The whole point is that the competitor can't compete because the consumer is being lied to about the price in the first place—which they don't know until it's too late.

People think they have a lot more say with their insignificant purchases then they really do. Insignificant purchases by individuals can't sway how businesses run.

This is about as bad an argument as saying that voting is pointless because one individual vote is not going to change anything. Individual purchases summed up amount to a lot.

If it was comparable we wouldn't need regulation to protect consumers.

Voting is answering a direct question. Yes or no with direct results. Your purchase isn't like that, they're not votes. Business behavior is decided by what is more profitable. That also assumes there is a choice to be made. There's nothing you can do if all options behave the same way.

Your vote doesn't matter if the two options you vote for are the same. Often not true for politics, frequently can be true when making purchases

The article says they put asterisks on the prices along with clarifications in the small text. That’s not being lied to, just annoying.

I literally thought I knew what the prices were until I read this article. I saw the "from $699" and "knew" it meant the cheapest model (the mini) was $699. Turns out I was wrong. I was wrong because they mislead me. Knowing the truth matters for me both in purchasing decisions and in recommendations to others, which I do a lot of.

The problem is a lazy media. The headline becomes “$699.”

I don’t think so. I wasn’t looking at media. I was looking at Apple content. Is the lowest priced iPhone $699? No it isn’t. What exactly does “from $699” mean when the cheapest one is actually $729?

It’s death by a thousand cuts. There is no way a consumer can win and be able to make effective choices in this environment.

> If annoying price structures are that bad, a competitor will create a superior pricing system that takes away marketshare. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Just because it happens, doesn't mean it is not a big deal.

> If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal.

This assumes that agents in the market are rational actors, which they are not. Even when deception becomes the norm enough fall for the lower advertised prices to make the tactic optimal, despite the tactic's negative impact on marks and savvier consumers' alike.