Apple ripping people off with the black MacBook?

[James Davis]

Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)

The definition of ripping someone off is when you take advantage of
their desire for your product by charging a price that gives you
enormous profits simply because you know people will pay.

If they can sell Ben and Jerry's ice cream for $3.50, but they
temporarily charge $7 for a container when a new flavor comes out
because they know some fans of Ben and Jerry's will pay it, I'd say
that is a ripoff.

Now, I usually consider most of the arguments that Apple is ripping
people off as foolishness. If a Mac costed 3 times as much as a PC,
you still wouldn't know it was a ripoff until you saw the quarterly
profits showing you that they made a lot on each Mac.

Or charging $129 or $329 for an OS upgrade isn't a ripoff until you
know the development costs that going into making the OS.

But to charge $150 more for black is a ripoff. This is especially true
when you have loyal customers that will happily pay a generous premium
for your products, and then you take advantage of that leeway to take
it to extremes.

Now I know the heartless Republican types will just talk about "supply
and demand", because they always have some philosophical excuse for not
thinking in human terms. But for the non-kooks, how many of you think
this is simply a slap in the face to customers? If I am a regular at a
restaurant and I already pay a premium, I would consider it a slap in
the face if they decided to charge me double because seating was
temporarily limited. I know prices can fluctuate, but there has to be
some decency involved.

[Jim Polaski]

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)
The definition of ripping someone off is when you take advantage of
their desire for your product by charging a price that gives you
enormous profits simply because you know people will pay.
If they can sell Ben and Jerry's ice cream for $3.50, but they
temporarily charge $7 for a container when a new flavor comes out
because they know some fans of Ben and Jerry's will pay it, I'd say
that is a ripoff.
Now, I usually consider most of the arguments that Apple is ripping
people off as foolishness. If a Mac costed 3 times as much as a PC,
you still wouldn't know it was a ripoff until you saw the quarterly
profits showing you that they made a lot on each Mac.
Or charging $129 or $329 for an OS upgrade isn't a ripoff until you
know the development costs that going into making the OS.
But to charge $150 more for black is a ripoff. This is especially true
when you have loyal customers that will happily pay a generous premium
for your products, and then you take advantage of that leeway to take
it to extremes.
Now I know the heartless Republican types will just talk about "supply
and demand", because they always have some philosophical excuse for not
thinking in human terms. But for the non-kooks, how many of you think
this is simply a slap in the face to customers? If I am a regular at a
restaurant and I already pay a premium, I would consider it a slap in
the face if they decided to charge me double because seating was
temporarily limited. I know prices can fluctuate, but there has to be
some decency involved.

Regardless, no one is forced to buy a black model or pay the price if
you don't think it worth it. That way, Apple would get the message you
want to send.

Any product is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. You
could think about the house you want to sell the same way.

[John C. Randolph]

Post by James Davis
Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (

Bullshit. If you don't want to pay the $150, then don't. Nobody's
putting a gun to your head.

-jcr

[MuahMan]

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)
The definition of ripping someone off is when you take advantage of
their desire for your product by charging a price that gives you
enormous profits simply because you know people will pay.
If they can sell Ben and Jerry's ice cream for $3.50, but they
temporarily charge $7 for a container when a new flavor comes out
because they know some fans of Ben and Jerry's will pay it, I'd say
that is a ripoff.
Now, I usually consider most of the arguments that Apple is ripping
people off as foolishness. If a Mac costed 3 times as much as a PC,
you still wouldn't know it was a ripoff until you saw the quarterly
profits showing you that they made a lot on each Mac.
Or charging $129 or $329 for an OS upgrade isn't a ripoff until you
know the development costs that going into making the OS.
But to charge $150 more for black is a ripoff. This is especially true
when you have loyal customers that will happily pay a generous premium
for your products, and then you take advantage of that leeway to take
it to extremes.
Now I know the heartless Republican types will just talk about "supply
and demand", because they always have some philosophical excuse for not
thinking in human terms. But for the non-kooks, how many of you think
this is simply a slap in the face to customers? If I am a regular at a
restaurant and I already pay a premium, I would consider it a slap in
the face if they decided to charge me double because seating was
temporarily limited. I know prices can fluctuate, but there has to be
some decency involved.

You are in the wrong group is you expect the mac jihad to agree with you. To
them Apple is
perfect and flawless now and incapable of making a mistake. That's why we
call them Mac Jihad.

[Alan Baker]

Post by MuahMan

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)
The definition of ripping someone off is when you take advantage of
their desire for your product by charging a price that gives you
enormous profits simply because you know people will pay.
If they can sell Ben and Jerry's ice cream for $3.50, but they
temporarily charge $7 for a container when a new flavor comes out
because they know some fans of Ben and Jerry's will pay it, I'd say
that is a ripoff.
Now, I usually consider most of the arguments that Apple is ripping
people off as foolishness. If a Mac costed 3 times as much as a PC,
you still wouldn't know it was a ripoff until you saw the quarterly
profits showing you that they made a lot on each Mac.
Or charging $129 or $329 for an OS upgrade isn't a ripoff until you
know the development costs that going into making the OS.
But to charge $150 more for black is a ripoff. This is especially true
when you have loyal customers that will happily pay a generous premium
for your products, and then you take advantage of that leeway to take
it to extremes.
Now I know the heartless Republican types will just talk about "supply
and demand", because they always have some philosophical excuse for not
thinking in human terms. But for the non-kooks, how many of you think
this is simply a slap in the face to customers? If I am a regular at a
restaurant and I already pay a premium, I would consider it a slap in
the face if they decided to charge me double because seating was
temporarily limited. I know prices can fluctuate, but there has to be
some decency involved.

You are in the wrong group is you expect the mac jihad to agree with you. To
them Apple is
perfect and flawless now and incapable of making a mistake. That's why we
call them Mac Jihad.

It's got nothing to do with Apple being anything. It's called
"capitalism"; and if you were part of the anti-Mac jihad you wouldn't
even have raised an eyebrow over this.

[George Graves]

Post by MuahMan

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)
The definition of ripping someone off is when you take advantage of
their desire for your product by charging a price that gives you
enormous profits simply because you know people will pay.
If they can sell Ben and Jerry's ice cream for $3.50, but they
temporarily charge $7 for a container when a new flavor comes out
because they know some fans of Ben and Jerry's will pay it, I'd say
that is a ripoff.
Now, I usually consider most of the arguments that Apple is ripping
people off as foolishness. If a Mac costed 3 times as much as a PC,
you still wouldn't know it was a ripoff until you saw the quarterly
profits showing you that they made a lot on each Mac.
Or charging $129 or $329 for an OS upgrade isn't a ripoff until you
know the development costs that going into making the OS.
But to charge $150 more for black is a ripoff. This is especially true
when you have loyal customers that will happily pay a generous premium
for your products, and then you take advantage of that leeway to take
it to extremes.
Now I know the heartless Republican types will just talk about "supply
and demand", because they always have some philosophical excuse for not
thinking in human terms. But for the non-kooks, how many of you think
this is simply a slap in the face to customers? If I am a regular at a
restaurant and I already pay a premium, I would consider it a slap in
the face if they decided to charge me double because seating was
temporarily limited. I know prices can fluctuate, but there has to be
some decency involved.

You are in the wrong group is you expect the mac jihad to agree with you. To
them Apple is
perfect and flawless now and incapable of making a mistake. That's why we
call them Mac Jihad.

I agreed with him. A $150 premium for a black case is outrageous. Of
course, he doesn't have to buy one....

[Stuart Krivis]

Post by George Graves

Post by MuahMan
You are in the wrong group is you expect the mac jihad to agree with you. To
them Apple is
perfect and flawless now and incapable of making a mistake. That's why we
call them Mac Jihad.

I agreed with him. A $150 premium for a black case is outrageous. Of
course, he doesn't have to buy one....

I wouldn't pay the extra $ either. So I'd choose the regular case.
Problem solved.

One thing that's interesting is that Apple is capable of generating so
much interest in a new product (and do it over and over again over a
period of years). Except for the XBox, MS hasn't really inspired such
enthusiasm since late 1995.

[Tim Crowley]

Post by MuahMan
You are in the wrong group is you expect the mac jihad to agree with you. To
them Apple is
perfect and flawless now and incapable of making a mistake. That's why we
call them Mac Jihad.

No, you use that term cause you are a retared and cannot think for
yourself.

[Alan Baker]

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)

I'm not, because they're not.

Post by James Davis
The definition of ripping someone off is when you take advantage of
their desire for your product by charging a price that gives you
enormous profits simply because you know people will pay.

Where is that a definition of ripping someone off?

Post by James Davis
If they can sell Ben and Jerry's ice cream for $3.50, but they
temporarily charge $7 for a container when a new flavor comes out
because they know some fans of Ben and Jerry's will pay it, I'd say
that is a ripoff.

I'd say, don't buy it if you don't like the price.

Post by James Davis
Now, I usually consider most of the arguments that Apple is ripping
people off as foolishness. If a Mac costed 3 times as much as a PC,
you still wouldn't know it was a ripoff until you saw the quarterly
profits showing you that they made a lot on each Mac.

They don't make much more in profits than any other profitable computer
maker.

Post by James Davis
Or charging $129 or $329 for an OS upgrade isn't a ripoff until you
know the development costs that going into making the OS.
But to charge $150 more for black is a ripoff. This is especially true
when you have loyal customers that will happily pay a generous premium
for your products, and then you take advantage of that leeway to take
it to extremes.

Nope. It's selling something for more because people are willing to pay
more. Happens all the time.

Post by James Davis
Now I know the heartless Republican types will just talk about "supply
and demand", because they always have some philosophical excuse for not
thinking in human terms. But for the non-kooks, how many of you think
this is simply a slap in the face to customers? If I am a regular at a
restaurant and I already pay a premium, I would consider it a slap in
the face if they decided to charge me double because seating was
temporarily limited. I know prices can fluctuate, but there has to be
some decency involved.

That implies that there is something indecent about entities setting the
cost of their goods and services at whatever they think is appropriate
for them.

Tell me: is it "indecent" that you should get 50% more for your labour
if you happen to work more than 10% more hours in a week than are
typical?

[George Graves]

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)

If there are no other differences between a black and a white PowerMac
other than the color of the plastic used, then they are, indeed,
overcharging people by selling the black ones for $150 more. OTOH, if
one feels that way, one has only to exercise his god-given right not to
buy one. If everybody does that, Apple will soon get the message.

Post by James Davis
The definition of ripping someone off is when you take advantage of
their desire for your product by charging a price that gives you
enormous profits simply because you know people will pay.

I don't think that it is in evidence that people will pay a $150 premium
for a black plastic case over a white plastic one, but that's not the
definition of "rip-off." the definition of rip-off is stealing. If you
give your money willingly and without coersion, its not theft.

Post by James Davis
If they can sell Ben and Jerry's ice cream for $3.50, but they
temporarily charge $7 for a container when a new flavor comes out
because they know some fans of Ben and Jerry's will pay it, I'd say
that is a ripoff.

Not so. Is it only a rip-off if people 1) don't know until it is too
late that they have paid twice the going rate, and they wouldn't have
paid that if they HAD known. Or 2) That it is a necessity of life (like
heating oil in the Northeast, for instance) and the price-hike was
gratuitous and the buyer has no choice.

If one chooses to pay an artificially high price for something,
especially something that they know is more expensive and don't really
have to buy, then it can hardly be considered a rip-off. After all, each
individual is reponsible for how they use their disposable income.

Post by James Davis
Now, I usually consider most of the arguments that Apple is ripping
people off as foolishness. If a Mac costed 3 times as much as a PC,
you still wouldn't know it was a ripoff until you saw the quarterly
profits showing you that they made a lot on each Mac.

Even so. It would not be a rip-off unless you had no choice. No one
forces you to purchase the more expensive product. I'm not trying to
apologize for, or justify, Apple's pricing in this or any other case.
I'm merely taking issue with your use of the term "rip-off."

Post by James Davis
Or charging $129 or $329 for an OS upgrade isn't a ripoff until you
know the development costs that going into making the OS.

It is only a rip-off if you feel that the product is not worth the money
spent and you have no choice but to purchase it anyway.

Post by James Davis
But to charge $150 more for black is a ripoff. This is especially true
when you have loyal customers that will happily pay a generous premium
for your products, and then you take advantage of that leeway to take
it to extremes.

Its overcharging, perhaps, but its not a rip-off because nobody is
twisting your arm making you buy one. If I were in the market, I would
probably choose black were there NO price differential. But since there
is a $150 price delta, I'd take the white. There, I just exercised my
right to say 'NO' to Apple's pricing in this particular instance. I was
not "ripped-off".

Post by James Davis
Now I know the heartless Republican types will just talk about "supply
and demand", because they always have some philosophical excuse for not
thinking in human terms.

Ah, you're a Communist. Now your attitude is making more sense.

Post by James Davis
But for the non-kooks, how many of you think this is simply a slap in the face to customers?

It's ill advised, in my opinion. They could get away with charging a $25
dollar premium for black -citing increased manufacturing costs for the
black case-, possibly even $50, but not $150. They obviously don't want
to sell many or to sell them for long.

Post by James Davis
If I am a regular at a
restaurant and I already pay a premium, I would consider it a slap in
the face if they decided to charge me double because seating was
temporarily limited. I know prices can fluctuate, but there has to be
some decency involved.

Depends. In many parts of Europe, food costs more depending on where you
sit. Sit outside on the sidewalk cafe seating in many places, and your
meal will cost about 20% more than it would if you were using the indoor
seating. People in Europe seem to accept that. But I doubt if one could
get away with it here in the USA.

[William R. Walsh]

Hi!

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)

Admit that Apple's ripping anyone off?

Not without knowing what is the reasoning behind it. That's something that
only Apple knows--the rest of us have to guess at why.

It could be anything--maybe they don't expect to sell as many black ones,
perhaps they're harder to make (maybe a flaw in the molding shows up more
easily in a black one) or perhaps Apple just felt they could charge the
extra money and get away with it.

Post by James Davis
But for the non-kooks, how many of you think
this is simply a slap in the face to customers?

My personal thought is that Apple charges more for the black one because
they can. (Again, can't prove or disprove it and don't know.)

That said, I'll admit that I "want" one anyway. However, the glossy screen
and possibility of scratching it all to pieces may turn me away. Especially
if I have to pay $150 more. :-)

William

[James Davis]

OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple. You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.

People work hard for their money and not a lot of people have an extra
$150 to throw away over nothing after already making a good sized
purchase.

Apple could make people happy (I know human happiness means nothing to
Replublican types) and still make a solid, healthy comfortable profit.
They could charge $50 extra for black and have very nice margins.
Everyone at Apple could get their comfortable salaries.

Everyone could be happy. People could get the notebook they want and
Apple could make extra comfortable profits. Instead they want you to
hand over $150 for virtually nothing. It costs virtually nothing to
add black paint. And then 75,000 customers, who could have had a more
enjoyable product, won't get it.

Sorry, but charging $150 for something that costs nothing is ripping
people off. I have no problem with the people at Apple who do quality
work getting great salaries, more than the average Joe, but charging
$150 for nothing just because you can is just crappy.

[Steve Hix]

Post by James Davis
OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple. You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.

They offer the product at a given price.

You don't *have* to buy it.

You have a choice between two different model colors.

If the additional $150 is more than you want to pay, no problem, nobody
is going to force you to pay the extra.

What are you proposing, that, say, the government should step in and
force Apple to lower their asking price?

Grow up.

[Stuart Krivis]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:49:31 -0700, Steve Hix

Post by Steve Hix

Post by James Davis
OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple. You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.

They offer the product at a given price.
You don't *have* to buy it.
You have a choice between two different model colors.
If the additional $150 is more than you want to pay, no problem, nobody
is going to force you to pay the extra.
What are you proposing, that, say, the government should step in and
force Apple to lower their asking price?

Gospodin Davis seems to be suggesting something of this sort. :-)

[Steve Hix]

Post by James Davis
People work hard for their money and not a lot of people have an extra
$150 to throw away over nothing after already making a good sized
purchase.

Fine; they can choose to go for the lower-priced model.

The same thing happens with new cars; you want the fancy paint job (and
a little nicer interior trim, or a cd player instead of a tape player),
you pay a little more.

Or you choose not to.

You don't sit down in the showroom and start whining about how unfair it
is.

At least, you don't if you're an adult.

Grow up.

[Walter Bushell]

Post by Steve Hix

Post by James Davis
People work hard for their money and not a lot of people have an extra
$150 to throw away over nothing after already making a good sized
purchase.

Fine; they can choose to go for the lower-priced model.
The same thing happens with new cars; you want the fancy paint job (and
a little nicer interior trim, or a cd player instead of a tape player),
you pay a little more.
Or you choose not to.
You don't sit down in the showroom and start whining about how unfair it
is.
At least, you don't if you're an adult.
Grow up.

Part of the value of the black case is snob appeal, trying to make it
appear you have a MacBook pro, so lowering the price would lower the
value.

[Steve Hix]

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Steve Hix

Post by James Davis
People work hard for their money and not a lot of people have an extra
$150 to throw away over nothing after already making a good sized
purchase.

Fine; they can choose to go for the lower-priced model.
The same thing happens with new cars; you want the fancy paint job (and
a little nicer interior trim, or a cd player instead of a tape player),
you pay a little more.
Or you choose not to.
You don't sit down in the showroom and start whining about how unfair it
is.
At least, you don't if you're an adult.
Grow up.

Part of the value of the black case is snob appeal, trying to make it
appear you have a MacBook pro, so lowering the price would lower the
value.

If sales at the current price are poor, it will be lowered.

If they're good enough, it won't.

Simple, and no coercion involved.

[Mitch]

Post by Walter Bushell
Part of the value of the black case is snob appeal, trying to make it
appear you have a MacBook pro, so lowering the price would lower the
value.

Maybe someone thinks the black case has more class, but it isn't
attempting to look like the MacBook Pro -- that's all aluminium.

[Steve Hix]

Post by James Davis
Sorry, but charging $150 for something that costs nothing

You don't know that it "costs nothing".

Just given the likely lower volume of black cases compared to white is
going to result in different costs for the two models. Then you get to
add in additional costs associated with duplication of parts, sourcing,
inventory control, etc etc etc.

Post by James Davis
is ripping
people off. I have no problem with the people at Apple who do quality
work getting great salaries, more than the average Joe, but charging
$150 for nothing just because you can is just crappy.

[George Graves]

Post by James Davis
OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple. You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.

Isn't it interesting how he chooses to ignore a "Maccie" who agrees with
him. Must having something to do with ruining his monolithic image of
all mac users being exactly the same.

Post by James Davis
People work hard for their money and not a lot of people have an extra
$150 to throw away over nothing after already making a good sized
purchase.
Apple could make people happy (I know human happiness means nothing to
Replublican types)

I have news for you. Jobs is a left-wing Commie, just like you are. I.E.
I doubt if any Republicans or Conservatives work for Apple. Their
corporate culture is too left-wing aging hippie to allow that. I.E,
almost every man-jack of them are Damnocrats. Put that in your little
political pipe and smoke it.

[Stuart Krivis]

Post by George Graves

Post by James Davis
Apple could make people happy (I know human happiness means nothing to
Replublican types)

I have news for you. Jobs is a left-wing Commie, just like you are. I.E.
I doubt if any Republicans or Conservatives work for Apple. Their
corporate culture is too left-wing aging hippie to allow that. I.E,
almost every man-jack of them are Damnocrats. Put that in your little
political pipe and smoke it.

No, I think he's pretty far to the left of most people at Apple, and
of most Democrats.

Personally, I don't like either party, but I'm probably somewhat left
of center overall.

[Steve Hix]

Post by Stuart Krivis

Post by George Graves

Post by James Davis
Apple could make people happy (I know human happiness means nothing to
Replublican types)

I have news for you. Jobs is a left-wing Commie, just like you are. I.E.
I doubt if any Republicans or Conservatives work for Apple. Their
corporate culture is too left-wing aging hippie to allow that. I.E,
almost every man-jack of them are Damnocrats. Put that in your little
political pipe and smoke it.

No, I think he's pretty far to the left of most people at Apple, and
of most Democrats.
Personally, I don't like either party, but I'm probably somewhat left
of center overall.

George is wrong, btw, assuming that no conservatives, or even
Republicans, work at Apple. (I've worked at Apple, and I know people who
currently do work there.)

Almost as wrong as Mr. Davis, if in different directions.

[William R. Walsh]

Hi!

Post by James Davis
You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple. You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.

Uh, no. I don't know how you came to that belief, but you're mistaken.

As I said, I'd really have to see the rest of the machine and make a
decision for myself as to whether I wanted one at all.

William

[James Davis]

George Graves wrote:

"I have news for you. Jobs is a left-wing Commie, just like you are."

Your damn straight that Jobs is a left winger just like me. That's why
he makes such incredible products. It's because he cares for things
other than the bottom line, even if this one exception is pretty bad.

If Jobs wanted to make more profits, he could easily just make nice
case designs and sell them with Windows. He could sell iPhoto, iMovie,
and iDVD for Windows. But because he is a liberal, he thinks of making
something he can be proud of.

Let me put it another way. Steve Jobs makes passionate stuff, like Led
Zeppelin made passionate music. They could have sold many, many, many
more albums than they did if they just wanted to make money. The crap
that's on the radio today, Led Zeppelin could write like an album a
day. In other words, if they wanted to write 100 mediocre albums a
year that sold a million copies each, rather than 1 great album that
sold 5 million copies, they could. Any super talented person could
find a way to make 10 times as much money by watering down their
product to sell as much drivel as they can. Led Zeppelin could have
taken some of their long songs with 5 great riffs and broken them down
into 5 songs with 1 great riff and made more money selling it that way.
That's what your average Republican would think. "Hey, why waste 5
great moments in one song when you can't get more money spreading them
out over the whole album"

Jobs makes great stuff because he is a liberal and doesn't go chasing
whatever marketing opportunities there are like Microsoft does.

America would be 100% the land of yuppies, lame reality shows, plastic
country music, etc. if it weren't for the liberal spirit allowing at
least some people to put pride before the bottom line.

[i***@mac.com]

Post by James Davis
America would be 100% the land of yuppies, lame reality shows, plastic
country music, etc. if it weren't for the liberal spirit allowing at
least some people to put pride before the bottom line.

I agree with this to some extent. Apple has always been a dichotomy
between Art and Bizness, with Steve generally being more on the Bizness
side of the ledger, while Woz brought the Artist into the company.

The Apple II was "over-priced" according to your logic, as was the
original Mac (though that was Sculley's decision). When Apple in fact
had a bona-fide monopoly on usable, GUI machines, 1986-1990, we saw
them leverage that market power with truly obscene profit margins.

Apple in the 1990s tried to find the right balance, and with the iMac
and iBook, and now Mini, is seeing some success in this.

But the bottomline is that once you incorporate you become beholden to
the shareholders, and lose the freedom to be such a Good Guy. Plus
being a Good Guy doesn't pay the bills, or fund the building of another
Nice Corporate Campus that Steve has his eye on now.

[Steve Hix]

Post by James Davis
"I have news for you. Jobs is a left-wing Commie, just like you are."
Your damn straight that Jobs is a left winger just like me. That's why
he makes such incredible products.

Left wing, right wing, doesn't matter. Doesn't have much of anything to
do with products, good or bad.

And he, while he heads up a company that makes good products, doesn't go
it all on his own. Not even close. He does seem to know how to get good
performance from a good team.

Post by James Davis
It's because he cares for things other than the bottom line,

So do most of the people working at Apple. Sometimes they've had better
leadership, sometimes worse. This is one of the better times, overall.
Not that there aren't the occasional exceptions.

Post by James Davis
even if this one exception is pretty bad.

It's a decent product at what, judging from initial sales, is a fair
price for a lot of customers.

Clearly, he understands markets, products, and economics.

Which is a good deal more than you seem to understand.

[Steve Hix]

Post by James Davis
America would be 100% the land of yuppies, lame reality shows, plastic
country music, etc. if it weren't for the liberal spirit allowing at
least some people to put pride before the bottom line.

You're still in high school, right? Perhaps in college.

What a remarkably parochial, not to say ignorant, statement.

Watch yourself, James; keep this up and you could end up a right bigot.
And self-righteous, to boot. Not pretty, not at all.

[George Graves]

Post by Steve Hix

Post by James Davis
America would be 100% the land of yuppies, lame reality shows, plastic
country music, etc. if it weren't for the liberal spirit allowing at
least some people to put pride before the bottom line.

You're still in high school, right? Perhaps in college.
What a remarkably parochial, not to say ignorant, statement.
Watch yourself, James; keep this up and you could end up a right bigot.
And self-righteous, to boot. Not pretty, not at all.

There's nothing worse than a smug, left-wing liberal, self-righteous,
elitist. (not that there's anything wrong with elitism, just left-Wing
elitism ;-> )

[George Graves]

Post by James Davis
"I have news for you. Jobs is a left-wing Commie, just like you are."
Your damn straight that Jobs is a left winger just like me. That's why
he makes such incredible products. It's because he cares for things
other than the bottom line, even if this one exception is pretty bad.
If Jobs wanted to make more profits, he could easily just make nice
case designs and sell them with Windows. He could sell iPhoto, iMovie,
and iDVD for Windows. But because he is a liberal, he thinks of making
something he can be proud of.
Let me put it another way. Steve Jobs makes passionate stuff, like Led
Zeppelin made passionate music.

You talk about commercial pap music as if were high art. It isn't. It's
only Rock-n'-Roll.

Post by James Davis
They could have sold many, many, many
more albums than they did if they just wanted to make money.

They sure didn't make art. When you generation dies out, no one will
even remember that Led Zeppelin ever existed.

Post by James Davis
The crap that's on the radio today,

...Is this generation's Led Zepplin. It will be equally forgotten some
day.

Post by James Davis
Led Zeppelin could write like an album a
day. In other words, if they wanted to write 100 mediocre albums a
year that sold a million copies each, rather than 1 great album that
sold 5 million copies, they could. Any super talented person could
find a way to make 10 times as much money by watering down their
product to sell as much drivel as they can. Led Zeppelin could have
taken some of their long songs with 5 great riffs and broken them down
into 5 songs with 1 great riff and made more money selling it that way.
That's what your average Republican would think. "Hey, why waste 5
great moments in one song when you can't get more money spreading them
out over the whole album"

Topical junk is topical junk.

Post by James Davis
Jobs makes great stuff because he is a liberal and doesn't go chasing
whatever marketing opportunities there are like Microsoft does.

Gates is also a liberal Democrat.

Post by James Davis
America would be 100% the land of yuppies, lame reality shows, plastic
country music, etc.

That's what the liberal media is turning everyone into, yes.

Post by James Davis
if it weren't for the liberal spirit allowing at
least some people to put pride before the bottom line.

That is not part of the liberal agenda. The liberal agenda is to run us
all through the meat grinder so that we all come out the same. Bland
little lock-step lefties who are scared of their own shadows and are
easy to control. Believe me, when the time comes, all of you little
liberal clones will passively turn-in your guns, give up your freedom of
speech (for the common good), and submit to big brother like the
dumbed-down little politically-correct conformists that you are.

[James Davis]

"They sure didn't make art. When you generation dies out, no one will
even remember that Led Zeppelin ever existed. "

Uh, George, just because you aren't into pop music, don't claim that it
is not memorable. Led Zeppelin is probably still as popular today with
teenagers as it ever was. Whereas most of the lame pop music that was
made in the 80s and 90s is mostly forgotten, 70s rock still sells many
albums, T-shirts, and concert tickets. The Allman Brothers from the
70s can sell more tickets than the Counting Crowes or the Spin
Doctors, who were really big in the mid 90s.

"The liberal agenda is to run us
all through the meat grinder so that we all come out the same"

You are actually claiming that individualism is a conservative thing?
Wherever you see blandness and conformity there is usually a
megacorporation. That megacorporation swallowed up many smaller
companies that actually made exciting products. Business and mergers,
always cheered on by free marketers, are the main factors in turning
everything you see into focus group drivel.

"give up your freedom of
speech (for the common good), "

Once again, you just are not reality based. You don't acknowledge
where conservatism leads. It is virtually always left wing people who
defend freedom of speech on unpopular topics. It is virtually always
the far right people who want to ban flag burning and limit all speech
to blandly "loving America". Which side is it that is bothered by the
NSA spying?

I see this in a lot of your posts. You have these hypothetical ideas
about the results that conservatism is supposed to deliver, when in
fact it is simply George Bush.

[George Graves]

Post by James Davis
"They sure didn't make art. When you generation dies out, no one will
even remember that Led Zeppelin ever existed. "
Uh, George, just because you aren't into pop music, don't claim that it
is not memorable.

I certainly will. Its not memorable. Its mindless doper junk.

Post by James Davis
Led Zeppelin is probably still as popular today with
teenagers as it ever was. Whereas most of the lame pop music that was
made in the 80s and 90s is mostly forgotten, 70s rock still sells many
albums, T-shirts, and concert tickets. The Allman Brothers from the
70s can sell more tickets than the Counting Crowes or the Spin
Doctors, who were really big in the mid 90s.

And compared to Beethoven or Mozart, or even Thelonius Monk or Dave
Brubeck, its junk.

Post by James Davis
"The liberal agenda is to run us
all through the meat grinder so that we all come out the same"
You are actually claiming that individualism is a conservative thing?

Yep.

Post by James Davis
Wherever you see blandness and conformity there is usually a
megacorporation.

What makes you think that megacorporations are conservative politically?
They used to be, They aren't anymore. Also where do you get the idea
that the Conservatives who usually start corporations are
individualists? Carnegie wasn't an individualist? Rockefeller? Morgan?
Getty? Gimme a break!

Post by James Davis
That megacorporation swallowed up many smaller
companies that actually made exciting products. Business and mergers,
always cheered on by free marketers, are the main factors in turning
everything you see into focus group drivel.

And this has to do with individualism, how?

Post by James Davis
"give up your freedom of
speech (for the common good), "
Once again, you just are not reality based. You don't acknowledge
where conservatism leads. It is virtually always left wing people who
defend freedom of speech on unpopular topics. It is virtually always
the far right people who want to ban flag burning and limit all speech
to blandly "loving America". Which side is it that is bothered by the
NSA spying?

And look at the freedom-loving regimes in Cuba, N. Korea and China. All
are products of your beloved Left-wing and all are totalitarianists.
Case closed.

Post by James Davis
I see this in a lot of your posts.

And I see you bad mouthing Conservatives every chance you get. If
there's no place for a political comment like the one that started this
exchange, you throw one in anyway.

Post by James Davis
You have these hypothetical ideas
about the results that conservatism is supposed to deliver, when in
fact it is simply George Bush.

George Bush is no Conservative. He's a neoCon who has hijacked the
Republican party, very few of which's members represent Conservative
values any more. Understand this. I probably dislike Bush more than you
do. Why? Because he's made me a man without a party. a man with NO
representation in government at any level. There is simply no one in
either of the two mainstream political parties today that represent my
interests and there are literally millions like me who have been
disenfranchised by a system heading headlong into liberal ruin and
abandoned by the political establishment.

[STravis]

Post by James Davis
"They sure didn't make art. When you generation dies out, no one will
even remember that Led Zeppelin ever existed. "
Uh, George, just because you aren't into pop music, don't claim that it
is not memorable. Led Zeppelin is probably still as popular today with
teenagers as it ever was. Whereas most of the lame pop music that was
made in the 80s and 90s is mostly forgotten, 70s rock still sells many
albums, T-shirts, and concert tickets. The Allman Brothers from the
70s can sell more tickets than the Counting Crowes or the Spin
Doctors, who were really big in the mid 90s.

Uh...sir, please do not confront George with a differing opinion... He
WILL lash out.

[Steve Carroll]

Post by STravis

Post by James Davis
"They sure didn't make art. When you generation dies out, no one will
even remember that Led Zeppelin ever existed. "
Uh, George, just because you aren't into pop music, don't claim that it
is not memorable. Led Zeppelin is probably still as popular today with
teenagers as it ever was. Whereas most of the lame pop music that was
made in the 80s and 90s is mostly forgotten, 70s rock still sells many
albums, T-shirts, and concert tickets. The Allman Brothers from the
70s can sell more tickets than the Counting Crowes or the Spin
Doctors, who were really big in the mid 90s.

Uh...sir, please do not confront George with a differing opinion... He
WILL lash out.

He's lashing out against the facts... never a good idea. Saying LZ is
gonna die out after the poster's generation is like saying the same of
the Beatles... it just ain't gonna happen that quickly.

[George Graves]

Post by Steve Carroll

Post by STravis

Post by James Davis
"They sure didn't make art. When you generation dies out, no one will
even remember that Led Zeppelin ever existed. "
Uh, George, just because you aren't into pop music, don't claim that it
is not memorable. Led Zeppelin is probably still as popular today with
teenagers as it ever was. Whereas most of the lame pop music that was
made in the 80s and 90s is mostly forgotten, 70s rock still sells many
albums, T-shirts, and concert tickets. The Allman Brothers from the
70s can sell more tickets than the Counting Crowes or the Spin
Doctors, who were really big in the mid 90s.

Uh...sir, please do not confront George with a differing opinion... He
WILL lash out.

Uh no, I won't "lash out." Everybody has a right to his or her opinion.
Its just that opinions about the importance of rock made BY rockers can
be, essentially dismissed.

Post by Steve Carroll
He's lashing out against the facts... never a good idea. Saying LZ is
gonna die out after the poster's generation is like saying the same of
the Beatles... it just ain't gonna happen that quickly.

Some Bealtles songs will likely survive to be added to what
musicologists are calling "The American Songbook", its true. I mean, we
still do know SOME popular music from the 19th and early 20th century as
a culture even though the vast bulk of it is mercifully lost to history.
But ask the average teen-40 year-old today who Steven Foster was, or
even Russ Colombo, or Paul Whiteman and they will look at you blankly.
Hell, most of them don't even know who Bing Crosby or Nat King Cole or
Miles Davis was. Mention Beethoven or Mozart, and even if they aren't
sure exactly what these guys actually composed, they will be able to say
that they were composers. Play "Eine Kliene Nachtmusik" or
"da-dah-dah-duuuummm" from Beethoven's 5th Symphony for them and they
will likely say that they've heard it before. They might not appreciate
it or even care to know what it is, they are familiar with it. Real
music has stood the test of time because it is art, REAL art. It uplifts
the human spirit and leaves the listener the better for the experience.
It translates into all times, across all generations, it is truly
immortal. People of all generations with the sensibility to seek out a
higher enlightenment in their search for entertainment will always come
to the good stuff. The rest are satisfied with "Now, I gots to go....go
an' fuck this 'ho....it's all part of the show... fucking these white
'ho's...." Now THAT's art!

[Mitch]

In article

Post by George Graves
But ask the average teen-40 year-old today who Steven Foster was, or
even Russ Colombo, or Paul Whiteman and they will look at you blankly.

It's critical to distinguish the (trivia?) of personal names from the
actual contribution of the songs themselves.
There are Led Zeppelin songs that I can imagine people listening to and
enjoying even when they don't know which band made them -- and
certainly longer than anyone will recall the group members' names.

The music is the contribution, not the process, the band name, or the
musicians.

I can't see music like Led Zeppelin's being lost to history any time
soon. There's some real content there, and real style.

Look at Skynyrd -- lots of people have no idea of the group any more,
but many people know Sweet Home Alabama or Free Bird.

[Wally]

Post by Mitch
In article

Post by George Graves
But ask the average teen-40 year-old today who Steven Foster was, or
even Russ Colombo, or Paul Whiteman and they will look at you blankly.

It's critical to distinguish the (trivia?) of personal names from the
actual contribution of the songs themselves.
There are Led Zeppelin songs that I can imagine people listening to and
enjoying even when they don't know which band made them -- and
certainly longer than anyone will recall the group members' names.
The music is the contribution, not the process, the band name, or the
musicians.
I can't see music like Led Zeppelin's being lost to history any time
soon. There's some real content there, and real style.
Look at Skynyrd -- lots of people have no idea of the group any more,
but many people know Sweet Home Alabama or Free Bird.

Nice...thank you!

[George Graves]

Post by Mitch
In article

Post by George Graves
But ask the average teen-40 year-old today who Steven Foster was, or
even Russ Colombo, or Paul Whiteman and they will look at you blankly.

It's critical to distinguish the (trivia?) of personal names from the
actual contribution of the songs themselves.

The point is, with LZ, or Greatful Dead, or most rock bands of the
era, its difficult to divorce the performers from the music. I have
personally never heard anyone else play LZ's stuff. Have you?

Post by Mitch
There are Led Zeppelin songs that I can imagine people listening to and
enjoying even when they don't know which band made them -- and
certainly longer than anyone will recall the group members' names.
The music is the contribution, not the process, the band name, or the
musicians.
I can't see music like Led Zeppelin's being lost to history any time
soon. There's some real content there, and real style.

It escapes me, and I know quite a bit about music.

Post by Mitch
Look at Skynyrd -- lots of people have no idea of the group any more,
but many people know Sweet Home Alabama or Free Bird.

While I've heard of (and heard) Leonad Skynard, obviously, I wouldn't
know their "music" from a Jersey cow, But will people even remember the
music in another 50 years? I can't see this stuff outliving the rock
generations.

[Mitch]

In article

Post by George Graves

Post by Mitch
It's critical to distinguish the (trivia?) of personal names from the
actual contribution of the songs themselves.

The point is, with LZ, or Greatful Dead, or most rock bands of the
era, its difficult to divorce the performers from the music. I have
personally never heard anyone else play LZ's stuff. Have you?

That may be difficult to do only after you have learned something
additional about the music and musicians.
Aside from covers, there are a couple knockoff bands, like Dread
Zeppelin, a reggae-infused version.

Post by George Graves
But will people even remember the
music in another 50 years? I can't see this stuff outliving the rock
generations.

This is a little strange -- you think there is some kind of necessary
time limit for interest in rock?
I don't see rock as a short-term style like that. Some of it may be
popular much longer.
More to the point, I can't see anything on the horizon having enough
staying power to knock major rock styles out of the common usage.

[George Graves]

Post by Mitch
In article

Post by George Graves

Post by Mitch
It's critical to distinguish the (trivia?) of personal names from the
actual contribution of the songs themselves.

The point is, with LZ, or Greatful Dead, or most rock bands of the
era, its difficult to divorce the performers from the music. I have
personally never heard anyone else play LZ's stuff. Have you?

That may be difficult to do only after you have learned something
additional about the music and musicians.
Aside from covers, there are a couple knockoff bands, like Dread
Zeppelin, a reggae-infused version.

Post by George Graves
But will people even remember the
music in another 50 years? I can't see this stuff outliving the rock
generations.

This is a little strange -- you think there is some kind of necessary
time limit for interest in rock?

I certainly do. Rock is the ultimate product of the gross
commercialization of popular music. In my estimation, the popularity of
any given "composition" is almost wholly subserviant to the "pop icon"
status of the performers and it definately is generational in character.
Just as post Civil War "Tin-Pan-Alley" tunes don't speak to modern
generations, I doubt seriously if post WWII pop and rock will speak to
people in the latter half of this century either.

Post by Mitch
I don't see rock as a short-term style like that. Some of it may be
popular much longer.
More to the point, I can't see anything on the horizon having enough
staying power to knock major rock styles out of the common usage.

Well, the point is that Rock is largely topical "music" and
historically, topical musical forms are short-lived. They speak to a
certain generation, and except for a few extraordinary examples, almost
all of it fades very quickly. Even some of the most popular pieces fade
when the generation that produced them, fades. Its simply inevitable. As
far as seeing anything on the horizon, that's understandable. You and I
are probably not equipped to see that particular future. If we could, we
could be rich :->

We are all a product of our time. Socio-musicologists tell us that each
generation of youth since the Great Depression has sought to
differentiate their generation from the previous one by redefining
popular music. The main criteria seems to be that the music be as
different in character as possible from the last, and that it be more
and more outrageous and antagonistic to the parent's generation (the
moreso, the better). Who would have thought that rap and hip-hop would
ever be as popular as it is? I personally cannot see the appeal (except
in the above social context). It reduces music to basically beat and
doggrel poetry. There are no whistleable melodies (I can whistle
"California Girls" or "Eleanor Rigby") and I find it difficult to
categorize it as music. What it is, is different from what went before
(boy, that's for sure) and I can't imagine what it will evolve into. I
simply can't imagine a musical concept that's more minimalist.

[Stuart Krivis]

Post by George Graves

Post by Mitch
In article

Post by George Graves
But ask the average teen-40 year-old today who Steven Foster was, or
even Russ Colombo, or Paul Whiteman and they will look at you blankly.

It's critical to distinguish the (trivia?) of personal names from the
actual contribution of the songs themselves.

The point is, with LZ, or Greatful Dead, or most rock bands of the
era, its difficult to divorce the performers from the music. I have
personally never heard anyone else play LZ's stuff. Have you?

Umpty ump cover bands performing live don't count?

I'd bet that there are a wide variety of versions of, for instance,
"Stairway to Heaven" that have been recorded.

Doing a search for a popular song on a p2p network can be eye-opening.
I remember searching for "Mack the Knife" and finding 30 or so
versions. I found about as many versions of it as I found of "Venus"
and "Ballroom Blitz." I think you'd find the same of any number of
songs.

Emerson Lake and Palmer played Mussorgsky and Ginastero. I've been
told that musician's from the Doors and the Dixie Dregs has classical
training. Pat Benetar was trained as an opera singer...

Once you start seeing that music is all inter-related and enjoyable,
you stop obsessing about what flavor is "better."

There are certainly genres I don't like very much, and it's tempting
to dismiss them as no good. But I find that I do enjoy occasional
works even from genres I otherwise don't care for.

Post by George Graves

Post by Mitch
I can't see music like Led Zeppelin's being lost to history any time
soon. There's some real content there, and real style.

It escapes me, and I know quite a bit about music.

Who made you arbiter of all things musical? :-)

Post by George Graves

Post by Mitch
Look at Skynyrd -- lots of people have no idea of the group any more,
but many people know Sweet Home Alabama or Free Bird.

While I've heard of (and heard) Leonad Skynard, obviously, I wouldn't
know their "music" from a Jersey cow, But will people even remember the
music in another 50 years? I can't see this stuff outliving the rock
generations.

We don't know that. Music and the way we listen to it, think of it,
and perform it have all changed.

And what is music? Have you looked into this?
http://tones.wolfram.com/

[Stuart Krivis]

Post by George Graves
Uh no, I won't "lash out." Everybody has a right to his or her opinion.
Its just that opinions about the importance of rock made BY rockers can
be, essentially dismissed.

I don't see that it's an issue of importance. It's more an issue of
whether or not it is pleasing to people. If it's not pleasing to you,
that's fine.

Is R&B music worthwhile? How about folk music? What about when those
blend into rock or pop music, along with other influences?

Is the worth of something dependent upon it lasting over the years?

I was listening to music by Weill and Gershwin yesterday. Both wrote
"pop" music at the time they were writing it. But I think there's
more there than just some disposable crud.

Post by George Graves
that they were composers. Play "Eine Kliene Nachtmusik" or
"da-dah-dah-duuuummm" from Beethoven's 5th Symphony for them and they
will likely say that they've heard it before. They might not appreciate

Familiarity does not equate to inherent worth. More people recognize
Internet Explorer than recognize Safari. Doe that mean IE is better?

Post by George Graves
it or even care to know what it is, they are familiar with it. Real
music has stood the test of time because it is art, REAL art. It uplifts
the human spirit and leaves the listener the better for the experience.
It translates into all times, across all generations, it is truly
immortal. People of all generations with the sensibility to seek out a
higher enlightenment in their search for entertainment will always come

Real Christianity has stood the test of time because it is religion,
REAL religion. It uplifts the human spirit and leaves the worshipper
the better for the experience. It translates into all times, across
all generations; it is truly immortal. People of all generations with
the sensibility to seek out a higher enlightenment in their search for
meaning will always come...

[Mitch]

In article

Post by George Graves

Post by James Davis
Jobs makes great stuff because he is a liberal and doesn't go chasing
whatever marketing opportunities there are like Microsoft does.

Gates is also a liberal Democrat.

Do you think so?
Those are two different terms, and if he states he is Democrat, he
certainly isn't a very liberal one.

[George Graves]

Post by Mitch
In article

Post by George Graves

Post by James Davis
Jobs makes great stuff because he is a liberal and doesn't go chasing
whatever marketing opportunities there are like Microsoft does.

Gates is also a liberal Democrat.

Do you think so?
Those are two different terms, and if he states he is Democrat, he
certainly isn't a very liberal one.

He gives money to the Democratic party and votes the Democartic ticket.
That means if the left-wing Commie Clinton Bitch runs for president,
that asshole will vote for her pudding-thighs.

[Tim Crowley]

Post by George Graves
He gives money to the Democratic party and votes the Democartic ticket.
That means if the left-wing Commie Clinton Bitch runs for president,
that asshole will vote for her pudding-thighs.

Ya know, you can disagree with Senator Clinton all day long - but
speaking of her in that language is very classless and pretty
disgusting, in my opinion.

[George Graves]

Post by Tim Crowley

Post by George Graves
He gives money to the Democratic party and votes the Democartic ticket.
That means if the left-wing Commie Clinton Bitch runs for president,
that asshole will vote for her pudding-thighs.

Ya know, you can disagree with Senator Clinton all day long - but
speaking of her in that language is very classless and pretty
disgusting, in my opinion.

Sorry. I just hate the woman's guts, that's all. She epitomizes
everything that is wrong with this country all rolled-up in one more
than a little scary package.

[Mike Zulauf]

Post by George Graves
That means if the left-wing Commie Clinton Bitch runs for president,
that asshole will vote for her pudding-thighs.

I'm no fan of hers (though I'd vote for her over any Bush), but it
would be a kick to see her as president. Mainly because of how it
would drive all the wingnuts crazy.

Mike

[George Graves]

Post by Mike Zulauf

Post by George Graves
That means if the left-wing Commie Clinton Bitch runs for president,
that asshole will vote for her pudding-thighs.

I'm no fan of hers (though I'd vote for her over any Bush), but it
would be a kick to see her as president. Mainly because of how it
would drive all the wingnuts crazy.
Mike

I think we've seen enough of the country being split politically. We
need a President that everybody can get behind. The Cinton Bitch would
not be that President.

[Mike Zulauf]

Post by George Graves

Post by Mike Zulauf
I'm no fan of hers (though I'd vote for her over any Bush), but it
would be a kick to see her as president. Mainly because of how it
would drive all the wingnuts crazy.
Mike

I think we've seen enough of the country being split politically. We
need a President that everybody can get behind. The Cinton Bitch would
not be that President.

Nice sentiment and all, but I can't think of anybody who fits the bill.

I especially can't think of how such a person (assuming one existed)
could make it through the political process to become president.

I'll probably have to settle for voting for somebody who'll drive the
wingnuts crazy.

So be it. . .

Mike

[George Graves]

Post by Mike Zulauf

Post by George Graves

Post by Mike Zulauf
I'm no fan of hers (though I'd vote for her over any Bush), but it
would be a kick to see her as president. Mainly because of how it
would drive all the wingnuts crazy.
Mike

I think we've seen enough of the country being split politically. We
need a President that everybody can get behind. The Cinton Bitch would
not be that President.

Nice sentiment and all, but I can't think of anybody who fits the bill.

Neither can I, but Hillary would be even more of a dividing influence
than Bush Jr - if possible.

Post by Mike Zulauf
I especially can't think of how such a person (assuming one existed)
could make it through the political process to become president.

That's true - sad as hell, but true.

Post by Mike Zulauf
I'll probably have to settle for voting for somebody who'll drive the
wingnuts crazy.

I don't know what to do on that front. First of all, since Reagan left
office, I haven't voted for the major candidates in any presidential
election. I don't want to give-up on voting although I often feel that
its futile and that we live in a society which merely gives the
IMPRESSION of being a Democratic Republic, and that our votes mean
nothing. Sure we elect officials to "represent" us, but they don't. They
represent corporate interests only because that's where the money is. If
our Founding Fathers could see how the government that they created has
been corrupted all out proportion, they would be sad Founding Fathers
indeed.

[i***@mac.com]

Post by Mike Zulauf

Post by George Graves
That means if the left-wing Commie Clinton Bitch runs for president,
that asshole will vote for her pudding-thighs.

I'm no fan of hers (though I'd vote for her over any Bush), but it
would be a kick to see her as president. Mainly because of how it
would drive all the wingnuts crazy.

Too late.

[Stuart Krivis]

Post by George Graves

Post by Mitch
In article

Post by George Graves

Post by James Davis
Jobs makes great stuff because he is a liberal and doesn't go chasing
whatever marketing opportunities there are like Microsoft does.

Gates is also a liberal Democrat.

Do you think so?
Those are two different terms, and if he states he is Democrat, he
certainly isn't a very liberal one.

He gives money to the Democratic party and votes the Democartic ticket.
That means if the left-wing Commie Clinton Bitch runs for president,
that asshole will vote for her pudding-thighs.

I guess it's good that he didn't vote for Bush. Think of what you'd
say about that.

Are you practicing to be Rush Limbaugh? Although maybe you're even
more right-wing, about like Jesse Helms?

Your comments place you in the category of right-wing extremist in my
book. I don't much like what the Republicans have been doing ever
since Reagan was elected, but I don't make such vituperative comments
as you do. Also, why the interest in Hillary's thighs?

[STravis]

Post by George Graves

Post by James Davis
They could have sold many, many, many
more albums than they did if they just wanted to make money.

They sure didn't make art. When you generation dies out, no one will
even remember that Led Zeppelin ever existed.

And again we can add one more thing to the list of things that George
Graves knows NOTHING about!

[i***@mac.com]

Post by James Davis
OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple. You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.

eh? To get "taken advantage of", I'd actually have to FUCKING BUY one
of these black MBs.

I actually cancelled my order at Amazon and went for the white. This is
the exact opposite of getting taken.

Post by James Davis
People work hard for their money and not a lot of people have an extra
$150 to throw away over nothing after already making a good sized
purchase.

Congratulations; you are perhaps the densest person on the planet. You
are making less sense in this thread than George, which is quite an
accomplishment.

Post by James Davis
Apple could make people happy (I know human happiness means nothing to
Replublican types) and still make a solid, healthy comfortable profit.
They could charge $50 extra for black and have very nice margins.
Everyone at Apple could get their comfortable salaries.

Apple feels the need to distinguish their pro and consumer lines.
Previously, they would go out of their way to cripple the consumer
lines. Now, they aren't doing that, instead, they are pricing the
pro-looking consumer option a bit more pro-like.

Post by James Davis
Everyone could be happy. People could get the notebook they want and
Apple could make extra comfortable profits. Instead they want you to
hand over $150 for virtually nothing. It costs virtually nothing to
add black paint. And then 75,000 customers, who could have had a more
enjoyable product, won't get it.

The market will tell Apple if this loss of Customer Satisfaction is
worth the extra $$$.

Post by James Davis
Sorry, but charging $150 for something that costs nothing is ripping
people off. I have no problem with the people at Apple who do quality
work getting great salaries, more than the average Joe, but charging
$150 for nothing just because you can is just crappy.

Welcome to Capitalism. A $150 premium for black plastic is rather mild
compared to the 50%+ margins Apple was running in the late 80s. Now
that, that was evil, and worse, a strategic mistake.

[GreyCloud]

Post by James Davis
OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple. You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.

Would you rather get ripped off by M$ then?

<snip>

[Alan Baker]

Post by James Davis
OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple. You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.

Not at all.

*I'm* not willing to pay a $150 dollar premium for black.

Post by James Davis
People work hard for their money and not a lot of people have an extra
$150 to throw away over nothing after already making a good sized
purchase.

Then they can buy the white one, can't they?

Post by James Davis
Apple could make people happy (I know human happiness means nothing to
Replublican types) and still make a solid, healthy comfortable profit.
They could charge $50 extra for black and have very nice margins.
Everyone at Apple could get their comfortable salaries.

Or, like every other entity, they could charge what they think people
will pay and everyone can take responsibility for their own choices.

Post by James Davis
Everyone could be happy. People could get the notebook they want and
Apple could make extra comfortable profits. Instead they want you to
hand over $150 for virtually nothing. It costs virtually nothing to
add black paint. And then 75,000 customers, who could have had a more
enjoyable product, won't get it.

No one is forcing any of them to spend the money.

Post by James Davis
Sorry, but charging $150 for something that costs nothing is ripping
people off. I have no problem with the people at Apple who do quality
work getting great salaries, more than the average Joe, but charging
$150 for nothing just because you can is just crappy.

No. Charging the amount you think will generate sufficient sales is how
capitalism happens.

[Oxford]

Post by James Davis
OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple. You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.
People work hard for their money and not a lot of people have an extra
$150 to throw away over nothing after already making a good sized
purchase.
Apple could make people happy (I know human happiness means nothing to
Replublican types) and still make a solid, healthy comfortable profit.
They could charge $50 extra for black and have very nice margins.
Everyone at Apple could get their comfortable salaries.

god your an idiot.

Post by James Davis
Everyone could be happy. People could get the notebook they want and
Apple could make extra comfortable profits. Instead they want you to
hand over $150 for virtually nothing. It costs virtually nothing to
add black paint. And then 75,000 customers, who could have had a more
enjoyable product, won't get it.

it's not just black "paint", it's black injected plastic, plus you have
to stock parts for every black item, every keycap, hinge, etc.

Post by James Davis
Sorry, but charging $150 for something that costs nothing is ripping
people off. I have no problem with the people at Apple who do quality
work getting great salaries, more than the average Joe, but charging
$150 for nothing just because you can is just crappy.

you really don't understand economics, nor "value". you are totally
overlooking the fact that the black model will retain a good portion of
the extra $150 during resale, so it's not like you are giving up that
$150, it's just you are paying more for the value (perceived by the
culture) of a black laptop.

please learn more about business next time.

[Lefty Bigfoot]

Oxford wrote
(in article

Post by Oxford
god your an idiot.

That is funny on so many levels.

[Tim Crowley]

Post by James Davis
OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple.

Who said that- You shold learn how to read.

Post by James Davis
You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.

Wrong again.

Post by James Davis
People work hard for their money and not a lot of people have an extra
$150 to throw away over nothing after already making a good sized
purchase.

Then they should not buy that product.

Post by James Davis
Apple could make people happy

they make me happy.

Post by James Davis
(I know human happiness means nothing to
Replublican types)

You don't know that.

Post by James Davis
and still make a solid, healthy comfortable profit.

They do.

Post by James Davis
They could charge $50 extra for black and have very nice margins.
Everyone at Apple could get their comfortable salaries.

For whatever reason, those in charge of the company have decided to
charge more. When you run your own business you will be able to decide
what to charge. As a consumer you may only choose what you are willing
to pay. If $150 extra is too much, you can simply walk away from the
deal. If Apple is really charging too much they will lower the price.
It's how the world works.

Post by James Davis
Everyone could be happy. People could get the notebook they want and
Apple could make extra comfortable profits. Instead they want you to
hand over $150 for virtually nothing. It costs virtually nothing to
add black paint.

What? Do you think they spray paint it black?

Post by James Davis
And then 75,000 customers, who could have had a more
enjoyable product, won't get it.
Sorry, but charging $150 for something that costs nothing is ripping
people off.

Do you have some evidence it costs nothing?

Post by James Davis
I have no problem with the people at Apple who do quality
work getting great salaries, more than the average Joe, but charging
$150 for nothing just because you can is just crappy.

Awwww, poor baby.

[Tim Crowley]

Post by Tim Crowley

Post by James Davis
OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple.

Who said that- You shold learn how to read.

And I SHOULD learn to fucking spell :-)

[Stuart Krivis]

Post by James Davis
OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple. You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.
People work hard for their money and not a lot of people have an extra
$150 to throw away over nothing after already making a good sized
purchase.
Apple could make people happy (I know human happiness means nothing to
Replublican types) and still make a solid, healthy comfortable profit.
They could charge $50 extra for black and have very nice margins.
Everyone at Apple could get their comfortable salaries.
Everyone could be happy. People could get the notebook they want and
Apple could make extra comfortable profits. Instead they want you to
hand over $150 for virtually nothing. It costs virtually nothing to
add black paint. And then 75,000 customers, who could have had a more
enjoyable product, won't get it.
Sorry, but charging $150 for something that costs nothing is ripping
people off. I have no problem with the people at Apple who do quality
work getting great salaries, more than the average Joe, but charging
$150 for nothing just because you can is just crappy.

So who says that life is fair? :-)

Your comments above strike me as quite socialist. I suggest you read
"Atlas Shrugged" to give yourself some perspective.

[Steve Hix]

Post by Stuart Krivis

Post by James Davis
OK, well that answers my question. You guys are willing to get taken
advantage of by Apple. You are willing to let them grab every nickel
they can get and you have no conception of fairness.
People work hard for their money and not a lot of people have an extra
$150 to throw away over nothing after already making a good sized
purchase.
Apple could make people happy (I know human happiness means nothing to
Replublican types) and still make a solid, healthy comfortable profit.
They could charge $50 extra for black and have very nice margins.
Everyone at Apple could get their comfortable salaries.
Everyone could be happy. People could get the notebook they want and
Apple could make extra comfortable profits. Instead they want you to
hand over $150 for virtually nothing. It costs virtually nothing to
add black paint. And then 75,000 customers, who could have had a more
enjoyable product, won't get it.
Sorry, but charging $150 for something that costs nothing is ripping
people off. I have no problem with the people at Apple who do quality
work getting great salaries, more than the average Joe, but charging
$150 for nothing just because you can is just crappy.

So who says that life is fair? :-)
Your comments above strike me as quite socialist. I suggest you read
"Atlas Shrugged" to give yourself some perspective.

He should also learn a bit about manufacturing. For starters, he is
wrong assuming that there are no add-on costs to offering a second case
color. (Yeah, it's not $150, nor even $130, but it is not something that
"costs nothing".)

[Stuart Krivis]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 11:49:40 -0700, Steve Hix

Post by Steve Hix

Post by Stuart Krivis
Your comments above strike me as quite socialist. I suggest you read
"Atlas Shrugged" to give yourself some perspective.

He should also learn a bit about manufacturing. For starters, he is
wrong assuming that there are no add-on costs to offering a second case
color. (Yeah, it's not $150, nor even $130, but it is not something that
"costs nothing".)

Quite true, but he was starting to sound like the "rotters" in "Atlas
Shrugged," so I thought he might learn something by reading it. :-)

[Tim Smith]

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)

It's $100 for black.

[Steve Hix]

Post by Tim Smith

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)

It's $100 for black.

Base machines are, respectively, $1299 and $1499. If you bump up the
white MacBook to an 80GB drive, it's $1349. There's your $150.

Those are online store prices.

[Steve Hix]

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)

Stupid argument on its face.

Unless you intend to argue that Apple is holding people at gunpoint,
going through their pockets, and taking all their cash and credit cards.

In reality, you have a choice: you can pay more for a black MacBook, and
get a slightly larger hard drive as well, or you can pay $150 less for a
white laptop with a slightly smaller drive.

It's called choice, and Apple will either be successful selling the
black ones at a premium, or they won't.

If they don't sell well, expect to see the price come down, or the black
model be dropped in favor of the white one.

Normal markets at work.

[Wally]

On 25/5/06 4:57 AM, in article

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)
The definition of ripping someone off is when you take advantage of
their desire for your product by charging a price that gives you
enormous profits simply because you know people will pay.

Taking advantage of a desire is hardly a rip-off, that is simply an astute
business practice. But taking advantage of a necessity could be seen that
way!

Post by James Davis
If they can sell Ben and Jerry's ice cream for $3.50, but they
temporarily charge $7 for a container when a new flavor comes out
because they know some fans of Ben and Jerry's will pay it,
I'd say that is a rip-off.

I disagree! I would consider a 'ripoff' charging a ridiculously inflated
price for something that someone absolutely needed to have, usually an item
that is necessary to the functionality of another.
I don't see the color of a computer or the flavor of an ice cream as falling
into that category whilst alternatives are readily available.

<snip>

[i***@mac.com]

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)

Apple has its reasons for charging what it does.

For one. in pricing the item so, it avoids having to see people buying
an item in short supply and profiting via ebay resales.

Post by James Davis
The definition of ripping someone off is when you take advantage of
their desire for your product by charging a price that gives you
enormous profits simply because you know people will pay.

Enormous profits? Ah, for that you must be talking about MSFT.

Post by James Davis
If they can sell Ben and Jerry's ice cream for $3.50, but they
temporarily charge $7 for a container when a new flavor comes out
because they know some fans of Ben and Jerry's will pay it, I'd say
that is a ripoff.

"Ripoff" is subjective.

Post by James Davis
Now, I usually consider most of the arguments that Apple is ripping
people off as foolishness. If a Mac costed 3 times as much as a PC,
you still wouldn't know it was a ripoff until you saw the quarterly
profits showing you that they made a lot on each Mac.

Which they don't, btw.

Post by James Davis
Or charging $129 or $329 for an OS upgrade isn't a ripoff until you
know the development costs that going into making the OS.

You're engaging in seriously fallacious thinking here. Markets find
their clearing price.

Post by James Davis
But to charge $150 more for black is a ripoff. This is especially true
when you have loyal customers that will happily pay a generous premium
for your products, and then you take advantage of that leeway to take
it to extremes.

LOL.

Post by James Davis
Now I know the heartless Republican types will just talk about "supply
and demand", because they always have some philosophical excuse for not
thinking in human terms.

To be fair to our dear free-market fundamentalists, the main error one
encounters wrt this is the argument that what the market provides is
necessarily the *best* available status quo, that all social
intervention in the free operation of the market is evil. This is
demonstrably incorrect (cf ca. 1870 - 1910 era).

Post by James Davis
But for the non-kooks, how many of you think
this is simply a slap in the face to customers? If I am a regular at a
restaurant and I already pay a premium, I would consider it a slap in
the face if they decided to charge me double because seating was
temporarily limited. I know prices can fluctuate, but there has to be
some decency involved.

You seem to be terribly confused. Apple expects supply shortages and
hassles by offering this color. It also doesn't want to see its Pro
laptops being cannabilized by its consumer line.

As others have said, paying the price is optional. I for one cancelled
an order for a black MB and decided to get the low-end and upgrade it
to that spec (100GB 7200RPM drive, 2GB RAM).

[Mitch]

Post by James Davis
Now I know the heartless Republican types will just talk about "supply
and demand", because they always have some philosophical excuse for not
thinking in human terms. But for the non-kooks, how many of you think
this is simply a slap in the face to customers? If I am a regular at a
restaurant and I already pay a premium, I would consider it a slap in
the face if they decided to charge me double because seating was
temporarily limited. I know prices can fluctuate, but there has to be
some decency involved.

That's all nonsense - -because you left out the most important factor
-- choice.
In this scheme, every buyer has the option of CHOOSING not to pay that
additional fee. And that's what makes it not a rip-off.

Gouging and rip-offs are about artificial price inflations when the
buyer does NOT have a choice -- when the seller gets extra money just
for demand or because of a predictable rush to buy.

It simply doesn't apply when the same product is available without that
fee, and in every other way that product is the same.
Color simply isn't a meaningful difference in the value of the item --
only in the value to one potential buyer.

Now, if they had made the black *more capable* in some way, the tables
would be turned.

[Sandman]

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black?

*raises hand*

[Tim Crowley]

Post by James Davis
Here's a question. Who is willing to admit that Apple is simply
ripping people off by charging $150 more for black? (I didn't see this
argued in another thread)

Are they lying to them and not telling them how much it costs?

Are they forcing them to buy it?

Giving one price on the web site - then another price later

NO NO NO

Post by James Davis
The definition of ripping someone off is when you take advantage of
their desire for your product by charging a price that gives you
enormous profits simply because you know people will pay.

That is your made up daffynifion. It has nothing to do with reality.

Post by James Davis
If they can sell Ben and Jerry's ice cream for $3.50, but they
temporarily charge $7 for a container when a new flavor comes out
because they know some fans of Ben and Jerry's will pay it, I'd say
that is a ripoff.

You can say whatever you want. You would be wrong. If fans of Ben and
Jerry are willing to pay $7 there is no rip off.

Post by James Davis
Now, I usually consider most of the arguments that Apple is ripping
people off as foolishness. If a Mac costed 3 times as much as a PC,

costed?

Post by James Davis
you still wouldn't know it was a ripoff until you saw the quarterly
profits showing you that they made a lot on each Mac.

It's a for profit public company - a big part of the job is to make
large quarterly profits for the shareholders.

Post by James Davis
Or charging $129 or $329 for an OS upgrade isn't a ripoff until you
know the development costs that going into making the OS.

As long as folks are willing to pay it, it's a fair deal.

Post by James Davis
But to charge $150 more for black is a ripoff. This is especially true
when you have loyal customers that will happily pay a generous premium
for your products, and then you take advantage of that leeway to take
it to extremes.

Bztttz.

Post by James Davis
Now I know the heartless Republican types will just talk about "supply
and demand", because they always have some philosophical excuse for not
thinking in human terms. But for the non-kooks, how many of you think
this is simply a slap in the face to customers? If I am a regular at a
restaurant and I already pay a premium, I would consider it a slap in
the face if they decided to charge me double because seating was
temporarily limited. I know prices can fluctuate, but there has to be
some decency involved.

If you think it "costed" too much, you may simply move along and not
pay it. No "rippoff"

[Ross]

what if the black case actually costs more to manufacture?

[George Graves]

Post by Ross
what if the black case actually costs more to manufacture?

I dunno, I'm no plastics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I
have a tough time believeing that producing that black case consists of
anything more than dumping some carbon black pigment into the
thermoplastic that they use to mold the white cases. Of course, I could
be wrong.

[Tim Adams]

Post by George Graves

Post by Ross
what if the black case actually costs more to manufacture?

I dunno, I'm no plastics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I
have a tough time believeing that producing that black case consists of
anything more than dumping some carbon black pigment into the
thermoplastic that they use to mold the white cases. Of course, I could
be wrong.

George - That is indeed the way it is done.

However, doesn't the black case have a matte finish where the white case has a
smooth finish? If so, this _could_ add to the cost.

[ZnU]

Post by Mitch
In article

Post by George Graves

Post by Ross
what if the black case actually costs more to manufacture?

I dunno, I'm no plastics expert by any stretch of the imagination,
but I have a tough time believeing that producing that black case
consists of anything more than dumping some carbon black pigment
into the thermoplastic that they use to mold the white cases. Of
course, I could be wrong.

George - That is indeed the way it is done.
However, doesn't the black case have a matte finish where the white
case has a smooth finish? If so, this _could_ add to the cost.

Yes, the black case does have a different surface. Whether this costs
more, well, you'd probably need to ask someone in the plastics business.

[George Graves]

Post by ZnU

Post by Mitch
In article

Post by George Graves

Post by Ross
what if the black case actually costs more to manufacture?

I dunno, I'm no plastics expert by any stretch of the imagination,
but I have a tough time believeing that producing that black case
consists of anything more than dumping some carbon black pigment
into the thermoplastic that they use to mold the white cases. Of
course, I could be wrong.

George - That is indeed the way it is done.
However, doesn't the black case have a matte finish where the white
case has a smooth finish? If so, this _could_ add to the cost.

Yes, the black case does have a different surface. Whether this costs
more, well, you'd probably need to ask someone in the plastics business.

Yep.

[Steve Hix]

Post by Tim Adams

Post by George Graves

Post by Ross
what if the black case actually costs more to manufacture?

I dunno, I'm no plastics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I
have a tough time believeing that producing that black case consists of
anything more than dumping some carbon black pigment into the
thermoplastic that they use to mold the white cases. Of course, I could
be wrong.

George - That is indeed the way it is done.
However, doesn't the black case have a matte finish where the white case has
a smooth finish? If so, this _could_ add to the cost.

That, and smaller unit volumes, extra operations costs, etc etc etc are
going to affect the cost, and not in a downward direction.

[George Graves]

Post by Tim Adams

Post by George Graves

Post by Ross
what if the black case actually costs more to manufacture?

I dunno, I'm no plastics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I
have a tough time believeing that producing that black case consists of
anything more than dumping some carbon black pigment into the
thermoplastic that they use to mold the white cases. Of course, I could
be wrong.

George - That is indeed the way it is done.
However, doesn't the black case have a matte finish where the white case has a
smooth finish? If so, this _could_ add to the cost.

But isn't that more of a function of the type of thermoplastic used? I
honestly don't know.

I do know that most products available in different colors (like the
color iMacs and the "toilet seat" iBooks) aren't costed differently
SIMPLY because of the color of the plastic used.

[Tim Adams]

Post by George Graves

Post by Tim Adams

Post by George Graves

Post by Ross
what if the black case actually costs more to manufacture?

I dunno, I'm no plastics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I
have a tough time believeing that producing that black case consists of
anything more than dumping some carbon black pigment into the
thermoplastic that they use to mold the white cases. Of course, I could
be wrong.

George - That is indeed the way it is done.
However, doesn't the black case have a matte finish where the white case
has
a
smooth finish? If so, this _could_ add to the cost.

But isn't that more of a function of the type of thermoplastic used? I
honestly don't know.

Actually this would be a finishing type of work after the molding process I
believe.

Post by George Graves
I do know that most products available in different colors (like the
color iMacs and the "toilet seat" iBooks) aren't costed differently
SIMPLY because of the color of the plastic used.

With all of these cases, the only difference is the color which shouldn't change
the price.

[Steve Hix]

In article

Post by Tim Adams

Post by George Graves

Post by Tim Adams
However, doesn't the black case have a matte finish where the white case
has a smooth finish? If so, this _could_ add to the cost.

But isn't that more of a function of the type of thermoplastic used? I
honestly don't know.

Actually this would be a finishing type of work after the molding process I
believe.

If it's anything like the plastics we work with (cases/keyboards/mice/
smartcard readers/etc), the surface finish is set by the tooling. We'll
have several iterations, if necessary, with test shots after each time
the tooling is tweaked. I know we can get anything from glassy smooth to
coarse pebble-grain surfaces.

The hard tooling is expensive, and only good for a limited number of
pieces formed, but cheaper in the long run than adding an extra finish
step or three after coming out of the molds.

[Steve Hix]

In article

Post by Tim Adams

Post by George Graves
I do know that most products available in different colors (like the
color iMacs and the "toilet seat" iBooks) aren't costed differently
SIMPLY because of the color of the plastic used.

With all of these cases, the only difference is the color which shouldn't
change the price.

Depends on scale; you'll price breaks at different levels. Depending on
the difference in number of pieces bought, it could be noticeable. (But
not $130 worth; the larger hard drive does have a cost component.)

One other thing that could affect price is whether or not a plastic part
is transparent. Visual defects that would go unnoticed in an opaque part
might call for rejecting a transparent one. One of our mechanical
engineers went to asia to check on the plastics for a new system we were
getting ready to introduced, and is happened that Apple was using them
for some of their plastics. In this case, handles for the Sawtooth/
Quicksilver Power Macs. He was told that they had a 40% rejection rate
on the parts. And that was considered pretty good. The rejects went back
in the melt, so there wasn't all *that* much waste, but it had to push
the price up a bit.

[Mitch]

In article

Post by Tim Adams

Post by George Graves
But isn't that more of a function of the type of thermoplastic used? I
honestly don't know.

Actually this would be a finishing type of work after the molding process I
believe.

It would be impractical to use any different materials. There are too
many differences in heat, tooling, cements, and handling equipment.

Two practical methods would be to use a differently-finished mold, or
to dip the unfinished case in a solvent or acid to etch the surface a
bit.
If the acid or solvent method is used, there may be incurred costs in
the acid cost, washing, drying, time/method taken off the production
line, or environmental cleanup of the acids.


Don't you guys watch How It's Made?

[Elizabot v2.0.3]

<snip>

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/823.html

[t***@googlemail.com]

Well consider yourselves lucky - you yanks are being charged $1499 for
a black MacBook right? That equates to about £800 (British pounds) -
we are being charged £1029 ($1920!!!!) for it over here! And yes, we
also have the price discrepancy, but unlike for you (an 11% price hike
for black), the price increase is 14% so stop moaning about it!

Now if only there was a way to ship an American MacBook over to the UK
avoiding import tax etc.... would save me about £230 ($430)!!

[Lefty Bigfoot]

***@googlemail.com wrote
(in article

Post by t***@googlemail.com
Well consider yourselves lucky - you yanks are being charged $1499 for
a black MacBook right? That equates to about £800 (British pounds) -
we are being charged £1029 ($1920!!!!) for it over here! And yes, we
also have the price discrepancy, but unlike for you (an 11% price hike
for black), the price increase is 14% so stop moaning about it!
Now if only there was a way to ship an American MacBook over to the UK
avoiding import tax etc.... would save me about £230 ($430)!!

Or you could move.

[Steve Hix]

Post by t***@googlemail.com
Well consider yourselves lucky - you yanks are being charged $1499 for
a black MacBook right? That equates to about £800 (British pounds) -
we are being charged £1029 ($1920!!!!) for it over here!

Does that include VAT?

Some of us have to pay state sales taxes, which narrows the gap a bit,
but still...

[t***@googlemail.com]

Post by Steve Hix

Post by t***@googlemail.com
Well consider yourselves lucky - you yanks are being charged $1499 for
a black MacBook right? That equates to about £800 (British pounds) -
we are being charged £1029 ($1920!!!!) for it over here!

Does that include VAT?
Some of us have to pay state sales taxes, which narrows the gap a bit,
but still...

Yes, that does include VAT (at 17.5%), and delivery. Does it not
include such things in the states?

[Steve Hix]

Post by t***@googlemail.com

Post by Steve Hix

Post by t***@googlemail.com
Well consider yourselves lucky - you yanks are being charged $1499 for
a black MacBook right? That equates to about £800 (British pounds) -
we are being charged £1029 ($1920!!!!) for it over here!

Does that include VAT?
Some of us have to pay state sales taxes, which narrows the gap a bit,
but still...

Yes, that does include VAT (at 17.5%), and delivery. Does it not
include such things in the states?

No.

Mostly because every state has different (from none to high) sales tax
rates, and you may also get tagged with additional county and/or city
sales taxes on top of the state levy. And delivery, if any, is extra.
(Apple does not charge for delivery on orders above a certain level;
other companies might.)

Then you get states (*coff*california*coff*) that will try to hit you
with taxes if you live there and you're buying from out of state, or
living in another state buying from a company based in California.

A little while back, California spent no little time and effort to
extract taxes from people's retirement checks; said persons not living
in California, but the company they had worked for, and was paying their
retirement benefits, had operated in the Golden State.

One wonders if being part of the EU brings up any similar
complications...

[t***@googlemail.com]

Post by Steve Hix
No.
Mostly because every state has different (from none to high) sales tax
rates, and you may also get tagged with additional county and/or city
sales taxes on top of the state levy. And delivery, if any, is extra.
(Apple does not charge for delivery on orders above a certain level;
other companies might.)
Then you get states (*coff*california*coff*) that will try to hit you
with taxes if you live there and you're buying from out of state, or
living in another state buying from a company based in California.
A little while back, California spent no little time and effort to
extract taxes from people's retirement checks; said persons not living
in California, but the company they had worked for, and was paying their
retirement benefits, had operated in the Golden State.
One wonders if being part of the EU brings up any similar
complications...

Only being a lowly student I am not actually having to pay taxes just
yet - not until I start my job in September, at least. But yes, whilst
the EU might bring some benefits it sure makes a lot of things more
complicated, so many stupid laws have come into effect recently it's
ridiculous.

[Mitch]

Post by t***@googlemail.com
Only being a lowly student I am not actually having to pay taxes just
yet - not until I start my job in September, at least. But yes, whilst
the EU might bring some benefits it sure makes a lot of things more
complicated, so many stupid laws have come into effect recently it's
ridiculous.

The reference to taxes wasn't to income tax but to taxes on the sale of
the item.
In the USA, prices are almost always given as before-tax prices, and
the local value for taxation on the item at sale is applied afterward.

nominal price + tax percentage = final price