Maybe fiasco wasn't the most appropriate word. I was just referring to supply/demand issues. My point was that Apple should make sure it has an adequate supply before the announcement. That will prevent delays. Hopefully, the stars will align for Apple next year, as they haven't this year.
I understand that Apple doesn't control aspects of their supply chain (ie Hitachi HDDs), but I DO hope that they will be able to get the supplies they need so they don't have do delay any product launches (iPod mini worldwide release, iMac G5) in the future.
Okay...so what happens...let's just say...Apple introduces an new "flash iPod"...and they expect the demand to be huge...they pre-build 2M...and they are wrong...way wrong? Let's consider two wrong possibilities:
1. Demand is 4M! People's iPod-lust is FAR greater than Apple in it's wildest expectations thought it would be.
2. Demand is zilch. Maybe they can sell 100-200,000. Now Apple has almost 2M units...let's say costing $100 each (cost of goods)...that's nearly a $200M write-off.
Of course thing are not nearly so simple...I'm only trying to drive home the point that it is almost always better for Apple to have a shortage than a surplus.
If the demand is not as huge as it was planned, the minis will still sell, albeit, in a slower pace than expected.
They will not order any more HD's for the time being, and they will concentrate on other things until the minis sell or they will just use them for future products (e.g. iPod mini Photo).
If the demand is not 300% higher than one would expect, that does not mean that there is an actual loss; it does mean, however, that the profit was not as high as expected.
And here in comes the regular iPod with its extra-high demand that will give Apple the time [cash] to ponder about future products that may entice more demand.
This is not a win-win situation. There is a very thin line between high demand and low demand, and companies usually do their research of the market before announcing and selling a product. The key word in all of this is supply; if the supply is not adequate, the demand shall fall accordingly.
Apple knows this very good, but still insists that they need to 'think different' even in terms of supply which has nothing to do with ideology and ideas, but everything to do with basic economic principles that one company has to respect if it wants to create a profit and build on it. Its called The Law of Supply and Demand. If there's a demand, your supply should meet that demand promptly. If not, the demand curve will shift and other companies will kick in eliminating the demand for your products to a large extent.
If the demand is not as huge as it was planned, the minis will still sell, albeit, in a slower pace than expected.
They will not order any more HD's for the time being, and they will concentrate on other things until the minis sell or they will just use them for future products (e.g. iPod mini Photo).
If the demand is not 300% higher than one would expect, that does not mean that there is an actual loss; it does mean, however, that the profit was not as high as expected.
And here in comes the regular iPod with its extra-high demand that will give Apple the time [cash] to ponder about future products that may entice more demand.
This is not a win-win situation. There is a very thin line between high demand and low demand, and companies usually do their research of the market before announcing and selling a product. The key word in all of this is supply; if the supply is not adequate, the demand shall fall accordingly.
Apple knows this very good, but still insists that they need to 'think different' even in terms of supply which has nothing to do with ideology and ideas, but everything to do with basic economic principles that one company has to respect if it wants to create a profit and build on it. Its called The Law of Supply and Demand. If there's a demand, your supply should meet that demand promptly. If not, the demand curve will shift and other companies will kick in eliminating the demand for your products to a large extent.
I agree...except that I don't think that Apple is trying to break the laws of supply and demand...but rather surf them astutely. The issue here is really to have supply match demand as closely as possible...but if not...to keep right behind it. There are psychological factors at play here too...as in the more something is in demand the more it is demanded. What you assume about demand falling off isn't necessarily so (at least it doesn't appear to have played out that way with iPod and its little brother).
You must also remember that inventory costs too. Having $ tied up in inventory is generally a drag on earnings and is particularly risky in the high technology (or fashion) business...and iPod is both...because product is perishable...like food though, obviously, in a different way.
Furthermore...demand exceeding supply points to "order backlog"...every business in the world looks to building a "pipeline of revenue"...revenue that is coming down the road, even if they cannot fulfill it right now (perhaps due to capacity...and there is always a finite capacity). This is what Apple has actually done well.
Finally, for all of the whining about iPod Mini supply "fiascos" and whatnot, it really was a fairly short-live supply shortage...as I recall it was announced in January...availability in mid-February...and supply issues largely resolved by mid-August...so 6 months...and they WERE supply product the entire time...just not as fast as everyone was demanding it.
This would have indeed been a mistake. There is nothing wrong at all (contrary to the opinion of many on these boards) with announcing a product (a reasonable length of time) previous to its availability. It helps gauge demand and build accordingly. Wouldn't Apple have looked even worse if it had pre-built 2M iPod Minis and only sold 500,000?!?! (Many on these boards predicted the Mini to be a flop BTW.)
Except Apple didn't pre-announce the mini in the sense of "We'll have them available by xxx for everyone". They were pre-announced, but they only seemed to have 100,000 available at delievery. So half the orders were on hold for another month or two AFTER they were 'shipped'. That's the fiasco.
Announcing a new PMac and then saying it won't be available for 3 months is fine. But you better have a supply by the release date. Don't just trickle out 5-a-day and say "They're shipping!", because it just infuriates your customers who won't get theirs for another three months.
This is not a win-win situation. There is a very thin line between high demand and low demand, and companies usually do their research of the market before announcing and selling a product. The key word in all of this is supply; if the supply is not adequate, the demand shall fall accordingly.
That's exactly what didn't happen with the iPod mini, which was hopelessly backordered for months and months. Apple only caught up to demand, finally, after Hitachi ramped up a whole new production line for the hard drives.
Quote:
Its called The Law of Supply and Demand. If there's a demand, your supply should meet that demand promptly. If not, the demand curve will shift and other companies will kick in eliminating the demand for your products to a large extent.
That's exactly what has never happened with the iPod. The theory assumes that all alternatives are more or less equal, but the numbers in this case indicate that people are willing to wait for the genuine article.
This is a matter of economic principle, not a matter of what happened or did not happen to iPod mini or iPod. The rule does not state that its 100% correct, but its the core principle upon which the science of economics is based.
I tend to view Apple as a normal company that has normal aspirations for profts, therefore, only 1 player in the entire Supply/Demand chain.
People may have waited for iPod mini, but that doesn't mean that each and every person that waited actually got one. Poor HD supply does not equal high demand.
Anyway, iPod is cool and nice right now, but in the long-run, other players will catch up to the specs and some even to the design (similar), and its not gonna be iPod, iPod, iPod... but maybe like, iPod, DellPod, RiverPod, etc.
Apple gambled once with a product they had that was the leader of the market, and they lost that game due to their own lack of coordination and leadership. I just don't want to see them lose again, thats all.
This is a matter of economic principle, not a matter of what happened or did not happen to iPod mini or iPod. The rule does not state that its 100% correct, but its the core principle upon which the science of economics is based.
I'm not saying the principle is invalid, I'm saying that the numbers don't justify your application of it.
Facts do not conform to theories. Theories conform to facts.
Quote:
People may have waited for iPod mini, but that doesn't mean that each and every person that waited actually got one. Poor HD supply does not equal high demand.
But that's not what happened. Apple had the HD supply they anticipated. They were met with demand that they didn't anticipate at all, and despite their inability to ramp up for something like six months, demand only grew.
Therefor, there are variables in play that the principle you applied doesn't consider.
Quote:
Anyway, iPod is cool and nice right now, but in the long-run, other players will catch up to the specs and some even to the design (similar), and its not gonna be iPod, iPod, iPod... but maybe like, iPod, DellPod, RiverPod, etc.
People have been saying this since the iPod came out. It hasn't happened yet. And it hasn't happened because the argument assumes two things: 1) that Apple will sit on its laurels, which it hasn't, and; 2) that good design is free and easy, which it isn't. It probably doesn't help that Apple has patented the iPod's signature interface elements either—no free copies, no piggybacks.
Quote:
Apple gambled once with a product they had that was the leader of the market, and they lost that game due to their own lack of coordination and leadership. I just don't want to see them lose again, thats all.
Just recognize that lack of coordination and leadership were (to a large extent) responsible, not anything inherent to commodity markets, economics, or anything else. Apple was late to the music party. They are not riding any "pioneer" advantage here. They won every gain they've made in an existing commodity market populated by offerings from major, respected brands.
People may have waited for iPod mini, but that doesn't mean that each and every person that waited actually got one.
Of course this is true. And your point is?
(BTW...my point is that it is probably still less costly to Apple's bottom line to lose a sale because demand exceeds supply...beyond their control...than to have excessive supply.)
Quote:
Poor HD supply does not equal high demand.
Demand is only "high" in relation to something else...supply. Poor HD doesn't make high demand...but if demand exceeds the supply...well...then it is "high", and the price of the HD (or iPod...or whatever) is potentially too low.
Quote:
Anyway, iPod is cool and nice right now, but in the long-run, other players will catch up to the specs and some even to the design (similar), and its not gonna be iPod, iPod, iPod... but maybe like, iPod, DellPod, RiverPod, etc.
Yeah. Yeah. The specs have already caught up and bested the iPod. This doesn't seem to be affecting the majority of the market (at this point). Your statement first assumes that specifications will be a critical deciding factor. If this is so how is that Starbucks is still in business at the rates they charge? Surely...surely...without question...an equally or (dare I say) better tasting cup of coffee can be had for less...much les...and yet...Starbucks prospers.
Quote:
Apple gambled once with a product they had that was the leader of the market, and they lost that game due to their own lack of coordination and leadership. I just don't want to see them lose again, thats all.
Of which product are speaking? Surely not Macintosh! Apple NEVER led the market with the Macintosh as they do with iPod. Technologically, sure...but not economically.
This is only one of many points that people miss/forget when automatically jumping to the conclusion that Apple must lose in this marketplace to (for example) Microsoft as it did with PCs. The others are: 1) it's a different market altogether, 2) they already have a lead, 3) it is a different time, with different circumstances, 4) Apple has learned (maybe), 5) this is a market well suited for Apple...but not for Microsoft (or Dell), 6) Microsoft has lost in more markets than it has won.
hmmmmm, the product that i think botched was the (dare i say it?) newton. anyway, back to the ipod. I love it, i don't think anyone else has caught up to it though. I think steve was right about there not being any reason for a video player as such. too little demand. The big thing for me is just that i wouldn't buy anyone elses product because i can't be sure they'll be around, or even supporting their product. apple will always be there.even the dell player, it's just cheap looking. the sony one just looks like my minidisc. that's all.
Other then that just keep on lowering prices! Which they are. Apple I think is finally getting the picture with price. That's the bottom line with most consumers, on almost anything. Even me. My next pod will most likely be a mini. Why? I'm a poor college student.
Other then that just keep on lowering prices! Which they are. Apple I think is finally getting the picture with price. That's the bottom line with most consumers, on almost anything. Even me.
But have they had any reason (to date) to lower the prices?
When demand (vastly) exceeds supply, the answer is now...in fact economists would argue the price was potentially too low. Now, of course as supply and demand converge, then yes. So timing may be right for a price adjustment on the Mini...perhaps a 1GB increase and a price drop (this seems unblikely from Apple...and maybe unnecessary).
No doubt that Apple will come up with the iPod micro (flash based) with still lower capacity and lower prices...but they will create a "purchasing dilemma" right on the edge between the mini and the micro)...that is smart. It will cause some customers to go up.
Apple has been playing the pricing game very well with the iPod (the whole Mac pricing thing has been debated ad nauseum). If the past is any indication, with something like iPod micro (flash-based) they are poised to take the remainder of the market that they do not already own and open the world of iPod to a whole new segment of buyers.
Apple has been playing the pricing game very well with the iPod (the whole Mac pricing thing has been debated ad nauseum). If the past is any indication, with something like iPod micro (flash-based) they are poised to take the remainder of the market that they do not already own and open the world of iPod to a whole new segment of buyers.
which leads us to Volume, that can, usually, bring more profit than the so-called 'Snob Effect' which Apple (currently) relies on.
which leads us to Volume, that can, usually, bring more profit than the so-called 'Snob Effect' which Apple (currently) relies on.
I think they are getting there...but you can only supply as much volume as you can supply. Apple has largely been constrained by key component supply anyway.
Uh, after "reading" all of your comments, I still reccomend if you are getting a mini for Christmas, go along with it, I am. I don't have a huge music collection, I'm boardering on 700 songs. To me it is quality, not quantity. Anyway, mini's are too cool to wait till next year for.
Some people have a very specific taste, so, to them quality may equal quantity.
example: Fela Anikulapo Kuti.
He's an artist from Africa. Has about 76 albums with songs 10+ minutes each. If you rip 76 CDs with 10+ minute songs in 192 kbp/s or better (I do it with 320) it would take a lot of space.
And that's just Fela Kuti. Quantity = 1 Artist. Quality = Superb. mini = not enough. Conclusion = different people = different needs.
Disappointed in AI here. Basically a rumor retread based on educated guesses.
For me, as an owner of a mini, it comes down to battery life. Bump it to 12 hours, and there's a 70% of me upgrading. Bump it to 15 hours, and I will be the first in line.
Comments
Originally posted by macnut222
Maybe fiasco wasn't the most appropriate word. I was just referring to supply/demand issues. My point was that Apple should make sure it has an adequate supply before the announcement. That will prevent delays. Hopefully, the stars will align for Apple next year, as they haven't this year.
I understand that Apple doesn't control aspects of their supply chain (ie Hitachi HDDs), but I DO hope that they will be able to get the supplies they need so they don't have do delay any product launches (iPod mini worldwide release, iMac G5) in the future.
Okay...so what happens...let's just say...Apple introduces an new "flash iPod"...and they expect the demand to be huge...they pre-build 2M...and they are wrong...way wrong? Let's consider two wrong possibilities:
1. Demand is 4M! People's iPod-lust is FAR greater than Apple in it's wildest expectations thought it would be.
2. Demand is zilch. Maybe they can sell 100-200,000. Now Apple has almost 2M units...let's say costing $100 each (cost of goods)...that's nearly a $200M write-off.
Of course thing are not nearly so simple...I'm only trying to drive home the point that it is almost always better for Apple to have a shortage than a surplus.
They will not order any more HD's for the time being, and they will concentrate on other things until the minis sell or they will just use them for future products (e.g. iPod mini Photo).
If the demand is not 300% higher than one would expect, that does not mean that there is an actual loss; it does mean, however, that the profit was not as high as expected.
And here in comes the regular iPod with its extra-high demand that will give Apple the time [cash] to ponder about future products that may entice more demand.
This is not a win-win situation. There is a very thin line between high demand and low demand, and companies usually do their research of the market before announcing and selling a product. The key word in all of this is supply; if the supply is not adequate, the demand shall fall accordingly.
Apple knows this very good, but still insists that they need to 'think different' even in terms of supply which has nothing to do with ideology and ideas, but everything to do with basic economic principles that one company has to respect if it wants to create a profit and build on it. Its called The Law of Supply and Demand. If there's a demand, your supply should meet that demand promptly. If not, the demand curve will shift and other companies will kick in eliminating the demand for your products to a large extent.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
If the demand is not as huge as it was planned, the minis will still sell, albeit, in a slower pace than expected.
They will not order any more HD's for the time being, and they will concentrate on other things until the minis sell or they will just use them for future products (e.g. iPod mini Photo).
If the demand is not 300% higher than one would expect, that does not mean that there is an actual loss; it does mean, however, that the profit was not as high as expected.
And here in comes the regular iPod with its extra-high demand that will give Apple the time [cash] to ponder about future products that may entice more demand.
This is not a win-win situation. There is a very thin line between high demand and low demand, and companies usually do their research of the market before announcing and selling a product. The key word in all of this is supply; if the supply is not adequate, the demand shall fall accordingly.
Apple knows this very good, but still insists that they need to 'think different' even in terms of supply which has nothing to do with ideology and ideas, but everything to do with basic economic principles that one company has to respect if it wants to create a profit and build on it. Its called The Law of Supply and Demand. If there's a demand, your supply should meet that demand promptly. If not, the demand curve will shift and other companies will kick in eliminating the demand for your products to a large extent.
I agree...except that I don't think that Apple is trying to break the laws of supply and demand...but rather surf them astutely. The issue here is really to have supply match demand as closely as possible...but if not...to keep right behind it. There are psychological factors at play here too...as in the more something is in demand the more it is demanded. What you assume about demand falling off isn't necessarily so (at least it doesn't appear to have played out that way with iPod and its little brother).
You must also remember that inventory costs too. Having $ tied up in inventory is generally a drag on earnings and is particularly risky in the high technology (or fashion) business...and iPod is both...because product is perishable...like food though, obviously, in a different way.
Furthermore...demand exceeding supply points to "order backlog"...every business in the world looks to building a "pipeline of revenue"...revenue that is coming down the road, even if they cannot fulfill it right now (perhaps due to capacity...and there is always a finite capacity). This is what Apple has actually done well.
Finally, for all of the whining about iPod Mini supply "fiascos" and whatnot, it really was a fairly short-live supply shortage...as I recall it was announced in January...availability in mid-February...and supply issues largely resolved by mid-August...so 6 months...and they WERE supply product the entire time...just not as fast as everyone was demanding it.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This would have indeed been a mistake. There is nothing wrong at all (contrary to the opinion of many on these boards) with announcing a product (a reasonable length of time) previous to its availability. It helps gauge demand and build accordingly. Wouldn't Apple have looked even worse if it had pre-built 2M iPod Minis and only sold 500,000?!?! (Many on these boards predicted the Mini to be a flop BTW.)
Except Apple didn't pre-announce the mini in the sense of "We'll have them available by xxx for everyone". They were pre-announced, but they only seemed to have 100,000 available at delievery. So half the orders were on hold for another month or two AFTER they were 'shipped'. That's the fiasco.
Announcing a new PMac and then saying it won't be available for 3 months is fine. But you better have a supply by the release date. Don't just trickle out 5-a-day and say "They're shipping!", because it just infuriates your customers who won't get theirs for another three months.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
This is not a win-win situation. There is a very thin line between high demand and low demand, and companies usually do their research of the market before announcing and selling a product. The key word in all of this is supply; if the supply is not adequate, the demand shall fall accordingly.
That's exactly what didn't happen with the iPod mini, which was hopelessly backordered for months and months. Apple only caught up to demand, finally, after Hitachi ramped up a whole new production line for the hard drives.
Its called The Law of Supply and Demand. If there's a demand, your supply should meet that demand promptly. If not, the demand curve will shift and other companies will kick in eliminating the demand for your products to a large extent.
That's exactly what has never happened with the iPod. The theory assumes that all alternatives are more or less equal, but the numbers in this case indicate that people are willing to wait for the genuine article.
I tend to view Apple as a normal company that has normal aspirations for profts, therefore, only 1 player in the entire Supply/Demand chain.
People may have waited for iPod mini, but that doesn't mean that each and every person that waited actually got one. Poor HD supply does not equal high demand.
Anyway, iPod is cool and nice right now, but in the long-run, other players will catch up to the specs and some even to the design (similar), and its not gonna be iPod, iPod, iPod... but maybe like, iPod, DellPod, RiverPod, etc.
Apple gambled once with a product they had that was the leader of the market, and they lost that game due to their own lack of coordination and leadership. I just don't want to see them lose again, thats all.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
This is a matter of economic principle, not a matter of what happened or did not happen to iPod mini or iPod. The rule does not state that its 100% correct, but its the core principle upon which the science of economics is based.
I'm not saying the principle is invalid, I'm saying that the numbers don't justify your application of it.
Facts do not conform to theories. Theories conform to facts.
People may have waited for iPod mini, but that doesn't mean that each and every person that waited actually got one. Poor HD supply does not equal high demand.
But that's not what happened. Apple had the HD supply they anticipated. They were met with demand that they didn't anticipate at all, and despite their inability to ramp up for something like six months, demand only grew.
Therefor, there are variables in play that the principle you applied doesn't consider.
Anyway, iPod is cool and nice right now, but in the long-run, other players will catch up to the specs and some even to the design (similar), and its not gonna be iPod, iPod, iPod... but maybe like, iPod, DellPod, RiverPod, etc.
People have been saying this since the iPod came out. It hasn't happened yet. And it hasn't happened because the argument assumes two things: 1) that Apple will sit on its laurels, which it hasn't, and; 2) that good design is free and easy, which it isn't. It probably doesn't help that Apple has patented the iPod's signature interface elements either—no free copies, no piggybacks.
Apple gambled once with a product they had that was the leader of the market, and they lost that game due to their own lack of coordination and leadership. I just don't want to see them lose again, thats all.
Just recognize that lack of coordination and leadership were (to a large extent) responsible, not anything inherent to commodity markets, economics, or anything else. Apple was late to the music party. They are not riding any "pioneer" advantage here. They won every gain they've made in an existing commodity market populated by offerings from major, respected brands.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
People may have waited for iPod mini, but that doesn't mean that each and every person that waited actually got one.
Of course this is true. And your point is?
(BTW...my point is that it is probably still less costly to Apple's bottom line to lose a sale because demand exceeds supply...beyond their control...than to have excessive supply.)
Poor HD supply does not equal high demand.
Demand is only "high" in relation to something else...supply. Poor HD doesn't make high demand...but if demand exceeds the supply...well...then it is "high", and the price of the HD (or iPod...or whatever) is potentially too low.
Anyway, iPod is cool and nice right now, but in the long-run, other players will catch up to the specs and some even to the design (similar), and its not gonna be iPod, iPod, iPod... but maybe like, iPod, DellPod, RiverPod, etc.
Yeah. Yeah. The specs have already caught up and bested the iPod. This doesn't seem to be affecting the majority of the market (at this point). Your statement first assumes that specifications will be a critical deciding factor. If this is so how is that Starbucks is still in business at the rates they charge? Surely...surely...without question...an equally or (dare I say) better tasting cup of coffee can be had for less...much les...and yet...Starbucks prospers.
Apple gambled once with a product they had that was the leader of the market, and they lost that game due to their own lack of coordination and leadership. I just don't want to see them lose again, thats all.
Of which product are speaking? Surely not Macintosh! Apple NEVER led the market with the Macintosh as they do with iPod. Technologically, sure...but not economically.
This is only one of many points that people miss/forget when automatically jumping to the conclusion that Apple must lose in this marketplace to (for example) Microsoft as it did with PCs. The others are: 1) it's a different market altogether, 2) they already have a lead, 3) it is a different time, with different circumstances, 4) Apple has learned (maybe), 5) this is a market well suited for Apple...but not for Microsoft (or Dell), 6) Microsoft has lost in more markets than it has won.
edit: i'll admit that this was a dumb post
How about a microphone?
Other then that just keep on lowering prices! Which they are. Apple I think is finally getting the picture with price. That's the bottom line with most consumers, on almost anything. Even me. My next pod will most likely be a mini. Why? I'm a poor college student.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Other then that just keep on lowering prices! Which they are. Apple I think is finally getting the picture with price. That's the bottom line with most consumers, on almost anything. Even me.
But have they had any reason (to date) to lower the prices?
When demand (vastly) exceeds supply, the answer is now...in fact economists would argue the price was potentially too low. Now, of course as supply and demand converge, then yes. So timing may be right for a price adjustment on the Mini...perhaps a 1GB increase and a price drop (this seems unblikely from Apple...and maybe unnecessary).
No doubt that Apple will come up with the iPod micro (flash based) with still lower capacity and lower prices...but they will create a "purchasing dilemma" right on the edge between the mini and the micro)...that is smart. It will cause some customers to go up.
Apple has been playing the pricing game very well with the iPod (the whole Mac pricing thing has been debated ad nauseum). If the past is any indication, with something like iPod micro (flash-based) they are poised to take the remainder of the market that they do not already own and open the world of iPod to a whole new segment of buyers.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Apple has been playing the pricing game very well with the iPod (the whole Mac pricing thing has been debated ad nauseum). If the past is any indication, with something like iPod micro (flash-based) they are poised to take the remainder of the market that they do not already own and open the world of iPod to a whole new segment of buyers.
which leads us to Volume, that can, usually, bring more profit than the so-called 'Snob Effect' which Apple (currently) relies on.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
which leads us to Volume, that can, usually, bring more profit than the so-called 'Snob Effect' which Apple (currently) relies on.
I think they are getting there...but you can only supply as much volume as you can supply. Apple has largely been constrained by key component supply anyway.
Originally posted by john.outwater
To me it is quality, not quantity.
Some people have a very specific taste, so, to them quality may equal quantity.
example: Fela Anikulapo Kuti.
He's an artist from Africa. Has about 76 albums with songs 10+ minutes each. If you rip 76 CDs with 10+ minute songs in 192 kbp/s or better (I do it with 320) it would take a lot of space.
And that's just Fela Kuti. Quantity = 1 Artist. Quality = Superb. mini = not enough. Conclusion = different people = different needs.
For me, as an owner of a mini, it comes down to battery life. Bump it to 12 hours, and there's a 70% of me upgrading. Bump it to 15 hours, and I will be the first in line.
The extra gig is a nice addition, but that's it.