iOutrage

I'm sure you've all seen/heard the news that Apple is slashing the price of its nifty new iPhone from $600 to $400 in order to generate more holiday purchases. Okay, nothing odd about that. What strikes me as hilarious, though, is the outrage this has engendered among the folks who went out and bought the $600 as soon as it came out.

For some reason these folks think they have been "done wrong" (in the C&W song sense) by Steve Jobs and the Apple empire. Then there's Eugene Robinson, who doesn't own an iPhone, carping in today's WaPo:

If I were an iPhone owner, I'd be hopping mad. I'd be iRate.
[...]
[W]hen chief executive Steve Jobs announced Wednesday that Apple was slashing the iPhone's price by a third -- meaning that owning a slice of the future now sets you back only $399 -- the iPhone Internet forums lit up with buyers who felt they'd been taken for chumps.

First, and a point that even Robinson makes, this is kind of standard for new technology. Price is initially very high and only the gadget geeks buy, then price falls until the proletariat can afford to join in. Think of cell phones, DVD players, GPS devices, etc. Most seem to think it's a "cheaper technology" phenomenon, but I figure it's driven just as much, if not more, by an attempt to price discriminate and really stick it to those gadget geeks who just HAVE TO HAVE IT RIGHT NOW! Regardless of the reason, everyone knows this happens with new gadgets, so why is everyone so upset?

A second point, though, deals with this implied complaint that it's not the price drop itself that bothers the initial adopters, but the fact that it happened so quickly. Something like, "Man, I paid $600 for this thing, but I could have had it for $400 if I'd waited 6 weeks." If these grousers were among the masses that bought the iPhone the first day, then the same thing was true then. Even here in my area folks who bought iPhones on launch day "paid" much more than $600. They had to camp out all night, stand in line all day, etc. They could have waited and bought an iPhone on the 3rd or 4th day and "saved" all that opportunity cost. Yet they didn't. No, they wanted to be the first with the new gadget and they were willing to pay (both in money and general inconvenience) for that privilege. So why are they complaining now?

Actually Robinson himself has a pretty good theory on that. They're not really mad about the $200. No, it's the fact that now that the iPhone can be had for a mere $400 the exclusivity has worn off much too quickly. No longer will it by THE tech gadget. Instead, it'll be under everyone's Christmas tree.

I think that's a pretty good explanation, though I do get the sense that Eugene thinks the whole spectacle of the iPhone is somewhat unseemly. He essentially ridicules the folks who rushed out to buy one thinking it'd change their lives, yet at the same time he admits to having a Blackberry -- another product that went through a similar life cycle. C'mon Eugene, lighten up. We have to have these early adopters to pave the way for us laggards.