According to the Associated Press, a woman is suing Apple for $1 million over a $200 price cut. The article doesn’t call her stupid, but I gladly will. If you recall, only a few months after Apple’s mega-hyped iPhone release, they decided to cut the price of the new product by $200 in addition to stopping the production of the lower end 4 GB model.
Apple Tries to Please Customers
Price cuts are nothing out of the ordinary, and although Apple did reduce the price relatively soon after the launch, they were understanding and provided some form of reimbursement. For those who purchased an iPhone within 14 days of the price cut, Apple issued a full refund of $200. In addition, for those who purchased an iPhone prior to this, Apple gave people a $100 Apple Store credit. They were under no obligation to do so, but in an effort to keep customers happy, it was a good move.
A Good Example Why You Should Never be an Early Adopter of Technology
This is a perfect example of why it almost never pays to be one of the first people to own a new piece of technology. The price issue is obvious–technology products are prone to rapid price declines. Sure, two months is a bit quick, but any time you purchase a new phone, television, computer, or other device, it won’t be but a few months before prices begin to come down as new products enter the market.
In addition to the obvious pricing issues, new technology is often riddled with problems. As devices become more complex and require more software to run, there are going to be obvious glitches and bugs in the first models. So, not only do you risk paying a premium for being an early adopter, but you are likely to find yourself with a product that has issues that will be addressed in later models.
Where do You Get $1 Million in Damages?
Back to the news story with the lady suing for $1 million–how do you get off demanding so much money? You purchased a new product right out of the gate, and a few months later it comes down in price. So, you get a $100 credit to offset some of the cost, but you still aren’t happy, so the right thing to do is sue the company for a million dollars? Give me a break!
According to Li’s lawsuit, filed on Sept. 24 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, the price reduction injured early purchasers like herself because they cannot resell the product for the same profit as those who bought the cell phone following the price cut.
Oh, boo-hoo, you can’t buy something and turn around and sell it on eBay for a quick buck. This lady is a consumer, not a distributor, so her ability to resell the product for a profit should have no bearing on the case. Even so, did she really think she would have been able to purchase enough of the phones to actually make a profit of $1 million, which she is claiming as damages? I highly doubt it.
I wish I knew how easy it was to get rich, because over the years I have purchased a lot of items that subsequently went on sale or became cheaper shortly after I bought it. If I had known that every time I buy something brand new that comes down in price in a few months warranted a $1 million lawsuit, I’d be sipping on a martini in a 24k gold-rimmed glass while lounging on my private tropical island as I write this.
Author: Jeremy Vohwinkle
Incoming search terms:
- cut stupid
There has to be more to this claim. How could anyone even contemplate thinking that they were going to win. If this case does go to court she should be billed accordingly for wasting time.
This is a time where people blame the government for their health problems. Some sue for uneven roads that 'caused' their neck problems.
I don't find it unusual but it's rather stupid.
I would be curious to see what her actual complaint claims are. Unless Apple actively advertised that their iPhones would somehow appreciate in value, I don't see any merit in her case.
Yep, even I as a technophile don't get on the bleeding edge. Technology drops too fast. There is one strategy where you can sort of stay ahead of it, but it's a lot of work: buy the newest thing, and as soon as the "next gen" model comes out, sell yours and use the money to pay for the newer model. But yeah, I don't play that game of constant upgrading.
I cannot agree more. If you NEED to have a new gadget the moment it comes out, then you deserve to pay more. I consider it a 'jerkoff surcharge'. All those people waiting and camping out in parking lots or whatever for a new iPhone, game, or whatever, then you are a jerkoff. Pay the toll.
Online shopping junkie: I don't think it changes anything if she wins since America is full of these ridiculous lawsuits.
The best part: she is suing because she cannot resell the product for a *profit*. Since when do companies have to sell a product so the public can turn a profit on it?
I think this lawsuit is riduculous.
Unbelievable! Can you imagine if she wins? Not to mention the amount of money she is wasting on lawyer fees.
At $1 million in damages, does that mean that she has bought 5000 iPhones since the price cut was $200?
At least the US dollar is low so every other country will think she isn't losing as much money as we would!!!
I bought my condo for 417K in 2005 and now its only worth about 350K, I'm suing everyone in the real estate market for $300 Million because I, along with everyone else who bought a house in 2005 cannot flip it for a profit.
leading or bleeding edge tech has always had risks & costs. her & any other whiners attempting to sue need to be dismissed with prejudice.
This blew me away. Would anyone think Apple should have the right to sue all early adopters if their demand forecasts or per-unit-cost assumptions were inaccurate and they then had to raise the price of each phone? The woman paid what she determined the phone was worth at the time.
If this wasn't so idiotic it would be hilarious. The guy who is suing God in Nebraska to show how frivalous some law suites can be at least has his tongue stuck firmly in his cheek. I hope Apple sue for damages....