8 People Buy "I Am Rich" iPhone App For $1,000 684
FsG writes "In the first 24 hours that it was available, eight people bought a completely useless iPhone app for $1,000 a pop. This app does nothing except alert onlookers that you have a lot of money. The developer priced it at $999.99, which is the most you can charge on Apple's store. Apple has since yanked the app (without explanation as usual), while the inventive programmer walked away with $5,600."
Reason why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because (Score:5, Informative)
Conspicuous Consumption [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Because (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Because (Score:5, Funny)
I tended to prefer Asshole [wikipedia.org] to describe that practice....
Re:Because (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Because (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Because (Score:5, Insightful)
The programmer asserts that I Am Rich is a work of art.
And now it's a limited edition.
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Insightful)
You would be surprised at the lengths fools and their money will go to set themselves apart as having more money to burn than everyone else.
Just look at any rap star. Some stupid hick from the ghetto gets a 2-album contract and immediately spends it all on a gold plated house.
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reason why? (Score:4, Funny)
Which he bought from the rap star, thus making the rap star even richer.
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Funny)
depends on your definition of "high."
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently read a book about the service-level class in large Indian cities. One of the sections that really stuck in my head was a stripper's description of the difference between the way rich men tipped and the way rich men who were there with friends tipped: the first group literally threw money at them, while the second group would *turn their backs* on the strippers and just throw money over their shoulders, while talking to their friends.
Now *that* is conspicuous consumption.
That's one reason, by the way, that I think preaching to people about the necessity for conservation is useless -- because many people don't really care about living a good life. What they care about is living a better life than the people they're around. So no matter what you tell them, they'll just keep trying to get *more* than everyone else.
Re:Reason why? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... AND? So they're compensating and we're laughing all the way to the bank... everyone's happy!
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Funny)
They need to show they are rich they are compensating. It is a well known fact that the amount you spend on expensive, extravagant, utterly useless stuff is inversely proportionate to the size of your penis.
As your spending approaches zero what does penis size approach?
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Funny)
Could not resist, sorry - It collapses into a black ho{|}e.
CC.
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Funny)
--The FNP
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Funny)
It is a well known fact that the amount you spend on expensive, extravagant, utterly useless stuff is inversely proportionate to the size of your penis.
Well, no wonder my wife buys so many shoes.
GENIOUS iMoneyLaundry! (Score:5, Funny)
1. create any dumb app
2. sell for highest price
3. used robbed credit cards
4. buy some of your apps
iMoneyLaundry that is
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Funny)
It is a well known fact that the amount you spend on expensive, extravagant, utterly useless stuff is inversely proportionate to the size of your penis.
So the fact that my girlfriend has no jewelry besides a pair of small earrings and hates extravagant clothing means...
Excuse me, I think I'll have to puke.
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't you read the email I sent you? You have to take pills for that. They're cheap and guaranteed to work!
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Insightful)
If by mistake you mean buyer remorse, you're absolutely right.
I hate the fact that credit cards don't bother to distinguish between buyer remorse and buyer fraud. Sure, in this case it's semi-plausible, but it pales in comparison to the millions of fraudulent chargebacks issued every month by random morons.
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Self-made rich people don't get that way by wasting money. Their children, however....
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet my bottom dollar that those who ponied up for this crap are no more rich than you or I. In my experience those who opt for bling ... do so because they themselves are impressed by it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'Whoops! I clicked the 'spend $1000' button!' Hilarious.
If this is the case then you, my friend, do not deserve a 'spend $1000' button, not to mention that anyone that cares about losing $1000 probably doesn't want a 'spend $1000' button on their phone.
Just my $999.02 cents...
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Funny)
Just my $999.02 cents...
Does not compute.
Re:Reason why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they get a refund that education is wasted - they end up learning the wrong thing.
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why doesn't Apple have a refund policy for the App Store? The upshot of the DRM on the apps is that they can relatively easily yank the device from your phone once you get your refund. I feel for the guy who clicked it and didn't realize '1-click purchase' was enabled. It was a legitimate mistake - why not let him have a refund?
To avoid scammers who want to use something until they get tired of it or it outlives its usefulness, just institute a 10-day refund policy. If I can return it and it's not defective, why not give me a refund? Most brick and mortar stores will do this for you.
Re:Reason why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in a company that sells what might be called a "luxury service" (vacational memberships), and I really groan every time I get people who want to cancel their contract when they finally figure out that they actually can't afford it.
I even got a guy who lied about his income on his membership application because he wanted to impress his girlfriend... And the idiot felt he was entitled to a refund for his down payment.
Apple should deny any and all refund requests from these idiots, and fight the credit card chargebacks that will inevitably ensue.
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/07/poor_man_buys_i_am_rich_app/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Reason why? (Score:5, Funny)
A wise investment (Score:5, Funny)
8 People are enough... (Score:3, Funny)
well. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish I could dig up a reference for this, but I'm at work and the google search might raise some eyebrows. :-P
About a decade or more ago, I remember hearing that some artist canned his own poo, and then sold it to the snooty art people at $5K each.
At the time, I remember thinking: that's brilliant, he managed to get people to buy tins of poo for that much money. Of course, if you never open it, it could well be a can of tuna and you'll never know. If you *do* open i
What's it do, you ask... (Score:4, Interesting)
It apparently adds the 'signed' tag to all articles on your website.
I was wondering how that happened.
Really - what's up with the newly-ubiquitous 'signed' tag?
Ryan Fenton
if I could, I would (Score:4, Insightful)
That is, if i was in that income bracket. Let's see, I make about $90k working for the state (very secure, you
Divide that into $1000 and you get $18 million. Or so.
So, if I was making $18 million per year, yes, I would not think twice about dropping a grand on bubkes.
Re:if I could, I would (Score:5, Funny)
Looking at the economics of enjoyment, if you get the same amount of enjoyment, relative, from your coffee as you do from an application that doesn't do a damned thing, you need to improve the quality of your coffee.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if I was Bill gates, I would NEVER just throw $1000 away on something silly. Because I know the opportunity cost of that is $1,000 donated to some charity. That probably saves 20 kids eyesight in Africa for fucks sake.
You have to be pretty amazingly selfish or stupid to throw that kind of cash away, no matter how much you have. It's just an insult to those living on a pittance.
One Guy Bought it Accidentally (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone here buy it? (Score:5, Funny)
If so, I'll give you $2000 for your iPhone. Email me your bank account info and I'll transfer the money asap.
Some people will buy anything (Score:5, Interesting)
The more expensive the device, the more likely you will encounter these wasteful consumers. I guess it is good if you are an ISV, and hats off to this developer for marketing a totally useless application to totally useless users.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Often, when people are buying things in that way - they aren't spending their own money. Were a lot of those purchases coming in toward the end of the fiscal year?
One click buy (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy who "accidentally" bought it was an idiot sure. (Assuming that part wasn't staged).
Is it a good thing that you can buy something literally with one click? I find it reassuring that I have to enter my credit card details, then the little code on the back, and finally the long password that is only stored in my head.
Re:One click buy (Score:5, Funny)
Is it a good thing that you can buy something literally with one click? I find it reassuring that I have to enter my credit card details, then the little code on the back, and finally the long password that is only stored in my head.
I prefer the one click purchase. I find it horribly inconvenient to enter all of my credit card information and password. Besides, I never click any buttons acci
He's just pulled it to release the new version... (Score:4, Funny)
CounterApp (Score:5, Funny)
Re:CounterApp (Score:5, Funny)
First you do this part:
Then you do this part:
Easy. :)
Let's be honest (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone who is complaining is jealous that ...
A. They didn't think of the idea first.
B. They can't afford it anyway
C. If they did think of it first, they could have afforded it.
Next To Come (Score:5, Funny)
An "I've Got A Really Big Penis" app that user must purchase from the App Store without using their hands and standing 12" away from their iPhone.
If one person does this, others will follow (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess that the problem Apple has with this is that when one person starts doing it, then others will follow.
Before you know it, the entire store is full of useless apps selling for ridiculous prices. This of course makes the entire store look ridiculous, thus lowering the value of the store in total.
Make even more (Score:4, Insightful)
Copy app and release as freeware, call it "I Am Smart"
Signaling wealth = 10% of biology (Score:5, Insightful)
This app does nothing except alert onlookers that you have a lot of money.
And substance is nothing but the opposite of the void. Talk about understatement!
"Signaling wealth" is a major part of sexual selection [wikipedia.org], in which a common strategy is to show that you're so wealthy that you can afford various things (the "handicap principle"). It generalizes to other species, for example, how peacocks flash their extravagant feathers to show how fit they are in being able to survive despite being burdened by such ornamentation.
Signaling wealth is also vital in interspecies signaling, such as how gazelles demonstrate their "wealth" by stotting [wikipedia.org], i.e. showing how capable they are of fleeing predators.
It's also been argued to form the basis for some altruism, in that people show how much they give to the poor to show how wealthy they are.
So yes, signaling your wealth IS a useful product function. The problem with the app is not that it "merely" signals wealth, but that it ... doesn't, because it could easily be faked.
Re:Signaling wealth = 10% of biology (Score:5, Insightful)
To borrow from Eliezer Yudkowsky, organisms are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers. They have the desires to do the things they were selected for, even and especially if they don't understand why the desire exists, or have its evolutionary justification in their conscious mind.
People have desires to signal wealth because evolution selected for that. This does not mean people signal their wealth with the conscious intent of finding a mate. It does not mean you "should" look for mates by deliberately signaling wealth. Rather, people will be drawn to things that have the effect of showing wealth.
Likewise, people do not deliberately think about the impact of giving to the poor on their ability to find a mate; nevertheless, they have a desire to engage in one-way altruism because in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, that strategy worked in signaling fitness, even though today they might rationalize it some other way.
Just the same, men have a higher tendency to pursue status, whether or not they recognize the connection to access to mates, and women tend to be more attracted to higher-status males, whether or not they recognize that their attraction is due to his high status.
Your second example, interspecies signaling, confuses me
Doesn't surprise me.
For gazelles, ability to run quickly is a form of wealth. By stotting, they signal to predators that they have that wealth and so the predator might as well not waste resources pursuing them. If gazelles ever attained human level self-awareness and intelligence, they would *still* enjoy stotting around those same predators, even though they could identify that it's no longer necessary (because of technological defense measures or whatnot).
what would be *really* valuable (Score:5, Insightful)
Author didn't make 5600$ in profits. (Score:3, Funny)
It costs 99$ per year to become an iPhone/iPod touch developer, so he only made 5500$. :P
A bit off-topic but interesting fact: the iPhone/iPod touch screen is 480x320 pixels, making this 999.99$ "artwork" 0.0065103515625$/pixel. That's still a lot cheaper than 1$ per pixel [milliondol...mepage.com]. ;)
One-click buying is too dangerous. (Score:4, Interesting)
The original article I read indicated that one of the buyers had been distracted when he clicked on the purchase link, and didn't realize he'd actually bought something. This is not that uncommon. A friend of mine accidentally bought a printer from the Apple store this way, and I bought an iPod Shuffle when I clicked on the "buy" link to see what the shipping would be... not realizing that Apple had implemented one-click buying. Now I was thinking of buying the shuffle anyway, and decided not to cancel it during the grace period, but I can easily see someone not realizing that they were looking at a receipt instead of a shopping cart until too late.
I disable "one-click" purchasing, and I almost wish Amazon WAS able to prevent Apple or anyone else from implementing this dangerous scheme. It makes me think there might be a place for an organization that simply patented bad ideas to keep people from implementing them... it's no crazier than anything else happening in patents and copyrights these days.
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:4, Insightful)
but you have to agree with apple for yanking it..
What if you're a Libertarian?
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:5, Funny)
The next time I create an awkward social moment where I hesitate to shake the hand of a Libertarian, I'm blaming you.
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:4, Insightful)
I you are a libertarian you will realize that apple is a privately owned business and has a right to control what software gets sold through their service. You might also realize that many apple users (like my elderly mother for example) use the product because of its stability, and service. If apple allowed just anyone to write anything for their systems they would take a big hit in that sphere of their product offering.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I LOL'd
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Christ, it was a joke. Lighten up, all of you. I can't help the fact that my obvious joke was modded "insightful."
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you mom has issue with buying overpriced things online then she shouldn't be allowed to shop online.
The app, imo, is totally valid as long as it does what it claimed even if it's over priced because no one forced you to buy it. Apple should reinstate it.
I've not used an iphone but I find it highly unlikely that, when you buy things, with one click nothing is said and you're automatically charged so no one has an excuse if they've purchased it.
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:5, Funny)
but you have to agree with apple for yanking it..
What if you're a Libertarian?
It's got nothing to do with libertarian principles, it's just Apple defending their market niche. They can't exactly let just anyone start charging a huge markup for trendy, stylish crap.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's got nothing to do with libertarian principles, it's just Apple defending their market niche. They can't exactly let just anyone start charging a huge markup for trendy, stylish crap.
I'm an Apple user, but that's one of the funniest Apple backhands I've seen in a long time.
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you have to agree with Apple yanking it?
If the market will bare it, it should be allowed. The iPhone was once an exclusive item, so Apple did this same thing just with hardware.
This is just Apple being selfish and trying to remove something that mocks them. Stupid if you ask me, let the free market do it's thing.
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you have to agree with Apple yanking it?
Money laundering.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple doesn't believe in the free market. If it did, you could buy an iPhone without a contract and install any application you want - like all the other smartphones on the market.
Before anyone points out that in a free market Apple can do whatever it wants, keep in mind that this doesn't prevent it from violating the spirit of said market. Bundling products like that used to be illegal in many countries until the telecoms lobbied the governments enough. The same logic that's used for open document stand
Neither do you.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you did you would not get your panties in such a not over a private, free market company providing an and to end computing solution.
"Before anyone points out that in a free market Apple can do whatever it wants, keep in mind that this doesn't prevent it from violating the spirit of said market."
Nor it seems does it prevent *you* from violating the spirit of the market by limiting business models used by private companies which in no way effect your fundamental rights. Were apple anywhere near a monopoly
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have to click the install button twice - once to change it from the price to "install", once to actually install, then you have to enter your password if you haven't entered it recently enough into the store app. That's 3 steps.
If people want to buy the app, let them. That's their choice. But you can't do it by mistake.
(And free apps require multiple steps too).
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
While Apple has an "ask me first option", they should have the option to set specific spending limits. For example, my DVR is set so that the spending limit for the kids is $0.00 without a code. My monthly spending limit is a little higher. Once that spending limit is reached, even I have to enter a code. Best case would a monthly limit and a single purchase limit (example: no more than $5 per purchase and no more than $50 per month without entering a code). And since the App store can install stuff, there could easily be a "trial" period.
Layne
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The proper response was "I think the market should at least where a robe."
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple's retarded. If people want to pay for something, let them pay for it! Buyer beware, etc. but what's Apple afraid of, that their handset rumored to have an elitist following has an even more elitist inner "circle o' jerks"? (yeah, yeah, that's what she said)
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
"but you have to agree with apple for yanking it.."
Why? If the developer fully and honestly explained what his app did and did not do, and if fully informed people were willing to buy it, why should it be yanked? Merely because you would not buy it? If that's the standard then nearly all the apps should be yanked.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with making up a reason as you did, i.e., saying that Apple could be sued, is that the same reason could be applied to any app that Apple sells. And considering that far less people would buy the $1000 app, the chances of a lawsuit would be far less in that circumstance.
Can you come up with an actual, i.e., not a made up reason, why this specific app and only this specific app should be pulled? I won't be holding my breath.
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you come up with an actual, i.e., not a made up reason, why this specific app and only this specific app should be pulled? I won't be holding my breath.
Because it makes the Apple brand look bad. People spending $1000 on an app that does nothing but be expensive underscores the idea that the iPhone is a useless toy for people to show off extravagance. A $1000 app that does nothing thumbs it's nose at this idea (while cashing out on it at the same time)
While I think the above is true, and find it extremely amusing that people actually BOUGHT this app, it's not too hard to understand why Apple chose not to associate themselves with this application. Apple doesn't want to be a brand of over-indulgence.
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Because it makes the Apple brand look bad"
To whom? Where is your support for this? And exactly how does the sale of a third party app make the Apple brand look bad?
"People spending $1000 on an app that does nothing but be expensive underscores the idea that the iPhone is a useless toy for people to show off extravagance.
It does not do nothing. It displays a glowing red gem. That's something. You might not want that something, I certainly do not want that something, but that's our subjective opinions. Apparantly, 8 people did want it and that was their subjective opinions.
Let's me ask this, did you buy every app at Apple's store? No, why not? Is it because some of the apps, heck, most of the apps do not fill any need you might have? Does that mean that all of those apps should be pulled too?
"Apple doesn't want to be a brand of over-indulgence."
God I hope you recognized the irony of that statement!
Once again, give me a reason why this particular app should be pulled. Just so you know, I've given up holding my breath.
Re:Well, you gotta hand it to the guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I applaud this. There are a million ways the rich suck money out of the lower and middle classes. It is nice to see the reverse happen. The amusing part is that the lower and middle classes usually get their money sucked dry through neccesities like gas, water, food, etc. The rich tend to get their money sucked away through frivolous crap like this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't see why. The guy clearly hit the iPhone demographics. This app simply belongs there...
Re:Hilarious. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not a snob, and am aware that price != quality.
But I have found that going for a $20.00 payless shoe is not the best way to keep feet that don't smell like dead rodents.
Generally shoes that are 40-60 at marshalls (use cash) can hit the price/quality sweet spot far better than really really cheap junky shoes.
Re:Hilarious. (Score:5, Insightful)
While the "I Am Rich" app is laughable, a lot of this thread is an exercise in relative perceptions.
Having two pairs of shoes is an extravagance to someone struggling for food and drinkable water. I would probably never spend more than $8,000 on a car - and would probably never spend less than $100 on shoes (and I do have shoes that are worth a lot more.) For myself, there are two "luxuries" that actually really are worth the money you spend on them: shoes and beds. (Kitchenware is up there, too.)
There are people on this thread who have modified their computers to look like the Death Star, who think themselves superior to people who buy designer clothes.
Re:Hilarious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, what makes expensive shoes better than cheap shoes? I don't think I've ever spent more than $30-40 on a pair of shoes, and I tend to wear them at least a couple years before they wear out. I do a lot of walking too, so if my shoes were not up to the task I think I'd notice. What do you get for your extra $100?
Now a good pair of leather hiking boots can save your life in the right circumstance, so that I can see. But for every day shoes, you get into diminishing returns really quickly. As far as I can tell, expensive shoes just get you a label.
Re:Hilarious. (Score:4, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, what makes expensive shoes better than cheap shoes? I don't think I've ever spent more than $30-40 on a pair of shoes, and I tend to wear them at least a couple years before they wear out. I do a lot of walking too, so if my shoes were not up to the task I think I'd notice. What do you get for your extra $100?
If you can't tell the difference then there is no reason to spend more; however for those that can it is worth it.
That, of course, is true for most things - why buy a more expensive item when a cheaper one works just as well?
Re:Hilarious. (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Every computer app ever designed involved programmers to a very great extent.
2. Have you used it lately? The scripting window doesn't pop open when you start it. Maybe the programmers hadn't created a GUI for the startup yet... what does that prove, anyway?
3. It's able to do everything I learned to do in my Photoshop class. So maybe I'm not a professional graphics design artist... GIMP suits me fine.
4. The user interface is terrible? Well, I can live with some inconveniences to save hundreds of dollars. It's still functional. And since it's an open-source project, all it means is smart people like you need to get involved and make the interfaces better.
Also, for the record, it's properly referred to by simply "GIMP". The name is an acronym. "The" isn't part of the name. The logo is in informal all-lowercase, "gimp", but the name is never printed that way in normal English usage.
Re:Hilarious. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are people on this thread who have modified their computers to look like the Death Star, who think themselves superior to people who buy designer clothes.
No, there's a difference.
My Deathstar PC is for *me and my guests* to look at and enjoy.
Your silly designer/handmade non-sneakers are something you think *the rest of the world* would like to see you in.
Slashdot isn't really the bastion of Sex and the City fashion-crime support you think it might be.
Also: I modded my machine case myself. That makes it superior to something you bought whole from someone else, even if its planetary laser doesn't quite work yet.
--j!m
Re:Hilarious. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, I know that I'm speaking against the grain by de-valorizing geek tastes. But if you think that clothes fashions are just about impressing strangers, you're wrong.
Here's a dirty little secret: it's fun. It's a kind of aesthetic play in itself. It's a way of manipulating cultural semiotics and actually saying things, implicitly, about sociocultural roles. It is how classes maneuver for position.
And, like I said, it's fun.
The indifference to one's public appearance evinced by some geeks is, in my view, a kind of rudeness, or at least an inability to recognize that we not only perceive our environments: we are also part of them, part of the visual landscape for everyone else. (The kind of solipsism that I'm talking about is the sort of thing you see when, as David Sedaris puts it, Americans visit European cities dressed as if to mow its lawns.)
The fact that you modded your case does not make it superior. It may be a piece of crap. However, it may have been fun to do, and I'll agree that the experience of making something is more valuable than the experience of just buying it. That does not tell us anything about the value of the object, however: I could make you a cheese sandwich, but I assure you it will be inferior to anything you could buy at the French Laundry.
Re:Hilarious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I agree that paying huge amounts for clothing, shoes, etc doesn't generally get you something that's hugely better quality, paying very little does generally get you something that's poor quality. Somewhere in the middle is the sweet spot, just as with most things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Autocad, and Photoshop are the two biggest offenders, but I'm sure there are more in the Autocad range ($4000 per seat) for other industries, like FEA for struc
Re:Hilarious. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if only I can figure out how to get in on the luxury app market...
I can't find the source, but I remember hearing a story about NYC fashion design student whose senior thesis involved her buying expensive name brand clothing and then clothing from Target or Walmart and then swapping the tags that are sewn into the necklines.
She went to a consignment shop and asked more (of course) for the cheap clothes with luxury tags on the cheap clothing and less for the luxury items with the cheap tags on it.
As it turned out the clothes original from Wal Mart/Target sold quickly while the luxury items (even though priced cheaper) did not sell because of the tags.
Of course this could be an urban myth.
Re:Hilarious. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lesson here for small application vendors.
You don't make money maximizing the value of the things you sell. You make money maximizing your net margin over all your sales. Of course, everyone knows this, but they don't act like they know it. Salemen running companies are the most prone to thinking gross instead of net.
I once worked for a guy who was really frustrated that people were making money on trivial apps -- ring tones were his pet peeve -- while he was making good apps that did really important things for people, and constantly scrambling to keep his head above water. Well, that's not a coincidence. If you spent $1.99 for a ring tone, you aren't going to call for tech support. If you spent $100,000 for a piece of mission critical software, you jolly well are.
So the real determinant of whether you make money with software that does important things is whether you can turn a profit on support. It's better to forgo new sales than to add features to your product that reduce the profitability of support. It can be counterintuitive in a competitive sales environment to let the other guy pick up sales. The instinct is to match him feature for feature in a death match for who will capture the most sales, but if your product has significant support costs, you have to think of the business more like a consultancy. Efficiency and sustainability matter.
So, if you're looking to make money selling software you develop, you've either got to plan to sell your business to somebody it's more to than the cash flow, or you've got to plan to make money on support.
That's probably why the open source business model has been more successful than people thought it could possibly be. In the end a sustainable software business (leaving aside novelty apps) has to be built around profitable support. Of course sales do matter, but they're only step 1.
Re:Hilarious. (Score:4, Funny)
ladies and gentleman
Wow, optimistic! You must be new here.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)