Apple unveils iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED Special Edition

[AppleInsider]

Apple Computer on Friday officially announced the iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED Special Edition, which was first reported by AppleInsider in Thursday's edition.

"(RED) was created by U2 lead singer, Bono and Bobby Shriver to engage business in the fight against AIDS in Africa by getting the world's most iconic companies to make uniquely branded products," Apple said.

"A portion of the profits from these products goes directly to the Global Fund to fund programs for women and children affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa. "

The iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED comes in a red aluminum enclosure and features 24 hours of battery life, Apple's easy-to-use Click Wheel and a thin and light design.

Apple will contribute $10 from the sale of each iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED to the Global Fund to help fight HIV/AIDS in Africa. It will also offer a $25 iTunes (PRODUCT) RED gift card available for purchase at Apple's retail and online stores next month.

"Now customers can buy the best music player in the world and do something to help the world at the same time," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "We're honored to work with Bono, (RED) and this team to contribute to an incredibly important initiative and help change the way people think about AIDS in Africa."

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was established in 2002, with the support of the world's leaders and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, to dramatically increase resources to fight three of the world's most devastating diseases, and to direct those resources to areas of greatest need by supporting locally-driven strategies.

To date, the Global Fund has committed $5.2 billion (US) to more than 363 programs in 131 countries.



Pricing & Availability

The iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED Special Edition is available worldwide in a 4GB model for $199 (US) through Apple's retail stores and the Apple Store. All iPod nano models include redesigned earbud headphones providing superior comfort, fit and sound quality, and a USB 2.0 cable. The second generation iPod nano features up to 24 hours of battery life and completely skip-free playback.

The iTunes (PRODUCT) RED gift card will be available through Apple's retail stores and*the Apple Store next month for $25 (US).

iPod nano requires a Mac with a USB 2.0 port and Mac OS X version 10.3.9 or later and iTunes 7.0 or later; or a Windows PC with a USB 2.0 port and Windows 2000 (Service Pack 4), Windows XP Home or Professional (Service Pack 2) and iTunes 7.0 or later. Internet access is required and a broadband connection is recommended.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[DeaPeaJay]

That's a pretty good lookin iPod they got ther eh?

[Bergermeister]

Nic looking pod... don't need a nano, though.

BTW... in the article it points out "Apple's east to use click wheel." Should that be "easy to use"?

[daBoss]

A great idea and a great looking product. Of course, Apple will NOT be selling these through their dealer network. So sad as not every city/county/country has Apple stores

[Dzign]

you can order it online and have it delivered to your doorstep

Good move !

[dr_gonzo]

That's CRAZY. This whole campaign is a sham.

[monkeyastronaut]

i like it.

i wish it would be sold by amazon and circuit city/best buy/target.

[bdj21ya]

So I followed the joinred link from Apple's web site. The manifesto specifically says that the money will be used for anti-retroviral medicine for those suffering in Africa (though I know they're just picking one of the things the money is used for).

Still, to me this seems like an incredible misuse of the money. As I stated before, giving AIDS medicine to Africans is a wonderful charity, as long as there isn't something better to spend it on. In this case, it would be so much more effective to spend the money on education and economic development. Anti-retroviral drugs don't do ANYTHING to stop the spread of the disease, and in some cases increase the spread of the disease by increasing the amount of time it may be transmitted to another person (though I'm sure most people who know they're diagnosed with HIV try to be really careful, on balance, retroviral drugs can only increase the spread on the disease).

I'm all for helping people suffering, but wouldn't it help so many more future innocents avoid suffering if we focused on something to actually stop the disease?

If you think about it perversely, donating this money actually increases suffering, because every dollar you donate to antiretroviral medicine is a dollar you didn't spend on education or economic development.

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by dr_gonzo

That's CRAZY. This whole campaign is a sham.

You clearly have no concept of what $10 can do for an African family.

[Flounder]

Originally Posted by monkeyastronaut

i like it.

i wish it would be sold by amazon and circuit city/best buy/target.

Yeah, you would think Target would be desperate to get their hands on those things. I mean, it's a freaking walking target logo. I like how it looks, though I'm sure plenty probably don't.

[cwinnipeg]

personally, I think apple should be donating money from ALL iPod sales.

ie: $5 for 2GB, $10 for 4GB, and $20 from 8GB.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by dr_gonzo

That's CRAZY. This whole campaign is a sham.

Oh yeah! because it only cost Apple $97 dollars to make a nano.</sarcasm>

Apple probably makes less than $40 profit per $200 nano.
$10 = 25% of the profits

Don't forget, Apple is a business, not a charity.
Apple is helping by giving people an incentive.
People can give directly without purchasing anything.
But if you've ever watched PBS you know it takes a lot of tote-bags to keep those stations running.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by cwinnipeg

personally, I think apple should be donating money from ALL iPod sales.

ie: $5 for 2GB, $10 for 4GB, and $20 from 8GB.

Personally, I think you should be donating 5% of your income to charity. Are you?

[rok]

discussion of the actual donations (and their effectiveness) aside, i have to say that the red looks sweet. and having just seen how incredibly vibrant the nanos are in person a couple days ago, that red must be just as bright. and yes, it looks like a target-logo variant. considering the fact that i can't walk into target wearing red without getting asked where pet supplies is, if i wore this in there, they'd probably think i was the manager.

[icibaqu]

i just tried to find total 2005 ipod nano sales. but couldn't. so we'll estimate. i did see one figure that was 37 million ipods in a quarter.

let's say nano's are 50%, so that is 18,499,999. now let's pretend that each ipod variety offered (2gb, 4gb, 8gb) sells equally well, so we'll divide by 7. that's 2,642,857 each ipod type.

let's take 50% of that for the red ipod nano to quiet all the naysayers. that's 1,321,429 red ipod units sold. x $10 is $13,214,285 per quarter. and that's really cutting numbers b/c while nano's might be 50% of ipod sales, i'd venture to guess that the 4gb size sells the best (which is why it got the colors), and i'd venture to guess that not every color sells the same. the red looks nice to me. either way, 13.2 million dollars per quarter is a good amoutn of money to help Africa.

[dr_gonzo]

Originally Posted by Ireland

You clearly have no concept of what $10 can do for an African family.

This money doesn't go directly to African families.

Obviously Apple is a company. The only reason they're doing this is to improve their public image. Imagine if I were to do a charity run or something and then I say in small print "I will give 10% of the donations to charity!". It's the same principle here.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by icibaqu

i just tried to find total 2005 ipod nano sales. but couldn't. so we'll estimate. i did see one figure that was 37 million ipods in a quarter.

Maybe this next quarter, but that's pretty high, I think that's the number of iPods sold in 2005. Last two quarters were about 8M each, last holiday season, 14M.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by bdj21ya

If you think about it perversely, donating this money actually increases suffering, because every dollar you donate to antiretroviral medicine is a dollar you didn't spend on education or economic development.

I don't think so, the only way you can say that is by assuming there is a fixed amount of money going to Africa. I'm not sure I can even go along with the idea that there is only a certain number of ways to fix the problem. The problem in Africa needs a multi-pronged approach, not just one or two.

Originally Posted by Ireland

You clearly have no concept of what $10 can do for an African family.

But it doesn't go to the African family, it technically goes to drug research in this case.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by dr_gonzo

This money doesn't go directly to African families.

Obviously Apple is a company. The only reason they're doing this is to improve their public image. Imagine if I were to do a charity run or something and then I say in small print "I will give 10% of the donations to charity!". It's the same principle here.

The general rule of thumb or expectation is that charities will give 100% of what you donate and companies will give 0% of what you buy.

In reality, very few charities achieve this ideal and very few companies give a damn.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

But it doesn't go to the African family, it technically goes to drug research in this case.

Because the drug manufacturers don't have enough money to fund this kind of research.</sarcasm>

If ANY industry should be expected to donate it is the pharmaceutical industry.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

Because the drug manufacturers don't have enough money to fund this kind of research.</sarcasm>

If ANY industry should be expected to donate it is the pharmaceutical industry.

I'm sure they are funding this kind of research. The problem is that it costs a lot more money to fight AIDS than possibly a dozen other diseases combined. The virus is so tricky that in some people, it mutates several times in their life time, and (IIRC) it hides in some pretty sneaky places of the immune system. It makes malaria look easy to fight, one of the reasons malaria is still pervasive is corruption, drug dispensers only sell partial treatments even though they are not allowed to do that, so the parasite simply adapts.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

That's a pretty good lookin iPod they got ther eh?

Definitely. Would it be in poor taste if I used my laser engraver to etch a biohazard symbol on it?

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by bdj21ya

In this case, it would be so much more effective to spend the money on education and economic development. Anti-retroviral drugs don't do ANYTHING to stop the spread of the disease.

That's true... 'all' the retroviral drugs do is keep the victims ALIVE longer. A mere trifle, that.

I'm sure if any of us had full-blown AIDS, we'd want to get drugs that'd keep us alive for several more years, and even give us a shot at living long enough to see a cure.

.

[dr_gonzo]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

Because the drug manufacturers don't have enough money to fund this kind of research.</sarcasm>

If ANY industry should be expected to donate it is the pharmaceutical industry.

True. The pharmaceutical companies are making a fortune, selling these drugs to African nations and also by blocking the selling of generic drugs.

The Vatican should also make very large donations since it's their 'education' about contraception that is in part to blame for the spread of AIDS.

This whole situation is such a farce though. Still, I'm glad to see that Apple can turn a profit out of it.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by dr_gonzo

Obviously Apple is a company. The only reason they're doing this is to improve their public image. Imagine if I were to do a charity run or something and then I say in small print "I will give 10% of the donations to charity!". It's the same principle here.

And it really doesn't matter, so long as, at the end of the day, said charities get their $$$ so they can go and help people out.

For example, Bill Gates is obviously an evil SOB, but I don't complain about him giving billions to charity through his fund. You can't really look a gift horse (or SOB) in the mouth.

.

[dr_gonzo]

Originally Posted by TBaggins

And it really doesn't matter, so long as, at the end of the day, said charities get their $$$ so they can go and help people out.

For example, Bill Gates is obviously an evil SOB, but I don't complain about him giving billions to charity through his fund. You can't really look a gift horse (or SOB) in the mouth.

.

True.

It's just the smugness of people like Jobs and Bono that really pissess me off. Bono especially acts like he's Jesus Christ or something with his false humbleness.

[fabsgwu]

Do does the RED gift card donate money as well?

All-in-all this is a great way to raise awareness. Even if someone doesn't buy the RED iPod Nano, they may look into the Global Fund, or a similar important cause because of the publicity.

[bdj21ya]

Originally Posted by TBaggins

That's true... 'all' the retroviral drugs do is keep the victims ALIVE longer. A mere trifle, that.

I'm sure if any of us had full-blown AIDS, we'd want to get drugs that'd keep us alive for several more years, and even give us a shot at living long enough to see a cure.

.

I guess that I don't see a cure coming as fast as getting a handle on it through early detection and care to prevent its transmission. I believe that we will see the world get a handle on AIDS during our lifetime (well, I'm young, I don't know about your lifetime), but I believe it will come through education, not drugs.

If you think about it, this disease is actually quite a bit more solvable than the common cold--in the long run I mean, as long as the virus never becomes airborne. That is not to trivialize it, obviously the effects of AIDS are much more devastating, and it is no small matter to prevent it from spreading. However, I do think that AIDS will be cured faster by education and economic development than by any drug research.

Also, it's not an issue of what will help one person, it's a question of what will alleviate the most suffering. If I have the choice to alleviate one person's current suffering, or to prevent 10 persons' future suffering, I'm going with the latter choice, sorry. In a world without limitted resources, by all means, let's support EVERY charitable cause. However, if you are going to donate money to alleviate suffering, why not be economical about it and alleviate as much suffering as possible per dollar?

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by dr_gonzo

True.

It's just the smugness of people like Jobs and Bono that really pissess me off. Bono especially acts like he's Jesus Christ or something with his false humbleness.

Agreed. Bono has quite the ego, no doubt. But at least he's DOING something.

I'll take 'egotistical and doing something' over 'humble and sitting on one's ass', any day.

.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by bdj21ya

However, I do think that AIDS will be cured faster by education and economic development than by any drug research.

It won't be cured by such investments, but it will be contained and largely prevented by them. Obviously those are extremely worthwhile things to do. But a true CURE will obviously take research.

The key thing in the meantime is to not get caught in the trap of research vs education/prevention. Its not an 'either-or' thing. You need both. And while Project RED does its thing, other resources are being brought to bear on the other parts of the problem.

Though I'd say that ALL parts of the problem, including research, could use more resources.

.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by dr_gonzo

It's just the smugness of people like Jobs and Bono that really pissess me off. Bono especially acts like he's Jesus Christ or something with his false humbleness.

I really don't think he's so hard to ignore if you don't like him, which is probably part of why I don't know why you think he's being smug. I generally don't pay any attention to anybody in entertainment, more than doubly so when they aren't even performing their craft.

[bdj21ya]

Originally Posted by TBaggins

Its not an 'either-or' thing. You need both.
.

Obviously it's not ONLY one or ONLY the other, but every dollar is either or in this case, if you go to the real decision maker. In this case, you could say the decision maker is Apple. Apple has the choice to send the $10 to the global fund to be used for anti-retroviral drugs, or to another charity which is setting up much needed aquaduct, farming, and road builing prjects, or to another which is setting up classes to teach people to read so they have the tools to truly know for themselves if the doctor or the shaman is telling the truth, or to another which sets up classes to teach Africans about the causes and prevention of AIDS.

[ecking]

Just a question...why does everyone always claim Bono is smug and has a huge ego? What proof do you guys have? Or do you just say it because the guy is always on tv giving to something and because he's in the public eye trying to help instead of silently donating a bit of money at some function that automatically makes him a media hungry ego driven ass?

Don't get me wrong I could care less about him or U2(I only ever liked that song off the Batman Forever soundtrack) but it seems like people are jealous he's doing what he's doing so they jump on his back and claim he's full of himself.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by bdj21ya

Obviously it's not ONLY one or ONLY the other, but every dollar is either or in this case, if you go to the real decision maker. In this case, you could say the decision maker is Apple. Apple has the choice to send the $10 to the global fund to be used for anti-retroviral drugs, or to another charity which is setting up much needed aquaduct, farming, and road builing prjects, or to another which is setting up classes to teach people to read so they have the tools to truly know for themselves if the doctor or the shaman is telling the truth, or to another which sets up classes to teach Africans about the causes and prevention of AIDS.

Valid arguments, if its true that OVERALL much more money is being spent on retroviral drugs than education/prevention. If so, a rebalancing of resources is needed.

But I'm not the one you need to convince. Send an email to sjobs@apple.com , if you truly want to do something about it, regarding the millions that will coming in due to Project RED Nanos.
.

[TenoBell]

It's just the smugness of people like Jobs and Bono that really pissess me off. Bono especially acts like he's Jesus Christ or something with his false humbleness.

I don't get how he's being over smug. Admittedly being an entertainer some degree of narcism comes with the territory.

Especially at this particular time in our self indulgent culture and incredibly lopsided distribution of great wealth, it is important for those who have access to mass media to remind people to give to those who are not as fortunate.

Africa is important because Western society would not be what it is without Africa. For hundreds of years Africa has been plundered of its natural resources and labor. These resources and labor have been used to make Europe and the United States as prosperous and wealthy as they have become.

In return for all of this prosperity many of the native people of Africa have received war, poverty, disease and starvation.

That's CRAZY. This whole campaign is a sham.

As has been stated $10 times millions is tens of millions.

This campaign makes it cool and convenient to give. While we are living our privileged lifestyles buying $200 iPods and $75 Gap jeans a portion of that will go to help people who are not as fortunate. Outside of this campaign most people would not give $10 to anything.

[TBaggins]

Also, to get back to the actual PRODUCT a bit... I REALLY like the way the red Nano looks. In fact, I'm suprised, as I usually don't like red, but they chose a good shade. 8)

It now replaces the silver Nano as my fave, even though the white clickwheel does make it look like a 'Canadian' or Target iPod. A red clickwheel would've been slightly better, but still, overall, I want one.

(Though, in a perfect world, there'd be a 3G Nano for me to buy that had a larger screen and did video, with 10+ GB of flash memory. Next year, right Steve? )

.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

As has been stated $10 times millions is tens of millions.

This campaign makes it cool and convenient to give. While we are living our privileged lifestyles buying $200 iPods and $75 Gap jeans a portion of that will go to help people who are not as fortunate. Outside of this campaign most people would not give $10 to anything.

That pretty much hits the nail on the head. Could not agree more. Its an effective campaign and a good idea long overdue.

.

[TenoBell]

As for where the money goes here is a portion of the (RED) manifesto.

If You buy a (RED) product or a (RED) service, at no cost to you, a (RED) company will give some of its profits to buy and distribute anti-retroviral medicine to our brothers and sisters dying and AIDS in Africa.

(RED) is not a charity simply a business model. You buy (RED) stuff, we get the money, buy the pills and distribute them. They take the pills, stay alive, and continue to take care of their families and contribute socially and economically in their communities.


I'm sure to go along with helping people with AIDS stay alive. They will educate those people on how to live with AIDS responsibly.

[FreeState]

Originally Posted by bdj21ya

I guess that I don't see a cure coming as fast as getting a handle on it through early detection and care to prevent its transmission. I believe that we will see the world get a handle on AIDS during our lifetime (well, I'm young, I don't know about your lifetime), but I believe it will come through education, not drugs.

It will come through both and other things as well. I have seen estimates of 30% of African children in some countries are orphans. HIV and the resulting AIDS infections and deaths are devastating and there is no simple one answer. There are 12 known strands of HIV that all react differently to medication. Then there are people that have more than one strand etc.

It is very hard to educate when the current US administration is hell bent on abstinence education only.

I called one of the American lines set up for teenagers. Here is how our conversation went:

ME: when is it okay to have sex?
THEM: when you are married.
ME: what if I can't get married?
THEM: everyone can get married.
ME: Im gay.
THEM: well then you need to marry a woman or never have sex.

That is why the world is so messed up. We try to legislate morality instead of legislating common scene.

Originally Posted by bdj21ya

If you think about it, this disease is actually quite a bit more solvable than the common cold--in the long run I mean, as long as the virus never becomes airborne. That is not to trivialize it, obviously the effects of AIDS are much more devastating, and it is no small matter to prevent it from spreading. However, I do think that AIDS will be cured faster by education and economic development than by any drug research.

Yes because the common cold is so easy to solve, none of us has ever had it </sarcasm>

Transmission of the virus might be diminished through education but a cure will only come through research and science.

Originally Posted by bdj21ya

Also, it's not an issue of what will help one person, it's a question of what will alleviate the most suffering. If I have the choice to alleviate one person's current suffering, or to prevent 10 persons' future suffering, I'm going with the latter choice, sorry. In a world without limitted resources, by all means, let's support EVERY charitable cause. However, if you are going to donate money to alleviate suffering, why not be economical about it and alleviate as much suffering as possible per dollar?

Um you do realize that over 50% of the population in some African countries are suffering because of HIV/AIDS? We can help alleviate that suffering now, and educate them when the medications are dispensed. When these drugs are given out they are not handed out like candy to a child. They come with instructions and counseling, while the counseling might not be a lot, its enough to teach them how to protect others and them selves.

[DCQ]

Originally Posted by dr_gonzo

This money doesn't go directly to African families.

Obviously Apple is a company. The only reason they're doing this is to improve their public image. Imagine if I were to do a charity run or something and then I say in small print "I will give 10% of the donations to charity!". It's the same principle here.

Troll.