[42n81]

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

edelbrp, on 25 April 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

As to your claim that repeated product sales means people understand the value of the product, that's just your interpretation of the fact based on your own personal belief.

No, that's called supply and demand. Ecom-101. The value of a product is what someone is willing to pay for it.

No, the value of a product is it's worth as determined by the market, not "what someone is willing to pay for it". If I sell you a dog turd for $1500, it doesn't mean that a dog turd's value is $1500. It just means that you got ripped off. It's also worth noting a "market value" doesn't imply an understanding of "actual value". "Market value" can be influenced by a number of factors not relevant to it's "actual value". A good salesman can sell you a product for a larger amount than a poor salesman. The "actual value" of the product doesn't change.

You should probably try showing up for that Econ class.

You're right. Selling a dog turd for $1500.00 doesn't necessarily establish it's value. It could be the result of an aberrant transaction.

If you manage to sell 70 million dog turds at $1500.00 a piece in six months, you might be on to something though. At that point, does it really matter what you think the "value" is and what that entry level Econ class taught you?

[edelbrp]

42n81, on 25 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

You're right. Selling a dog turd for $1500.00 doesn't necessarily establish it's value. It could be the result of an aberrant transaction.

If you manage to sell 70 million dog turds at $1500.00 a piece in six months, you might be on to something though. At that point, does it really matter what you think the "value" is and what that entry level Econ class taught you?

I like this "42n81" guy, he has some sense... *fist bump* :')

Have a good night.

[edelbrp]

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

the value of a product is it's worth as determined by the market, not "what someone is willing to pay for it".
You should probably try showing up for that Econ class.

Seriously, that's a head shaker. You might try taking that course, I think you can take it online for free these days.

[Nuke61]

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I disagree. All you have to do is maintain an adequate product (it doesn't even have to be good) as well as a continuing sales pitch telling you how great the product is. People are already roped into the product because they were convinced it was great to start out with, and they've now invested in the platform. As long as they don't have something change their mind such as an extremely bad release, or a competing product that absolutely dwarfs it (a product only marginally better won't due), people will continue to believe the pitch. All that depends on whether you believe the pitch given to you by the salesman of course. Trouble with that is, if the salesman isn't good, you're in a whole lotta trouble.

If all Apple has to do is produce an adequate product and have a good sales pitch, then Apple shoul be set for the foreseeable future. The iPhone and iPad are arguably among the top products in their categories. The latest iPad was just released and it is clearly among the best tablets available, maybe not the best, depending on your specific needs, but certainly in one of the top spots. All the iPhone is missing is 4G and maybe a slightly larger size. The sales pitch wasn't made or broken by Jobs, and it won't be made or broken by Cook. The sales pitch is made on TV by the same marketing firm that sold the public the current iPhone and doesn't rely on who is sitting at the CEO's desk.

[linuxrants7xpg]

Nuke61, on 25 April 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I disagree. All you have to do is maintain an adequate product (it doesn't even have to be good) as well as a continuing sales pitch telling you how great the product is. People are already roped into the product because they were convinced it was great to start out with, and they've now invested in the platform. As long as they don't have something change their mind such as an extremely bad release, or a competing product that absolutely dwarfs it (a product only marginally better won't due), people will continue to believe the pitch. All that depends on whether you believe the pitch given to you by the salesman of course. Trouble with that is, if the salesman isn't good, you're in a whole lotta trouble.

If all Apple has to do is produce an adequate product and have a good sales pitch, then Apple shoul be set for the foreseeable future. The iPhone and iPad are arguably among the top products in their categories. The latest iPad was just released and it is clearly among the best tablets available, maybe not the best, depending on your specific needs, but certainly in one of the top spots. All the iPhone is missing is 4G and maybe a slightly larger size. The sales pitch wasn't made or broken by Jobs, and it won't be made or broken by Cook. The sales pitch is made on TV by the same marketing firm that sold the public the current iPhone and doesn't rely on who is sitting at the CEO's desk.

I disagree, but I didn't comment just so I could discuss Econ 101 with people who obviously don't understand it (this is not about you Nuke61). We won't know either way for a couple more years. We'll just have to wait and see.

[edelbrp]

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

I didn't comment just so I could discuss Econ 101 with people who obviously don't understand it

Educate us. :')

[linuxrants7xpg]

edelbrp, on 25 April 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

I didn't comment just so I could discuss Econ 101 with people who obviously don't understand it

Educate us. :')

Tried that.

[edelbrp]

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Tried that.

OK, take care, I enjoyed the debate.

Have a good night, OK? :')

[hln98]

Yes the world is full of creative geniuses, one that comes to mind is Jon Ive, but no one has the courage of Steve Jobs; the ability to do what he thought was right (quality over profit) that paid back in a huge way. Jobs had the ability to push people and they jumped through hoops for him to do their very best. He was the driving force in getting the impossible tasks done. He was a total jerk and dictator and needed to be to lead Apple. I can tell you that no one in this world has that ability, even Tim Cook.

I vote for Scott Forstall. He is super talented and a super "Jerk" and I mean that as a compliment.

[lamorpa]

EdCampbellknic, on 25 April 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

Remind me why I should pay attention to Forrester? Or PCWorld for that matter?

Because you like to waste your time and ours with comments like this?

[nonseq]

edelbrp, on 25 April 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Tried that.

OK, take care, I enjoyed the debate.

Have a good night, OK? :')

In United States tax law, the definition of fair market value is found in the United States Supreme Court decision in the Cartwright case:

The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. United States v. Cartwright, 411 U. S. 546, 93 S. Ct. 1713, 1716-17, 36 L. Ed. 2d 528, 73-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 12,926 (1973) (quoting from U.S. Treasury regulations relating to Federal estate taxes, at 26 C.F.R. sec. 20.2031-1).

This post has been edited by nonseq: 26 April 2012 - 05:19 AM

[KLanD]

Actually, I think Apple will be just fine.

It's the cult of Apple that I think will slowly dwindle.

[KLanD]

edelbrp, on 25 April 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Apple's simply too large to be so dependent on a single personality. Reading most of Jobs' biography, it was pretty clear he wasn't an innovator, per se, but rather a whip cracking manager. I'm not saying he wasn't a significant influence, but he wasn't magical and there are other managers.

I've always said this. Everyone gives Jobs all the credit and forget all the people who actually designed, invented and innovated ideas to make the products a reality.

It's one thing to say, 'I want a red car that goes fast', it's another to actually design and build it.

[KLanD]

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

edelbrp, on 25 April 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Apple's simply too large to be so dependent on a single personality. Reading most of Jobs' biography, it was pretty clear he wasn't an innovator, per se, but rather a whip cracking manager. I'm not saying he wasn't a significant influence, but he wasn't magical and there are other managers.

I tend to agree with Colony on this. There's no really good way to tell if he's right other than wait four years and see what happens. It's my personal opinion that Apple is absolutely dependent on Jobs, not so much from an "innovation" standpoint, but in convincing people that what Apple was doing actually was innovation. If you look, there were devices very similar to the iPhone prior to Apple's announcement (no one even remembers the LG Prada these days). HP designed a device very similar to the iPad years before even the iPhone was seen. Very few people would call LG or HP "innovative", despite the fact that they arguably beat Apple to the market by years. It's my belief that that was what Jobs brought to the table. The ability to convince people that Apple's product was beautiful, or magical, or special in some way. I don't think that Apple will be able to maintain that image without Jobs. We'll have to wait and see.

Very well said and I totally agree.

[KLanD]

artzy65, on 25 April 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

StevenKeller, on 25 April 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

This world is absolutely full of creative and talented people. Jobs is not the only one. In some ways, a more laid back Apple just might be a better Apple. Good techies can make things happen and talented people can make those things look good. The real lesson from Jobs is that he was more concerned about quality than profits and that eventually proved to be the most profitable course. The magic of Apple is that I never owned an Apple product I was not absolutely delighted with and proud of. I got more than my money's worth every single time and I felt my Apple products were the best. Many companies produce products just like this because their CEOs get it. Jobs was not the only one.

The thing about Apple products is that you pick one up and say 'geez, these guys really love their work.'

I have never once thought that while using an Apple device.

The thought that usually comes to mind is "All that hype.. for this?"

[crosswordbob]

KLanD, on 26 April 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

artzy65, on 25 April 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

StevenKeller, on 25 April 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

This world is absolutely full of creative and talented people. Jobs is not the only one. In some ways, a more laid back Apple just might be a better Apple. Good techies can make things happen and talented people can make those things look good. The real lesson from Jobs is that he was more concerned about quality than profits and that eventually proved to be the most profitable course. The magic of Apple is that I never owned an Apple product I was not absolutely delighted with and proud of. I got more than my money's worth every single time and I felt my Apple products were the best. Many companies produce products just like this because their CEOs get it. Jobs was not the only one.

The thing about Apple products is that you pick one up and say 'geez, these guys really love their work.'

I have never once thought that while using an Apple device.

The thought that usually comes to mind is "All that hype.. for this?"

I think much the same when looking at pieces by Picasso. However I'm not so close-minded to believe that those who think otherwise are deluded.

[KLanD]

Nuke61, on 25 April 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I disagree. All you have to do is maintain an adequate product (it doesn't even have to be good) as well as a continuing sales pitch telling you how great the product is. People are already roped into the product because they were convinced it was great to start out with, and they've now invested in the platform. As long as they don't have something change their mind such as an extremely bad release, or a competing product that absolutely dwarfs it (a product only marginally better won't due), people will continue to believe the pitch. All that depends on whether you believe the pitch given to you by the salesman of course. Trouble with that is, if the salesman isn't good, you're in a whole lotta trouble.

If all Apple has to do is produce an adequate product and have a good sales pitch, then Apple shoul be set for the foreseeable future. The iPhone and iPad are arguably among the top products in their categories. The latest iPad was just released and it is clearly among the best tablets available, maybe not the best, depending on your specific needs, but certainly in one of the top spots. All the iPhone is missing is 4G and maybe a slightly larger size. The sales pitch wasn't made or broken by Jobs, and it won't be made or broken by Cook. The sales pitch is made on TV by the same marketing firm that sold the public the current iPhone and doesn't rely on who is sitting at the CEO's desk.

Yes, but in the Apple circle, wanting something Apple doesn't have is akin to blasphemy. Remember if you want a feature that isn't available on an Apple product, then Apple isn't for you. If you want whatever Apple gives you, then Apple is perfect for you.

[KLanD]

edelbrp, on 25 April 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

42n81, on 25 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

You're right. Selling a dog turd for $1500.00 doesn't necessarily establish it's value. It could be the result of an aberrant transaction.

If you manage to sell 70 million dog turds at $1500.00 a piece in six months, you might be on to something though. At that point, does it really matter what you think the "value" is and what that entry level Econ class taught you?

I like this "42n81" guy, he has some sense... *fist bump* :')

Have a good night.

Best joke I've heard all day...

[KLanD]

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Nuke61, on 25 April 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I disagree. All you have to do is maintain an adequate product (it doesn't even have to be good) as well as a continuing sales pitch telling you how great the product is. People are already roped into the product because they were convinced it was great to start out with, and they've now invested in the platform. As long as they don't have something change their mind such as an extremely bad release, or a competing product that absolutely dwarfs it (a product only marginally better won't due), people will continue to believe the pitch. All that depends on whether you believe the pitch given to you by the salesman of course. Trouble with that is, if the salesman isn't good, you're in a whole lotta trouble.

If all Apple has to do is produce an adequate product and have a good sales pitch, then Apple shoul be set for the foreseeable future. The iPhone and iPad are arguably among the top products in their categories. The latest iPad was just released and it is clearly among the best tablets available, maybe not the best, depending on your specific needs, but certainly in one of the top spots. All the iPhone is missing is 4G and maybe a slightly larger size. The sales pitch wasn't made or broken by Jobs, and it won't be made or broken by Cook. The sales pitch is made on TV by the same marketing firm that sold the public the current iPhone and doesn't rely on who is sitting at the CEO's desk.

I disagree, but I didn't comment just so I could discuss Econ 101 with people who obviously don't understand it (this is not about you Nuke61). We won't know either way for a couple more years. We'll just have to wait and see.

You know, It's amusing how you are willing to admit; you might be wrong, but the Apple crowd are always convinced they are 100% right.

[KLanD]

nonseq, on 26 April 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

edelbrp, on 25 April 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Tried that.

OK, take care, I enjoyed the debate.

Have a good night, OK? :')

In United States tax law, the definition of fair market value is found in the United States Supreme Court decision in the Cartwright case:

The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. United States v. Cartwright, 411 U. S. 546, 93 S. Ct. 1713, 1716-17, 36 L. Ed. 2d 528, 73-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 12,926 (1973) (quoting from U.S. Treasury regulations relating to Federal estate taxes, at 26 C.F.R. sec. 20.2031-1).

Wow, so I can legally screw people? Cause by that quote, if I charge %200 more than the actual value of the product as long as some sucker is willing to buy it, it's the "fair market value".

Good to know.