The Logic Off Topic list

> >> It is not a made up number...take a calculator and do it up.  
> 
> <jon wrote: Less but still inane garbage.>
> 
> >OK. Here's what I came up with. $249 + $150 = $399. Do you 
> >think you can read that?

<and Alex wrote no less inane garbage than he's been writing>


> Oh hey, that makes real sense.  Wow, why didn't I think of that!  Now I see.
>  Yah, right...NOT!

Wait . . . $249 + $150 does NOT = $399? I think you need a new battery in
your calculator :-)



> Real silly, boy, one day you are gonna get ripped off, and you won't know
> why.  And a person like me is going to be chuckling behind your back.

I honestly doubt I would feel ripped off by paying the same amount
everyone else has. And not just when the 3->4 upgrade was first
announced. That price was the same last week as well. If they continually
lowered the upgrade price on a monthly basis, as you would have them do .
 . who the hell would buy the upgrade when it was released? Nobody.
Well, if nobody buys the upgrade, because it gets cheaper and cheaper,
how the hell do they fund future development? Now that's smart business.
C'mon . . use your head.


Actually Alex . . I feel that Emagic's competition is a rip off in
*quality*. That's why I use Logic. I'm very happy to pay to keep that
quality intact, and the development cycle moving forward.



> So let's see, since this is the way you think...according to inflation rate
> calculations.
> 
> 249.00 was the price for v4 in 2000.
> 
> So therefore the price of upgrading from v4 to v5 should be the same, not
> changed, but increased based on the power of current inflation, and consumer
> price index and labor production.

Ahhhhh . .I see. You've signed on to some correspondance course in World
Economics. That explains a lot.


> (see the leap from v3.72 to v4.0, is not much larger than the leap from
> v4.8.1 to v5.0.  That is in between each upgrade.)

Are you talking from a standpoint of features added? Or simply the
difference you've calculated in the version numbers? :-)


> 
> Making your upgrade price, based on "your ideals" and inflation, total to
> 264.69.  Round up to 265.00, then add tax and shipping.

So, what's the problem? You say it should be $265 . . .sounds like $149
is a bargain. :-)



> So since 265.00 is not your price.  Now you received 42% reduction in price,

So . . you are saying that I am unjustly receiving a 42% discount . .
because the previous upgrade was $250, and this one really should be $265
according to your personal survey on the inflation rate of the entire
World, and silly Emagic is only selling this one is $149 . . .  ignoring
your profound business expertise???? Why, it's financial suicide, it is!!!

> even though, based on pricing and inflation you shouldn't.

Based on pricing? Who's pricing? Emagic set the price of this upgrade.
That was their business decision. They should have consulted you first?
Very nice of Emagic to give us this *very* fair upgrade price, I say!



> 265 x 42% = 153.7 then round down.  150.00
> 
> So therefore. My upgrade price is now.
> 
> 265.00 + 265.00 = 530.00

I think this is what you should pay. Just you though :-)


> Which then I should probably receive the same rate of 42% reduction on the
> upgrade price. 
> 
> 265.00 + 150.00 = 415.00  then round down to 399.00
> 
> Yet, since we both get a 42% reduction in price on the upgrade.  There is no
> price reduction for v4 upgrade, hmmm, that is odd.  Which by today's market
> value, once driven off the lot, the price goes down 50%.

Perhaps if the intellectual property has actually depreciated. It has
not. I invited you to give me *one* example of a feature that was
introduced in version 4 . .or any version 4 subrelease that was removed
from version 5 because it was "antiquated". You failed to reply. There is
a reason for that. There isn't any. Just because an individual dealer has
overstock, or stock in older packaging . . that does not degrade the
value of the intellectual property contained within. There is no physical
wear and tear on intellectual property . . so your automobile reference
is laughable. Only when it's concepts become eclipsed by competing
products, would it depreciate. This has not happened.


>But if a
> dealer/manufacturer holds on to the product, each year equates about a rough
> estimate of 25% (or more) reduction in price.  So therefore the price of the
> v4 upgrade has devalued to the open market roughly 50 to 60 percent.

What an individual dealer does is his own business. He may sell something
for less than cost. That has nothing to do with Emagic. They set a MSRP
and a dealer cost. What price the consumer pays between those 2 numbers
is up to the individual dealer, and has no bearing on the current worth
of the intellectual property contained within.



> 799(MSRP) x 60% reduction = 479.00 
> (which roughly means that Emagic has now sold v4 for 339.00 to 399.00 to the
> retailer.  Allowing for 15-30 percent markup for the retailer.)

They may have sold it to the dealer for that cost the entire time. Who
knows? Do you?


 
> So in fact, v4 has effectively devalued over the open market

Wrong again. It's only the packaging which has aged. The intellectual
property contained within remains competitive, and leading edge in many
instances. I gave you another example . . Nuendo. This is a competing
product which sells for $1299 MSRP. It contains some slightly different
audio handling, and nowhere near the midi integration that Logic has. In
fact, the specific Logic version you say has depreciated on the market,
offers many, many more features. And yet it's MSRP is $500 less than that
of Nuendo ($300 less for Logic 5). See, your buddies over at Steinberg,
with the release of Nuendo for $1299 MSRP, instantly made the value of
Logic, and any other competitor's products with similar features go UP.

Ever hear of supply and demand? How about "what the market will bear"?


<snipped out flawed Logic>

> So again, your logic is flawed. 

I think not. You don't want to offer any information on *exactly* what
technical aspects of Logic have depreciated (none) . .nor do you want to
compare it to what the competition is selling their product for. In other
words, you are being short sighted to suit your own argument.


>You have failed to provide any pragmatic
> information to prove otherwise. 

I think not. See above.


>You just blab on and on with no concept of
> anything,

Speaking of "blabbing"!!! You could have finished that correspondance
course in Economics in the time you've typed up all the drivel you've
laid forth in the last week.



>except that people should pay what you paid two years ago. 

That's the price set by Emagic. Pay it or don't. I don't care one way or
the other. On a list of 7000+ subscribers, they have exactly one person
squawking (you) about the price of jumping for 3 to 4 being the same as
it was. They'd have a *lot* more people squawking (the other 6999) if
they decided to lower that price by 42%, just for you.



>That
> is your only excuse.  Yet you don't realize that one day, the concept will
> backfire in your face.

And of that happens . . I most certianly won't waste my time on the
internet trying to convince those who paid full price, of my most
horrendous plight. I would pay it . . or I would move to another program.
Simple.


>Your reasoning is not reasoning, but naive thinking
> to what is current in the market.

How would you know what's current? you're still on 3.5? :-)

Honestly Alex . .this has been fun . . . but you should seriously
consider getting a refund for that correspondance course, and either put
it towards your Logic upgrade . .or stick it in your piggy bank so you
can save up for Nuendo.


good luck whatever road you decide to travel,

Jon

P.S. Guess what? . . it's still $249 to get from 3-> 4 and $149 to get
from 4->5 :-)