1) I stated a wide range of scenarios that may lead Apple to drop the 3.5" model and offering to a less expensive 4" model, including stating that the 3.5" model may not be selling and that $299 may be too much for the entry 4" iPod Touch.
2) I'm not trying to cover every scenario here. I'm trying to state possible reasons why they may have done what they've done. The only specifics scenarios I've made are ones I haven't seen already made. By your assumption that all must be mentioned in a superficial manner means that you'd also state I've ignored the possibility for a market for double the storage with no back camera for $$279. Where does it end if you are wanting specific scenarios for everything?
You're mistaken. I'm only referring to one simplified and non-specific scenario. That scenario is the following: The main reason that Apple is offering the lower end iPod is because they feel there is a market for it.
You're mistaken. I'm only referring to one simplified and non-specific scenario. That scenario is the following: The main reason that Apple is offering the lower end iPod is because they feel there is a market for it.
Do you think they will profit from it? If so, why didn't you state it. Without directly saying it you are implying they won't¡
My apologies. I don't know your background and I'm not sure if there's an age requirement for this forum so you may not have even been through an econ class or had your first job yet.
My stance is that the main reason that Apple is offering the lower end iPod is because they feel there is a market for it and they will make a profit by providing it.
My apologies. I don't know your background and I'm not sure if there's an age requirement for this forum so you may not have even been through an econ class or had your first job yet.
Yes, Apple's main goal would involve making a profit.
You just killed your own argument, Rag. It would have been cheaper for them to just leave all of that in there sans the additional 16GB of memory, according to you. So why, then, did they go this route, which will require a completely separate production line and various different parts like the redesigned back shell? Seems like a lot of overhead for a product that isn't likely to do very well anyway. Like I said in the last article about this, I just bought my little girl the 32gb model, but had it not had a camera on the back, I would have gotten her something else since that is a huge part of the draw for that demo.
As for the "this is great for the gym" argument, what? I go to a very expensive gym, and I've never seen a Touch. Nano's and Shuffles yes, but a Touch? If you're going to use something that size, you're better off just using your iPhone which is what people do.
Typical Apple move right here, sadly. People complained when the 5th gen started at 299 and 32gb when 16 and 199/229 should have been the low end. Well cook gave us that low end, but gimped it in the process so as to make it as unattractive as possible versus the 32gb model. Awesome. Thanks.
It's called product differentiation. Apple has been doing it forever. It's one more option on top of whats already available, I don't see the big deal. Obviously Apple doesnt want to make it TOO tempting and drain sales from the other models, so they took out a couple usage cases and now have a product that has almost the same functionality for 25% less $$. This had to exist since they got rid of the 4th gen touches, and is a much better buy than those. There's also some usage cases where cameras are not allowed, so this might be appropriate for those when previously no Apple mobile product could be considered.
There's also some usage cases where cameras are not allowed, so this might be appropriate for those when previously no Apple mobile product could be considered.
It still has a front-facing camera as well as a repositioned microphone so those concerns could still be an issue.
You're truly the Socrates of our time. The level of insight you provide to your arguments is awe inspiring.
Heck, it's okay to be wrong once in a while. At least have the balls to stand up for what you believe in though and be able to back up your statements with words.
You're truly the Socrates of our time. The level of insight you provide to your arguments is awe inspiring.
Heck, it's okay to be wrong once in a while. At least have the balls to stand up for what you believe in though and be able to back up your statements with words.
This sounds like a great device for someone not really into photography but enjoys FaceTime with family, listening to music, watching (as opposed to recording) videos, playing a few games, checking emails and surfing the web. Pretty good price for a device that does all that efficiently.
And, if it becomes popular. They could consider an iPhone without a camera as a cheaper option, too. Pretty smart.
This sounds like a great device for someone not really into photography but enjoys FaceTime with family, listening to music, watching (as opposed to recording) videos, playing a few games, checking emails and surfing the web. Pretty good price for a device that does all that efficiently.
And, if it becomes popular. They could consider an iPhone without a camera as a cheaper option, too. Pretty smart.
I totally agree! I think this device is perfect for the audience it's aimed at.
The die hards (like many of us) will of course want the high end one, but I suspect there's a lot of people who will prefer the lower end version for the lower price.
I think this is a clear indication iOS 7 will require 512 MB RAM to run. The 4th generation iPod touch was the last product being sold with 256 MB.
Usually they have supported a previous model even after it's no longer on sale but that model was from 2010 as they skipped 2011 so I think you may be right.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) I stated a wide range of scenarios that may lead Apple to drop the 3.5" model and offering to a less expensive 4" model, including stating that the 3.5" model may not be selling and that $299 may be too much for the entry 4" iPod Touch.
2) I'm not trying to cover every scenario here. I'm trying to state possible reasons why they may have done what they've done. The only specifics scenarios I've made are ones I haven't seen already made. By your assumption that all must be mentioned in a superficial manner means that you'd also state I've ignored the possibility for a market for double the storage with no back camera for $$279. Where does it end if you are wanting specific scenarios for everything?
You're mistaken. I'm only referring to one simplified and non-specific scenario. That scenario is the following: The main reason that Apple is offering the lower end iPod is because they feel there is a market for it.
Do you think they will profit from it? If so, why didn't you state it. Without directly saying it you are implying they won't¡
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Do you think they will profit from it? If so, why didn't you state it. Without directly saying it you are implying they won't¡
Can't tell if serious or trolling to divert attention...
If the former, you're not only off the production line and out of the board room, you're fired and going back to school!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
My apologies. I don't know your background and I'm not sure if there's an age requirement for this forum so you may not have even been through an econ class or had your first job yet.
My stance is that the main reason that Apple is offering the lower end iPod is because they feel there is a market for it and they will make a profit by providing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
You just killed your own argument, Rag. It would have been cheaper for them to just leave all of that in there sans the additional 16GB of memory, according to you. So why, then, did they go this route, which will require a completely separate production line and various different parts like the redesigned back shell? Seems like a lot of overhead for a product that isn't likely to do very well anyway. Like I said in the last article about this, I just bought my little girl the 32gb model, but had it not had a camera on the back, I would have gotten her something else since that is a huge part of the draw for that demo.
As for the "this is great for the gym" argument, what? I go to a very expensive gym, and I've never seen a Touch. Nano's and Shuffles yes, but a Touch? If you're going to use something that size, you're better off just using your iPhone which is what people do.
Typical Apple move right here, sadly. People complained when the 5th gen started at 299 and 32gb when 16 and 199/229 should have been the low end. Well cook gave us that low end, but gimped it in the process so as to make it as unattractive as possible versus the 32gb model. Awesome. Thanks.
It's called product differentiation. Apple has been doing it forever. It's one more option on top of whats already available, I don't see the big deal. Obviously Apple doesnt want to make it TOO tempting and drain sales from the other models, so they took out a couple usage cases and now have a product that has almost the same functionality for 25% less $$. This had to exist since they got rid of the 4th gen touches, and is a much better buy than those. There's also some usage cases where cameras are not allowed, so this might be appropriate for those when previously no Apple mobile product could be considered.
It still has a front-facing camera as well as a repositioned microphone so those concerns could still be an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
*repeatedly posting facepalm pics*
While your arguments are well thought out and articulated with care, I have to respectfully disagree and stand behind my supposition.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Hopefully we don't work up to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[more of the same]
You're truly the Socrates of our time. The level of insight you provide to your arguments is awe inspiring.
Heck, it's okay to be wrong once in a while. At least have the balls to stand up for what you believe in though and be able to back up your statements with words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
This isn't a product that *I* would want, therefore, it's not a product *anyone* would want. There's your proof it's "rather lame." /s
Indeed. But "I" is the most popular lens used to see the world.
This sounds like a great device for someone not really into photography but enjoys FaceTime with family, listening to music, watching (as opposed to recording) videos, playing a few games, checking emails and surfing the web. Pretty good price for a device that does all that efficiently.
And, if it becomes popular. They could consider an iPhone without a camera as a cheaper option, too. Pretty smart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
This sounds like a great device for someone not really into photography but enjoys FaceTime with family, listening to music, watching (as opposed to recording) videos, playing a few games, checking emails and surfing the web. Pretty good price for a device that does all that efficiently.
And, if it becomes popular. They could consider an iPhone without a camera as a cheaper option, too. Pretty smart.
I totally agree! I think this device is perfect for the audience it's aimed at.
The die hards (like many of us) will of course want the high end one, but I suspect there's a lot of people who will prefer the lower end version for the lower price.
Usually they have supported a previous model even after it's no longer on sale but that model was from 2010 as they skipped 2011 so I think you may be right.
It makes perfect sense. Why pay for a crappy cell phone camera if you will never use it?