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
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
That's... well.... rather lame for Apple to do.
Why?
It's a low end model. Redesigning costs money. Having a different manufacturing process costs money. Having different QC checks costs money.
So what's lame about making a low end model by simply leaving the camera off and reducing the storage capacity and leaving everything else essentially unchanged?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
That's... well.... rather lame for Apple to do.
I agree with jragosta. If they removed all other iPod Touch models from the lineup then I could see it as being lame but this is an additional 4" iPod Touch at a significantly lower price point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
That's... well.... rather lame for Apple to do.
What would be not "rather lame" for them to do? Maybe include a grain of rice that had been blessed by the Dali Lama? Or maybe one of Khan's cryogenically preserved minions?
Oh, don't get your panties in a bunch.
I really just meant that it was quite unlike -- and a surprisingly lazy thing for -- Apple to do: to take an existing product, remove some (arguably) key functionality, leave the 'box' the same, lower the price and see if it sticks. I certainly don't recall their doing this with the iPod or iPad or iPhone lines before. Or with Macs (but I am less sure). They have always put a little more thought even into the process of 'downscaling' products.
And to others who are making the (trite) point that Apple is doing this hoping for a profit, well, duh. That's the primary reason profit-maximizing companies make such moves. However, that does not mean that the hope or expectation will always pan out. (I am speculating that this will be a bust. I could, of course, be wrong.)
Personally, I think this is a trial balloon on Apple's part to preview market reaction to a 'third world phone' by taking out some functionality in the iPhone 5. I am guessing Apple is particularly interested in seeing how markets such as India and China react to this.
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.
Since Apple doesn't typically practice price bracketing, there's no reason to think this was intended to be the low-end decoy to bolster sales of the 32Gb iPod Touch. I therefore believe that Apple created this to cover the entry-level price iOS point (albeit with the 4" Retina display), but still remain a profitable SKU for Apple.
Given that the components that they took out probably amounted to a cubic centimeter, a redesign of the case would have been insane.
The way I interpreted the complaints were that if there is any cost savings it would be negligible so they might as well just leave them in and reduce the price by $70. Some people have even stated that $229 is too much and it should be $199.
And to others who are making the (trite) point that Apple is doing this hoping for a profit, well, duh. That's the primary reason profit-maximizing companies make such moves.
Indeed. It amazes me to see the ignorance of some (or just one?) who can't see this.
The way I interpreted the complaints were that if there is any cost savings it would be negligible so they might as well just leave them in and reduce the price by $70. Some people have even stated that $229 is too much and it should be $199.
If Apple offered them for $19.99, people would still be complaining that it was too expensive and their calculations say that it should be $14.99.
There's no point in listening to the whiners. They don't have any clue what it takes to run a business and are always going to second guess Apple no matter what happens.
By jobsisgod:"I like how nowhere in your theories do you guess that Apple […] will maximize their profits."
It's face palms all the way down…
Still holding your ground that Apple didn't make the low end model to make profits first and foremost, huh? Oh well, believe what you want. It's become obvious that this basic concept is well outside your realm of mental comprehension.
…Apple didn't make the low end model to make profits first and foremost…
That's only common sense. Of course they'd make a profit on every item they sell, but profit wasn't the driving factor in quite a few product releases of theirs.
Still holding your ground that Apple didn't make the low end model to make profits first and foremost, huh? Oh well, believe what you want. It's become obvious that this basic concept is well outside your realm of mental comprehension.
I think you've pushed this point well past its sell-by date.
Yes, Apple -- or any other company -- does something like this expecting to profit, but that does not mean that profits will necessarily happen. Moreover, there could be other objectives, such as learning from this for some other product such the low-cost iPhone (as I had speculated earlier), in which case, on a standalone basis, the introduction of this new iPod could even be akin to a 'loss-leader' strategy.
Its exactly what it says on the box, pared down iPod touch without the back camera, less storage, and cheaper.
I have the 4th gen, and it has a sh*t camera, pictures are always grainy and colors are crap. If they were to downgrade the camera to 3mp for a cheaper model, seriously, might as well 86 it altogether.
But for $70 more, you get double the storage, a 5mp camera with 2.4f aperture lens and LED flash, software wise, you can take panoramic photos, video ... Apple really isn't pushing this low end model in any serious way.
I think you've pushed this point well past its sell-by date.
Is point is fallacious. He's doesn't seem to realize that a for-profit company works to increase profits so it needs not be stated that all business decisions are geared to maximize this base concept.
Is point is fallacious. He's doesn't seem to realize that a for-profit company works to increase profits so it needs not be stated that all business decisions are geared to maximize this base concept.
So you agreed with me the whole time yet chose to continue to be stubborn just to troll then?
Good christ there are a lot of trolls on this site.
So you agreed with me the whole time yet chose to continue to be stubborn just to troll then?
Good christ there are a lot of trolls on this site.
*goes to find a facepalm pic*
No, I didn't agree with your initial comment that I failed to include a for-profit company's desire to turn a profit with everything I stated were means to turn a profit. At first I thought you are just dimwitted hence my polite use of face palms but your continued ignorance and changing of the facts makes it clear you're trolling. I'm starting to think your new account is just another in a long line of banned user IDs on this forum. It would be nice if the mods would look into that and deal with it.
No, I didn't agree with your initial comment that I failed to include a for-profit company's desire to turn a profit with everything I stated were means to turn a profit. At first I thought you are just dimwitted hence my polite use of face palms but your continued ignorance and changing of the facts makes it clear you're trolling. I'm starting to think your new account is just another in a long line of banned user IDs on this forum. It would be nice if the mods would look into that and deal with it.
I could retort but I'm done feeding the troll. Good day sir.
Odd to not have a rear facing camera but so is an iPod touch costing about the same price as a mini iPad
Smaller is more costly, as has been noted many times here.
On the other point, no rear camera, I and many others are also wondering, but since when does Apple do something without thinking hard about why?
Many reasons for no rear camera are possible. It's meant as a Facetime spare for the coffee table, meant for education (e.g., Facetime language lessons), meant for baby's first camera for self-mirror neuron development, meant to test the waters for a world phone, and so on.
Basic point is I think they should be assumed to know what they're doing until proven otherwise, i.e. Cube, Ping, etc. Not that anyone here was questioning their competence.
Comments
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
That's... well.... rather lame for Apple to do.
Why?
It's a low end model. Redesigning costs money. Having a different manufacturing process costs money. Having different QC checks costs money.
So what's lame about making a low end model by simply leaving the camera off and reducing the storage capacity and leaving everything else essentially unchanged?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
That's... well.... rather lame for Apple to do.
I agree with jragosta. If they removed all other iPod Touch models from the lineup then I could see it as being lame but this is an additional 4" iPod Touch at a significantly lower price point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
That's... well.... rather lame for Apple to do.
What would be not "rather lame" for them to do? Maybe include a grain of rice that had been blessed by the Dali Lama? Or maybe one of Khan's cryogenically preserved minions?
Oh, don't get your panties in a bunch.
I really just meant that it was quite unlike -- and a surprisingly lazy thing for -- Apple to do: to take an existing product, remove some (arguably) key functionality, leave the 'box' the same, lower the price and see if it sticks. I certainly don't recall their doing this with the iPod or iPad or iPhone lines before. Or with Macs (but I am less sure). They have always put a little more thought even into the process of 'downscaling' products.
And to others who are making the (trite) point that Apple is doing this hoping for a profit, well, duh. That's the primary reason profit-maximizing companies make such moves. However, that does not mean that the hope or expectation will always pan out. (I am speculating that this will be a bust. I could, of course, be wrong.)
Personally, I think this is a trial balloon on Apple's part to preview market reaction to a 'third world phone' by taking out some functionality in the iPhone 5. I am guessing Apple is particularly interested in seeing how markets such as India and China react to this.
Given that the components that they took out probably amounted to a cubic centimeter, a redesign of the case would have been insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobsisgod
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.
Since Apple doesn't typically practice price bracketing, there's no reason to think this was intended to be the low-end decoy to bolster sales of the 32Gb iPod Touch. I therefore believe that Apple created this to cover the entry-level price iOS point (albeit with the 4" Retina display), but still remain a profitable SKU for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Given that the components that they took out probably amounted to a cubic centimeter, a redesign of the case would have been insane.
It would have also have been an unnecessary expense in the development of a low-end model.
The way I interpreted the complaints were that if there is any cost savings it would be negligible so they might as well just leave them in and reduce the price by $70. Some people have even stated that $229 is too much and it should be $199.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
And to others who are making the (trite) point that Apple is doing this hoping for a profit, well, duh. That's the primary reason profit-maximizing companies make such moves.
Indeed. It amazes me to see the ignorance of some (or just one?) who can't see this.
By jobsisgod:"I like how nowhere in your theories do you guess that Apple […] will maximize their profits."
It's face palms all the way down… :no:
If Apple offered them for $19.99, people would still be complaining that it was too expensive and their calculations say that it should be $14.99.
There's no point in listening to the whiners. They don't have any clue what it takes to run a business and are always going to second guess Apple no matter what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
By jobsisgod:"I like how nowhere in your theories do you guess that Apple […] will maximize their profits."
It's face palms all the way down…
Still holding your ground that Apple didn't make the low end model to make profits first and foremost, huh? Oh well, believe what you want. It's become obvious that this basic concept is well outside your realm of mental comprehension.
Originally Posted by jobsisgod
…Apple didn't make the low end model to make profits first and foremost…
That's only common sense. Of course they'd make a profit on every item they sell, but profit wasn't the driving factor in quite a few product releases of theirs.
I think you've pushed this point well past its sell-by date.
Yes, Apple -- or any other company -- does something like this expecting to profit, but that does not mean that profits will necessarily happen. Moreover, there could be other objectives, such as learning from this for some other product such the low-cost iPhone (as I had speculated earlier), in which case, on a standalone basis, the introduction of this new iPod could even be akin to a 'loss-leader' strategy.
I have the 4th gen, and it has a sh*t camera, pictures are always grainy and colors are crap. If they were to downgrade the camera to 3mp for a cheaper model, seriously, might as well 86 it altogether.
But for $70 more, you get double the storage, a 5mp camera with 2.4f aperture lens and LED flash, software wise, you can take panoramic photos, video ... Apple really isn't pushing this low end model in any serious way.
Is point is fallacious. He's doesn't seem to realize that a for-profit company works to increase profits so it needs not be stated that all business decisions are geared to maximize this base concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Is point is fallacious. He's doesn't seem to realize that a for-profit company works to increase profits so it needs not be stated that all business decisions are geared to maximize this base concept.
So you agreed with me the whole time yet chose to continue to be stubborn just to troll then?
Good christ there are a lot of trolls on this site.
*goes to find a facepalm pic*
No, I didn't agree with your initial comment that I failed to include a for-profit company's desire to turn a profit with everything I stated were means to turn a profit. At first I thought you are just dimwitted hence my polite use of face palms but your continued ignorance and changing of the facts makes it clear you're trolling. I'm starting to think your new account is just another in a long line of banned user IDs on this forum. It would be nice if the mods would look into that and deal with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
No, I didn't agree with your initial comment that I failed to include a for-profit company's desire to turn a profit with everything I stated were means to turn a profit. At first I thought you are just dimwitted hence my polite use of face palms but your continued ignorance and changing of the facts makes it clear you're trolling. I'm starting to think your new account is just another in a long line of banned user IDs on this forum. It would be nice if the mods would look into that and deal with it.
I could retort but I'm done feeding the troll. Good day sir.
Smaller is more costly, as has been noted many times here.
On the other point, no rear camera, I and many others are also wondering, but since when does Apple do something without thinking hard about why?
Many reasons for no rear camera are possible. It's meant as a Facetime spare for the coffee table, meant for education (e.g., Facetime language lessons), meant for baby's first camera for self-mirror neuron development, meant to test the waters for a world phone, and so on.
Basic point is I think they should be assumed to know what they're doing until proven otherwise, i.e. Cube, Ping, etc. Not that anyone here was questioning their competence.
Could be for real, not knowing to whom he is addressing his Parthian shot.
Then again could be a new troll scheme, pretending not to know the regulars.
How pre-verted things have become. I say bring back the Cold War, when we knew who was the enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everett Ruess
Odd to not have a rear facing camera but so is a brand new iPod touch costing about the same price as a refurbished or second hand mini iPad
fixed.