*sigh* Companies do this all the time in order to recoup development expenses, and sometimes to even fund and test the end of development. Also, they're able to lower prices as demand picks up causing manufacturing costs to go down. As an early adopter, this is something you should be comfortable with. If you aren't, then wait for products and their placement in the market to mature.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
First, I'm the one who complained about the infestation of these threads, or who took cheap shots at those who are protesting what HP did to us. That's my point. Those of you who made that argument have chosen to flame those who you disagree with. In some cases, to keep the endless argument going, even after HP itself undermined and destroyed your argument that the rebates don't apply to PS models. These threads are so long, in part, because postings are making the same arguments that were already discussed and disposed of in earlier threads.
Now that HP destroyed your own argument about rebates, the new approach is to argue that HP is not any different from any other company, and they all act the same.
Except that other companies do not behave like HP because if they did, none of the companies could ever sell any products for the first 60 days as consumers waited them out for the inevitable reduction in price. The argument is fallacious. Lots of generalizations, with no specifics. If you want to defend HP, you need to do better than provide vague assertions that prove nothing.
I challenged you to provide five SPECIFIC examples of consumer products that were widely released for consumer use that cost $4000 and were then cut by an astonishing $800 ON THE SAME MODEL in only THE FIRST 60 DAYS, thereby screwing the early adapters.
You cite examples of later price cuts on cars. Cars that
gradually drop in price
over many months. Generally just before the next new model is released, many months after the first model is released, and vendors need to clear out inventory on the previous model. That is not the same as cutting the price
on a $4000 item -- ON THE SAME MODEL -- by $800 in the FIRST 60 DAYS thereby screwing those customers those out of $800. Your analogy is fallacious and doesn't apply. We covered that in previous threads. Please read them.
You cite examples of cutting-edge products that later drop in price as the
second or third generation model is released. (Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, CD) The process you are describing takes closer to 1 or 2
years to drop prices, not 60 days. I bought a Panasonic Blu-Ray for the very steep price charged to an early adapter for new technology. Six months later that specific model is still selling for the same price. Panasonic did not screw me and drop the price 60 days after release of that specific model. Will Panasonic drop the price on the second generation -- on an entirely different and new model? Of course. But that is not our point, now is it? Again, not the same as
cutting the price on THE SAME MODEL in the FIRST 60 DAYS by an astonishing $800. Your analogy is, again, fallacious and doesn't apply. Also covered in previous threads. Please read them.
You cite the example of digital SLRs that are replaced by a
new model, and then you state that "they aren't taken off the market, though, the prices are dropped and they're sold to a more budget segment." Again, this argument isn't just fallacious. It doesn't even remotely apply. No one is complaining about a price reduction on the Z3100 after the replacement model is released one year from now. That hasn't even happened. We're talking about
THE SAME MODEL being cut by $800
IN THE FIRST 60 DAYS. Also covered in previous threads. Please read them.
You cite Sigma cameras, arguing that the technology has problems for early adapters. But in that case, you don't even mention whether it dropped in price. Our complaint is about losing $800.
In point of fact, your Sigma analogy is precisely our complaint. The Z3100 had a number of serious problems when it was first released.
It was the early adapters who discovered these problems and acted as the guinea pigs for HP. It was the early adapters who patiently worked with HP to solve the problems. Also covered in previous threads, please read them.
It is the early adapters who HP royally screwed and mistreated.The way that HP treated early adapters is appalling and sets a new low for corporate behavior.What you did not do is address the central argument, namely that any company who does this sends one message to their customers, vendors, and resellers:
DO NOT BUY HP PRODUCTS FOR THE FIRST THREE OR FOUR MONTHS AFTER RELEASE, IN ORDER TO BE CERTAIN HP WON'T DROP THE PRICE AND SCREW ANYONE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO BUY EARLY.You say that HP is such a fine company? All they need to do is demonstrate that. Something as simple as a rebate to receive $800 of paper and ink -- $800 at HP inflated manufacturer list prices. (HP sells single ink cartridges for $75; resellers sell two of those in a pack for $95) The markup on paper and ink is so high that it would cost HP next to nothing, especially when considering how few $4000 large format printers sold in the the first 60 days.
If HP is such a great company, maintaining their reputation and building good will would be so cheap it would probably cost them less money that what their top ten executives spent on travel and entertainment expenses in the same period of time -- in 60 days.
