Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c04c2628-9634-4100-b1e1-441ac09e6bc4@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> Good article from Information Week
>
> Verizon's $399 Price Tag Of The Palm 755p Is Out Of Touch With Reality
> Posted by Eric Zeman, Dec 17, 2007 01:10 PM
>
>
> Can they really get such money for crippled crap 'smartphone' phones
> when a buyer could get a real iPhone instead for the same price?
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/blog/.../verizons_399_
> pr.html;jsessionid=VYDVRU52AEIR4QSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JV N
>
>

But doesn't the Palm have a tone of features (even in the Verizon world)
that the iPhone does not?

GPS
Voice Dialing
3g
PUSH mail sync

Just to name a few.

At 20 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500 Carl wrote:

> I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?

How do you think Sam Walton would've answered that? ;-)


There's an old business axiom that says "if you sell to the classes, you'll
eat with the masses. If you sell to the masses, you'll eat with the
classes."

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 20 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
>
>> I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?
>
> How do you think Sam Walton would've answered that? ;-)
>
>
> There's an old business axiom that says "if you sell to the classes,
> you'll eat with the masses. If you sell to the masses, you'll eat
> with the classes."
>
There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also the Warren
Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways. I suppose I prefer the latter for
myself. Different strokes and all.

And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to the
masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those masses and then
treat them like shit."

Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky. So
lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something like that.
:-)

Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal markup,
cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing for
people.

At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:

> > When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?
>
>
> For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
> Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost. What I
> saw was a Target store trying to be classy.

Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared Macy's,
when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.

In article <fkjp7r$qf1$3@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
>
> > > When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?
> >
> >
> > For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
> > Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost. What I
> > saw was a Target store trying to be classy.
>
> Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared Macy's,
> when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.

And Target has quite a positive cachet these day. They've reinvented
themselves very well.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
>
>>> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?
>>
>>
>> For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
>> Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost.
>> What I saw was a Target store trying to be classy.
>
> Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared
> Macy's, when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.

>
I dunno Todd. I thought Scott's remark supported MY position: Macy's charges
more, is not a store of the "masses", but goes for the big bucks while
somehow managing to foster an image which retains clientele across the
socio-economic spectrum.

Either way, we've beaten this point to death. Dontcha just love usenet? :-)

"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in
news:476f0ddd$0$13859$607ed4bc@cv.net:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
>>
>>>> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?
>>>
>>>
>>> For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
>>> Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost.
>>> What I saw was a Target store trying to be classy.
>>
>> Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared
>> Macy's, when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.
>
>>
> I dunno Todd. I thought Scott's remark supported MY position: Macy's
> charges more, is not a store of the "masses", but goes for the big
> bucks while somehow managing to foster an image which retains
> clientele across the socio-economic spectrum.
>
> Either way, we've beaten this point to death. Dontcha just love
> usenet? :-)
>
>
>
>
>

One last thing from me. Before you go touting Macy's position, I should
point out that when I left, there was a single customer actually buying
something despite the fact that it was about two weeks before Christmas.

My point is that image does not pay the bills. Macy's desire to be
"classy" or "not for the masses" has led to it typically posting earnings
that allow it to simply hang on, as opposed to many other retailers not so
focused on image that make money hand over fist, some of them with many of
the products found in a Macy's store.

I hope that your position is not that somehow that product increases in
value or reliability because it is bought at Macy's, or that the extra
money is well spent because it is not spent at a Target or similar store.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-12-24, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:

> One last thing from me. Before you go touting Macy's position, I should
> point out that when I left, there was a single customer actually buying
> something despite the fact that it was about two weeks before Christmas.
>
> My point is that image does not pay the bills. Macy's desire to be
> "classy" or "not for the masses" has led to it typically posting earnings
> that allow it to simply hang on, as opposed to many other retailers not so
> focused on image that make money hand over fist, some of them with many of
> the products found in a Macy's store.

Funny, I thought that department stores of all types were losing business
because people don't want to pay a premium for the privilege of shopping alone
and having only one person on each floor of the building. ;p


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol