New Ipods Priced for Profit

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Thraxen
While the writer may not have a clue about the other costs, I doubt anyone here does either.

No, but I can guarantee that it is more than "the cost of materials going into it."

I agree, but I don't think anyone here is in any better postion than the writer to determine what would be "aggressive".

That's why I haven't published an article about it 😉

 

[Epic Fail]

Bogus pricing, iPod shuffle is the smallest mp3 player right now, it should have the smallest price.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: yamadakun
Bogus pricing, iPod shuffle is the smallest mp3 player right now, it should have the smallest price.

No, no NO! It's the mobiBLU because it's a cube. 😉

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: yamadakun
Bogus pricing, iPod shuffle is the smallest mp3 player right now, it should have the smallest price.

No, no NO! It's the mobiBLU because it's a cube. 😉

Actually, neither is the smallest. There are various other small (and legitimate!) companies that make smaller players (oomi is one, the new iRiver is one).

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: JS80

you're supposed to price goods not based on % of materials, but what the maximum price you can charge to generate highest revenue (i.e. what consumers are willing to pay).

Not true. You want to generate the highest total profit, not total revenue...

assuming that variable and fixed costs don't change, wouldn't maximizing revenue = maximum profit?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: JS80

you're supposed to price goods not based on % of materials, but what the maximum price you can charge to generate highest revenue (i.e. what consumers are willing to pay).

Not true. You want to generate the highest total profit, not total revenue...

assuming that variable and fixed costs don't change, wouldn't maximizing revenue = maximum profit?

Nope

[Edit] temp.GIF

 

[Epic Fail]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: JS80

you're supposed to price goods not based on % of materials, but what the maximum price you can charge to generate highest revenue (i.e. what consumers are willing to pay).

Not true. You want to generate the highest total profit, not total revenue...

assuming that variable and fixed costs don't change, wouldn't maximizing revenue = maximum profit?

If you price something at cost, you will have insane revenue, but no profit.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Aflac

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: yamadakun
Bogus pricing, iPod shuffle is the smallest mp3 player right now, it should have the smallest price.

No, no NO! It's the mobiBLU because it's a cube. 😉

Actually, neither is the smallest. There are various other small (and legitimate!) companies that make smaller players (oomi is one, the new iRiver is one).

You use a crap avatar.

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Aflac

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: yamadakun
Bogus pricing, iPod shuffle is the smallest mp3 player right now, it should have the smallest price.

No, no NO! It's the mobiBLU because it's a cube. 😉

Actually, neither is the smallest. There are various other small (and legitimate!) companies that make smaller players (oomi is one, the new iRiver is one).

You use a crap avatar.

yeh well look how ugly yours is :disgust:

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Aflac

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Aflac

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: yamadakun
Bogus pricing, iPod shuffle is the smallest mp3 player right now, it should have the smallest price.

No, no NO! It's the mobiBLU because it's a cube. 😉

Actually, neither is the smallest. There are various other small (and legitimate!) companies that make smaller players (oomi is one, the new iRiver is one).

You use a crap avatar.

yeh well look how ugly yours is :disgust:

Yours is worse. The title is spelt wrong. N00b.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Aflac

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: yamadakun
Bogus pricing, iPod shuffle is the smallest mp3 player right now, it should have the smallest price.

No, no NO! It's the mobiBLU because it's a cube. 😉

Actually, neither is the smallest. There are various other small (and legitimate!) companies that make smaller players (oomi is one, the new iRiver is one).

Oomi: 4.7 × 3.2 × 1.3 cm = 19.55 cc
IRiver (S10?): 4.2 x 3.0 x 1.08 cm = 13.61 cc
Ipod Shuffle: 1.07" x 1.62" x 0.41" = 0.711 cu in = 11.65 cc
mobiBLU: .94"^3 = 0.831" = 13.61 cc

What's worse is that Apple could have made it smaller (for the epenis I suppose?), but put on that clip which increases the depth a significant (percentage-wise) amount

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: JS80

you're supposed to price goods not based on % of materials, but what the maximum price you can charge to generate highest revenue (i.e. what consumers are willing to pay).

Not true. You want to generate the highest total profit, not total revenue...

assuming that variable and fixed costs don't change, wouldn't maximizing revenue = maximum profit?

Nope

[Edit] temp.GIF

i was thinking more like this (cost accounting perspective)

edit, nm i'm noob. you're right maximize profit =/= maximize revenue