started going down very precisely (as it always does), but did so in advance of the announcement regarding the iPhone. The so-called analysts (who I believe mostly seek to manipulate the market not explain it) inferred a causal connection between the price drop and the share drop. But it was, I think, a relationship of contiguity not causality. The fact is, as always, those who think badly of Apple came up with “bad” explanations, and vice versa (almost). It’s odd that the hardcore financial world should be so ostensibly emotional. Or, in fact, are not some of them–both in their admiration of Apple, and in their dislike–as Machiavellian as Jobs is thought to be? In other words, many of them are agents provocateurs with ulterior motives.

I.e., no different from the cynical rendition of Jobs’s character. Which brings me to the questions you ask yourself. There is this Manichean view of Jobs: either the evil genius or the merely temperamental visionary, the bad guy or the good guy.

The reason for our confusion and uncertainty regarding Jobs is because we use overly simplistic distinctions with which to think, both in general and about him. The dichotomy you set up in your distinction is the source of your confusion, I believe–not Jobs’s actions, or Apple’s.

There is no contradiction between Apple’s being “good” and its being “cunning.” The move could be planned seventeen moves ahead–as, after all, you would hope it would be, yes?–and that would not preclude the company’s having good motives, being (I emphasize this) as good a company as it would be possible for it to be while being both a company that operates in the context of companies. Yes, the way it has played out is probably beneficial to Apple. Does that make Jobs bad? And even if the rebate had the anticipated effect of making Jobs seem momentarily “good,” or better than he was (when he was the evil genius), does that mean he is a hypocrite? Or bad because he only “looks” good? or that Apple is? If a company does something that only “looks good” even if it is good, does that make it bad? If I say something to someone to make them feel better, even if it’s not true, does that make me a bad person? These situations are ethically and logically much more complicated than everyone is willing or able to admit.

See the NYTimes squib about How Jobs Was Telling the Truth. Assume that Apple really does want vastly expand market share by selling intensely into this holiday season. It sounds like a good business plan to me. Of course they knew people would be upset; and of course they anticipated assuaging folks if the noise became too loud. They had a plan. And their plans have back-up plans, and I bless them for it (yes, I own stock). And of course the rebate helps both the company and the people receiving the rebate.

Wherein lies the problem? Why shouldn’t a company sell its product for as much as the market will bear? Is this immoral? Why do Apple folks (I’m one of them, of course) expect Apple to be good in a way that is peculiar to people but not corporations. In spite of the folly of American law in this regard, corporations are not people. They are teams, I suppose. Would you expect your favorite team, pro bono, to give the other side a few chances to score against them? Just to be “fair”? Is that rational? The reaction of many to this so-called flap ultimately implies that America should not be the kind of country it is.

I can understand people being upset thinking they are “out” $200 (they are not, of course, they got what they wanted, value for money etc.). But they could be upset because they have less of what they want . . . cash. If they are upset because they feel betrayed by Apple or Jobs, or because they think he, or Apple, must be either good or bad, sincere or cynical, well, they are just bring a childlike distinction between good and evil to bear upon very complex situations.

Just like America.

We are immersed in a shallow sea of folly.

Sorry to go on so.

Thanks again,

Alarik