As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

New iPod Touch 32 gig, now what?

124

Posts

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I wouldn't doubt that Sam's has some accounting reason behind that $30 thing, even if it's as silly as Apple's reasoning.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Ok, I give up. Clearly Apple and Sam's Club don't know what the fuck they are doing and will go out of business tomorrow. Luckily I don't own shares in either of them so I don't give a fuck.
    Right, the only thing that should influence what we think of a company is how much money they're making.

    They won't go out of business tomorrow. Obviously people are willing to pay these entry fees. Other people aren't. Some of the ones who are willing to pay still think it's dumb.

    I need to think of this a little further.

    I go to Starbucks for a few reasons. I worked there for a couple years, so I know where the coffee comes from, and I expect a premium product when I go there.

    I don't get coffee from gas stations or McDonalds because those are dirty-water aimed toward a different target consumer. I pay more for higher quality coffee willingly.

    Now, I'm TRYING to apply this to Apple. Do people shop there because they think they are getting a higher-quality product? Maybe they do it because they don't have the knowledge or experience in building their own computer (which would cost substantially less and be substantially more powerful)?

    I'm finding it hard to justify the extra thousands of dollars being spent. Maybe it's something else:

    People hate Starbucks because they think they're a monopoly and "evil" company... so ON THAT THOUGHT, they go somewhere else to somehow try and "stick it to them"

    Well, what are the options outside of Windows? Mac. Linux. A typical person doesn't know what the hell Linux is... so they go the only other route... Mac.

    Maybe that's it? Apple would know this and be free to charge whatever god-awful price they want for their services.

    When a person buys a Sony Viao, they bought the name. When a person buys a Macbook Pro, they bought the name (and that little glowy Apple symbol). It's the false peace-of-mind that keeps people going back to Apple? That and propaganda, and good advertising.

    GPIA7R on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Satsumomo wrote: »
    I know Sam's is discounted, and people will pay $30 because they need to buy stuff in bulk quantities. But I don't need a box of 24 deodorant sticks, but many times Sam's will carry something other stores don't, or their lower prices are actually attractive, but I just find it unnecessary to charge people to be able to shop at their store. What's the point?

    At least in the case of Costco, almost the entirety of their profit is borne by membership fees. So if they removed them, they would raise prices or cease to be a going concern. If you only wanted to sporadically buy cheap, bulk items, then a small price increase would probably be a net benefit but then again you already have other, similiar retail outlets that offer you almost the same thing. If you buy lots of shit, then it would be a bad deal for all involved. Costco would lose its cost edge and make it easier for consumers to switch, you would pay more for the same stuff. More importantly, the cost and benefits of membership are clearly spelled out so there isn't any ambiguity.

    To make your horrid analogy a little more adept, a closer analogue would be if Costco added some service and required a membership upgrade to access said service. But they don't do that, probably because they don't feel it is a profit maximizing move since it would piss people off and part of their business model is customer satisfaction.

    Saammiel on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I wouldn't doubt that Sam's has some accounting reason behind that $30 thing, even if it's as silly as Apple's reasoning.

    it may have to do with being able to sell products that normally wouldn't be okay for retail (either too far bellow MSRP, and/or too much of a bulk quantity)

    Charging a membership fee makes them classified differently from just a regular retail store open tot he public.



    Are maybe it's required by SarbOx :P

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Satsumomo wrote: »
    I know Sam's is discounted, and people will pay $30 because they need to buy stuff in bulk quantities. But I don't need a box of 24 deodorant sticks, but many times Sam's will carry something other stores don't, or their lower prices are actually attractive, but I just find it unnecessary to charge people to be able to shop at their store. What's the point?

    At least in the case of Costco, almost the entirety of their profit is borne by membership fees. So if they removed them, they would raise prices or cease to be a going concern. If you only wanted to sporadically buy cheap, bulk items, then a small price increase would probably be a net benefit but then again you already have other, similiar retail outlets that offer you almost the same thing. If you buy lots of shit, then it would be a bad deal for all involved. Costco would lose its cost edge and make it easier for consumers to switch, you would pay more for the same stuff. More importantly, the cost and benefits of membership are clearly spelled out so there isn't any ambiguity.

    To make your horrid analogy a little more adept, a closer analogue would be if Costco added some service and required a membership upgrade to access said service. But they don't do that, probably because they don't feel it is a profit maximizing move since it would piss people off and part of their business model is customer satisfaction.


    I think we've raised an interesting question (which is, admittedly, off topic for this thread, and would simply result in a flamewar in a thread of its own.)



    How important is customer satisfaction to Apple's business model?

    Evander on
  • SatsumomoSatsumomo Rated PG! Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Satsumomo wrote: »
    I know Sam's is discounted, and people will pay $30 because they need to buy stuff in bulk quantities. But I don't need a box of 24 deodorant sticks, but many times Sam's will carry something other stores don't, or their lower prices are actually attractive, but I just find it unnecessary to charge people to be able to shop at their store. What's the point?

    At least in the case of Costco, almost the entirety of their profit is borne by membership fees. So if they removed them, they would raise prices or cease to be a going concern. If you only wanted to sporadically buy cheap, bulk items, then a small price increase would probably be a net benefit but then again you already have other, similiar retail outlets that offer you almost the same thing. If you buy lots of shit, then it would be a bad deal for all involved. Costco would lose its cost edge and make it easier for consumers to switch, you would pay more for the same stuff. More importantly, the cost and benefits of membership are clearly spelled out so there isn't any ambiguity.

    To make your horrid analogy a little more adept, a closer analogue would be if Costco added some service and required a membership upgrade to access said service. But they don't do that, probably because they don't feel it is a profit maximizing move since it would piss people off and part of their business model is customer satisfaction.

    My comment was directed at Schez saying that it was "unprovable" that having a price barrier to be able to shop was not generating extra income. I wasn't questioning Sam's/Costco business model at all or an analogy comparing it to the iTunes store.

    Satsumomo on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Satsumomo wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Satsumomo wrote: »
    I know Sam's is discounted, and people will pay $30 because they need to buy stuff in bulk quantities. But I don't need a box of 24 deodorant sticks, but many times Sam's will carry something other stores don't, or their lower prices are actually attractive, but I just find it unnecessary to charge people to be able to shop at their store. What's the point?

    At least in the case of Costco, almost the entirety of their profit is borne by membership fees. So if they removed them, they would raise prices or cease to be a going concern. If you only wanted to sporadically buy cheap, bulk items, then a small price increase would probably be a net benefit but then again you already have other, similiar retail outlets that offer you almost the same thing. If you buy lots of shit, then it would be a bad deal for all involved. Costco would lose its cost edge and make it easier for consumers to switch, you would pay more for the same stuff. More importantly, the cost and benefits of membership are clearly spelled out so there isn't any ambiguity.

    To make your horrid analogy a little more adept, a closer analogue would be if Costco added some service and required a membership upgrade to access said service. But they don't do that, probably because they don't feel it is a profit maximizing move since it would piss people off and part of their business model is customer satisfaction.

    My comment was directed at Schez saying that it was "unprovable" that having a price barrier to be able to shop was not generating extra income. I wasn't questioning Sam's/Costco business model at all or an analogy comparing it to the iTunes store.

    Fair enough and sorry I went on a wall of text binge.

    Saammiel on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Satsumomo wrote: »
    I know Sam's is discounted, and people will pay $30 because they need to buy stuff in bulk quantities. But I don't need a box of 24 deodorant sticks, but many times Sam's will carry something other stores don't, or their lower prices are actually attractive, but I just find it unnecessary to charge people to be able to shop at their store. What's the point?

    At least in the case of Costco, almost the entirety of their profit is borne by membership fees. So if they removed them, they would raise prices or cease to be a going concern. If you only wanted to sporadically buy cheap, bulk items, then a small price increase would probably be a net benefit but then again you already have other, similiar retail outlets that offer you almost the same thing. If you buy lots of shit, then it would be a bad deal for all involved. Costco would lose its cost edge and make it easier for consumers to switch, you would pay more for the same stuff. More importantly, the cost and benefits of membership are clearly spelled out so there isn't any ambiguity.

    To make your horrid analogy a little more adept, a closer analogue would be if Costco added some service and required a membership upgrade to access said service. But they don't do that, probably because they don't feel it is a profit maximizing move since it would piss people off and part of their business model is customer satisfaction.


    I think we've raised an interesting question (which is, admittedly, off topic for this thread, and would simply result in a flamewar in a thread of its own.)



    How important is customer satisfaction to Apple's business model?

    I would imagine it is important in the sense that it is important to any vendors business model: only insofar as how it affects sales. For example, I was working for HP. HP realized that they had by and far the highest customer satisfation with printer quality and after-sales support from their techies.

    They realized that they could lower the quality control on the printers and cut costs in the CSS support queues. They did. They're still the best IIRC, but by a smaller margin.

    It's not about being the best you can be, it's about being good enough to make the most money that you can. If your business model involves selling gold painted lead that eveyone views as solid gold, then +1 for you.

    Robman on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Satsumomo wrote: »
    I know Sam's is discounted, and people will pay $30 because they need to buy stuff in bulk quantities. But I don't need a box of 24 deodorant sticks, but many times Sam's will carry something other stores don't, or their lower prices are actually attractive, but I just find it unnecessary to charge people to be able to shop at their store. What's the point?

    At least in the case of Costco, almost the entirety of their profit is borne by membership fees. So if they removed them, they would raise prices or cease to be a going concern. If you only wanted to sporadically buy cheap, bulk items, then a small price increase would probably be a net benefit but then again you already have other, similiar retail outlets that offer you almost the same thing. If you buy lots of shit, then it would be a bad deal for all involved. Costco would lose its cost edge and make it easier for consumers to switch, you would pay more for the same stuff. More importantly, the cost and benefits of membership are clearly spelled out so there isn't any ambiguity.

    To make your horrid analogy a little more adept, a closer analogue would be if Costco added some service and required a membership upgrade to access said service. But they don't do that, probably because they don't feel it is a profit maximizing move since it would piss people off and part of their business model is customer satisfaction.


    I think we've raised an interesting question (which is, admittedly, off topic for this thread, and would simply result in a flamewar in a thread of its own.)



    How important is customer satisfaction to Apple's business model?

    I would imagine it is important in the sense that it is important to any vendors business model: only insofar as how it affects sales. For example, I was working for HP. HP realized that they had by and far the highest customer satisfation with printer quality and after-sales support from their techies.

    They realized that they could lower the quality control on the printers and cut costs in the CSS support queues. They did. They're still the best IIRC, but by a smaller margin.

    It's not about being the best you can be, it's about being good enough to make the most money that you can. If your business model involves selling gold painted lead that eveyone views as solid gold, then +1 for you.

    I don't see that as an acceptable answer.

    Companies that ignore customer satisfaction eventually have it come back to bite them. Look at what happened to circuit city when they got rid of all the actually competent sales people that they had.

    If your custoomer service is exceptionally high, then yet, you can afford to let it drop a little, but you can't afford to ignore it entirely. Trading short term profits for long term issues is bad business.

    Evander on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Satsumomo wrote: »
    I know Sam's is discounted, and people will pay $30 because they need to buy stuff in bulk quantities. But I don't need a box of 24 deodorant sticks, but many times Sam's will carry something other stores don't, or their lower prices are actually attractive, but I just find it unnecessary to charge people to be able to shop at their store. What's the point?

    At least in the case of Costco, almost the entirety of their profit is borne by membership fees. So if they removed them, they would raise prices or cease to be a going concern. If you only wanted to sporadically buy cheap, bulk items, then a small price increase would probably be a net benefit but then again you already have other, similiar retail outlets that offer you almost the same thing. If you buy lots of shit, then it would be a bad deal for all involved. Costco would lose its cost edge and make it easier for consumers to switch, you would pay more for the same stuff. More importantly, the cost and benefits of membership are clearly spelled out so there isn't any ambiguity.

    To make your horrid analogy a little more adept, a closer analogue would be if Costco added some service and required a membership upgrade to access said service. But they don't do that, probably because they don't feel it is a profit maximizing move since it would piss people off and part of their business model is customer satisfaction.


    I think we've raised an interesting question (which is, admittedly, off topic for this thread, and would simply result in a flamewar in a thread of its own.)



    How important is customer satisfaction to Apple's business model?

    I would imagine it is important in the sense that it is important to any vendors business model: only insofar as how it affects sales. For example, I was working for HP. HP realized that they had by and far the highest customer satisfation with printer quality and after-sales support from their techies.

    They realized that they could lower the quality control on the printers and cut costs in the CSS support queues. They did. They're still the best IIRC, but by a smaller margin.

    It's not about being the best you can be, it's about being good enough to make the most money that you can. If your business model involves selling gold painted lead that eveyone views as solid gold, then +1 for you.

    I don't see that as an acceptable answer.

    Companies that ignore customer satisfaction eventually have it come back to bite them. Look at what happened to circuit city when they got rid of all the actually competent sales people that they had.

    If your custoomer service is exceptionally high, then yet, you can afford to let it drop a little, but you can't afford to ignore it entirely. Trading short term profits for long term issues is bad business.

    Actually it's the only way a CEO can keep his job, since quarter to quarter growth is one of the main drivers of stock price, and if the stocks don't increase in value a CEO might find himself out of the job. Unless you're the icon of a company, a la Jobs

    Robman on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Satsumomo wrote: »
    I know Sam's is discounted, and people will pay $30 because they need to buy stuff in bulk quantities. But I don't need a box of 24 deodorant sticks, but many times Sam's will carry something other stores don't, or their lower prices are actually attractive, but I just find it unnecessary to charge people to be able to shop at their store. What's the point?

    At least in the case of Costco, almost the entirety of their profit is borne by membership fees. So if they removed them, they would raise prices or cease to be a going concern. If you only wanted to sporadically buy cheap, bulk items, then a small price increase would probably be a net benefit but then again you already have other, similiar retail outlets that offer you almost the same thing. If you buy lots of shit, then it would be a bad deal for all involved. Costco would lose its cost edge and make it easier for consumers to switch, you would pay more for the same stuff. More importantly, the cost and benefits of membership are clearly spelled out so there isn't any ambiguity.

    To make your horrid analogy a little more adept, a closer analogue would be if Costco added some service and required a membership upgrade to access said service. But they don't do that, probably because they don't feel it is a profit maximizing move since it would piss people off and part of their business model is customer satisfaction.


    I think we've raised an interesting question (which is, admittedly, off topic for this thread, and would simply result in a flamewar in a thread of its own.)



    How important is customer satisfaction to Apple's business model?

    I would imagine it is important in the sense that it is important to any vendors business model: only insofar as how it affects sales. For example, I was working for HP. HP realized that they had by and far the highest customer satisfation with printer quality and after-sales support from their techies.

    They realized that they could lower the quality control on the printers and cut costs in the CSS support queues. They did. They're still the best IIRC, but by a smaller margin.

    It's not about being the best you can be, it's about being good enough to make the most money that you can. If your business model involves selling gold painted lead that eveyone views as solid gold, then +1 for you.

    I don't see that as an acceptable answer.

    Companies that ignore customer satisfaction eventually have it come back to bite them. Look at what happened to circuit city when they got rid of all the actually competent sales people that they had.

    If your custoomer service is exceptionally high, then yet, you can afford to let it drop a little, but you can't afford to ignore it entirely. Trading short term profits for long term issues is bad business.

    Actually it's the only way a CEO can keep his job, since quarter to quarter growth is one of the main drivers of stock price, and if the stocks don't increase in value a CEO might find himself out of the job. Unless you're the icon of a company, a la Jobs

    nothing drives stock price.

    stock price is a figment of our collective imaginations.



    Stock price should NOT be put above market equity. Maybe by the individual firm, but DEFINITELY not by observers.

    Evander on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    I think we've raised an interesting question (which is, admittedly, off topic for this thread, and would simply result in a flamewar in a thread of its own.)



    How important is customer satisfaction to Apple's business model?

    I would imagine it is important in the sense that it is important to any vendors business model: only insofar as how it affects sales. For example, I was working for HP. HP realized that they had by and far the highest customer satisfation with printer quality and after-sales support from their techies.

    They realized that they could lower the quality control on the printers and cut costs in the CSS support queues. They did. They're still the best IIRC, but by a smaller margin.

    It's not about being the best you can be, it's about being good enough to make the most money that you can. If your business model involves selling gold painted lead that eveyone views as solid gold, then +1 for you.

    I'd guess there are some parellels but also important differences. Costco's target market segment is above average income earners who are also extremely value conscious. They will be sensitive to any perceived failings in customer service since they can afford to eat any switching costs associated with using a different retailer. So pissing them off unduly will effect Costco's bottom line.

    I'd say Apple hinges more on using their products as a status symbol as well as some of the design aesthetics. The value of the status symbol does really diminish if the customer service associated with it is poor. In addition there are probably significant network effects at play in the music player segment. A network effect is the term that discribes a consumer good having more utility the more people there are who have the good. Cell phones are a classic example.

    I'm not trying to say that Apple's products are crap, or that only stupid scenesters buy them mind you. A large swath of our purchasing behaviors are influenced on some level by status. So its a neutral designation as far as I am concerned. But I imagine it makes them somewhat more resistent to consumer disatisfaction on the whole, though of course they aren't immune. And this of course is all just conjecture.

    Saammiel on
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    I need to think of this a little further.

    I go to Starbucks for a few reasons. I worked there for a couple years, so I know where the coffee comes from, and I expect a premium product when I go there.

    I don't get coffee from gas stations or McDonalds because those are dirty-water aimed toward a different target consumer. I pay more for higher quality coffee willingly.

    Now, I'm TRYING to apply this to Apple. Do people shop there because they think they are getting a higher-quality product? Maybe they do it because they don't have the knowledge or experience in building their own computer (which would cost substantially less and be substantially more powerful)?

    I'm finding it hard to justify the extra thousands of dollars being spent. Maybe it's something else:

    People hate Starbucks because they think they're a monopoly and "evil" company... so ON THAT THOUGHT, they go somewhere else to somehow try and "stick it to them"

    Well, what are the options outside of Windows? Mac. Linux. A typical person doesn't know what the hell Linux is... so they go the only other route... Mac.

    Maybe that's it? Apple would know this and be free to charge whatever god-awful price they want for their services.

    When a person buys a Sony Viao, they bought the name. When a person buys a Macbook Pro, they bought the name (and that little glowy Apple symbol). It's the false peace-of-mind that keeps people going back to Apple? That and propaganda, and good advertising.
    There are a lot of reasons why people buy Macs.

    They grew up using a Mac so they're familiar and comfortable with it. I would guess that's a fairly strong one there, since a lot of people are interested in trying something that they perceive as significantly different. They like the aesthetics of the physical product. They like the interface-work on the OS. They like that they are seemingly less-likely to get a virus on a Mac than on a Windows-based PC. And there is the ever-popular "status-symbol" reason. The "I paid more, so you know its better" crowd certainly exists in the Mac-user community.

    Regarding the "a higher-quality product" front: a lot of people out there don't realize what's in your Sony laptop is gonna be very very very similar to what's in their Macbook. They see the difference in the exteriors and think that the loving Apple engineers probably hand-crafted the board and CPU and such. Though I do think that the new Macbooks are very well engineered and designed on the exterior, and I don't know of another company off the top of my head that has a line designed like that. Possibly Dell's Adamo...

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Interestingly McDonald's new coffee blows Starbucks right out of the water in blind taste tests. Starbucks coffee is 90% perception.

    Robman on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Interestingly McDonald's new coffee blows Starbucks right out of the water in blind taste tests. Starbucks coffee is 90% perception.

    those ads will surprise me a bit if they work.

    they are basically admiting outright that they are taking something completely normal, adding an accent to it, and then prettending that the accent is some kind of value add

    Evander on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Wrong! It's still about quality.

    McDonald's is doing it RIGHT. They know what the typical American coffee-drinker wants, so they offer that now. They're smart for doing so. They can attach words like "premium" and "roast" all they want, but that doesn't make it any less shitty.

    Seriously, there is a HUGE difference in the coffee. A non-coinneseur will say Starbucks coffee (and I'm talking black coffee, how it's meant to be) is "bitter" or "burned"... but they aren't a coinneseur, they're a typical American that wants some hot water with a faint coffee aftertaste that has some caffeine in it.

    I drink various blends of coffee because I can taste the subtleties and shit. I've tried McDonalds, I'm not close-minded. It's horrid and not coffee to me.

    Same with beer, etc etc... American piss water vs quality imports.

    GPIA7R on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Black coffee is horrible for you, it causes damage to your stomach if you don't put the fatty milk or cream in there to give you a coating.

    Robman on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Black coffee is horrible for you, it causes damage to your stomach if you don't put the fatty milk or cream in there to give you a coating.

    unless you have a strong stomach to begin with.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Same with beer, etc etc... American piss water vs quality imports.

    There are plenty of quality American beers, man.

    Evander on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Black coffee is horrible for you, it causes damage to your stomach if you don't put the fatty milk or cream in there to give you a coating.

    unless you have a strong stomach to begin with.

    Edit: Above - Yeah I know, but focussing mostly on the "typical beer drinker"... all the Bud lights and stuff. Those aren't made for quality, they're made to get you drunk over time.

    I'm all of 120 pounds, underweight... but I drink the harshest of stuff. The deepest stouts, the blackest coffee, whiskey/scotch neat, etc.

    Anyway, McDonalds is also doing right with offering the flavored options. It's so easy to steal customers from Starbucks by offering your own, cheaper versions of their milk-based and blended drinks. But like I said, some of us go there because we know what we're paying for and appreciate the quality.

    That's not to say it can also go on a store-by-store basis... I've had to complain many times because of poor customer service and whatnot... When I pay a premium, I expect the same in return.

    ... so let's bring that around full-circle to the iTouch/Apple. While my personal experience with Apple has been negative, and my vision of them has been obscured thusly, that doesn't go for everyone. They didn't stand behind their product with me. Then seeing things like the "pay for OS updates" just gives off more of a bad vibe. I've yet to hear one comment here about someone liking the fee for updating. If you don't like it either, you shouldn't defend them just for the sake of defending them.

    GPIA7R on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    You get much better coffee, by and large, from small coffee shops. Starbucks is the Sam Adams of coffee, the microbrews are where the real gold is.

    Robman on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    That's probably true, especially in an Espresso sense.

    I worked at a small, locally owned coffee shop shortly after my run at Starbucks. The brewed coffee was horrid and cheap (like the owners liked it), but the espresso was done right... manually pressed and pulled in portafilters, knockboxes, etc. Sure you got a few grinds in the cup, but it was damn good. Starbucks got away from the manual machines back in the day to increase efficiency... therefore decreasing quality.

    GPIA7R on
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    GPIA7R, since you're in Indiana (hi fellow Hoosier), if you're of legal age I suggest you try anything you can find by The Three Floyds Brewery. I know United Package Liquor shops around town sell their stuff. :wink:

    </derail>

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    If you are ever in Maryland, go to DuClaw

    It's a restaurant chain with four locations around the state, and a dedicated microbrewery that supplies them.

    Evander on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    It just goes to show you, quality of coffee is even more subjective than quality of PMDs.

    The only way the later could come close is if we graded them based on how they tasted.

    Synthesis on
  • ColanutColanut Siedge WealdRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    ... so let's bring that around full-circle to the iTouch/Apple. While my personal experience with Apple has been negative, and my vision of them has been obscured thusly, that doesn't go for everyone. They didn't stand behind their product with me. Then seeing things like the "pay for OS updates" just gives off more of a bad vibe. I've yet to hear one comment here about someone liking the fee for updating. If you don't like it either, you shouldn't defend them just for the sake of defending them.

    While I don't have a Touch (I'm one of the whack-jobs holding out for a tablet-pad-thing) I don't see the uproar with the nominal cost of Touch OS for full point releases. I don't have a problem with paying for OS X [code name] releases either. It's new functionality and it's an optional enhancement. The original tool still works the same as when it was purchased. I would say that if the specs were good enough then that the device still has value. If there are new things that have value, one would purchase the upgrade. There were plenty of point updates and bug fixes that were free over the course of the year.

    I am also baffled as to why there is a flame war over what tools I choose to get my work done with or enjoy in my leisure time. Do people have these same conversations over Mikita vs Black n' Decker on a wood working forum (actually I guess they do, but I'm too afraid to look)? Why would someone care how I spend my money and what value I perceive in Apple products.

    Colanut on
  • RBachRBach Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Colanut wrote: »
    I am also baffled as to why there is a flame war over what tools I choose to get my work done with or enjoy in my leisure time. Do people have these same conversations over Mikita vs Black n' Decker on a wood working forum (actually I guess they do, but I'm too afraid to look)? Why would someone care how I spend my money and what value I perceive in Apple products.

    This. Computers are tools. Some people prefer one brand/model over another for a wide variety of reasons. This is no one else's concern and I truly don't understand why people get in such an uproar over Macs vs. PCs, OSX vs. Windows vs. Linux, iPods vs. everything else, etc.

    RBach on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Colanut wrote: »
    I am also baffled as to why there is a flame war over what tools I choose to get my work done with or enjoy in my leisure time. Do people have these same conversations over Mikita vs Black n' Decker on a wood working forum (actually I guess they do, but I'm too afraid to look)? Why would someone care how I spend my money and what value I perceive in Apple products.

    They absolutely do.

    Would you rather discuss Nikon vs. Cannon, or Ford vs. Chevy?



    the reason to be upset about paying for firmware updates is because other devices offer them free. Essentially, it appears that Apple would rather you just buy a new device every time it comes out, than work to prolong the life of the device you already have.

    Evander on
  • FatsFats Corvallis, ORRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Colanut wrote: »
    I am also baffled as to why there is a flame war over what tools I choose to get my work done with or enjoy in my leisure time. Do people have these same conversations over Mikita vs Black n' Decker on a wood working forum (actually I guess they do, but I'm too afraid to look)?

    Are you kidding? Black and Decker is cheap shit for fags, Milwaukee for life.

    Wherever there's a brand, there's gonna be brand wars. If we all respected others' opinions, what would we argue about?

    Fats on
  • ColanutColanut Siedge WealdRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    the reason to be upset about paying for firmware updates is because other devices offer them free. Essentially, it appears that Apple would rather you just buy a new device every time it comes out, than work to prolong the life of the device you already have.

    I don't follow, $10 for a OS upgrade or $250 for a new device. If the new device has additional features/specs, that might be a rational choice. If the hardware is not a compelling update, a new OS will accomplish the same goal. Or the original purchase continues to be useful. Value is up to the individual and a company has many ways of addressing that need. Apple chose one and it doesn't bother me. Your values lead you to make other choices.

    Also the choice of words: "firmware updates" seems to downplay the changes in the 1.x OS and the 2.x, 3.x OS (and I do see that I am playing up the significance of the release). I see each release as new functions. Maybe the problem is expectations.

    Colanut on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Colanut wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    the reason to be upset about paying for firmware updates is because other devices offer them free. Essentially, it appears that Apple would rather you just buy a new device every time it comes out, than work to prolong the life of the device you already have.

    I don't follow, $10 for a OS upgrade or $250 for a new device. If the new device has additional features/specs, that might be a rational choice. If the hardware is not a compelling update, a new OS will accomplish the same goal. Or the original purchase continues to be useful. Value is up to the individual and a company has many ways of addressing that need. Apple chose one and it doesn't bother me. Your values lead you to make other choices.

    It has to do with perception, not reality.

    They're already trying to make you want to upgrade, through other means. If on top of everything else they also make it so that you feel like your current device is sub-functional, it's an extra push.

    Dude says to himself, "Why would I waste money upgrading this old piece of junk, when I could just buy the new hotness?"
    Also the choice of words: "firmware updates" seems to downplay the changes in the 1.x OS and the 2.x, 3.x OS (and I do see that I am playing up the significance of the release). I see each release as new functions. Maybe the problem is expectations.

    I say firmware because that's what it is. The fact that it changes a lot of features doesn't make a difference.

    The Zune firmware, 360 Firmware, PSP firmware, PS3 firmware, and Wii firmware have all added a LARGE amount of features over time, always for free. Zune and 360 have both experienced complete redesigns, again for free, and everything has gained significant extra features.

    You're falling in to the Obs trap of "Apple's ____ costs more, therefore it must be better." The iPod touch hasn't made bigger leaps than any of the aforementioned devices.

    Evander on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    This thread is going places, and Gin will take us all there faster

    or maybe that's just me

    Robman on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    It's just you.

    My glass is half Whisky

    Evander on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    If it's half anything else, you're doing it wrong. :P

    GPIA7R on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    rocks and air

    it's a big glass

    Evander on
  • ColanutColanut Siedge WealdRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    I say firmware because that's what it is. The fact that it changes a lot of features doesn't make a difference.

    The Zune firmware, 360 Firmware, PSP firmware, PS3 firmware, and Wii firmware have all added a LARGE amount of features over time, always for free. Zune and 360 have both experienced complete redesigns, again for free, and everything has gained significant extra features.

    You're falling in to the Obs trap of "Apple's ____ costs more, therefore it must be better." The iPod touch hasn't made bigger leaps than any of the aforementioned devices.

    Ok, great, those companies made their support decisions and Apple made a different one. I don't follow those products so if they made huge leaps and significant features for free, fantastic. I'm just saying it is also fair to charge for new features and development. I don't want to fall into Obs trap, and if I have, sorry, but I don't think I asked anyone to agree to Apple is better on any level.

    And it looks like this thread has been completely derailed and I feel bad that I helped that along. I like reading about and discussing Apple products. So there goes a decent opportunity to read about what someone with a new Touch might do with it.

    Colanut on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    rocks and air

    it's a big glass

    Wait.

    Scotch or Whiskey? This is important.

    Robman on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Either one, lose the rocks.

    GPIA7R on
  • maximumzeromaximumzero I...wait, what? New Orleans, LARegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    cavemanice.jpg

    maximumzero on
    FU7kFbw.png
    Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Colanut wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I say firmware because that's what it is. The fact that it changes a lot of features doesn't make a difference.

    The Zune firmware, 360 Firmware, PSP firmware, PS3 firmware, and Wii firmware have all added a LARGE amount of features over time, always for free. Zune and 360 have both experienced complete redesigns, again for free, and everything has gained significant extra features.

    You're falling in to the Obs trap of "Apple's ____ costs more, therefore it must be better." The iPod touch hasn't made bigger leaps than any of the aforementioned devices.

    Ok, great, those companies made their support decisions and Apple made a different one. I don't follow those products so if they made huge leaps and significant features for free, fantastic. I'm just saying it is also fair to charge for new features and development. I don't want to fall into Obs trap, and if I have, sorry, but I don't think I asked anyone to agree to Apple is better on any level.

    So you don't follow what other companies do with their products.

    Which is why you haven't seen that the industry standard is NOT to charge for these updates. Ages ago, when I had an old monochrome Palm Pilot, the standard was to charge for new firmware, but the undustry has moved forward, and recognized that the firmware facilitates usage of the device, and therefore it to wrong to force a customer to purchase new firmware, because it means that they can no longer get 100% usage out of the device that they bought.

    Because customers also buy devices these days with the understanding that more functionality will be introduced later. That's simply the way that the market has gone.



    You can piss an moan about Apple's R&D costs, but everyone else swallows their own R&D costs for their firmware, and considering how overpriced all Apple products are, they definitely have the profit margins elsewhere to swallow those costs as well.

    Evander on
Sign In or Register to comment.