What does the iDisappoint (iPod) do for Apple financially?

**Lazarus18** · October 23rd, 2001, 03:45 PM

I really hope these things cost Apple next to nothing to produce, and that they're just being stupid and marking them up for all they're worth. At $400 these things are going to do nothing but sit on store shelves. Maybe we'll see the price come down, but I sure hope that Apple doesn't have a huge investment in this product.

Since there's nothing breakthrough about it, I can assume that the R&D didn't cost too much. It's production ramp up that concerns me. They should just call it the iCube2 and be done with it. Same basic flaws... doesn't fulfill a need not met by another product, doesn't do much of anything to pull in non Mac people, potentially a big economic drain that will be blammed for reduced earnings in a quarter or two.

Oh well, maybe I can pick one up on the cheap when they start doing whatever they can to reduce massive inventory. Of course by then something better will have been made by someone else.

-Rob

**scruffy** · October 23rd, 2001, 05:56 PM

Of course by then something better will have been made by someone else.

What's to say it hasn't already? At the very least, there's practically as good for half the price...

**ablack6596** · October 23rd, 2001, 07:21 PM

There is no other MP3 player you can get for a cheaper price that does everything the iPod does as quickly easily weally (I made that word up) and fastley (I made that up to).

**Lazarus18** · October 23rd, 2001, 08:18 PM

But the price differential there makes it impractical, regardless of how cool it would be to fly to the moon.

"There is no other MP3 player you can get for a cheaper price that does everything the iPod does as quickly easily weally (I made that word up) and fastley (I made that up to)."

No argument really. But it's the age old cost benefit analysis. Do I need to spend (let alone have to spend in this economy) twice as much for the benefit of FW or a harddrive I can use to transport files? Let's see, a zip disk costs me how much? Worst comes to worst I can burn a CD for $0.50 (providing I burn it on my W2K box since OS X doesn't support my burner).

My point is not the coolness (do I get to join the make up words game?) of the iPod. I think it's incredibly neat. I would want one if it were cheaper. But who in their right mind is going to shell out $400 for a toy? Even if you're gadget minded you could for the same cost buy a comparable MP3 player and still have enough left over to buy a DVD player. This product is the best on the market, no doubt in my mind. But it is not the breakthrough Apple claimed, nor is it a useful product for Apple financially. Looks like I will be seeing my Apple stock fall yet more. Here's hoping the inevitable revision of the iMac generates big profits (I assume that has to happen soon, right? That thing is getting ancient. I hope we see this before the G5.)

-Rob

**Lazarus18** · October 23rd, 2001, 08:25 PM

But the price differential there makes it impractical, regardless of how cool it would be to fly to the moon.

"There is no other MP3 player you can get for a cheaper price that does everything the iPod does as quickly easily weally (I made that word up) and fastley (I made that up to)."

No argument really. But it's the age old cost benefit analysis. Do I need to spend (let alone have to spend in this economy) twice as much for the benefit of FW or a harddrive I can use to transport files? Let's see, a zip disk costs me how much? Worst comes to worst I can burn a CD for $0.50 (providing I burn it on my W2K box since OS X doesn't support my burner).

My point is not the coolness (do I get to join the make up words game?) of the iPod. I think it's incredibly neat. I would want one if it were cheaper. But who in their right mind is going to shell out $400 for a toy? Even if you're gadget minded you could for the same cost buy a comparable MP3 player and still have enough left over to buy a DVD player. This product is the best on the market, no doubt in my mind. But it is not the breakthrough Apple claimed, nor is it a useful product for Apple financially. Looks like I will be seeing my Apple stock fall yet more. Here's hoping the inevitable revision of the iMac generates big profits (I assume that has to happen soon, right? That thing is getting ancient. I hope we see this before the G5.)

-Rob

**ablack6596** · October 23rd, 2001, 08:28 PM

Ya but if you think about it do you really need anything why bye a brand new mac when you can get an original iMac for almost nothing that iMac is able to do the same stuff as the new one but you pay more for the new one because it is faster burns cd's plays DVDand has a built in firewire port. You don't really need firewire the ability to play DVD's or burn Cd's and you can live with waiting 2 secoubds more for an aplication to open so why do most peopel get the new iMac because it is more fun to use.

**fryke** · October 23rd, 2001, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Lazarus18
But who in their right mind is going to shell out $400 for a toy? Even if you're gadget minded you could for the same cost buy a comparable MP3 player and still have enough left over to buy a DVD player.

-Rob

Hmm. Already got a DVD player. And a TiBook that can play DVDs, too. I am gadget minded and I will buy an iPod. You just gotta drink that, buddy, because if *I* will buy one, some more will.

Reality check: They made a breakthrough gadget. Because a) it's harddrive based but sized like a 32M or 64M no-use MP3-player, b) it's got support for the lists you arrange in iTunes, c) it can be used as a firewire drive albeit small, d) it drinks its MP3 songs via firewire (ever waited for a 6G harddisk to fill via USB? you bet you don't want to...).

Apple must invent cool stuff that is a *bit* overpriced. Ever learned something about luxury marketing? It's not luxury if it doesn't cost.

**Lazarus18** · October 23rd, 2001, 09:51 PM

Certainly it's not NEEDED. We are way beyond need simply by virtue of wasting our time writing away on this board. But I buy new unnecessary gadgets out of a belief that they will make my life easier, or more enjoyable, or whatever.

I'm not saying the iPod doesn't fit that bill, it's just that it doesn't fit it for very many people.

Is it a luxury item? Sure looks like it at $400. Do I understand luxury marketing? I think so. My original point is about the financial success of Apple, and how this small niche item can help (or in my view harm) it. Does Mercedes make some awesome cars? Yup. Do they sell a lot of them? Not really. Does Ford make some awesome cars? Not really, they're all right. Which company makes more money in a year?

I'm not saying I want Apple to make middle of the road boring junk and sell a ton of them. But to price things so high that people look at it and say "that's really cool, I wish I could afford that... oh look here's a similar product from another company. I will buy it instead now that my desire is peaked by Apple" is not good for Apple. I think it would be OK for Apple to place a premium on the quality of its products. But pricing this thing at $400 is making it a strictly luxury item, not a higher end item MANY people would be willing to pay extra for. How many of us have a cinema display? The iPod strikes me as the cinema display of MP3 players. Good for you if you can justify spending that money, but 99% of people will buy something else.

I liked the idea of producing gadgets that will work better with a Mac than anything else. Those same items should work at some level with existing PCs. Apple's whole goal with the stores is to get people to see how cool their stuff is and at least consider buying Apple. The iPod does not advance these goals at all in my opinion.