The Logic Off Topic list

>I can understand your annoyance at having to pay quite a huge sum of 
>money, and don't mind at all if you express that annoyance.  

Well, apparently the other lugger didn't feel so inclined.  Hmmm.  But thank
you for that...I appreciate that you see that.

>However, 
>I still don't see the point of using abusive language to individual 
>users who can't do anything about this pricing-issue.
>And yes, I read the rest of this thread, and maybe I missed 
>something, but I didn't see anyone offend you like you offend others.

I posted originally as:  "Does anyone feel like "Sucker" is their middle
name"

He in turn posted:  "Does anyone feel like "whiner" is their middle name"

Now who opened that can of worms...hmmm.  So, one good turn deserves
another.  I felt like roasting him over an open flame.

Read my original, then read his.  Look I can agree that one shouldn't always
fight fire with fire.  But really, quite frankly, he wanted to do so, so I
indulged him.  And if he has half a brain, he rather enjoyed the witty
dialogue and excepts that he got nicely roasted over an open flame.  If he
would like to continue, I might indulge him, but then again I might not. 
There have been so many times that a person responded with a degree of
"dis-information or wit", and I just ignored it...many times.  But, again, I
was provoked to do so.

>Serious question: do you have any idea what the v3 to v4 upgrade 
>cost, at the time?  Let's suppose it was $200.  Now v4 to v5 is $150. 
>So 3-to-5 might be $350.  Add some inflation, etc, and you get some 
>$400...  Not unreasonable then.  Or was the 3-to-4 upgrade more like 
>$50?  In that case you have a valid point.
>
>Seriously, no-one can judge the (un)reasonableness (is that a word?) 
>of the $400 pricing without knowing the 3-to-4 upgrade price -- which 
>I haven't seen mentioned in this entire thread.

That was automatically assumed by me that most of you knew the what was
going on.  That was my fault for not being clear on that.

Now, actually, as I remember it was 249.00 US for v4 upgrade and now 150.00
US for v5.  But, this is not how it is handled by most companies.  Most
companies find a compromise in cost, and sell "Skip Upgrades" with a
compromise in pricing structures.  The thinking is this, "Oh, you missed v4
and yet it is now dated technology, so one sells at a compromised price, and
moves it over into the cost v5.  The compromise is in cost, which is to
accept a lesser value for the Dated technology, this is what people in this
industry do...it is a fact.  You don't buy an older Mac for the same price
as newer Mac...right?  

I "skip upgraded" from Photoshop 3 to Photoshop 5.5 for 99.00, but I
received  Illustrator 8 upgrade for additional added cost of 99.00.  So, in
order to skip upgrade and get the deal, I had to buy both...see what I am
saying.  Somewhere a compromise was met, to get my version of Illustrator
updated as well.  Buying two things for a price.  The idea is that the Adobe
allotted flexibility to give me the deal.  One couldn't resist deal like
this.  

Now, if I would known this...I could have gone to Guitar Center, and bought
a v4 new in a box with AW2 card for 399.00, that would be 430.92 total. 
Then the upgrade would an additional 150.00 or is it free to new licenses of
LA...if it not, then add the 150.00, then that totals, 580.32.  Now that is
roughly a 180.00 dollar difference in price to my upgrade cost.  But I do
now have two licenses an extra AW2.  But, I am happier, than just spending
399.00 for my v3.5 to v5 upgrade with no real promotional value added.  But
lets say Emagic is nice and says, well since you just bought that new
license, here is v5 for free...then I am even happier, because then I spent
only 430.92, and got an AW2 card and v5 for free...that is if one can
compare these variables.  Not that I really need the card...I have a MOTU
24i, but if one added it in, I would not be remiss in taking advantage of
it.

But the object of an upgrade is to not be as much as an over the counter
sale.  It is silly, to do otherwise if you ask me.  If the deal was to
purchase v4 with AW2 card for 399.00.  Then my logic would say, if I am to
be expected to pay full value of 249.00 US for a v4 upgrade, then I should
get some promotional deal extended to me based on today's promotional
market.  So, then that makes it more like I am buying upgrade with some
added value.  Otherwise I am paying a full price upgrade on top of another
full price upgrade...which by today's current market value...one of them is
delineated technology and was purposely mark down to get a larger user base.
 If one can afford to sell v4 and AW2 card so cheap.  Then why isn't my v4
upgrade marked down as well, then sifted into the cost of v5.

In other words, 10 percent of something is, better than 10 percent of
nothing.  

Also, if you really want to say something about inflation, then think to
yourself, why are they selling v5 for 150.00 US to v4 users.  When clearly,
before, upgrades were much more money.  You think this is because they have
some fondness for us...that they love us or something....no, this is
business.  It is, because the business model of volume sales are better than
low or no sales.  IF one keeps that in mind.  Then, your theory on inflation
is bit mute, especially when one thinks in these terms.  Volume sales far
exceed, high markup sales.  Better to sell something for 1 dollar more than
what is cost to make, then sell it for 100 dollars more than what it cost to
make...why, because 10,000,000 sales at 1 dollar each...is 10,000,000.00
dollars profit, whereas 10,000 sale at a 100 dollars each is 1,000,000.00
dollars profit.  Harder to sell something if it cost more.  Why you think
Cubase was so successful, because a lot of their promotions were literally
so cheap.  But this also about staying a float in a rough patch of times.

>I'm not siding with anyone.  I just object to your somewhat 
>thoughtless people-bashing.  I can understand anger, but anger never 
>is an excuse to start behaving like you do.

Again, read the original, then read his switch.  I here you, but he wanted
to provoke a me.  So I flamed him, no harm done...he is taking it quite
well.  Do you see Wilson provoking me...do you see him flaming me.  No,
because his approach is that of someone with a conscience of seeing that, in
one day...it could be him.  Go see his post, he is actually very
understanding. 

>I know you're not an idiot, and maybe *that's* the reason I object to 
>your postings.  Others have posted worse things in the past (not 
>necessarily referring to this thread), and I may not have responded 
>to that, since I already gave up on some people.  The fact that I 
>object to your postings therefore means that I think you're _worth_ 
>objecting to.

Noted, and thank you for that.  I see what you are saying.  However, my
position still stands clear, paying 399.00 for LAMP v3.5-v5, is still
unethical in its pricing structure.  I just can't visualize that in my mind
as a clear incentive to upgrade.  

>>And sometimes Hendrik, you fail to see a lot of thing...But I don't usually
>>blame you for that.
>
>Ditto the other way around.  *Usually* I don't either.  Except this time.

Fine.  I hear you...But again, I was provoked.  But sometimes, if I see
something that is just way out of hand, I am going use the pen in a sword
like manner.  

>So you claim that the v3-v4 upgrade was 300 (your number above) - 150 
>(the v4-v5 price) = $150?

No read it again and maybe a slight oops on my part...I see where I might
have confused the issue.  And that is because I am PO'ed.  But no I never
claimed that v3-v4 was 300.00.

So let me see...
I bought version LA 2.0 at 540.00 dollars retail.  Then in upgrades from 2.0
through to 3.5, it was about roughly 300.00 in upgrades.  So now, that is
roughly, 840.00 over time that I have spent on Logic. So now, if I would
have upgraded to v4, I would have spent 249.00 for the upgrade...then 150.00
for v5.  So, what they are in fact doing is charging me, 249.00 for missing
v4, and adding 150.00 for v5.  No added value or incentive to keep me as a
customer, really.  Think about it.  A 12 week try out, oh whoopee, I am
really jumping for joy on that one.  Pinch me, Am I dreaming. 

But now it is starting not matter to me anymore.  Because, I can switch to
something else and be content.  I just will be more careful who I "get in
bed with now"...that is all.  But when I am asked, I will tell my
story...whenever I possible.  And as you can see, I am pretty persistent and
convincing person.  And maybe, I will exaggerate it, just to add more spice
to it.  Hey, no matter, 399.00 for v3 to v5, yeah that'll speak for itself. 


>If I read this correctly and the v3/v4 price indeed was $150, then 
>you seem to have a valid point here.  *That* should have been your 
>argument then.  

No, I don't have a valid point when in fact the upgrade from v3 to v4 was
originally was 249.00 US.  My point, however is valid when I am saying:
One does not charge full value of v4 upgrade portion after two years.  One
doesn't factor that into a skip upgrade cost, that is just being a unethical
with pricing.  That is my point.

If you buy a new car from a dealership, the day you buy it and drive it off
the lot...the value delineates down 50 percent.  So really, I should be
paying about 75.00 for v4 and adding in 150.00 v5.  That is 225.00...so I
say 249.00 at best.  But now, even if you offer it to me right now for
300.00 or 249.00, I am still even more reluctant...cause yah, tried to pull
the wool over my eyes or the fact that I had to actually request it.  Nah,
not my kind of people.  This is a time, for more bang for the buck, and
really good deals.  Something somewhere is going to break, and it will be
good. 

>Just claiming that "400 is too much" is of little use 
>without the proper background info (which I might have missed, but 
>don't think I did)

Well, that was an assumption on my part...that most understood the original
price of the upgrade from v3 to v4 was in fact 249.00.  I see it was a
mistake to post it that way.  But, again, to pay full value of what was, and
add it into the cost of what is, is still not fair pricing.

Again:
to upgrade from: 3.5 to v4 would be 249.00 US
then from v4 to v5 is 149.00 US

So this is essentially how they are basing it.
249.00 + 149 = 398 (round up 399)

And again the idea of charging full value on delineated technology on a skip
upgrade is unethical.

>Agreed.  And once more I don't object to your anger -- esp. if it's 
>justified (depending on the v3/v4 pricing).  But then Emagic should 
>be the target of your anger, and not some fellow LUGger.  Even if 
>it's a LUGger "kissing up Emagic's butt", to paraphrase you.  Who 
>cares if some LUGgers swallow everything Emagic serves them?  What 
>difference does it make?  None at all.

Emagic was the target of my anger, the other person just stepped in...are
you sure you read my original.  The pricing is ineffectual to me, because I
don't see it as being fair.  I see how they are basing it, and I can see
"How they think that it is fair".  But it is not how I am used to doing
business with companies.  It essentially closes the deal between me and
Emagic.  From this point...after a certain amount of time, eventually I will
be signing off this list.  That should make most very happy.  But then the
question will be, "who will have the last laugh"...we'll see.  Because,
honestly, this is not the time to screw with people.

>Nothing wrong with "good reasons and objectivity", but then that's 
>not what I objected to.

Again, when provoked...I wasn't gonna sit by and let him get off that
easily.

>I did follow, and did think to myself...  And that's why a few days 
>ago (6 feb) in the LUG I posted a rather decent (I think) message to 
>you, asking you to stop behaving irrationally.  The 1st sentence in 
>that message was:
>
>"I've come to know you as a reasonable and knowledgeable guy, so I
>don't really understand what you're trying to do now?  "

That was entirely different issue to which I wanted to respond to you in
detail, privately and even Markus.  But my personal experience with Markus,
is that he would view it and be indifferent about it.  However, now I feel
what ever might be said about the prior incidence, might be too dated.  But
that has nothing to do with this.  I think you need to separate the two
factors.  Then equate the solution.  Two different incidences and two
different factors.

>That still stands.  Both the 1st and the 2nd part of the sentence.

Thank you.  I do appreciate that.

Peace,
Alexis