How do you view Apple's "Step-Up" Marketing?

[Dario D.]

Just wondering how people view Apple's "Reset, Step-Up" marketing (releasing products - like the IPod Touch/IPhone - with certain specs dropped (or reset) way, way below what you've grown used to (like storage capacity - IPod Video reaching 80 GB, then IPhone/IPod Touch starting at 4-8 and 8-16 GB) in order to 'artificially' start a new "step-up" cycle... Also keeping other "non-selling-point" specs (like battery-life - things that won't stop most people from buying exactly) at painfully low levels, in order to create a huge upgrade incentive once the new model comes out... And finally, keeping all new models a secret till like a month before they're released, to ensure that more people don't cancel a purchase in order to wait, but rather, buy something, get stuck with it, and have to buy again if they want the new one)

What I'm trying to figure out is simply if Apple gets away with this, or if people realistically notice, and re-evaluate their trust of Apple.

No, I'm not an Apple investor or market research person. (...but I know that there isn't a chance that Apple doesn't pour over this board for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, so there's a possibility they may learn something important from this)

And please keep the discussion at a low temperature. (Considering this is simply to evaluate what people think, I see no reason for things to go sour, but have seen it happen before...)

 

[KaosDG]

What's the point of this thread?
Every company does it, it's the nature of the business.

I wouldn't call it step up marketing at all. It's the natural progression of their product lines.

Apple just does a better job at keeping new products in their pipeline a secret, so people feel wronged when they buy something a month before Apple announces something new.

 

[lopoetve]

What KaosDG said.

Apple is predictable if you know what to look for. They aim for a certain price point, and upgrade when possible to keep at that price point instead of discounting. It's just how it works.

 

[Dario D.]

What's the point of this thread?
Every company does it, it's the nature of the business.

Well, it may be a widespread practice, but if it's DESTROYING Apple's image, the issue might need to be put up on an Apple whiteboard. Up until now, there have been 2 types of large companies in the tech industry: 1) large companies, and 2) Apple (Google probably shares in this category, also). The first is perceived by the public as your typical, boring, purely-self-interested companies, whereas the second is seen with a sense of glowing wonder, with people often even being auto-forgiving of some flaws (like being more expensive, in Apple's case), because they want to trust the company. Trouble is, with the way things are going, it may only be a matter of a few years before people's trust and attitude toward Apple is reduced to that of just another company... though one that makes nice products. (In other words, think of a some car company that makes really nice luxury cars, but is still thought of as just a some car company. Tomorrow, Apple might just end up being that company, whereas today, it's Porche (not quite Ferrari anymore))

So, the point of this poll is just to find out if people (mostly technophiles, in this case) are more on the accepting side, or more on the irritated side of Apple's tactics...

Btw, I wouldn't be so quick to pardon things just because other companies do them. If everyone in the world did that...

(btw, I clarified my original post a bit)

 

[lopoetve]

They upgraded the ipod touch when the NAND chips it uses for memory came out with larger capacities. Check the buyers guide on macrumors for proof. It's not like they could do a 32gb one from the get-go. The phone started out at 4-8 to keep cost affordable, since a 16gb phone would have been 1k - those chips plus the phone portion made up most of the cost.

They're not deliberately dropping specs except to make things actually affordable for people.

 

[CEpeep]

This whole thread better be a troll. Prices decrease as products are produced in higher quantity and technology improves production processes. It's not like Apple and Intel already have some super-secret 4GHz Quad Core Macbook already built and waiting to be shipped to stores after people buy all of the ones that are already out.

 

[TheLordsServant]

I hope this thread is a joke or something. Every company in the electronics market, heck, every company in every market uses the same marketing idea. If they never upgraded their products, would anyone want to buy them? No. They wouldn't. I can smell this turning into an Apple bashing thread already. Oh, and by the way, I never even noticed "step-up" marketing, as you call it.

 

[Mr. Wolf]

The only company I've ever encountered that uses the term "step-up" as part of their marketing strategy is eVGA. Methinks this thread is headed for an appointment with the Dead-Thread Master.

 

[mrgstiffler]

Every company does this, but because of Apple's limited product line, it's a lot more noticeable.

 

[gunnm74]

I'd never noticed my battery life at painfully low levels. If we're talking about iPods, I'm sure the battery life is similar to (if not better than) competitors' products. People are willing to pay a price premium for the name and ease of use, even if the features are not as good as what you'd find in an iRiver or Zune or Rio Karma. If the market wouldn't bear the cost, Apple wouldn't sell many of them until they lowered the prices. And if they're charging what the market will bear, that's what the stockholders want. That's why Apple's stock is doing so well, even in the middle of a recession.

And comparing a hard drive based iPod to a flash memory based iPod is like apples and oranges. The cost of flash memory was pretty steep at the beginning.

 

[Dario D.]

I'd never noticed my battery life at painfully low levels.

I guess it depends on what you do. Music lasts quite a while (screen turned off), but if you play games, or watch movies, it's painful. I recharged my IPod Touch the other day, then let it run on Pocket God (game) just to see how long it would last before shutting off (with medium screen brightness, and medium volume) and it lasted exactly 3 hours. Then it took 4 hours to recharge. So, a gamer like me will actually spend more time charging than gaming.

I actually returned 2 previous IPod Touch's before settling on this one, just because I thought there was no way the batteries could be this pathetic. Also because Apple's battery specs certainly didn't mention anything about 3 hours (see, it says here: 36 hours of audio, 6 hours of video... Naturally, I was assuming that if they didn't mention gaming, it should be considered similar to video. But there's a nice reason they don't mention it)

And comparing a hard drive based iPod to a flash memory based iPod is like apples and oranges. The cost of flash memory was pretty steep at the beginning.

Remember that the first IPhone started at $500 and $600... and it was a relatively short time before they reduced it to $100 and $200. Since they could AFFORD to lower it that much, what that tells you is that, in the beginning, they were charging so much more for the IPhone than it costs to make, that flash memory price couldn't have been an issue. As others point out. It could be that $100 was too low to go at the very beginning, but that doesn't douse the issue. And they could have just used a hard drive... probably even one with smaller dimensions, if needed (and thus with not as much space as the IPod Video, but still QUITE a bit).

 

[Auric]

And they could have just used a hard drive... probably even one with smaller dimensions, if needed (and thus with not as much space as the IPod Video, but still QUITE a bit).

Not really. The iPhone has significantly more hardware than an iPod -- including cellular, GPS and Wi-Fi antennas -- packed into a case roughly the same size. iPods were originally HDD-based simply because the price and capacity of flash memory weren't yet cost-effective. By the time the iPhone came out, they were. Apple assumed that most people would rather have a smaller, more durable and energy-efficient phone than have the ability to store 80GB of music on it.

If you're wondering why they haven't released an 80GB flash-based iPhone, take a look at the price of an 80GB SSD and you'll have your answer.

 

[RangerXML]

I guess it depends on what you do. Music lasts quite a while (screen turned off), but if you play games, or watch movies, it's painful. I recharged my IPod Touch the other day, then let it run on Pocket God (game) just to see how long it would last before shutting off (with medium screen brightness, and medium volume) and it lasted exactly 3 hours. Then it took 4 hours to recharge. So, a gamer like me will actually spend more time charging than gaming.

I actually returned 2 previous IPod Touch's before settling on this one, just because I thought there was no way the batteries could be this pathetic. Also because Apple's battery specs certainly didn't mention anything about 3 hours (see, it says here: 36 hours of audio, 6 hours of video... Naturally, I was assuming that if they didn't mention gaming, it should be considered similar to video. But there's a nice reason they don't mention it)


Remember that the first IPhone started at $500 and $600... and it was a relatively short time before they reduced it to $100 and $200. Since they could AFFORD to lower it that much, what that tells you is that, in the beginning, they were charging so much more for the IPhone than it costs to make, that flash memory price couldn't have been an issue. As others point out. It could be that $100 was too low to go at the very beginning, but that doesn't douse the issue. And they could have just used a hard drive... probably even one with smaller dimensions, if needed (and thus with not as much space as the IPod Video, but still QUITE a bit).

Your really missing the point, first off the HDD vs SDD, but secondly your example out of here. The iPhone price drop wasn't a price drop as much as a subsidized product, thus the phones themself still cost $600+ and it is only logical that the 3G are going to see a price drop from the 3GS release. This is just like a regular cellphone/smartphone when you buy a contract. Everything else Apple is doing is to try and predict where the market is going, what there customers are going to want or what technologies they are trying to push, thus SD slots vs Express and the return of firewire.

 

[gunnm74]

Remember that the first IPhone started at $500 and $600... and it was a relatively short time before they reduced it to $100 and $200. Since they could AFFORD to lower it that much, what that tells you is that, in the beginning, they were charging so much more for the IPhone than it costs to make, that flash memory price couldn't have been an issue. As others point out. It could be that $100 was too low to go at the very beginning, but that doesn't douse the issue. And they could have just used a hard drive... probably even one with smaller dimensions, if needed (and thus with not as much space as the IPod Video, but still QUITE a bit).

According to your article, $100 and even $200 was too low to go at the beginning, since the parts were estimated to have cost $280. That doesn't factor in R&D, transportation or assembly costs.

When you say "relatively short time", you're talking about TWO YEARS. The first iPod was released on June 29, 2007. And as of only last week, you can buy them for $100 and $200 (subsidized by AT&T -- and why not? They're making at least $1500 off of you over the two year contract period). Two years is an eternity in the world of cell phone development.

And if a cell phone company suggested I'd be happier with a spinning hard drive platter in my cell phone, I'd tell them "No thanks." Do you know how badly people abuse their cell phones? How long would it last if you jarred the hard drive platter every time you dropped it?

 

[Grentz]

Yes, it annoys me. But it is a fact of business.

Now, there have been some that I completely disagree with like the including disabled technology (like they did with wireless) that is unlocked by a pay for software upgrade later....that is just completely shady IMO. Another one is deliberately leaving out pretty standard features and then making hype and again pay for upgrades to get them (they did this a lot on the Touch/iPhone).

Now things like battery life/storage/etc. is usually just progress and segmenting and most companies do that...I dont love it but its ok.

What KaosDG said.

Apple is predictable if you know what to look for. They aim for a certain price point, and upgrade when possible to keep at that price point instead of discounting. It's just how it works.

The issue IMO is they dont need to strip these things to hit the price points they are aiming for. Their margins are enormous on their products compared to comparable products and segments in the industry. Or, in the example of software unlocks, they already provided it and thus are just milking more money for things the customer already has just cannot use.

 

[Jinto]

People still buy it. I see no reason for a company to give more when the customers are perfectly happy buying their stuff. If you dont like it, dont buy it. Apple will notice and respond accordingly. Does that mean I want to spend $3k for a PoS? No. But I do understand that Apple is beholden to its shareholders first and foremost.

p.s. The Iphone is still 500-600. Just because it is $200 with a 2 year contract does not mean the unit price is $200...

 

[Dario D.]

I just wanna bump this, and see if opinions have shifted any over the past year. Here are the current poll numbers, before they change:

 

[Firemane]

As others have said, every manufacturer does this to some extent but Apple tends to be more visible about it - partly because of the limited product range, but also because of the microscope that their fans and detractors put them under at every turn.

And yeah, it sucks. But I deal with it from Apple the same way I deal with it on everything from cars to pocket watches. We're all just a little more cognizant of it happening with Apple.

 

[cbags101]

From a consumer stand point, I am pissed about it. I know that they could release much better products with full features that are competitive with other non-apple products.

From an investor stand point, I understand that they are looking after their bottom line and I respect that. It's not about the latest and newest components and having every bell and whistle with Apple. They are designing cost efficient products that, to the consumer, look nice and (what functions they do have) function really well.

 

[Pyrolistical]

You are plain wrong. When it went from 80 GB to 4 GB that was a transition from HDD to SSD.

Blame cost of NAND and not marketing (this time)

 

[Dario D.]

Well, if you look at iSupply's hardware "teardowns" (starting with the very first iPhone here) it seems that iPhones have always cost a lot less to make than what they sell for, so, it looks like Apple has always had financial breathing-room to include more storage. Not only that, but look at the iPad (which could have been made to fit thin hard drives, like in the iPod Video)... Is NAND really still that expensive? And yet they're starting the iPad - massive and laptop-like as it is - at 16gb. You could probably fit like 10 movies, and one standard MP3 collection on the lowest-end model (and that's surely the one that will sell the most).

Simply put, I think a LOT of people remember the iPods of a couple years ago reaching massive storage capacities (160gb in 2007), then look at the iPhone/iTouch (and especially iPad) and say, "What?? What are they doing here??" (a normal person isn't going to stop and calculate the cost of flash storage, and try to justify things...)

To Apple, what this all should mean is that their Public-Image Titanic may have some punctures in it (not just referring to the storage thing), and it may be lowering the level of their ship.

 

[WBurchnall]

You forgot the one saving grace Dario. The general public has a very small attention span. Most of them will look at the iTouch, iPod nano and go 'Ohh tiny! That's why its dropped from 160GB to 4GB'. Small things fit less is a very possible thought generated by the General Public's real-world experiences imo. Large box, fits lots. Small box, its little. Small iPod nano fits less than iPod video.

That or they'll be so distracted by the 'Touch' controls that their old iPad didn't have, they'll go ohhh and ahhh over it similar to the Wii system and completely disregard the poor performance. Somehow in the end, Apple's public image seems to never hit that inevitable ice berg. They've truely become experts at disinformation and reinventing the wheel developed by other companies in a slighty more pretty form factor.

I swear, if Apple made cars, we'd all be driving cars incapable of exceeding 35MPH. Sure, last year's cars may have been capable of 100MPH but these are mini-cars with engines 1/3rd the size and made with no mechanical moving parts! We call them the IECar. Short for the iElectricCar. Its battery only stores enough energy to go 40 miles but we'd be able to drive it just by pointing a finger where we want to go! Who cares of last year's model could go up to 300 miles on a single tank of gas. There would be plenty of colors to choose from though and the majority of cars would be encased in rubber to protect their iPod from other drivers trying to use the finger-pointing controls. Sadly, the finger controls themselves would be the cause of many accidents as like most things Apple, the new process would be more convoluted, dumbed down with less features(who needs turning signals or a pedal to control your speed when you have a finger and volume of your humming to control speed!), than the previous system while strangely ever so slightly more intuitive.

In addition, cd players would be removed from cars in favour of the radio. Cd players would be called slow, inefficient power-hogs and later reintroduced in the iECar 2.0 and hailed as a brilliant invention. MP3/CD combo players or features available in cars from other manufacturer's would become the new enemy till in 5 years its included with the iECar 3.0. The iECar3.0 of course reach an amazing 42 MPH and 45 miles per recharge! Nevermind those competitors cars going faster and lasting longer. They don't have finger controls and are bound by a steering wheel. Their batteries being drained by features like voice-activated phone integration, mp3 player integration and gps.

Sadly, even if you liked your old gas car and don't want to upgrade to the iECar, the first time your car would break down, you'd be informed that replacing any piece is more expensive than buying a brand new car and so your better off just buying a brand new car! The new iEcar!

 

[valve1138]

Well, if you look at iSupply's hardware "teardowns" (starting with the very first iPhone here) it seems that iPhones have always cost a lot less to make than what they sell for, so, it looks like Apple has always had financial breathing-room to include more storage.

It's called a profit margin.

 

[Dario D.]

You forgot the one saving grace Dario. The general public has a very small attention span. Most of them will look at the iTouch, iPod nano and go 'Ohh tiny! That's why its dropped from 160GB to 4GB'. Small things fit less is a very possible thought generated by the General Public's real-world experiences imo. Large box, fits lots. Small box, its little. Small iPod nano fits less than iPod video.

Well, when coming from that angle, one can certainly find at least enough sense to pitch a possibility, but I really don't think (for myself) that it actually adds up that way. I just don't think anyone looks at the iPhone/iTouch and says, "Its tiny size must explain the tiny storage," because, 1) iPods have always been small (look at the 160gb iPod Video), and 2) the public is trained to believe that the storage on iPod-like devices only ever goes up, up, up, up...

I think that many people - who haven't already - will start to pull the plug on trusting (or liking) Apple, if they detect a STUPIDLY-obvious step-up scheme, like inexplicably releasing new iDevices rolled back to 8gb, etc (the first iPhones started at 4gb)... especially when the public expects them to be soooo technologically "ahead". Even if it isn't obvious to a person at first, as soon as he sees a new model for sale, with bumped up storage, he catches the drift. (especially if the new storage capacities look like ooooold, completely unimpressive numbers, like, "16gb" and "32gb"... stuff that you saw on iPods 7 years ago)

 

[NetJunkie]

Wow....just wow. Even for the Apple forum this is unreal. Is there any understanding of economics, profit, R&D, distribution, overhead costs....anything in your posts? I don't think so. Apple can't sell a product that costs $300 for $320 and stay in business.

As others said Apple targets a price point and when parts go down in price they up the specs and hold the price. Its good business to hold product announcements. All smart companies do it. Companies have gone out of business by announcing a new model and then hitting a major delay. Orders dry up and cash flow stops and the company starves. Plus, distributors and retail stores don't want pre-announcements. They get stuck with old stock.

As for battery on the iTouch... Games use more than anything. They use graphics and CPU. Video is hardware processed. Same with music. It gets offloaded. Games use everything. Play a heavy game on a notebook and i bet you charge more than you play too.

 

[NetJunkie]

I think that many people - who haven't already - will start to pull the plug on trusting (or liking) Apple, if they detect a STUPIDLY-obvious step-up scheme, like inexplicably releasing new iDevices rolled back to 8gb, etc (the first iPhones started at 4gb)... especially when the public expects them to be soooo technologically "ahead". Even if it isn't obvious to a person at first, as soon as he sees a new model for sale, with bumped up storage, he catches the drift. (especially if the new storage capacities look like ooooold, completely unimpressive numbers, like, "16gb" and "32gb"... stuff that you saw on iPods 7 years ago)

I assume you are referring to the iPad. I have yet to show anyone an iPad and have them question the capacity. They get it. It's small, light, 10 hour battery life...so you don't get 160GB. If Apple is overpricing so much why isn't anyone releasing the same quality for less? When you look at the cost to build their products do you also know what the software dev costs too? Doubtful.

 

[Serpico]

Wow....just wow. Even for the Apple forum this is unreal. Is there any understanding of economics, profit, R&D, distribution, overhead costs....anything in your posts? I don't think so.

Its the internet, this lack of fundamental understanding shouldn't be surprising.

Oh, and multiply by this by 100 in any given tech forum. Considering how "smart people" are supposed to post in such places such as these, I've seen more idiotic posts per capita than pretty much any other forum, its insane. Jack it up by a factor of 10000 if we're talking the front page forums. It isn't bottom of the barrel like Youtube comments but its pretty goddamn close.

 

[I3roknI3ottle]

Wow....just wow. Even for the Apple forum this is unreal. Is there any understanding of economics, profit, R&D, distribution, overhead costs....anything in your posts? I don't think so. Apple can't sell a product that costs $300 for $320 and stay in business.

As others said Apple targets a price point and when parts go down in price they up the specs and hold the price. Its good business to hold product announcements. All smart companies do it. Companies have gone out of business by announcing a new model and then hitting a major delay. Orders dry up and cash flow stops and the company starves. Plus, distributors and retail stores don't want pre-announcements. They get stuck with old stock.

As for battery on the iTouch... Games use more than anything. They use graphics and CPU. Video is hardware processed. Same with music. It gets offloaded. Games use everything. Play a heavy game on a notebook and i bet you charge more than you play too.

QFT ~ My question to the ones who bash on Apple and say they are pulling one over on their customers, have you actually ever purchased a product from Apple??

 

[Andrmgic]

The only time I felt even slightly put-off was the rapid price cut on the initial iPhone.. but then apple gave all of the early adopters a $100 gift certificate, which was a nice gesture.

I figured I had gotten at least $100 worth of fun out of being one of the first people with an iPhone (and being asked for demonstrations almost all the time), so I was mostly ok with it anyway.

I know objectively that apple will release a new, better version than what I currently have within the next 365 days. I'm an early adopter most of the time, so I know the rough timeframe in which a device I've bought will be replaced by a better model for the same price.

Apple loves to keep their profit margins high... they are just one of the few companies that can successfully demand a premium for their products. If HP and Dell could get away with it, they would too. Dell has tried with their Adamo line, which has apparently not been that successful.

Also, they don't quote battery life for gaming because if someone can play 6 hours of scrabble or solitaire and only 2 hours of street fighter IV, someone will be angry when apple claims that you can game for 6 hours and they only get 2 with that particular game.

They would have to differentiate between 3D games and 2D games.. but even then some games of the same type are harder on the device than others.. so in the end it was just better not to state a number for gaming when it could vary so greatly.

 

[MattyC]

I am with Kaos still, what is the point of this thread?

 

[Zinn]

Well, it may be a widespread practice, but if it's DESTROYING Apple's image

might as well qualify that with a big IMO. maybe Apple has destroyed their image in your opinion, but unless you're a market research firm, you can't really be arguing with the fact that Apple is doing gangbusters in a bad economy. obviously Apple is doing something right when they can sell 700,000 iPads on day one--and that's a completely unnecessary product right there.

people buy products they perceive value in. every computer or electronics manufacturer updates their specs. i didn't feel ripped off because the Nvidia GTX 280 came out a year after I bought my 8800 GTX. i actually felt thrilled to upgrade.

OP seems to be arguing against capitalism. companies need to be opportunistic and profitable in order to survive. that means you sell things for more than you paid for them at a price that people perceive value at. move to Cuba if this offends you.

 

[Line]

I feel that they are not too concerned in cutting costs or finding the best deals for their component and therefore don't lower their prices of the final product.

 

[Dario D.]

Sorry for the late reply. I've been busy-busy, but wanted to get back to this thread eventually.

I don't want to cover every detail, but these are worth a poke:

Wow....just wow. Even for the Apple forum this is unreal. Is there any understanding of economics, profit, R&D, distribution, overhead costs....anything in your posts? I don't think so. Apple can't sell a product that costs $300 for $320 and stay in business.

As others said Apple targets a price point and when parts go down in price they up the specs and hold the price.

First of all, that's not what I'm saying... Second of all, you must be forgetting that Apple is famous for its profit margins, and having massive room for price flexibility:
http://www.slashgear.com/apples-highest-end-729-ipad-costs-less-than-300-to-make-1073662/

And yes, I've heard of all those things you listed. I have no idea why you bring them up, unless you're just trying to project a make-believe sense of fail on my part. Might want to read all my posts in this thread, because your points seem oblivious to the things I said.

As others said Apple targets a price point and when parts go down in price they up the specs and hold the price.

I don't think you know what you're talking about, nor did you read my posts.
1: I was saying that a key spec got LOWERED, in the needless switch to flash memory. Example: the iPod line had reached 160gb, then the iPod Touch dropped down to 8gb (and the iPhone started at 4gb (!!)... this is supporting movies and all. -- My 16gb iTouch LIVES in a state of fullness... Rationing/juggling what I store has become a way of life... and I don't even have an MP3 collection).
2: Apple prices usually hold at least moderately well, but certainly not always. Example: the original iPhone dropped $200 only 2 months after release (making Steve Wozniak annoyed, because it was hurting all the people who had JUST spent $600), and it wasn't too long before it dropped another $200.

Its the internet, this lack of fundamental understanding shouldn't be surprising.

Oh, and multiply by this by 100 in any given tech forum. Considering how "smart people" are supposed to post in such places such as these, I've seen more idiotic posts per capita than pretty much any other forum, its insane. Jack it up by a factor of 10000 if we're talking the front page forums. It isn't bottom of the barrel like Youtube comments but its pretty goddamn close.

lol... might need to point where where exactly you get this impression from - like, in detail, addressing actual points I brought up - because I don't follow.

 

[valve1138]

There isn't a rolleyes smiley big enough for this thread. So I'll use this one

 

[NetJunkie]

I don't think you know what you're talking about, nor did you read my posts.
1: I was saying that a key spec got LOWERED, in the needless switch to flash memory. Example: the iPod line had reached 160gb, then the iPod Touch dropped down to 8gb (and the iPhone started at 4gb (!!)... this is supporting movies and all. -- My 16gb iTouch LIVES in a state of fullness... Rationing/juggling what I store has become a way of life... and I don't even have an MP3 collection).
2: Apple prices usually hold at least moderately well, but certainly not always. Example: the original iPhone dropped $200 only 2 months after release (making Steve Wozniak annoyed, because it was hurting all the people who had JUST spent $600), and it wasn't too long before it dropped another $200.

For point #1: You can't compare the iPod to the Touch. It's a different product and line completely. The Touch is the iPhone without the Phone. It's not an iPod with a touchscreen display. If you want a Touch with a large spinning disk in it fine, but they don't make that. Just a hole in their line they don't care to fill..like a mid-size desktop that isn't all-in-one.

No spec was LOWERED. They didn't suddenly start selling the plain iPod with only 16GB in it. They released a device with a touch screen that was simply too small to put a larger storage device in to and they felt it was the right choice. The success it would tell me they were right.

2. The price of components dropped quickly too so that's just life. Don't buy it on launch day. Does it suck to see the price drop $200? Sure. But again, this is tech and that's life.

 

[KaosDG]

The usefulness of this thread has reached it's end...