Hacker News Reader

Comment by DrJokepu | Hacker News Reader

Because they feel that shopping experience is part of their brand and people buying their "high-end" products in large quantities just to sell them elsewhere would hurt the brand on long term. Don't forget that Apple is very careful about its brand and image.

I'm not saying I agree with this practice, that's just the reason this is disallowed.

View on HN

they feel that shopping experience is part of their brand

You're right, but say it like you mean it. They treat your opinion of their company as their property.

That's what having a brand means.

No it's not. It's more like a softer version of anti-slander than it is like they own your opinion. Are they going to send you a threatening letter if you don't like them?

"Property", or "responsibility"?

Is "attempting to influence it through their policies" equivalent to "treating it as their property"?

You don't just buy an Apple iProduct - you embrace the Apple lifestyle. That's why iPads come with adoption certificates, simply handing over money for one would devalue the whole experience of transferring the love from Jobs to you.

I'm on my third mac (I just can't find a comparable product to a MacBook Pro), but the whole apple lifestyle stuff is a big turn off for me.

If I could get a comparable laptop (obviously by my own preferences) then I'd jump ship in a heartbeat, just so I didn't have to feel like I was part of some Apple fanboy club.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of Apple customers feel that way or at least aren't interested in any kind of "Apple lifestyle". The proportion of Apple customers who are true fanboys is probably no higher than the fraction of Dell customers who are gamers with too much money and completely unrealistic opinions about the relative merits of AMD vs Intel and Nvidia vs ATI. The stupid rich Apple fanboys get more disdain than the stupid rich gamers because the Apple fanboys are more ostentatious and the gamers [ab]use technical terminology that makes them sound less subjective.

I gave up on my PowerBook 12" last year. It had pretty good software, but the hardware was really disappointing. I've bought a Lenovo Thinkpad, put Ubuntu on it and I'm very very happy.

I've long told my friends that the single biggest drawback of Apple products is the supposed "lifestyle".

The attitude? not my thing. The people in the stores? not my people. Even the places they locate the stores are not my kinda places.

Unfortunately, they have great products I really enjoy and their service is phenomenal.

Please god let this be a troll. I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

I would also add that the opportunity of selling extra iPad accessories, insurance and/or warranty is only possible instore, and not from a reseller. This would hurt Apple due to the lost revenue.

I still have the view though that if someone has the money they should be able to buy it and a lifetime ban is not really ideal.

Also a CNN article I read recently means the limit of 2 isn't stopping the trade in Hong Kong: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/08/ipad.hong.kong.china.sale...

> I would also add that the opportunity of selling extra iPad accessories, insurance and/or warranty is only possible instore, and not from a reseller. This would hurt Apple due to the lost revenue.

If a retailer is unable or unwilling to enter a market, why should they be able to artificially ban anyone in that market from obtaining their product?

Take this outside of the context of Apple here. If Universal decides to release a DVD in the US, but wait 2 years to release that same DVD in the UK, should they be allowed to ban people in the UK from trying to obtain the US version? Trying to artificially create segment markets to suit your business goals like this goes against the entire idea of a global marketplace.

If anything, Apple is losing that revenue because they are 'unable and/or unwilling to enter that market,' not because someone isn't in the store shopping for their iPad. The argument that Apple is losing money over this is like the argument that the media industries make when they claim that every download is a lost sale.

You've never heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_region_code

I'm not saying it's right - just that it's not new.

That's exactly why I used that example. Plenty of people think that DVD region coding is unfair and wrong, so I don't understand how this is any different.

Saying that this guy somehow 'wronged' Apple is like saying that someone who buys DVDs outside of their region code (and uses a region-free dvd player) is somehow 'wronging' the movie studios.

>should they be allowed to ban people in the UK from trying to obtain the US version? Trying to artificially create segment markets to suit your business goals like this goes against the entire idea of a global marketplace

Indeed, they resort to technical means to effectively "ban" people (region codes). IMO the reverse situation should arise that the companies are prevented from imposing artificial segmentation by any means if they wish to retain copyright protection.

Lost revenue from not selling accessories and warranties to people who wouldn't have otherwise bought the original product in the first place?

This only makes sense if the base product is a loss-leader, and all of the margins come from the upsells. Best Buy may work this way, but I'm pretty sure Apple makes a profit selling even the barest iPad configuration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com