|
|
|
|
|
|
by forgotmylastone
6858 days ago
|
|
|
Basically the iphone had a $200 smugness cost built-in that provided way more than $200 of smugness, so all the smug seekers made out well--for a while. They forgot to factor in the fact that the smugness thereby provided was contingent on the absence of a near-future "now who's smug?" award for those society deems "not so smug as an early iPhone adopter," which, a some short time after all the shaken chicken-bones had settled, is exactly what happened. Let's say the iPhone was given free today instead of just price-reduced: that would make you even angrier! Imagine the gall--other people getting things! Why, if we carry out your logic to its conclusion, you'd be happy if people had to pay more tomorrow than today, as though taking from others somehow justifies and internally authenticates your existence. |
|
|
Just kidding. I agree with your point. It's well documented that humans get psychological satisfaction out of having more and better stuff than those around them, not just content to have the stuff to begin with. I suspect that a big part of the appeal of the iphone was the bling factor, the exclusivity of having one and showing it off during the usual weekend mating ritual. If you had spent all that money to be quirky and unique (since that is really what Apple marketing is selling), wouldn't you be pissed if suddenly your unique feature became mainstream?
You can read more about the Ultimatum game that tests this here: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9...