Let's clear the air, folks...

[Benoni]

Originally Posted by Chris Lambrechts

Perceptions perceptions ....


Your 'many' is perceived by me as 'a handful' who seem to insist that their voice should be the only one heard here....

and they seem to think it is their birthright to claim half the bandwidth of everything posted here these days.


Yes ... I see a handful that keeps repeating themselves over and over and over again

perceptions perceptions ....

Chris

Umm..... These are not perceptions. These are easily verifiable claims.

Go count the number of people who say the price is just right, and then count the number that say the price is insane, especially for HD.

Then go check with the webmaster and see how much bandwidth is being used by these "handful" of posters.

These are facts, not perceptions.

NOTE: I do not align myself with the entitled crowd. But the serious concerns over pricing and the future are valid.

[Chris Lambrechts]

Originally Posted by DJ Hellfire

You know they say reading is fundamental dear Chris...

LOL ... exactly !!!

That said ... it's not funny to make fun of people's spelling errors on the internet even if the one in case did put a smile on my face as well ... thanks for that. Let's remember though that a lot of people contributing here are non native english speakers ... including myself. It remains even an important factor as to why so many remain on the background and unheard.

Chris

[Ant B]

My confusion with the whole "it's overpriced for the lackluster features.." argument is this:

Ok - if that's your argument what are you complaining about? If something has lackluster features then, to me, I don't want to buy it.

It seems that both sides of the sword are being played here. There's "this update is not that great and not worth the money" and then there's also "finally you release features we want and you are charging too much for them".

Which is it?

If you parked a Ferrari in front of me and told me it'd cost $15,000 for me to own it I'd buy it (with someone else's money) and sell it for more.


If you parked that same Ferrari in front of me and told me it'd cost retail I'd say hey nice car and keep it moving.

Change the car to a Yugo at the same margin under retail and I'm not even paying attention to you.

So I don't understand why there's the argument that if the software was cheaper more people would buy it. That's a universal concept when dealing with desirable objects. Keyword desirable. Meaning - it can't be the lackluster pos release people that refuse to buy it are billing it as if...they're willing to buy it at the price point of other similarly featured products on the market currently.

[Benoni]

Originally Posted by Ant B

My confusion with the whole "it's overpriced for the lackluster features.." argument is this:

Ok - if that's your argument what are you complaining about? If something has lackluster features then, to me, I don't want to buy it.

It seems that both sides of the sword are being played here. There's "this update is not that great and not worth the money" and then there's also "finally you release features we want and you are charging too much for them".

Which is it?

If you parked a Ferrari in front of me and told me it'd cost $15,000 for me to own it I'd buy it (with someone else's money) and sell it for more.


If you parked that same Ferrari in front of me and told me it'd cost retail I'd say hey nice car and keep it moving.

Change the car to a Yugo at the same margin under retail and I'm not even paying attention to you.

So I don't understand why there's the argument that if the software was cheaper more people would buy it. That's a universal concept when dealing with desirable objects. Keyword desirable. Meaning - it can't be the lackluster pos release people that refuse to buy it are billing it as.

I don't think that is a contradiction at all, I think you are obfuscating the issue.

The argument is that the new features are nice, yet many features are still lacking. It is an improvement, but not an improvement worth the price being charged.

The product is nice, but not worth the cost. Yet it would be worth the cost if the price was less. That is not a contradiction at all.

For example,

You go to buy a loaf of bread. You see there is a "new and improved" loaf made by your favorite brand.

But it cost $3,000 - while the other loafs are around $2.00 and they have the same ingredients as the $3,000 loaf.

Chances are you will buy the $2 loaf and complain about the price of your favorite brand and say "That loaf is not worth $3,000"

Then you go back to the store next week, and see that there is a sale of 99.9% off on your favorite brand. So you buy it - because you see the value for cost.

By saying "That loaf is not worth $3,000" is not implying that it is worthless- You are simply saying it is not worth the price being charged.

[shea]

Originally Posted by Fooks

So what if the upgrade to 9 was more significant you got a steal eleven months ago for it, so on the native side if you payed 300 to upgrade from 8 to 9 and then pay 300 from 9 to 10 you've payed a total of 600. which is the cost of the full version of pro tools at any store, 600. So to get a "NEW" version of pro tools, all the features aside from 64 bit that everyone has wanted cost you the price of new software, not so bad considering you got an open program for any 3rd party hardware, new plugin format, a road to 64 bit and everything else that comes in it.

This is why I think avid Is a total rip off. 2 pricey upgrades in a few months and the 2nd one not even offering 64 bit not even structure pro, throw in a few vol faders and a plugin that u already have with waves etc,my god people are easly fooled and this is why.....
A €60.000 budget album in a HD PT studio, and a €5000 very similar album in a Cockos reaper studio ,wud any of u have the guts to tell me that there is €55.000 difference in quality,I dont thinh so. And I would even go as far as to say that there as good if not better. So dont be fooled by avids pricing structure maddness.
For those of u who are saying that people here are throwing tantrums,wise up big nobs,and take a good look arround u.

Shea
shea

[Chris Lambrechts]

Originally Posted by Benoni

By saying "That loaf is not worth $3,000" is not implying that it is worthless- You are simply saying it is not worth the price being charged.

it is missing 'for you' at the end of that sentence. I like the loaf analogy, I hope you don't get the same reactions that I got with my loaf analogy in a different post even though mine was only 1,50 USD but hey ... 3,000 USD does it for me as well ...

Chris

[Chris Lambrechts]

Originally Posted by shea

A €60.000 budget album in a HD PT studio, and a €5000 very similar album in a Cockos reaper studio ,wud any of u have the guts to tell me that there is €55.000 difference in quality,I dont thinh so. And I would even go as far as to say that there as good if not better. So dont be fooled by avids pricing structure maddness.

I like the budgets you seem to be dealing with ...

That said ... it would entirely depend on who's playing what. Not on Avid's or any other company's for that matter pricing policy.

I''d much rather record a great vocalist with my iphone's internal mic then record a lousy vocalist with the most expensive U47 you can find.

That difference will be priceless ... no matter what you use

Chris

[Benoni]

Originally Posted by Chris Lambrechts

it is missing 'for you' at the end of that sentence. I like the loaf analogy, I hope you don't get the same reactions that I got with my loaf analogy in a different post even though mine was only 1,50 USD but hey ... 3,000 USD does it for me as well ...

Chris

Nope, that is factually, and philosophically incorrect. Whether or not someone else thinks the cost/value ratio is adequate or not, has no reflection to someones proclaimation of the inherent worth of a product.

For example, say someone else buys that $3,000 loaf of bread.

Does that all the sudden make it worth $3,000 to everyone?

Of course not. When someone says, "That loaf of bread is not worth $3,000"

They are not saying "to me" they are saying the product intrinsically is not worth the amount, and if anyone buys it, they have overspent.

You are speaking of someone who says that the $3,000 loaf is worth it. And they are not saying "for me" they are saying the loaf is intrinsically worth that amount, and if you do not buy it, you are cheap/missing out, ect...

Neither persons decision negates the conclusion of the other. The initial inner decision becomes an outward projection of worth.

You are mixing issues of actions, and proclamations.

Although I suspect you were talking in a general sense. Which is valid, I just disagree with the philosophical issues that affects the halo of the core issue. Its not as simple as just throwing a 'for you' at the end with no definition of what is meant.

[Ant B]

Originally Posted by Benoni

I don't think that is a contradiction at all, I think you are obfuscating the issue.

The argument is that the new features are nice, yet many features are still lacking. It is an improvement, but not an improvement worth the price being charged.

The product is nice, but not worth the cost. Yet it would be worth the cost if the price was less. That is not a contradiction at all.

For example,

You go to buy a loaf of bread. You see there is a "new and improved" loaf made by your favorite brand.

But it cost $3,000 - while the other loafs are around $2.00 and they have the same ingredients as the $3,000 loaf.

Chances are you will by the $2 loaf and complain about the price of your favorite brand and say "That loaf is not worth $3,000"

Then you go back to the store next week, and see that there is a sale of 99.9% off on your favorite brand. So you buy it - because you see the value for cost.

By saying "That loaf is not worth $3,000" is not implying that it is worthless- You are simply saying it is not worth the price being charged.

I'm with you all the way until you say "chances are you will by (buy) the $2 loaf and complain about the price of your favorite brand"

This is where your statement veers from the reality of this situation. I would think nothing odd of consumers upset with the pricing/featureset buying the software they think is priced right for the features that they want, but that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is there's a $2 loaf that people are upholding as "what the $3000 loaf should have been all along" and yet - you're complaining about the $3000 loaf and not buying the $2 loaf ---- and then wondering why the $3000 loaf company thinks they can charge more than $2.

It's pretty obvious why that is, from where I'm standing (sitting).

It seems like there's this thought that "protools is my favorite" and "protools should be inexpensive" and that those two thoughts/ideas are part of a universal truth that has been violated. I have only been in the protools realm since 6.9 but if there's one word I never would associate with my experience to date it is "inexpensive"

[dubpimpjuice]

Stick a fork in this thread..... Loaves of bread? Really?
I pulled the original post yesterday but it goes on and on and on...