Depression Level: Emo

[01001010]

• The end product is only as good as the sum of it's parts
• A consumer is satisfied by consuming unhealthy doses of alcohol; therefore, a consumers satisfaction alone should not be the single deciding factor for the consumer..

This makes absolutely no sense, and I don't see a point in your statements.

• The other "Need to know" is... If Paul gives Peter $100, what does Paul get in return? Is the service or product that Paul receives in exchange for the surrender of his disposable income worth the total cost of the service or product to Paul?

In most circumstances, yes. The value of an object is subjective, but Paul obviously sees that said object is worth more than $100. This is Economics 101.

• I understand the market very well (probably a lot better than you considering my past experience with Apple executives and business proposals, which whether or not you believe that does nothing to its validity).

Doubt this. Just because you have CNBC on your television doesn't mean you're an expert on the markets. I've been doing this for years and I don't consider myself an expert, so I doubt you are as well.

• The car thing is a bad analogy.

When purchasing a car, do you go to the dealership and purchase based solely on color? When purchasing a car, do you see the coolest car you can find and then purchase regardless of price/sacrifice/long term impact?
Purchasing a car is a large scale financial decision based on price and opportunity cost. The lower the price, the more likely you are to purchase with less information, even though the opportunity cost of the purchase is rarely considered.

What's wrong with buying a car solely on color? Again, just because people place different values on different aspects of a product does not mean they're ignorant, blundering idiots.

When a car is greater than x% of yearly income or creates a large enough impact on the disposable income of the consumer, comparisons are made as to the true cost of the vehicle (CostOfCar+Fuel+Maint.+Insurance) You start to ask questions about MPG/Warranty and get quotes for insurance... right?

So you think most people that buy that Apple MacBook Pro think "oh, shiny" and purchase the product based on that merit alone? You know how flawed that argument is?

The problem here (I'll say it again, but differently) is that our consumerism society has bred a generation of laborers who make poor decisions. The logic is: A purchase of $100 is greater than 100 purchases of $2. That's mathematically incorrect, duh.

No. Consumers have always behaved like this. The difference now is the fact that we rely so heavily on credit - but human instinct remains the same.

 

[iPwn]

cut the arrogant crap like this , its not necessary you can make your points without it and as a member of the site team you of all people should know better than that . If you are in fact incapable of making your points without resorting to that kind of attitude then dont bother making them because in my view it just makes you look and sound like you have run out of arguments . I believe arrogance from seasoned members like that is part of the reason that we have such trouble attracting members who are willing to stick around here

Muz, I'm sorry. You are absolutely correct. It was meant more in the way of a joke than an insult and I see how it is easily perceived as rude. You (seriously) have my apologies.

My point about them contradicting was simply that you stated a $100 purchase is less than $200 worth of smaller purchases. Your logic, the way it was presented, made sense. But in the same logic you exposed the reality of how much more expensive the smaller purchases were. For example:
A $100 purchase is more readily exchanged/returned upon dissatisfaction. This is true, but the funds are already allocated to an expenditure of $100, so the normal consumer will either: A. Spend the same amount, B. Spend more on a product they find more suitable because they're only adding a smaller amount to the original budgeted cost, C. Spend less on a 'value' product which is less likely, or D. Cancel the purchase and reallocate the funds, very improbable and unexpected in a "Consumerism" market by definition.
$2 Purchases are disposable
This says from the start that they are less likely to be returned or exchanged. Therefore the product is either thrown away or kept but no longer used. These smaller purchases cause more financial damage because of that very logic, which was the point I inappropriately was trying to reach. If you don't return the item but no longer use it, you will purchase the same type of item for the same cost or more, therefore doubling the budgeted cost.

Again, I'm sorry dude.

Dude you gettin worked up over opinions.
And by the way when i buy a car i look at style, speed, and can I pay for it. Past experience has showed me that how well it holds up is in proper maintainence and how you drive and where you drive.
I can make a Kia last 10 years(a long life for such a cheap car) or 2 days same with a Corvette, Chevy Truck, or a Peterbuilt with a Cat engine(yeah I know my way around a big rig too lol)
Bottom line advertising is targeted toward the masses to sell, Consumers buy what appeals to them.
If you don't want people's opinion don't post on a forum

I am getting a little worked up, yes. It always saddens me when I present thought provoking information and it is taken out of context.

So, you also just a proved a point I was eluding to. You know your way around cars, and also stated that there are certain criteria when purchasing a car. Very similarly, I purchase most types of PC parts/manufacturers/etc. because I understand what's important. I know when the value of the item justifies the price.

Also, I didn't post in this forum to start a fight or to not read what others had to say. I very much wanted others' opinions, I didn't realize that a die hard Apple PR rep would take my comment about an ad personally and then try to disprove every point I made from there on. Most other comments have been geared towards the type of discussion I was looking for, that of course being more philosophically based and completely void of Product specific rhetoric.

• The other "Need to know" is... If Paul gives Peter $100, what does Paul get in return? Is the service or product that Paul receives in exchange for the surrender of his disposable income worth the total cost of the service or product to Paul?

In most circumstances, yes. The value of an object is subjective, but Paul obviously sees that said object is worth more than $100. This is Economics 101.

In economics 201, you learn why 101 is presented that way. Economic Models are based on certain assumptions. Not everything is going to be tangibly measured in a macro/micro economic system. Therefore, things are assumed, or guessed. Now, the subjectivity of value does nothing to the products actual worth. At the end of the day, I can take any electronic device, whether it's worth $10 or $10,000 retail, and scrap it for the value of the raw materials. Those are typically based on a World price that is only subject to change by country, depending on the availability of said materials. Continuing on; If I take an ASUS Zenbook to a smelter, I'll get about $5 at best. The whole concept behind a name brand is that you can charge more for equal or less input cost. Example: Banana Republic vs. Walmart selling T-Shirts. Walmart probably uses more durable and better material, but Banana Republic has a name worn by popular people, therefore the firm becomes a price maker, not price taker like manufacturers who push product through WalMart. Now, where this is going is that the consumer alone controls the price of any product. Price Elasticity will determine how much a firm can raise price. Elasticity is based on a perceived need. Cigarettes are almost completely inelastic. You raise the price on cigarettes and the demand is only slightly affected. Paul, and anyone else who buys from Peter, could easily stop buying Peters crap, and Peter has to lower cost and reduce profit margin in order to remain in business.
You also very briefly proved another point about Apple, but I'll hold that back because I have nothing against them as I've said many times prior, but you still defend them like I said anything bad about them in the first place.

• I understand the market very well (probably a lot better than you considering my past experience with Apple executives and business proposals, which whether or not you believe that does nothing to its validity).

Doubt this. Just because you have CNBC on your television doesn't mean you're an expert on the markets. I've been doing this for years and I don't consider myself an expert, so I doubt you are as well.

Not one time, anywhere on this site or others, have I called myself an expert at anything. One time, however, I did sit in a room with the Apple COO, CFO, a business manager overseeing their website chat function, and two tech guys and was involved in trying to get them to Outsource their business to my company. This was in October of 2007 following an RFP by Apple looking to weigh the ROI of outsourcing their chat. My company responded and we decorated the site with all kinds of Apple banners/logo's etc. I was involved because at the time I ran the Qwest Customer Care business we housed and did very well at improving quality and sales for Qwest during that time. At one point, if you called 1-800-244-1111 (Qwest Customer line printed on each Qwest bill in the 14 state region where it was the LEC), there was a 15% chance you got someone who worked for me. So, the VP of Sales asked me to put together some numbers and data for the Apple pitch. Although I didn't present anything to them during the meeting, I did get to talk with one of the tech guys afterwards who had a MacBook Air (few months before release). I can say with 99.999% certainty that I knew more about the MacBook Air before you ever saw one in person. In that meeting, I learned a lot about Apple's strategy when you click the little chat button. I know what their old KPI (Key Performance Indicators) and chat handling metrics were projected to be during 2008. I also learned just a tiny bit about their marketing. So, no. I didn't watch CNBC and then claim I knew Steve Jobs, because I don't watch the crap, and never met ol' Steve, he didn't make that meeting (must have been busy?)

• The car thing is a bad analogy.

When purchasing a car, do you go to the dealership and purchase based solely on color? When purchasing a car, do you see the coolest car you can find and then purchase regardless of price/sacrifice/long term impact?
Purchasing a car is a large scale financial decision based on price and opportunity cost. The lower the price, the more likely you are to purchase with less information, even though the opportunity cost of the purchase is rarely considered.

What's wrong with buying a car solely on color? Again, just because people place different values on different aspects of a product does not mean they're ignorant, blundering idiots.

If you place the value of a car on the color of the paint, then yes, You are an ignorant, blundering idiot.

Now, I don't know how much you make dude, but based on my experience here, you're not the kind of guy who lives check to check. Unfortunately, >80% of the rest the population doesn't live like you. So saying that because Kim Retardashian can buy a car based on color doesn't mean that "Joe the plumber" should too.

When a car is greater than x% of yearly income or creates a large enough impact on the disposable income of the consumer, comparisons are made as to the true cost of the vehicle (CostOfCar+Fuel+Maint.+Insurance) You start to ask questions about MPG/Warranty and get quotes for insurance... right?

So you think most people that buy that Apple MacBook Pro think "oh, shiny" and purchase the product based on that merit alone? You know how flawed that argument is?

Holy crap J, GET OFF THE APPLE THING. I'm am not talking about an Apple product in this thread, I never was! I said the advert and the subsequent rave about THE ADVERT was crazy given the ratio of input to output.

The problem here (I'll say it again, but differently) is that our consumerism society has bred a generation of laborers who make poor decisions. The logic is: A purchase of $100 is greater than 100 purchases of $2. That's mathematically incorrect, duh.

No. Consumers have always behaved like this. The difference now is the fact that we rely so heavily on credit - but human instinct remains the same.

Consumers have not "always behaved like this." Not until (Anglo-American societal time-frame) our market became one of huge surplus did the value of earned income become less valuable to the person receiving the income. The introduction of credit is nothing new either, only the ubiquitous availability and widespread misuse. Also, even though this behavior is normal, doesn't by any means make it right.

"That which is not sustainable, is not sustained."

 

[iPwn]

Back to the meat and potato's!

The two points do not contradict.

When comparing the purchase of a 2 apples for $1 vs. 1 orange for $2, one can justly make the claim that the value is always subjective when considering the amount of surplus that we currently live in. If you like Oranges more than Apples, buy the freaking oranges and enjoy a damn orange.

You haven't actually shown how the two points dont contradict here though , Like I said you have in fact backed up my point that despite the higher cost vs no measurable benefit people should buy the oranges because they "enjoy" the oranges . Without getting technical about the nutritional properties of both there is no added benefit to you in buying an orange however here you are saying people should buy it ?
Its much like there is no additional benefit in purchasing the new mbp if you have the current mbp however many people desire to have the latest thing etc this kind of unmeasurable enjoyment also factors into purchasing decisions and just because a monetary value cannot be given for it does not mean that it does not factor heavilly into many peoples purchasing decisions

So the apple vs. orange thing was (as you already know) completely imaginary. But, You left out the rest of my quote where I went to put it into perspective with the inclusion of your African village example. The problem I see with many consumers is they place a larger value on their enjoyment then they do their survival. The issue is not when you purchase an Orange over an Apple, it's when you buy a house that you cannot afford over renting a small space and saving for a house. Millions of people did this in America, and Millions of people are in a financial pickle that they will either never recover from, or will spend the rest of their lives in trying to fix.

Worth is subjective, but not in a monetarily sound system.

The only thing subjective about the worth of a purchase is the Marginal Utility score at each increase to quantity. How much do I benefit, or how much use do I personally get when purchasing another? another? another?

Worth is very much so objective. I can walk into our accounting department at any time and give them a serial number on any given electronic device and they can tell me exactly how much it's worth. Any smile that the device puts on my face between the time I purchase and the time I sell/write off is an added benefit.

clearly if tech companies like apple are still posting sales figures and making a profit marginal utility has yet to decrease because perhaps of this unmeasurable satisfaction that people get when purchasing a laptop

[...]

So, I'm not going to respond to the last two paragraphs. They are true, and the various measurements of value do exist, but I wanted to focus on the "new item" aspect and purchasing process.

My response to your first paragraph is simple though. The marginal utility only goes in one direction right? So why do meth users die from prolonged use or overdose? That's an issue! We now treat material possessions as a mind altering substance. In the job I am in, I purchase the IT related items for the owners of the company. While I haven't purchased something new at every 10th of a version, I find it a little rediculous that all umpteen of the same items are discarded and replaced with a new model each time it's released. Most of them will never even be touched once the ranch hands take them into the guest home and place them in each room 'just in case someone stays at our extra house.' People now have this need to buy something just so they can look themselves in the mirror and feel good about who they think they are.

The latter half of the paragraph proves the first sentence false. If I am less likely to return a $2 item because the value and cost of the single item doesn't by itself represent a large amount of my revenue stream, the $2 item creates a bigger problem in my overall balance between debits and credits to my holdings. I will therefore make more purchases of the $2 item, but remain cautious with the purchase of $100 item. Eventually, purchasing the correct $100 item may have solved the need to any $2 item in the first place, therefore wasting opportunity cost and destroying my ROI.

I offered up a reason why the consumer in many cases does not return / take considerable notice of purchasing $2 items . In the extreme scenario you have given purchasing 100 $2 items followed by a $100 item to do the same job does seem silly and a waste of money etc however one thing it appears you have failed to account for here is the likelihood of finding a satisfactory $2 item before purchasing more than 50 of the $2 item . Additionally I know of no real situation where the choice is between $2 items and $100 Items that do exactly the same job .

However lets take this as the example . I as would many consumers would start to research the item we wanted to buy if after buying a certain amount of $2 items if not for anything else because of the added inconvenience of having to repeatedly buy items to carry out a particular task

You took that one wrong, I never meant to imply that you buy a $100 item and then try to replace it 100 times with a $2 equivalent. My point was that consumers will make small purchases constantly without really adding them up. People will budget $100, but purchase 100 $2 items without considering the sum.

Television and News articles may make it look like America is full of the idiots buying car after car, but we are broke as all hell.

Someone is still buying them though ?

Not nearly as many people, and the number of exports in the auto industry is increasing.

Saturn = Gone
Chrysler = Bought by someone
Pontiac = Gone

If a society is willing to purchase anything and everything based solely on a video clip, then they are probably ready to be enslaved too. A society that does not hold itself to a higher standard has no right in being a 'modern' society. Things should be known and basic understanding should be expected.

I dont quite agree with this . You will always have some people with excessive brand loyalty (Fanboys) however I dont see many blackberry fanboys rushing out to buy this Porsche Design P'9981 - Touch Screen Smartphone from BlackBerry UK . I dont particularly think everyone needs to know technical details of a macbook if all they want to do with it is browse the web its just not necessary .If they are willing to pay that price and it satisfies you then to me there is nothing else to it .

Another reason these 'nice to haves ' are so important is that if thousands of these consumers didn't rush out any buy the new macbook or the latest dell computers etc etc then companies like this as well as other companies in the supply change would not be able to nor have any need to carry out research and development . For example if only the market who had the capability to full use the i7 bought it then Intel wouldn't be able to afford R&D for the next line of process so if you are a true tech enthusiast you should in fact appreciate the fact that people who cant utilize its full power are still buying machines with i7's in

Microsoft and the PC industry make only marginal profit from the private sector. Windows XP's original commission was in response to a government need to create a networked system of computers. Microsoft dominated Business and government. This forced Apple into the private sector where they have done very well.

The point about R&D does hold water. If you made a PC that never failed, you never have a return customer. If the customers never come back, then why pay for something new? My only counter to that would be the 64bit processor. When did we see that thing and when was it actually invented and why? Consumers get the hand-me-downs of R&D. Intel doesn't research new technologies so that John Doe can open two more spreadsheets at the same time. John happened to benefit from the R&D done years ago that helped put a cruise missile down a sewage pipe and around three corners.

 

[muz]

Muz, I'm sorry. You are absolutely correct. It was meant more in the way of a joke than an insult and I see how it is easily perceived as rude. You (seriously) have my apologies.

Appology fully accepted . Just didnt think that kind of tone was necessary . Anyway thats all done now
Im only going to pick out a few of the parts that jumped back at me cos im pretty busy atm writing a research proposal for a research masters I might be doing later this year

People now have this need to buy something just so they can look themselves in the mirror and feel good about who they think they are.

Perhaps this is true IDK I havent done a survery into purchashing decisions and this hypothesis however even if it is true that people purchase like this to me there is no real problem with this as long as they are consuming within their means (not relying on excessive credit to purchase items their earning cannot sustain).

The issue is not when you purchase an Orange over an Apple, it's when you buy a house that you cannot afford over renting a small space and saving for a house. Millions of people did this in America, and Millions of people are in a financial pickle that they will either never recover from, or will spend the rest of their lives in trying to fix.

I agree with you completely that buying a house that you cannot afford is pretty irresponsible although my political outlook on this is that there should be tighter regulation of lenders to prevent them lending to people who cannot afford the loan they are taking out .
Same with the macbook although i dont think the effects on your life are as drastic as buying a house if you are relying on excessive credit you cant really afford to keep up with the latest apple products then you are being irresponsible in my books but if you earn hundreds of thousands a year and keeping up with the latest apple products is what you wish to spend your disposable income on then to me there is no issue there its your disposable income all your bills and mortgage are still being paid and youve saved a little bit and still got money left over . I dont really care if you use that money to take a nice 3 week holiday somewhere nice , or buy the latest macbook or buy the latest car etc etc its disposable income so why do you care so much what people spend it on ?
I understand when people are lending beyond their means for stuff like this that eventually impacts on us all as we saw with the economic crises however I think a lot more onus needs to be placed on those who lent to people they knew couldn't afford the loans .

You took that one wrong, I never meant to imply that you buy a $100 item and then try to replace it 100 times with a $2 equivalent. My point was that consumers will make small purchases constantly without really adding them up. People will budget $100, but purchase 100 $2 items without considering the sum.

it depends what you mean by "consider" . for example I might spend £50 a month on food whilst im at work lunches and snacks etc etc That isnt one £50 purchase but i put it on my expenditure in the spreadsheet I use to calculate my finances every month . However when I actually go out to buy my lunch I dont really give it to much thought cos im only spending £3/£4 at a time so I just go wherever I fancy that day I dont analyses the decision to much .
Whereas if i where in the market for a used camera that would cost about £50 I might put a lot more effort into researching different models I could get for that much .
That makes perfect sense to me though ?

the problem with using your logical explanation of $100<100 X $2 is that it didn't really consider what it was you where actually buying(ie a $100 purchase isnt likely to be something essential like food ) .If i spend $200 a month on food in small $2 purchases that is an essential purchase whereas if one month I decide to spend $100 on one item say a jacket I am likely to do some research and look at the different jackets I can get because that is a much rarer purchase and is not essential whereas the $200 for food is money I spend all the time

The only way it made sense is if you where items to carry out the same task . so I can either buy a $100 T shirt that would fit perfectly etc or make my way through 100 $2 T shirts before finally opting to buy the $100 one

My only counter to that would be the 64bit processor. When did we see that thing and when was it actually invented and why? Consumers get the hand-me-downs of R&D. Intel doesn't research new technologies so that John Doe can open two more spreadsheets at the same time. John happened to benefit from the R&D done years ago that helped put a cruise missile down a sewage pipe and around three corners.

Whilst im aware that it was possible for 32bit processors to address more memory via pae the 3gb barrier is often cited as the reason behind the mainstream development of 64 bit processors which had been around since the 60's in supercomputers .

Whilst Im aware that the main clients of intels R & D arent the end consumers the fact remains that without the revenue provided by this sector of the market intel couldnt perform as extensive R & D as it does . Despite fact that a lot of the developments filter down from other projects Intel does develop new technologies and low power consumption processors so that john doe has a laptop with a battery that lasts 7 hours rather than 4 .

its a bit like mercedes benz with cars . The High tech features they offer in their more expensive range of cars at the moment will be the technology you see in all of their cars and many other manufacturers cars in years to come . developments filter down of course however some developments are actually instigated with a particular product or consumer in mind or to give another example developments are so beneficial to everyone that they are made standard to everyone immediately such as what happened with a lot of car manufacturers and seat belts .

 

[mikee]

To me apple products are a status symbol. In school almost everyone with a mac is smug as hell about it. These people appear to come from very rich families. I will always be a pc guy and be interested in just average gaming pcs and laptops. None of this untra slim stuff since they are practically impossible to upgrade.

I just saw someone on youtube who does daily live shows talking about tech stuff. The one a few days ago was on the new macbook with retina display and how he viewed it essentially as a disposible computer since if someone goes bad everything is integrated on the motherboard if you want to upgrade you must go through apple and if something breaks on this new macbook it might as well be thrown away. He went deeper into this topic but it really didn't surprise me when he said disposable. computer since i had an issue with my ipod touch and I called them and they said i'd just be better off buying a new one.