This is neither price gouging nor unprecedented. Do you think Motorola gave all the early RAZR buyers their money back when it jumped from $500 to $99?
This is how the tech industry works. Get over it. I have absolutely no remorse over buying my iPhone at the initial cost. And I'm happy that even more people will now be able to enjoy the iPhone, expanding the user base and thus encouraging Apple to improve it with software updates, new features, etc. My iPhone just got more valuable, not less. The price drop virtually guarantees a successful holiday season, which should finally put an end to the naysayers and the analysts who are still driving the stock price down.
Apple can now make a decent profit at $399 because they have recouped their initial RND costs and have reduced the cost of manufacturing significantly. This happens all the time on assembly lines. The first million units cost a lot more to manufacture than the next million. Early adopters pay for that initial expense in exchange for prestige and the true bliss that only a true gadget geek can understand.
Now if Apple were to KEEP the high $599 price tag despite the drop in manufacturing costs, THAT would be greedy.
Drop in manufacturing cost?. Dude, there was no drop in manufacturing cost. Apple was gouging you for the extra $200. Hard to believe eh?
a brief interlude from all the pontificating: but why do people (as mr. wu does repeatedly) use the phrases "form factor" and "price points" when "design" and "price" would serve just as well?? every time i hear "form factor" or "price point" it makes me think of some using what i'll call "verbal inflation," i.e. an effort to fill a space reserved for analysis with fluff.
now, perhaps one of you mensa members out there can provide me with an explanation for why it's better to use, in this case, two words rather than one. otherwise, just stick to design or shape and price or cost.
because price point and price are not the same thing. Price is the price of an item (obviously) while price point is a specific price of a product that maximizes it's profits. So for example, a product price point might be $100 but a company chooses to price it at $150 anyway. That would mean they lose money. If they choose to price it at $90, they are losing out on revenue.
Form factor is the dimension of a product. Design is the overall aesthestics of a product. two products could have the same form factor while one is uglier (example maybe Zune vs Ipod?).
So no, the analyst cannot use design and price in place of form factor and price point.
1) The player is actually quite usable, with a surprisingly readable screen for such a small device (I was able to watch the latest DL.TV episode quite clearly). This device could end up encouraging the rapid growth of video podcasts, now that you no longer need to pay a premium for a video-capable iPod.
2) Don't let the pictures of the 3G iPod nano fool you. The device is surprisingly easy to hold in your hands, so the worries about not comfortably holding the "fatty" iPod are unfounded.
Is it just me, or does it seem like the earphone jack on a video player ought to be someplace other than on the bottom (lower edge, anyway) of the device?
I watch shows on my 80Gb iPod all the time, when at lunch. It sits upright, usually leaning against something for the best viewing angle when I'm seated. (I don't use a case that holds it up by itself.)
I work out with my Nano, and also use it when outside doing yard work (I had to give up on my 1G Shuttle -- too little storage for the size of yards I have to maintain). I don't mind the Nano laying on its side on the eliptical machine in the morning, or dangling from my belt clip when I work.
But watching video requires a single orientation until the Nano phatty gets an accelerometer like the Touch. Should have put the earphone jack up top or on the side. Now somebody needs to come up with a flat-surface adapter the width of the new Nano that plugs into the earphone jack, with an earphone jack off on of the sides, so it can stand upright.
Comments
This is neither price gouging nor unprecedented. Do you think Motorola gave all the early RAZR buyers their money back when it jumped from $500 to $99?
This is how the tech industry works. Get over it. I have absolutely no remorse over buying my iPhone at the initial cost. And I'm happy that even more people will now be able to enjoy the iPhone, expanding the user base and thus encouraging Apple to improve it with software updates, new features, etc. My iPhone just got more valuable, not less. The price drop virtually guarantees a successful holiday season, which should finally put an end to the naysayers and the analysts who are still driving the stock price down.
Apple can now make a decent profit at $399 because they have recouped their initial RND costs and have reduced the cost of manufacturing significantly. This happens all the time on assembly lines. The first million units cost a lot more to manufacture than the next million. Early adopters pay for that initial expense in exchange for prestige and the true bliss that only a true gadget geek can understand.
Now if Apple were to KEEP the high $599 price tag despite the drop in manufacturing costs, THAT would be greedy.
Drop in manufacturing cost?. Dude, there was no drop in manufacturing cost. Apple was gouging you for the extra $200. Hard to believe eh?
a brief interlude from all the pontificating: but why do people (as mr. wu does repeatedly) use the phrases "form factor" and "price points" when "design" and "price" would serve just as well?? every time i hear "form factor" or "price point" it makes me think of some using what i'll call "verbal inflation," i.e. an effort to fill a space reserved for analysis with fluff.
now, perhaps one of you mensa members out there can provide me with an explanation for why it's better to use, in this case, two words rather than one. otherwise, just stick to design or shape and price or cost.
because price point and price are not the same thing. Price is the price of an item (obviously) while price point is a specific price of a product that maximizes it's profits. So for example, a product price point might be $100 but a company chooses to price it at $150 anyway. That would mean they lose money. If they choose to price it at $90, they are losing out on revenue.
Form factor is the dimension of a product. Design is the overall aesthestics of a product. two products could have the same form factor while one is uglier (example maybe Zune vs Ipod?).
So no, the analyst cannot use design and price in place of form factor and price point.
1) The player is actually quite usable, with a surprisingly readable screen for such a small device (I was able to watch the latest DL.TV episode quite clearly). This device could end up encouraging the rapid growth of video podcasts, now that you no longer need to pay a premium for a video-capable iPod.
2) Don't let the pictures of the 3G iPod nano fool you. The device is surprisingly easy to hold in your hands, so the worries about not comfortably holding the "fatty" iPod are unfounded.
I watch shows on my 80Gb iPod all the time, when at lunch. It sits upright, usually leaning against something for the best viewing angle when I'm seated. (I don't use a case that holds it up by itself.)
I work out with my Nano, and also use it when outside doing yard work (I had to give up on my 1G Shuttle -- too little storage for the size of yards I have to maintain). I don't mind the Nano laying on its side on the eliptical machine in the morning, or dangling from my belt clip when I work.
But watching video requires a single orientation until the Nano phatty gets an accelerometer like the Touch. Should have put the earphone jack up top or on the side. Now somebody needs to come up with a flat-surface adapter the width of the new Nano that plugs into the earphone jack, with an earphone jack off on of the sides, so it can stand upright.
Hey Griffin Technologies, you listening?