Online Price Wars

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:25 am

IMHO it's consumer culture which is leading to such a large amount of shit musical gear on the market (i.e. Roland Groovebox type synths, Behringer gear etc). It doesn't take a genius to work out that these things aren't very good but they still sell because they are cheap - but cheap components, shoddy build quality, limited but marketable features are all in evidence. In my experience, everyone who has bought these things regretted it, and ackonwledged that they wasted money in the long run by buying crap equipment with virtually zero resale value, while having to spend the money again on what they *should* have bought in the first place. I've done it myself too in the past but I learned the hard way. I find it's the same type of people who complain about Pulsars and the software plugins being too expensive.

The fact is that you can't get good stuff for cheap. Be it drugs, guitars, soundcards, hi-fi, whatever. There is always a reason why you're paying more. It's important to consider that the cost of manufacture is not the only dictating factor - there are things like R+D and paying programmers/support guys to keep the company running!

If you want cheap, I hear there are some great deals on SB Audigy cards.

Regarding the price wars issue, I think it's totally down to Creamware how they approach this. It is widespread practice in the music equipment industry. In fact in the US especially there is a custom for having a "minimum advertised price" which dealers are not allowed to go under for fear of starting a bloodthirsty price war. There is a *reason* for this, which is to keep the whole music retail industry running smoothly. Sure it would be great if I could go buy a PowerPulsar for $500, but in the long run, it is just not going to work for the market as a whole.

peace

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:22 am

On 2003-12-20 21:44, astroman wrote:
And let me add that without Apple's (indeed) high prices during their early years, you'd still control your DAW by the command prompt
A 'Live bar' with the look and feel of Norton Commander would rule

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-12-20 21:49 ]

Apple is a great example of how *not* to run a company. They insisted on having total control over everything. Apple could have dominated the computer market. They too insisted that their strategy was in the best interest of consumers. Apple was so smug about their products and so power hungry, they missed out on a tremendous opportunity which they never ever will regain. It looks as though Creamware may be going down the same path.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:29 am

On 2003-12-21 07:25, dArKr3zIn wrote:
IMHO it's consumer culture which is leading to such a large amount of shit musical gear on the market (i.e. Roland Groovebox type synths, Behringer gear etc).

I would rather have a crappy Roland synthesizer than no synthesizer at all. Roland also makes some good high end synths so there *is* a choice.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:42 am

On 2003-12-21 02:33, kensuguro wrote:
these price war type corporate competition is rediculous. I mean, lower prices are cool for customers but it can wreck havoc on the corporate side. Living in Japan (which is almost a corporate run country, hehe), you see this happening everywhere.
[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2003-12-21 02:36 ]

I do not live in Japan and I am not Japanese but I happen to know something about that country.

The problems Japan is having is partly because there are not enough people being born and Japanese people are so xenophobic that they refuse to allow imigration and naturalization as we do. While the population is aging there are fewer workers to support the generous healthcare plan.

Japanese people could improve their cost of living by buying less expensive foreign products but again they don't like foreign things. There is also a lot of government interference with imports.

regarding long hours:

If the workers would go on strike they easily could change the conditions there but I'm not sure if they are legally allowed to strike as we are. It's probably is against the docile nature of Japanese people to go on strike.

[ This Message was edited by: braincell on 2003-12-21 10:46 ]

Post by **garyb** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:59 pm

On 2003-12-21 10:42, braincell wrote:
the docile nature of Japanese

i don't think you've really seen just how sharp those swords are or how ruthless japanese gangsters and corporate types can be.the reason for politeness is that it is unhealthy to upset emotional people with razor sharp weapons......

what ken wrote applies to the consumer world everywhere.stereotypes are not the explanation for his words.

also,cheap,crappy products really benefit no one in the end.all those crappy products just end up in the landfill after the spoiled kid who bought them tires of them or breaks them.there is no need for extra garbage in this world.nor is there need to buy constantly.why buy 5 crappy synths,when 1 good one will cost less in the long run and bring more satisfaction?

just my opinion......

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:27 am

Nonsense, synthesizers don't go to landfills they go to Ebay.... What ends up in landfills are computers like the one I used with my Pulsar I which was five years ago, (That was a nightmarish experience!) I think that all synthesizers no matter how cheap have at least one unique and useful sound. The Eurythmics had an enormous hit which featured a $50.00 Casio! You are a snob. Some people can't afford the expensive equipment you own.

[ This Message was edited by: braincell on 2003-12-22 10:31 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:31 pm

On 2003-12-21 10:22, braincell wrote:
...Apple could have dominated the computer market. They too insisted that their strategy was in the best interest of consumers. ...

I fully agree on that.
And I can assure you they really tried - they even tried in the best interest of their customers: offering a solution with a killer 'total-cost-of-ownership' or 'return on investment' ratio.

They did not fail by a doctrine, but due to stupidity of their (possible) customers and by self-protection of IT executives fearing about their own jobs.

I've been personally involved in the very first Apple network in the BMG headquarter.
20 machines, a Laserprinter and a fileserver were installed, including a short training on the job, within a couple of days.

Engineers from the IBM mainframe departement literally lost their religion when facing the fact that you could run an office fileserver almost unattended by a bunch of 'idiots'.

Noone actually calculated the overall costs, all followed an obscure 'leader'.
In those years we spent $ 4k on a Mac, while other prefered a PCee for half the price.
But we used those Macs for 5 years (some even more) while the 'cheap' PCs were exchanged at least 3 times over that period.
Let alone support and educational costs...

Hard to get, isn't it ?
The majority just doesn't get it and that's what Mr. Jobs finally realized, prices dropped, software quality dropped, support prices increased...

It might have come different, indeed - customers left out a big chance that will never come again

cheers, Tom
proud owner of a flock of a dozen Casios

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 8:29 pm

I agree Apple went downhill but not because of consumers. Apple was grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to stay afloat. Does anyone remember the Newton? They fire Jobs then they hire Jobs. They allow Mac clones then they kill the Mac clones. It's like they are totally insane and speaking of Jobs what ever happened to the computer he invented? It was going to be so revolutionary. Was it called "Mona Lisa"? I can't even remember the name of the thing now. It reminds me of that scooter the Segway.

The first Mac sucked... it just sucked a lot less than DOS or Windows 3.0 did. They all sucked, but Apple and their users had this attitude which made them totally annoying.

[ This Message was edited by: braincell on 2003-12-22 20:30 ]

Post by **hubird** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:22 pm

10 years on mac now, hmmm!
I have a theory why just a small percentage consumers choose for mac.
It must be while macs are almost invisible in the forums, specially in the problem solving forums on the net

People don't know mac coz macs don't show up themselves

cheerz

_________________
Let There Be Music!

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2003-12-22 22:23 ]

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:04 pm

For me there is only two important reasons: the first and most important, "price". I know in the long run it can be different, but you need more money anyway. The second is constumazation. I like to have control over my machine, not a closed box I can hardly change specifications.

Two other minor reasons:

Third: Software availability.

Forth: everybody "almost", have a PC and so you know how to use them..., you've got accostumed to them. More tutorials, more advice, more choices, m9ore manufacturers, evevrything comes faster.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:19 pm

Braincell, I really do like diversity and a free opinion - and I can easily stand someone calling me a sucking Mac user - no problem.
But I cannot stand arrogance in conjunction with a severe lack of knowledge or incompetence.

That 'Mona' was actually called LISA, and represented an affordable (licenced) 'copy' of a state of the art university system (Xerox PARC) which sold for at least 5 times more.
Apple did the R+D and sold for less.

To transfer the 'experimental' Xerox code there was a small obstacle: no programming language could deal with that GUI stuff - it wasn't yet invented

Apple had to designed ObjectPascal first to make the interface programable at all.

They provided a complete integrated office suite of applications in 1983 - that's 20 years ago today - with that system.
The LISA wasn't a big business success, understandable at a 20k bucks entry price.

Nevertheless Apple took the challenge to stuff most of the LISA into a small box with a more 'marketable' price.
Do you have any idea what it means to optimize 1 MByte of Pascal object code into 64KByte of assembler ?
If this was a religious item one would call it a miracle.

During the developement of the Mac GUI they constantly involved children AND their grandparents to improve ergonomic handling.

The first Mac with slots would accept any number of videocards at any resolution without a single modification of OS or application. 6 screens parallel in 1986, Braincell

Did you know that you could setup a network on the classical Macs by just plugging the cables in ? No drivers - no reboots.
The complete thing autoconfigured within a couple of minutes and I've seen it working even with shortcut cables (not guaranteed though).

All core features of any GUI today are based on Macintosh experiences - have a look at the old documentation, if in doubt.

Without all that 'sucking' stuff which (btw)did cost a fortune to develope, you'd still sit (I repeat myself) with the command prompt.

What's so cool on your current OS that's developed by M$ and not influenced by (or based on) some of Apple's work ?

Who would you expect to do the job ?
Atari, Commodore ?
Both were later, both tried to copy the Mac look and feel for a cheaper price.
Both did exactly what you suggested and both vanished from market.

Btw the licences for Apple clones weren't extended because the clonemakers acted against their original agreements.
They let Apple do all R+D, copied only the (most attractive) top model and offered the same for rock bottom prices.
They did not contribute by spreading more low budget Macs as originally intended .

I accept whatever opinion you have, but you cannot ignore facts which are easy to verify or common knowledge.

cheers, Tom

valis · Post by **valis** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 3:17 am

Btw, the 'newton' division was separated from apple and became a very well known product still on the market today...

Post by **garyb** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 4:48 am

snob?
well,o.k.

i still like ALL the gear expensive or cheap,just as long as it is useful.i work in a store that sells used gear and believe me,there's lots of crap that won't even go to ebay...

some things are cheap but cool,some things are just cheap.the just cheap stuf often is broken right out of the box or soon thereafter.i'm just saying that cheap for chepness' sake is no help.some things cost a lot of money because they are worth a lot of money.some things take plenty of time and money to make.

i don't have a lot of money myself.i have to like bargains and i do.i also enjoy paying a fair price for something of better than average qulity for the simple fact that the high quality item was probably intended to be used for a long time,thereby often making it a bargain.expensive for expensive's sake is stupid.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:15 am

Thanks for explaining something... this is what I absolutely hate about Apple and Microsoft. I can not stand the icons and there is no way to get rid of them. To me icons are for people who don't know how to read. Finally I understand how Apple came up with such an idiotic concept!

During the developement of the Mac GUI they constantly involved children AND their grandparents to improve ergonomic handling.
cheers, Tom

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:54 am

oops, please disregard this post.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2003-12-23 10:59 ]

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:13 am

On 2003-12-23 10:15, braincell wrote:
Thanks for explaining something... this is what I absolutely hate about Apple and Microsoft. I can not stand the icons and there is no way to get rid of them. To me icons are for people who don't know how to read. Finally I understand how Apple came up with such an idiotic concept!

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 4:59 pm

On 2003-12-23 10:15, braincell wrote:
...I can not stand the icons and there is no way to get rid of them. To me icons are for people who don't know how to read. Finally I understand how Apple came up with such an idiotic concept!

it's not all about icons...
we sold quite an amount of machines in the 80s to IBM mainframe departements

yeah, we were quite surprised too, but they simply loved the Mac for it's 3270 terminal emulations, which enabled them to cut and paste between software modules of their mainframe apps

Anyway, I've collected those impressions from Apple history to show they once were really interested in extending leading edge technology and keeping their customers applications in mind.

There was a strong relationship based on confidence between dealers and customers, we made our profit and they were shure that their investment was supported as good as it goes.
Most customers bought new machines on a regular base and wanted their previous ones configured for simpler tasks, which was usually done.

It's somewhat comparable to CW's attitude (at least it reminds me on that) and was the key which made Apple finally survive.
That brings us back to the topic:
price wars would have ended that relation long, long ago.

Ironically those cute all-in-one-Shuttles which are rather popular today have the same concept as the very first Macs - and those very critized for exactly that non extensibility.

cheers, Tom

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 6:07 pm

Tom, you are a force to be reckoned with but quite frankly all computers and operating systems are in their infancy. Things are getting better on every front but we have a long way to go. I contend that low prices are good, but I see a problem in the future. If they build the perfect computer and software nobody would need to upgrade and computer companies would go bankrupt. I'm very happy with my CW gear and see no need to buy more anytime soon. This is why CW needs to start charging for SFP upgrades. There is no other way for them to earn more money. The market may be saturated. In return all users will get the best mixers, effects and synthesizers as a part of the upgrade,rather than charging outrageous prices for those who want it.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:19 pm

On 2003-12-23 18:07, braincell wrote:
... If they build the perfect computer and software nobody would need to upgrade and computer companies would go bankrupt. ...

merry x-mas, Braincell

feels good to read you using my own words

that was Apple's lesson to learn - and that's what Bill Gate$ was ahead of them all the time.
Btw Apple did learn well, under OSX I'm seeing those prints à la scrabble game again like in early PageMaker 15 years ago when Postscript ran amok.

those hours of tough waiting in front of the progression bar with fingers crossed until one dot before finish the whole job blew up. Teletubbies shouting ...again again again !!! (ok, they weren't invented yet)

I totally agree on the infancy statement, but imho it's a well calculated regression for the reasons you mentioned above.
I've used developemnt tools before 95 that were light years ahead of anything M$ considers 'standard' today.

cheers, Tom

Post by **hubird** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:37 pm

Astro deserves a statue...