A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Evil Apple in trouble again



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 15th 12, 07:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Evil Apple in trouble again

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

in any event, b&h will ship the same item to canada for $8.53, not his
claimed $25, so it's still bull****.


If the B&H fee includes fees for other than just postage, then it's
not weight that determines the cost. What it would cost for a filter
is irrelevant.


it's not irrelevant at all. since he didn't provide a specific product,
i had to pick *something*. what product would *you* suggest, if all you
know is '2 oz remote control'? oh right, you don't know either. you're
talking out your ass, as always.

since he's whining about $25 shipping, it's probably for an item that
costs a lot less than $25, so i picked something cheap that probably
weighs about the same, which happened to be a filter.

It may or may not be bull****, but you have no idea.


i definitely have an idea. you on the other hand, haven't a clue, as
usual.

You jumped in to
comment on something you knew nothing about,


wrong. however, you do that all the time. projection much?

you've now doubled your
estimate,


you're a liar. i didn't double any estimate. i quoted *exactly* what
b&h said, first to the usa and then to canada.

and you have the wrong product.


not only are you a liar but you can't read.

all he said was '2 oz remote control,' so i picked something equivalent
based on weight and estimated cost, as i said before.

put 'remote control' in the search box at b&h and you get nearly 4000
hits and since they don't sort by item weight, there's no way to know
which one he meant. you're just spewing nonsense.

he is more than welcome to provide the exact product number of the item
in question to verify his bull**** claim for $25 shipping, but he won't
because he's a liar, just like you are.

I know where the bull****
is coming from.


yet you do nothing to stop yourself.

Just admit it...you were wrong.


wrong about what?

here are two screen shots. the first is the filter i initially chose
and you can clearly see $8.53 shipping, exactly as i said.
http://i44.tinypic.com/2yjt0k7.jpg

since you didn't like my product choice, i picked a *much* more
expensive item, a nice new nikon 70-300mm stabilized lens that costs
just under $600 and weighs a *lot* more than 2 ounces. shipping is
*still* cheap, at $10.53, less than half of his bull**** claim.
http://i44.tinypic.com/96c600.jpg

i'd have to pay more than that if i mailed the lens myself within the
usa, nevermind to canada.

the only way i can get close to $25 shipping fees to canada is by
having around $3000 of nikon equipment in my cart. that is quite a bit
different than a '2 oz remote control.'

both you and rich are liars.
  #12  
Old April 15th 12, 09:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
C. Neil Ellwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Evil Apple in trouble again

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:10:03 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

I actually would like to see someone in jail.

that should be amazon's ceo.

Why? He made a decision about pricing when there was no one else in
the market. Prices were low so book buyers certainly didn't suffer.
Why is that wrong?

selling below cost to squash all competition.


So if you own a business, and make or distribute a product, the right
thing to do is to price your product at a level that the competition
can match?

Why are you in business? To sell your own product or to help the
competition sell theirs?


we lose money on every sale but make it up in volume!


And lose even more money.



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.
  #13  
Old April 15th 12, 03:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Evil Apple in trouble again

On 2012-04-14 19:42 , RichA wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:35 am, Alan
wrote:
On 2012-04-14 08:57 , nospam wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I actually would like to see someone in jail.


that should be amazon's ceo.


Why? He made a decision about pricing when there was no one else in
the market. Prices were low so book buyers certainly didn't suffer.
Why is that wrong?


selling below cost to squash all competition.


Where Amazon appear to be most below cost is in S&H. Free shipping on
orders over $25 is excessively generous (used to be for over $50, then
$35 ...).


They probably have the most favorable shipping costs in the U.S. Or,
they could be like GREEDY B&H and charge $25.00 to ship a 2oz remote
control.


B&H don't charge that in the US. To Canada, B&H have made their
shipping (UPS) unreasonably expensive. Haven't bought anything at B&H
in about 3 years.

IAC: it's up to you to find the lowest cost overall. If, overall, B&H
is the lowest then suck it up regardless of S&H.

Your statement shows your ignorance however. The issue, as I stated in
my post is that Amazon is trying to be the go-to co. to order many
things (including electronics).

B&H is an older, conservative "going concern" with relatively thick
margins. Companies like Amazon (very low margins) can eat their lunch
in the areas they choose. I doubt Amazon will come to cater to high end
photographic equipment to breadth and depth of B&H - but they could
gouge out the higher volume portions.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.
  #14  
Old April 15th 12, 03:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Evil Apple in trouble again

On 2012-04-14 22:12 , tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:24:38 -0400,
wrote:

In article
,
wrote:

They probably have the most favorable shipping costs in the U.S. Or,
they could be like GREEDY B&H and charge $25.00 to ship a 2oz remote
control.


bull****. i just picked a uv filter which is about the same weight as
your remote and shipping is $3.99.


Bull****, yourself. RichA is in Canada. Your shipping charge is from
B&H to a US destination. B&H, and others, actually do rip off
Canadian buyers on shipping charges. There is probably some reason
for the excessive shipping charges, but it hasn't been explained.


B&H had reasonable shipping to Canada with FedEx. But to get a better
deal for their US market they switched to UPS who offer very poor
US-Canada shipping. I have things shipped to a mail pickup in upstate
New York for most of my US orders. Even on declaring at the border,
paying the taxes is worth (and I often get a wave through even on day
trips (no real allowance).


How could you post in this newsgroup for as long as you have and not
know RichA is Canadian?

Engage mind before engaging keyboard.




--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.
  #15  
Old April 15th 12, 11:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Evil Apple in trouble again

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

in any event, b&h will ship the same item to canada for $8.53, not his
claimed $25, so it's still bull****.

If the B&H fee includes fees for other than just postage, then it's
not weight that determines the cost. What it would cost for a filter
is irrelevant.


it's not irrelevant at all. since he didn't provide a specific product,
i had to pick *something*.


No you didn't. There was no reason to pick anything. You could have
asked RichA what the item was and provided a rebuttal based on facts
or you could ignore RichA like most people do.


yes i could have asked him, but that would have meant waiting for a
response that probably won't happen.

instead, i picked something that should have similar shipping costs,
and even if it's not the same item, it still proves he's lying about
the shipping costs because nothing i picked could even come close to
$25 shipping unless it was $3000 of nikon lenses.

what product would *you* suggest,


If I was interested, which I'm not,


you seem awfully interested since this is your third post about it.

I would have asked RichA for the
rest of the story. As it is, RichA's problem doesn't concern me
because he should be supporting Canadian vendors or paying the price
of an American vendor without whining about it. Even if RichA is
getting screwed over, I don't care.


i don't care if he getting screwed over or who he supports. this isn't
about him.

what i do care is when he or anyone else says something that is
bull****.

It may or may not be bull****, but you have no idea.


i definitely have an idea. you on the other hand, haven't a clue, as
usual.


You have an idea, all right...the wrong one. A filter is not the
article mentioned.


i never said it was the same. learn to read and stop twisting and lying.

you've now doubled your
estimate,


you're a liar. i didn't double any estimate. i quoted *exactly* what
b&h said, first to the usa and then to canada.


You snipped out the parts that makes my statement true and you think
you're fooling someone? Your original estimate for shipping was
$3.99. Then you doubled it to $8.53.


i explained why it doubled more than once, but here it is again: i
changed the shipping destination in response to one of *your* posts.
you are also trying to twist this into me arbitrarily doubling it which
is absolutely false.

The problem you have with trying to weasel out of your mistakes by
snipping is that the original posts remain available.


bull****. i'm not weaseling out of anything. you're a liar. those posts
show exactly what bull**** you're trying to pull.

and you have the wrong product.


not only are you a liar but you can't read.


I can read that $3.99 jumped to $8.53 and that a filter is not a
remote.


apparently you're too stupid to understand the rest of what happened.
  #16  
Old April 16th 12, 01:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Evil Apple in trouble again

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:57:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I actually would like to see someone in jail.

that should be amazon's ceo.


Why? He made a decision about pricing when there was no one else in
the market. Prices were low so book buyers certainly didn't suffer.
Why is that wrong?


selling below cost to squash all competition.


What competition? There wasn't any.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #17  
Old April 16th 12, 04:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Evil Apple in trouble again

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Why? He made a decision about pricing when there was no one else in
the market. Prices were low so book buyers certainly didn't suffer.
Why is that wrong?


selling below cost to squash all competition.


What competition? There wasn't any.


traditional hardcover & paperback books.
  #18  
Old April 16th 12, 10:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Evil Apple in trouble again

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:34:03 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Why? He made a decision about pricing when there was no one else in
the market. Prices were low so book buyers certainly didn't suffer.
Why is that wrong?

selling below cost to squash all competition.


What competition? There wasn't any.


traditional hardcover & paperback books.


That's a different market. We are currently talking about e-books.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #19  
Old April 17th 12, 04:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Evil Apple in trouble again

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

selling below cost to squash all competition.

What competition? There wasn't any.


traditional hardcover & paperback books.


That's a different market. We are currently talking about e-books.


it's not a different market. it's a different form of the same book and
the popularity of ebooks is causing traditional bookstores to close.
remember border's?
  #20  
Old April 18th 12, 12:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Evil Apple in trouble again

nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens


selling below cost to squash all competition.


What competition? There wasn't any.


traditional hardcover & paperback books.


That's a different market. We are currently talking about e-books.


it's not a different market. it's a different form of the same book and
the popularity of ebooks is causing traditional bookstores to close.
remember border's?


So automobiles are the same market as horse driven carts --- a
different form of the same transportation --- and the popularity
of automobiles is causing classic buggy whip shops to close.

Same logic.

-Wolfgang
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.