The Logic Off Topic list

--- In logic-ot@y..., "Alexis Aiosa" <aiosa9@m...> wrote:

> > Why? The development time that went into the feature set of 4.0 has not
> depreciated. 
> > In fact it has *appreciated* because of all the added features and
> functionality that 
> > was impliemented in the the various 4.x subreleases for no additional
charge.
> 
> If you go out now and buy Logic Audio v4, you can still buy it for $479.00
> over the counter, then purchase the v5 upgrade for 150.00.  You are now
> paying 629.00. 

OK . . so far so good. Musician's Friend has 4.x listed for $479 (MSRP $799)




>Now you can still go out and find LA v5 for 699.00.

True. AudioMidi.com has Logic 5 preorder's for $699 (MSRP $949)



>That is
> a 70.00 dollar difference. 

Correct.


>So therefore, a slight advantage to the new
> user, because they saved 70.00. 

Incorrect. The new user is paying $699 as opposed to the 4.x/update user
who paid $629. How is this an advantage to the new user?



>However, if you take the value of 699.00
> for v5 and then minus the value of version 4 over the counter, it now totals
> to a 220.00 difference.  So, in effect, the pricing has gone down for LA v4.
>  In other words, IT is considered *Antiquated Technology* that is why it is
> cheaper to buy over the counter.

LOL! Antiquated compared to who? The competition? The 3.72 version you
are currently running? Let's not confuse simple retail strategies with
the longevity of technology.


> Now if you take the new price of today 949.00 (999.00 MSRP) for version 5
> and deduct the amount of version 4 at 479.00.  That is a 470.00 dollar
> difference.  

Wrong again. Logic 5 is $949 (MSRP) . . current street price of $699. Why
are you now mixing and matching suggested retail pricing and current
market pricing?


>Again, showing that version 4 is now priced as *Antiquated
> Technology*. 

Again wrong. Was there anything added to 4.x that was *removed* from 5.0
because it was too "antiquated"? The AMT? Surround support? Extra plug
ins? Please give me an example.


>So, your logic is flawed.  It has not *appreciated* it has
> effectively *depreciated* in value of current market place.  The truth
> being, it is v4 and sitting right next to it is v5.

No, my friend. Your logic is flawed, simply because
a. your numbers are incorrect
b. you like to compare suggested retail to street price whenyou think
it's a convenient way to prop up your fawlty argument.

Why not compare the MSRP of Logic 4, which was $799, against the current
street price of Logic 5, which is $699? Then you could say how great
Emagic is for giving away this "antiquated technology" for $100 less?
that's the exact same thing you just tried to do above.



> Now in using your method of thinking, since the price of v5 just went up
> from 699.00 to 999.00, 

Wrong again. Logic Platinum went from $799 list to $949 list.

Again, you can go to audiomidi.com and see the MSRP listed. I'll even
give you the URL since you don't seem to want to list any of your sources
for your numbers.

<http://www.audiomidi.com/common/cfm/product.cfm?Product_ID=431>



>then effectively what you are saying is, your upgrade
> from v4 to v5 should be 199.00.

Um . .nooooo. the cost of the upgrade is $149 . . the difference between
the old MSRP and the new MSRP. Actually they give us a $1 break. 


>The cost of an upgrade is usually roughly
> 28% of the over the counter price.

Stop right there. Sorry, but "usually" and "roughly" don't bode very well
when trying to compare 2 items. Well . . maybe apples and oranges ;-) Are
you a retailer? A software developer? What are you basing this 28% on . .
and why should Emagic automatically conform there business to it?



>So, in effect my upgrade is 399.00. 

Correct. The $249 upgrade fee we all paid going from 3.x to 4.x. And the
$150 upgrade fee to go from 4.x to 5.x. (I'll send you the extra dollar :-)



> Yes, but then you should be paying 199.00 and not 150.00.  Here is why...

Incorrect. You should be paying $249 to get from 3.x to 4.x and/or $150
to get from 4.x to 5.x.


> 1.  Your current upgrade path from v4 to v5 automatically is, 699 x 28% =
> 195.72, then round up and you have 199.00. 

What's $699 times 32%? There is no significance to 32% . . just another
random number. Somewhat like yours :-)


I'll just snip out the rest of your essay, because it deals with
imaginary numbers and more inaccurate comparisons between retail and list
prices.



> How is that effective judgement on Emagic's part?  Or yours, for that
> matter.

My judegment is fine. I bought my upgrade for 4.x when it first became
available. Same as I'm doing now with 5.0. For some odd reason you seem
to think that since you did not upgrade . . since you did not support
Emagic's years of development efforts that went into 4.x . . . that you
should now get them on sale. Just out of curiousity . .if you fail to pay
your taxes when due, do you think you'll save money in the long run?
Because those are old antiquated taxes . .and they should be on sale. And
because you are special and deserve to pay less than the rest of us did.



> No matter how I do it, if I bought the promotion or not.  The math here is
> not right.  No matter how one breaks it down.  I am still paying more than
> you.

You are only paying more now because you failed to make a payment last time. 


>Something is quite funky in paradise, and yet most don't see it.

No one is gonna understand your point, because your numbers are incorrect
and imaginary . .and you flip flop the parameters of your data to suit
your whim.

>It is
> like I have spell it out like "See Jane go to the store.  See Jane get
> ripped off by store clerk." 

If Jane would have paid for the incremental upgrade along the way . . .
Jane wouldn't have a big fat bill to pay now. But Jane doesn't see that.
Jane wants all of that work those silly developers did for years to be
free, or at reduced cost to her because she has been busy in the jungle
playing with her monkey.


later,
Jon