Apple iPhones

[Barney]

First example: Apple iPhones. A prime case of people who can't be hated for their wealth since they are rich because they're providing something people need, right? But look closer and you see that what's driving them is money, not care for their customers. They released the first iPhone without 3G abilities, even though 3G had been around for years already. Then, six months later, they released a new iPhone with 3G. Why? So everyone would buy them twice. Also, for a while they produced USB ports on computers with a little kink in them, and USB products with that same little kink. It meant that you could only use Apple products on Apple computers, forcing the user either to buy an Apple mouse or abandon their Apple computer.
"But they have the right to make products how they want, and if people don't like it, they can shop elsewhere!"
This isn't about rights. This is about the limits of capitalism to make the best possible kind of society and the best possible kind of people. Capitalism, left to itself, produces people who care more about making money than about serving others, as Jesus told us to do. It cannot heal the wounds of the Fall.

First example: Apple iPhones. I do not disagree there are annoying choices companies make that are clearly not intended to cater to the customer. On the flip side, there are real constraints the business is under on the business end. On might argue that the little kink in the USB port is to force the customer to use only their mouse so that they can ensure that the Apple experience is at a certain level of quality etc etc. One could argue that all these things go together to set Apple products apart from the rest. Some are inconvenient and annoying, maybe bad choices on Apple's part, and some things are arguably just to extort more money from the customer. But Apple does have to make money to stay in business. So it's not so clear cut whether there is anything morally wrong with their approach.

Capitalism, left to itself, produces people who care more about making money than about serving others, as Jesus told us to do. It cannot heal the wounds of the Fall.

I disagree with this assertion. I think the primary way that money is made is by serving others. Capitalism does not require you to serve others but it also does not prevent you from going out of business either. Businesses that just rip off their customers will go out of business quite quickly. Apple does not just rip off their customers. They actually do sell products that are slick and sexy, and they work well etc etc. You can quibble about certain choices Apple makes, fair enough, but clearly what they produce is acceptable to many people all things considered.

I am rather amused at this discussion, however, because I have never owned an Apple product because of the very complaints we are discussing.

I'm glad you agree that companies make annoying choices that are not intended to cater to the customer. And I never disagreed that the company has to do certain things in order to survive.

But the case of Apple is very instructive because they are not just any company. They are one of the most successful and wealthiest companies in the world. Survival is not a primary concern - they would survive if they had far less revenue than they do. They could survive if they removed all the annoying choices and simply chose to serve the customer the best they could. Sure, they would be slightly less wealthy and successful. But then would be genuinely serving the customer rather than seeking to maximise their profit.

I agree that a business that just rips off its customers will go out of business quickly. But my point is that Apple became one of the wealthiest businesses in the world precisely by ripping off their customers a bit. They didn't go too far. They mixed the swindling with some genuinely good product, otherwise, as you say, they would have gone out of business. What is interesting, however, is that the swindling, far from putting them out of business, was part of what made them so successful and wealthy. People find these things annoying, yet they still buy them. Why? Because it's better than the alternative. But do we really want to be limited by the available alternatives? We're thinking about the best way for a business to operate. Apple has proven that serving its customers is not its primary goal - it serves them only as much as it must in order to make maximum profits. And when, in order to make maximum profits, it must annoy them, it does that as well.

[Ondrej]

This line of reasoning is not so obvious to me.

Is Rolex just ripping off it's customers? A Toyota is much cheaper than a BMW. Is BMW just ripping you off? I think a lot of the price is brand status. A Rolex is valuable because it is a Rolex. They put the price such that it becomes an exclusive item which then justifies the high price. If you are just judging based on convenience and cheapness everyone would buy Casio and Toyota. These brands are trying to capture the largest share of the market. But Apple is trying to be exclusive. They charge a bit more and they try to justify it by doing things a bit differently, "everything just works" (which means they have to control everything). They try to be ahead of the curve, small screen is more ideal, no keyboard, no headphone jack. (Of course eventually they brought a keyboard to market and decided that a bigger iphone screen is actually better). But the retina screen, that looks very nice. Is it necessary? No. Is that ripping off the customer?

I think my point is that there is not just "the customer". There are many customers. Rolex is not serving "the customer" they are serving "their customer". If you do not like this Rolex they will happily make you a custom one that you do like. Ah, but if your complaint is about the price, may I recommend the Casio.

Now, I should also mention that not ALL of the brand is status. Often the engineering, materials, build quality, specs etc are actually better. And depending on the annoyances you want to be delayed with, it might be cheaper in the long run to buy a quality product rather than work with something that works for the most part but occasionally causes problems.

I started realizing my own frugality was costing my employer. Buying a bit of software for, say $100, sounds expensive to me. So instead of asking my employer to purchase software for me I was happy to do a little extra work without it. I realized this is actually way more expensive. My time adds up and a little here, a little there adds up to way more than the $100 I thought I would save. especially if it is a routine task. My point here is that one may think a company is "ripping the customer off" when the customer may be willing and able to pay ten times the cost as long as it just works and doesn't cost them time.