Apple unveils iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED Special Edition

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 85
    I just got one at the Tampa FL Apple Store! The 1st one sold there!



    Pix:





  • Reply 62 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dzign


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



    Good move !



    You're missing the point. Dealers are an integral part of Apple's channel and YOUR community. Cutting off dealers for the greater good of Apple Inc. is not a good thing.
  • Reply 63 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    I'm shocked no one has brought up that this RED is hellofa much much much much much better color than that bloody brown-with-icky-green-edge SquirtingZunePune.



    ZUNE = FRACKING P*OWND BIATCHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!1111one!!11oene!!!!



    *yes, yes, I know, Zune plays videos and stuff. But it just shows the color sensibility that is innate to Apple while Microsoft struggles with brown Zunes and such.



    I think it would be cool if MS joined the RED campaign too. maybe red with white or black doubleshot?
  • Reply 64 of 85
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    No the (RED) zune needs so be some kinda red and brown swirl like diarrhea or something.
  • Reply 65 of 85
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ecking


    No the (RED) zune needs so be some kinda red and brown swirl like diarrhea or something.



    That sounds like hemorrhaging diarrhea to me.
  • Reply 66 of 85
    imacfanimacfan Posts: 444member
    I don't know about you, but a Meleena special edition Zune doesn't sound that enticing...



    David
  • Reply 67 of 85
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO


    I just got one at the Tampa FL Apple Store! The 1st one sold there!

    Pix: ....etc.....



    Good one, thanks for the post 8). You know it's a fu*king good colour when it shows up well online, in packaging shots, and when snapped with various digital cameras. One word: Bitchin'. Oh, and charity and stuff. But that's a friggin' good colour to add to their range. Second word(s): Oct-Dec 2006: Best quarter ever with highest sales of Macs and iPods ever, highest revenues and profits ever. Share price: around $80 though as people wait for what the NEXT BIG APPLE THING IS from 2007 through to the end of the decade as initiated at MacWorld 2007. If it sounds good, then $90 AAPL by middle of 2007.



    Just some predictions and stuff. But that Red looks mighty might tempting. I got the cash, it's kind of for emergencies and stuff, but we'll see Especially in a few weeks, if all goes well, my parents' property in Brisbane transactions go through and we get the proceeds of the sale with no hassle (yes I'm pretty much a trust fund kinda kid )
  • Reply 68 of 85
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM


    That sounds like hemorrhaging diarrhea to me.



    Yes, appropriate for the product[Red] Zune - you know, highlighting the suffering in Africa and stuff. Sadly, lots of haemorrhaeging diaorrhea going on, and the Zune will reflect this. Also the squirting of various bodily fluids out of the wrong places as your organs fail and your immunity gets fuX00red. I can't wait about what Steve Ballmer will say: "With this new Red Zune we'll be touching Africans in ways they've never been touched before" (he forgot the "touching African [lives]"). And also "People in developed nations... they'll be squirting messages and videos of dying victims at each other, you know, to be stronger and stuff and donate more stuff and maybe donate Microsoft Windows PCs to Africans..."



    'Coz what's worse than dying of AIDS? Using Windows It will distract them from the real pain of above mentioned organ failure and dying and stuff...
  • Reply 69 of 85
    dgnr8dgnr8 Posts: 196member
    Quote:
    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.



    You have absolutely no idea how the pharmaceutical industry works. They do not make the profit people with no knowledge claim. Americans pay more for medicines than any other country. Why? Because if the industry raises the prices on other countries they will not respect the patents and under sell them.



    So lets review the pharmaceutical industry has to continually R&D new and better medicine.

    They patent it in the US and other countries.

    They sell it to other countries at break even or at a loss point hoping they do not screwed by those countries.

    Americans pick up the tab.

    So NO they don?t have the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars to just throw into R&D like you seem to think. They are a freaking business, jesus, get off your holier than thou soap box and FREAKING RESEARCH your point before you look like and IDIOT.
  • Reply 70 of 85
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    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.



    I agree completely. In fact, the best use of money would be to support FAMILY PLANNING. And also education. Family planning is merely a form of education anyhow. Great and insightful post. Still, I think this thing looks bitchin'. But now I'm not sure whether to wait for the iPhone/"Real" Video iPod. My original 5 gig one died recently with a Sad Mac. Maybe I'll have to try hitting it like I've heard, but I'm not holding out much hope. It's taken a beating and it's time to get a replacement.
  • Reply 71 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdj21ya


    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.



    This is my very first post on this forum. I've been following AI for a time now and i had to react to this misinformation by bdj.

    The spread of HIV:AIDS is not in any way rising due to anti-retroviral drugs. People who take does drugs have a low viral load, even sometimes unmeasurebly low. This means that the risk of infecting other people is low. This is best evidenced that nowadays vertical transmission (that is mother to child) is lower than 2 % when the mother is adequately taking medication and a ceasarian is performed. What bdj is implying in a way is that all HIV-AIDS patients are sentenced with the death penalty. First of all: there is a big difference between HIV-infected people and people with AIDS. A lot of HIV-infected people are symptomless and do not need treatment (that is the viral load, thus the amount of viruses in the blood, is low enough to grant no treatment). AIDS people need medication otherwise they die of cancers or opportunistic infections.

    HIV infection is more a life sentence than a death penalty nowadays. treatment with retro-viral drugs is increasing life quality and diminishing the risk of infection!



    Ignorance is a crime
  • Reply 71 of 85
    double post.
  • Reply 73 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DGNR8


    You have absolutely no idea how the pharmaceutical industry works. They do not make the profit people with no knowledge claim. Americans pay more for medicines than any other country. Why? Because if the industry raises the prices on other countries they will not respect the patents and under sell them.



    So lets review the pharmaceutical industry has to continually R&D new and better medicine.

    They patent it in the US and other countries.

    They sell it to other countries at break even or at a loss point hoping they do not screwed by those countries.

    Americans pick up the tab.

    .



    So only Americans pay real prices for medication ???????????????

    Let me remind you that worldbank imf and wto make third world countries sign treaties wherein patents are lengthened !!!! if they don't sign they don't get money!

    Most patents are long enough to pay for R&D, most pharmaceutical companies are very profitable. ((most risk is taking by small companies doing the real cutting edge investigating, most of them spinoffs of governmental funded university research labs)

    Most new drugs brought out buy big pharm companies are very similar to already known drugs and deal with diseases like erectile disfunction, ...



    do your own research!
  • Reply 74 of 85
    Although this (product)RED thing is possibly a step in the right direction. I can't help thinking that every company involved is doing it just to absolve themselves in the eyes of the consumer. Or worse, just as a marketing ploy - rather than for any moral reasons. It seems fairly tokenistic.



    True, the overall donation from Apple may well amount to something quite significant, but I'm sure they could more than easily afford to give more than a bit of a pathetic $10.



    Surely the world's market leader in digital music players should be donating at least half of its profit from just one of its range of 9 devices which in total generate 25% of its turnover.







    Andrew
  • Reply 75 of 85
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SquidThing


    Surely the world's market leader in digital music players should be donating at least half of its profit from just one of its range of 9 devices which in total generate 25% of its turnover.



    Er, what? How do you know these profit numbers?



    You aren't by any chance confusing gross margin and net margin, are you?
  • Reply 76 of 85
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SquidThing


    Surely the world's market leader in digital music players should be donating at least half of its profit from just one of its range of 9 devices which in total generate 25% of its turnover.



    Is that pie chart going to be a badge proving your own ignorance?



    $10 IS half the profit for Apple's $200 nano. Apple's net profit margin is about 10%, not 50% or 60%. There's a lot more to the cost of running a business than "manufacturing". Please do yourself a favor and never start a business because you will fail miserably.
  • Reply 77 of 85
    I admit I'm not especially great on economics and business, but according to iSuppli the original Nano cost around $92 in parts and labour, and the new Nano costs around $72 in parts and labour, buying direct from Apple the cost of distribution can't be that significant.



    I checked around the internet and iSuppli seem to be a trusted source, but my business knowledge may be pretty flawed. If $10 really is 50% of Apple's profit on a Nano then I'll let them off and apologise for the dodgy calculations.



    Andrew
  • Reply 78 of 85
    dgnr8dgnr8 Posts: 196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a-maze


    So only Americans pay real prices for medication ???????????????

    Let me remind you that worldbank imf and wto make third world countries sign treaties wherein patents are lengthened !!!! if they don't sign they don't get money!

    Most patents are long enough to pay for R&D, most pharmaceutical companies are very profitable. ((most risk is taking by small companies doing the real cutting edge investigating, most of them spinoffs of governmental funded university research labs)

    Most new drugs brought out buy big pharm companies are very similar to already known drugs and deal with diseases like erectile disfunction, ...



    do your own research!



    Brother you have no idea what your talking about.



    Example:



    Canada charges less money for the same medicine you and I both receive and any drug store. Why because they have held drug companies hostage. Sell us the drugs for less money or we will produce the drugs ourselves. Search it! Learn it! Then understand how it really works.



    Americans pay the vast majority of R&D for drugs. FACT!



    The reason that ?big pharm companies are very similar to already known drugs and deal with diseases like erectile disfunction, ...? is to turn a profit for products that do not require billions in R&D.



    People seem to think that Drug Companies are greedy and that they should not make a profit at ALL! How insane can you be. THEY ARE BUISNESS!!!!!!
  • Reply 79 of 85
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SquidThing


    I admit I'm not especially great on economics and business, but according to iSuppli the original Nano cost around $92 in parts and labour, and the new Nano costs around $72 in parts and labour, buying direct from Apple the cost of distribution can't be that significant.



    I checked around the internet and iSuppli seem to be a trusted source, but my business knowledge may be pretty flawed. If $10 really is 50% of Apple's profit on a Nano then I'll let them off and apologise for the dodgy calculations.



    What about R&D? Localization? Support?
  • Reply 80 of 85
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker


    What about R&D? Localization? Support?



    In the "BOM" tear-downs I've seen, they don't appear to account for the packaging, paperwork, earbuds, sync cable, distribution costs such as shipping, warehouse space, or maintaining such facilities. Marketing is a big one too, those TV ads aren't free. There's a cost to developing iTunes software too, maintaining servers and such.



    In the end, the net profit for the entire company for a given product ends up being about 10% if you go by the financial reports.
Sign In or Register to comment.