Believing is seeing!

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


If there are few potential buyers, why make it cheap? You wont sell
more.

That goes for any product.

depends on the product.

products are usually aimed to make a profit or to be a loss leader,
I doubt Apple are using this stand as a loss leader.

nobody said it was a loss leader. nobody even mentioned loss leaders.

in the case of the stand, it's not a stamped piece of metal. it has an
articulating pivoting counterbalanced arm that will only rotate when
the display has sufficient clearance, and is attached by rare earth
magnets for easy set up and teardown.

Sounds good but I'm betting they are still making at least 40% markup on
those stands. I'm not saying there's anyhting wrong with that.

probably not.

a similar stand for a sony reference monitor is $900, with the monitor
itself being $20-30k.

I could buy a million $ watch, but I;d still be late for work.

whoosh.

With Apple though profit is everything.

definitely not. apple does numerous things *without* profit being the
goal.

Of course they have nice packaging for all their products even a cheap £160
pair of airpods the packing is really nice and as with every Apple product I
just can't bring myself the throw the boxes away.

packaging wasn't the issue, and a negligible cost compared to the
product itself, despite being quite nice.

What products do you think Apple are using as loss leaders, just to get people
in the shops or ordering online...... surely it's not the stand.....

nobody said anything about loss leaders.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

With Apple though profit is everything.

definitely not. apple does numerous things *without* profit being the
goal.

Of course they have nice packaging for all their products even a cheap
£160
pair of airpods the packing is really nice and as with every Apple
product I
just can't bring myself the throw the boxes away.

packaging wasn't the issue, and a negligible cost compared to the
product itself, despite being quite nice.

I know.


What products do you think Apple are using as loss leaders, just to get
people
in the shops or ordering online...... surely it's not the stand.....

nobody said anything about loss leaders.

So Apple do intend to make a profit on everything they sell.

it's not about what they sell.

apple does a lot of things where the goal is *not* profit and if you
paid attention to what they do, you'd know about some of them.

Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 16:46:56 UTC, Benoît wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 15:41:56 UTC, Beno?t wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 16 December 2019 19:10:38 UTC, Beno?t wrote:

Obviously but I doubt an individual would by this generally
speaking it would be a company or paid for by a company same as
the display in most cases. But as said most companies would use
other methodes such as vesa or other wall mounting kits.

If there are few potential buyers, why make it cheap? You wont sell
more.

That goes for any product. With Apple though profit is everything.

Do you know companies that last without making profits.

I know companies that run loss leaders and have cheap products that bring
people to them.

Give us names, please. Only start-ups loose more money than they earn
(amazon is a very old start-up).

Universities
make profits or aim to generate a surplus of income over expenditure
year on year.

We still need govenrment funding though.

So you use tax money, right ? What country ?

Even people need to make a profit with their work.

Of course but not everything we do generates a profit
or contributes to a profit.
Going to the pub tonight is unlikely to make me a profit.

You no, the pub's owner : yes.


But I doubt a monitor will make much differnce to deadlines or
achieving them.

A 11 bit per color monitor will let you obtain a better 8 bit image at
the end.

But I doubt it'll speed up the workflow that's not usually the aim of such
a product.

Apparently you work in a "public school", so you dont know what life is
when you have clients who want better & cheaper, and competitors who
make things better, cheaper & quicker thant you.

And this monitor is more or less dedicated to the new $50k
computer when you add all the graphics cards, RAM, hard drives...

Which will speed up workflow, or should.

When I started copying my CDs to mp3 it took me about as long as
listening to the CD. A few years ago it was almost quicker than getting
a CD, opening a CD, getting the previous out and putting it back in the
box and on the shelf.

The workflow really increased a lot with better that 128 kbit/s.

If
it's on air saturday morning, it's got to be finished friday 5pm or
you'll have to work late.

Then you'd work late or imporve efficiency.

But people cost more money when they work late.

and that usualy costs a company more it;s called overtime which is
normally paid at a hioght rate of pay so it;s better for teh company to
get the job done in working hours. Even here we get 20% extra in time off
if we go beyond say 5:00pm. Except admin who appear to getv at leas 100%
extra and time off 'working from home.

The more you use overtime, the more it costs and the more errors will be
made: you loose. How many things are today built without automation
somewhere? Just look at the robots in Amazon & Co.

And changing machines is
there to improve efficiency.

Hopefully once it;s all sorted, but sometimes changing technigues and
equipent doesn't always do that when there's learning curves.

At one time or another there is a learning curve. How many old style
blue collars needed to build a car today? None except RR, Morgan & Co.

Just like buying a NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6 for just $16k

I wouldn't think that, but you do get a free teleconverter. It's
easy to lend or give out such a lens if your a photogrphic company
or individual, for 5mins or 5 months it's a bit more portable too.
You could take it on holiday with you to a remote island, not many
would do that with a computer display.

I can tell you that if you go on holiday, someone else is maybe
going to need it. So forget about that. Just like an airplane pilot
going on holiday with one of the company's 747s.

That doesn't happen, and you can't lend your 747 to a friend either.

So why, as you say, is it easy to lend or give out a $16k lens?

Size, weight, cost... loads of things it's even easier to lend someone your
£500k watch or ring, easier to loose too than an apple monitor or 747.

-1

--
Vie : n.f. maladie mortelle sexuellement transmissible
Benoit chez leraillez.com

nospam wrote:

apple does a lot of things where the goal is *not* profit and if you
paid attention to what they do, you'd know about some of them.

It's not for *immediate* profit. A sort of start-up in-house scenario.

They've got Google as a competitor. And it's free for everyone but just
a few that allow them to make profits.

A long time ago Apple sold the operating system upgrades, the
application upgrades... now they are free.

--
Vie : n.f. maladie mortelle sexuellement transmissible
Benoit chez leraillez.com

Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 17:24:43 UTC, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

So Apple do intend to make a profit on everything they sell.

it's not about what they sell.

apple does a lot of things where the goal is *not* profit and if you
paid attention to what they do, you'd know about some of them.

I've heard that coke do they same they pay for store space in supermarkets
that actually pay supermarkets did you know that, obviously they are
doing it for the good of the supermarket.

That's a very old thing that supermarkets sell the best spaces like
aisle head display.

--
Vie : n.f. maladie mortelle sexuellement transmissible
Benoit chez leraillez.com

On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 6:28:49 AM UTC-5, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 12 December 2019 00:07:54 UTC, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
...
no-one who would buy it should be buying this monitor
at all. But those who are can clearly afford it.

or whoever is actually paying for this product and I'd say
it's rarely an individual at these sorts of levels.

Rarely a non-Enterprise customer, agreed.

Insofar as the Display, my understanding is that even including
the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is a relative bargain
in comparison to similar products on the marketplace.

Overall, Apple probably could have done themselves a favor by
increasing the MSRP by $700 and sold the stand for $300. After
all, its not like people are going to buy the stand and not the
monitor.


-hh

In article , -hh
wrote:

Insofar as the Display, my understanding is that even including
the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is a relative bargain
in comparison to similar products on the marketplace.

the pro stand is not overpriced. sony has a $900 stand for their
reference monitor.

apple's pro display, at $6k with the pro stand, is *much* less
expensive versus to existing solutions ($20k-30k) *and* has better
specs.

Overall, Apple probably could have done themselves a favor by
increasing the MSRP by $700 and sold the stand for $300.

that would have been a very dumb idea.

After
all, its not like people are going to buy the stand and not the
monitor.

false. many users will skip the pro stand and buy the vesa mount
instead. that's why the pro stand is optional. not everyone needs or
wants it.

On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-5, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:

Insofar as the Display, my understanding is that even including
the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is a relative bargain
in comparison to similar products on the marketplace.

the pro stand is not overpriced. sony has a $900 stand for their
reference monitor.

Since Sony's price is 10% less than Apple's, how does that prove
your claim?


apple's pro display, at $6k with the pro stand, is *much* less
expensive versus to existing solutions ($20k-30k) *and* has better
specs.

No need for you to repeat what I already said:

"...even including the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is
a relative bargain in comparison to similar products..."


Overall, Apple probably could have done themselves a favor by
increasing the MSRP by $700 and sold the stand for $300.

that would have been a very dumb idea.

The Apple fan base opined otherwise. From a pedantic standpoint
they aren't necessarily correct, but it still generated negative
press for Apple, which incurs a "worth".

After
all, its not like people are going to buy the stand and not the
monitor.

false. many users will skip the pro stand and buy the vesa mount
instead.

Try re-reading: what I wrote is not false when customers buy the
VESA in lieu of the stand.


that's why the pro stand is optional. not everyone needs or
wants it.

Which is why if the price was split differently, Apple would
actually walk away with more money.

Case in point, consider two scenarios:

Baseline:

100 Displays Sold @ $5K ea
+50 VESAs @ $$0.2K ea
+50 Stands @ $1K ea
------------------------------

Revenue = $500K + $10K + $50K = $560K


Alternate Price Model:

100 Displays Sold @ $5.7K ea
+50 VESAs @ $$0.2K ea
+50 Stands @ $0.3K ea
------------------------------

Revenue = $570K + $10K + $15K = $595K

Alternative Model has a net +6% higher revenue.


-hh

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 05:18:32 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 10:56:12 UTC, Benoît wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 17:24:43 UTC, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

So Apple do intend to make a profit on everything they sell.

it's not about what they sell.

apple does a lot of things where the goal is *not* profit and if you
paid attention to what they do, you'd know about some of them.

I've heard that coke do they same they pay for store space in supermarkets
that actually pay supermarkets did you know that, obviously they are
doing it for the good of the supermarket.

That's a very old thing that supermarkets sell the best spaces like
aisle head display.

Then how about cheap printers, how do companies make a profit on printers that cost less than a meal for 2 in a resturant.
I'm not talking of a burger bar but a proper resturant.

Answer the expensive ink.

That's right. That's why tank inkjet printers are expensive but the
ink is relatively cheap.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

In article , -hh
wrote:

Insofar as the Display, my understanding is that even including
the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is a relative bargain
in comparison to similar products on the marketplace.

the pro stand is not overpriced. sony has a $900 stand for their
reference monitor.

Since Sony's price is 10% less than Apple's, how does that prove
your claim?

prices are similar for competing products, and people buying reference
monitors don't give a **** about $100 anyway.

apple's pro display, at $6k with the pro stand, is *much* less
expensive versus to existing solutions ($20k-30k) *and* has better
specs.

No need for you to repeat what I already said:

"...even including the 'overpriced' $1000 stand, is that it is
a relative bargain in comparison to similar products..."

i added some numbers.

the difference in price and performance for the xdr is *substantial*.

Overall, Apple probably could have done themselves a favor by
increasing the MSRP by $700 and sold the stand for $300.

that would have been a very dumb idea.

The Apple fan base opined otherwise.

so what? the xdr is not intended for them so they're whining.

From a pedantic standpoint
they aren't necessarily correct,

from any standpoint.

but it still generated negative
press for Apple, which incurs a "worth".

only from those who don't understand the target market and was
expecting a consumer display.

the xdr display is not a consumer device.

it is intended for high end pros that need colour critical displays
and/or high sustained brightness, who previously had to spend $20-30k
for something that wasn't as good.

anyone bitching about the price of the stand doesn't know what similar
display stands cost or how well designed the pro stand actually is.
it's *not* a piece of stamped metal (or worse, plastic), which is what
they're probably used to.

non-pros would be much, much better off with a 4k or 5k display. apple
doesn't make one, and *that's* what they're whining about.

After
all, its not like people are going to buy the stand and not the
monitor.

false. many users will skip the pro stand and buy the vesa mount
instead.

Try re-reading: what I wrote is not false when customers buy the
VESA in lieu of the stand.

vesa customers would have paid $700 more.

that's why the pro stand is optional. not everyone needs or
wants it.

Which is why if the price was split differently, Apple would
actually walk away with more money.

if more money was their goal, they'd have priced the display at $10k,
which is still a lot less than existing solutions and still sold a lot.

they could have also bundled the pro stand rather than make it
optional, thereby forcing everyone to buy it when they didn't actually
need it, adding to their bottom line.

keep in mind that there will be a third party stand market, where apple
won't sell *any* stand.

Case in point, consider two scenarios:

fabricated scenarios mean absolutely nothing.

there are other scenarios where they'd make less.

apple actively worked with pros to design the xdr display, the very
customers that would be buying it, and have a *much* better idea of
sales expectations for the pro stand versus vesa versus nothing.

you might also have noticed there's no built in webcam. pros don't want
that **** and they told apple in no uncertain terms that if there's any
sort of camera, the display ceases to be an option no matter how good
it is. those who want a camera can buy a third party solution.