Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The real prices of the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini

sixcolors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 416 posts

Re: The real prices of the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini

#31

Post by pokstad »

jonathanberger wrote: post #11

Why doesn't the US have universal laws that cover price transparency in general? There are so many industries that get into shady territory: rental cars ("facility use fees"), hotels ("resort fees"), internet access ("mandatory equipment rental fees"), even SF restaurants ("SF mandate"). I'm saying Apple is wrong, and so are many other companies, and shouldn't we have fixed this with a law by this point?

You don’t need a law for something a consumer can vote with their money. If annoying price structures are that bad, a competitor will create a superior pricing system that takes away marketshare. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal. Adding laws increases the complexity to comply.

Re: The real prices of the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini

#33

Post by floatingatoll »

mangoman wrote: post #2

I saw that on their page - I wasn't as offended about the pricing differential as the post, but I was groaning during the whole verizon pitch. I wonder how much verizon paid for that placement. It felt extremely out of place and very cringy IMO.

I remember the iPhone launching as an AT&T exclusive or something back in the day. Did whichever US carrier it was get the same duration of exclusive placement?

Re: The real prices of the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini

#34

Post by jtbayly »

pokstad wrote: post #31
jonathanberger wrote: post #11

Why doesn't the US have universal laws that cover price transparency in general? There are so many industries that get into shady territory: rental cars ("facility use fees"), hotels ("resort fees"), internet access ("mandatory equipment rental fees"), even SF restaurants ("SF mandate"). I'm saying Apple is wrong, and so are many other companies, and shouldn't we have fixed this with a law by this point?

You don’t need a law for something a consumer can vote with their money. If annoying price structures are that bad, a competitor will create a superior pricing system that takes away marketshare. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal. Adding laws increases the complexity to comply.

The whole point is that the competitor can't compete because the consumer is being lied to about the price in the first place—which they don't know until it's too late.

Re: The real prices of the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini

#35

Post by whoisburbansky »

Bud wrote: post #20
roamerz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that. Apple should not appear to be in bed with any particular vendor. They have done a good job in the past maintaining their independence and it should continue. It’s just a chip off their armor but they are additive.

Normally I'd agree, but in this case there is one possible justification: Verizon is the only carrier supporting the highest-speed variant of 5G, at least for now and the foreseeable future. And Apple wanted to highlight those speeds.

Agreed that I think this is pretty much the only reason why, and it makes sense for them to do that; what's the point of selling 5G on a flagship phone if you can't even get past 4G speeds on other networks' "5G"?

Re: The real prices of the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini

#36

Post by vineyardmike »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #7

I understand Apple’s approach to Verizon here. Just like the initial iPhone needed one carrier to get things right, 5G infrastructure testing will be like that. It is in Apple’s best interest if their users experience 5G as best as the current infrastructure allows (which isn’t great yet, because it will take a decade for a full rollout). It makes sense to have the carriers bend over backwards to see who gets to be t…

Why? It's apple, they not only have the resources and expertise to manage multiple relationships, but they have the market power to drain HUGE number of subscribers from the company by announcing the iPhone wouldn't be available at Verizon if they didn't play along with apple's demands.

This dishonesty (plus the huge verizon plug in keynote) doesn't look like having carriers bend over, it looks more like apple bending over. Which makes no sense, apple could probably (almost) buy verizon in all cash if they wanted.

What's crazier, is that (in 2020) 5g is just not that important or valuable. So why is any company (except infrastructure companies) really putting in this much marketing effort?

Re: The real prices of the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini

#37

Post by jb775 »

jonathanberger wrote: post #11

Why doesn't the US have universal laws that cover price transparency in general? There are so many industries that get into shady territory: rental cars ("facility use fees"), hotels ("resort fees"), internet access ("mandatory equipment rental fees"), even SF restaurants ("SF mandate"). I'm saying Apple is wrong, and so are many other companies, and shouldn't we have fixed this with a law by this point?

Not to mention dentists, doctors, hospitals, etc.

I have an eye doctor appt this week and I literally have no idea if it's gonna cost me $50 or $500.

Re: The real prices of the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini

#39

Post by pokstad »

jtbayly wrote: post #34
pokstad wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need a law for something a consumer can vote with their money. If annoying price structures are that bad, a competitor will create a superior pricing system that takes away marketshare. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal. Adding laws increases the complexity to comply.

The whole point is that the competitor can't compete because the consumer is being lied to about the price in the first place—which they don't know until it's too late.

The article says they put asterisks on the prices along with clarifications in the small text. That’s not being lied to, just annoying.

Re: The real prices of the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini

#40

Post by tayo42 »

jtbayly wrote: post #34
pokstad wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need a law for something a consumer can vote with their money. If annoying price structures are that bad, a competitor will create a superior pricing system that takes away marketshare. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal. Adding laws increases the complexity to comply.

The whole point is that the competitor can't compete because the consumer is being lied to about the price in the first place—which they don't know until it's too late.

People think they have a lot more say with their insignificant purchases then they really do. Insignificant purchases by individuals can't sway how businesses run.
Post reply on HN