Release 1Ghz boards. Fancy one?

[GiraffeeDreams]

How would Yabause run on these models?

 

[craigix]

How would Yabause run on these models?

I'm going to start a new thread for these questions.

 

[thatgui]

...


As for the rest of your post, which seems to be 'it's too expensive', I've addressed that several times.


It's a test run, it's expensive. We need to make profits, not just break even or make a loss.


...

I think the question double7 (and others) are having is:


Why is it cheaper* to just buy a complete 1GHz Pandora than trading the old one in ?


* Given the calculation: 699$ < (499$ (for a recently already purchased Pandora) + 500$ (for the 1 GHz upgrade))

Well you don't have to do this. It's just a test run.


Some people wanted the option to do this, and it's there. I'm sorry but we can't run this at a loss. The price will come down somewhat if we go to MP.

Well, thanks for an answering, but that was not my question.


Maybe I should have been more precise:


Why does the pricing make no sense at all (not the absolute values, but new <=> trade-in in comparison)?:


I have the choice the buy a 1GHz Pandora right away for 699$ (without VAT), having a first batch preorder I could sure sell for a minimum of 250$, so a brand new 1Ghz Pandora would cost me 449$ (without shipping). On the other hand I could send in my old Pandora (which cost about 320$ at that time) in and pay 500$ additionally to get one, which probably has used parts, which sums up to ~800$ => WTF?

 

[Znirk]

Why does the pricing make no sense at all (not the absolute values, but new <=> trade-in in comparison)?:


I have the choice the buy a 1GHz Pandora right away for 699$ (without VAT), having a first batch preorder I could sure sell for a minimum of 250$, so a brand new 1Ghz Pandora would cost me 449$ (without shipping). On the other hand I could send in my old Pandora (which cost about 320$ at that time) in and pay 500$ additionally to get one, which probably has used parts, which sums up to ~800$ => WTF?

Your question is a good one, but your calculation makes no sense.


One thing your two scenarios have in common is that you would no longer have your old pandora. You can't ignore the value of the old device in your first calculation but still add it on to the total price in the second.


In the first scenario your old pandora is worth whatever you can get for it. You pay a total of 700$, some part of which is paid in cash and some in the form of an old pandora.


In the second scenario Craig defines your old pandora as being worth 200$. You pay a total of 700$, some part of which is paid in cash and some in the form of an old pandora.


So the question to Craig then becomes: Why 200$ for an old pandora? I have a feeling the answer is going to be "because we think the refurbished units need to be 250$ish to be attractive".

 

[thatgui]

Why does the pricing make no sense at all (not the absolute values, but new <=> trade-in in comparison)?:


I have the choice the buy a 1GHz Pandora right away for 699$ (without VAT), having a first batch preorder I could sure sell for a minimum of 250$, so a brand new 1Ghz Pandora would cost me 449$ (without shipping). On the other hand I could send in my old Pandora (which cost about 320$ at that time) in and pay 500$ additionally to get one, which probably has used parts, which sums up to ~800$ => WTF?

Your question is a good one, but your calculation makes no sense.


One thing your two scenarios have in common is that you would no longer have your old pandora. You can't ignore the value of the old device in your first calculation but still add it on to the total price in the second.

Why is that ? I don't ignore it in the first calculation, it is substracted from the retail price of a new 1 Ghz Pandora 699-250 = 449.


I don't see your point here

 

[Znirk]

Why does the pricing make no sense at all (not the absolute values, but new <=> trade-in in comparison)?:


I have the choice the buy a 1GHz Pandora right away for 699$ (without VAT), having a first batch preorder I could sure sell for a minimum of 250$, so a brand new 1Ghz Pandora would cost me 449$ (without shipping). On the other hand I could send in my old Pandora (which cost about 320$ at that time) in and pay 500$ additionally to get one, which probably has used parts, which sums up to ~800$ => WTF?

Your question is a good one, but your calculation makes no sense.


One thing your two scenarios have in common is that you would no longer have your old pandora. You can't ignore the value of the old device in your first calculation but still add it on to the total price in the second.

Why is that ? I don't ignore it in the first calculation, it is substracted from the retail price of a new 1 Ghz Pandora 699-250 = 449.


I don't see your point here

My point is that this calculation (saying the new pandora would cost you only 450$) implies your old pandora is worth nothing. If that is true, then you can't suddenly value it at ~300$ in the second calculation -- if 500 plus a pandora makes 800, then 450 plus a pandora should make 750.

 

[Grench]

1) Buying a whole new 1Ghz unit: $699 plus shipping - these are custom built and expensive. They have the silver case. They will be marked as 1Ghz special test run. I'm sure I and Ed can sign them.

Mark 1 as sold. Working out the details now.


Folks - this is a wonderful opportunity to get a faster unit. If you're, "Just playing games," then it probably isn't as big of a deal to you. If you're trying to use a Pandora as a desktop, multitasking, remote administration, ssh & sshfs with browser running electronic pocket multi-tool, then this becomes something to leap on.


The offer and pricing are pretty simple and straight forward. If it isn't for you - that's OK. Nobody is forcing you to buy one.

 

[thatgui]

Why does the pricing make no sense at all (not the absolute values, but new <=> trade-in in comparison)?:


I have the choice the buy a 1GHz Pandora right away for 699$ (without VAT), having a first batch preorder I could sure sell for a minimum of 250$, so a brand new 1Ghz Pandora would cost me 449$ (without shipping). On the other hand I could send in my old Pandora (which cost about 320$ at that time) in and pay 500$ additionally to get one, which probably has used parts, which sums up to ~800$ => WTF?

Your question is a good one, but your calculation makes no sense.


One thing your two scenarios have in common is that you would no longer have your old pandora. You can't ignore the value of the old device in your first calculation but still add it on to the total price in the second.

Why is that ? I don't ignore it in the first calculation, it is substracted from the retail price of a new 1 Ghz Pandora 699-250 = 449.


I don't see your point here

My point is that this calculation (saying the new pandora would cost you only 450$) implies your old pandora is worth nothing. If that is true, then you can't suddenly value it at ~300$ in the second calculation -- if 500 plus a pandora makes 800, then 450 plus a pandora should make 750.

But that wouldn't make any sense at all - why should I add an income (the money I make from selling the old Pandora) to an expense (the money I spend when buying a new 1 Ghz Pandora) ? And there is no implication whatsoever that my old Pandora isn't worth anything, if it would be like that I would not have substracted 250$ from the retail price.


But maybe we are talking cross - purposes here ?

 

[b_o_b]

As long is the Pandora is unique, the price can stay high as it is now. And of course you need to pay most for the new premium model. That is business and that is how a company survives. I would advise people who don't understand the high price level to read The Undercover Economist from Tim Harford. Let the people who can afford it buy it, they like the opportunity and basically support the project.


I was already expressing my interest in a 2nd Pandora. This one looks quite nice, but I am no hacker and tbh also don't like the idea to test a first production run.


Already pretty pleased with the current version but of course more speed is nice if you need it. Will keep an eye on the developments One concern though... I Hope it will not stop people from buying the current Pandora.

 

[TrashyMG]

To me the pricing doesn't make sense for one reason.. there is no incentive for sending in your unit to upgrade to 1Ghz especially if your a Premium/Upgraded owner.. you paid $500 originally and have to pay another $500 dollars to upgrade.. so $1000 dollars in total to get a 1Ghz unit.. or just pay $700 and get another unit without trading it in..


I'm not disagreeing with the the price of $700 for the short run of these.. just that trading in just doesn't make any sense with that price.

 

[b_o_b]

To me the pricing doesn't make sense for one reason.. there is no incentive for sending in your unit to upgrade to 1Ghz especially if your a Premium/Upgraded owner.. you paid $500 originally and have to pay another $500 dollars to upgrade.. so $1000 dollars in total to get a 1Ghz unit.. or just pay $700 and get another unit without trading it in..


I'm not disagreeing with the the price of $700 for the short run of these.. just that trading in just doesn't make any sense with that price.

The unit is not 1000$ but 500$ so 200$ cheaper then a new one. Basically you are selling your old one for 200$


If you don't think that is a good deal then try to sell it on ebay for more.

 

[Binky]

Maybe the exchange deal should depend on the condition of your old unit, with a maximum price of $500 and a minimum of $200. i.e. if your old unit is perfect, you only have to pay the difference between a new standard model and a new special 1GHz edition

 

[Exophase]

Rather than arguing all this, and I think your arguments are ill informed and quite frankly sounding a little trollish, how much do you think the 1Ghz unit should be?

Then, are you willing to stick your neck on the line and guarantee you could bring it in at that price?

You think anyone who questions you is trolling... And you like to say people don't have all the information, but you don't want to give information to support it.


I said what I think it should cost, around $50 more than the OMAP3530 version. Or a little more if you want to keep around the same margins proportionally. $75 more would be extremely generous.


Now please tell me exactly what you're asking when you say if I'm willing to stick my neck on the line and guarantee it. Are you asking if I'm willing to take over your job in deciding pricing and fund allocation for this? Or maybe give you the funding to make these units and accept the appropriate piece of their profit? Or, perhaps, are you asking what I would do if I were in your situation? Because frankly it's hard to imagine, since I don't think I'd ever be anywhere close to your situation.


All things considered, while I don't really buy this idea of a limited edition DM3730 run needing to cost $650-700 but I'm much more concerned about the prospect of Pandora becoming a $600 device in the long term.

 

[Binky]

Are the special 1GHz prototypes more prone to failure after they've been tested and shipped? If so, Its fair to charge people extra for the potential repair jobs they will need.

 

[Znirk]

Why should I add an income (the money I make from selling the old Pandora) to an expense (the money I spend when buying a new 1 Ghz Pandora) ? And there is no implication whatsoever that my old Pandora isn't worth anything, if it would be like that I would not have substracted 250$ from the retail price.


But maybe we are talking cross - purposes here ?

Probably, yes. My "problem" is simply that you don't put a price on not-having-an-old-pandora-any-more in the version where you sell it, but you do put that price on it when you hand it back to OP.


Let me try again: Think of selling your pandora as a zero-sum game. You receive 250$, but you also lose a device worth 250$. You then pay 450$ for the new one, if that's the way you want to think about it, but the total cost to you is still 700$ (because you paid 450$, and you sacrificed a device which was worth 250$).


Similarly, in the second "exchange" scenario you pay 500$ outright, and your total cost is those 500$ plus whatever the old pandora you're returning is worth.


All I'm trying to say is that you should compare the two scenarios either by considering the payment for both (450$ vs. 500$), or the cost of both (700$ vs., according to your first guesstimate, 800$). If you compare only the payment in the first case (450$) to the cost including pandoralessness of the second (800$), then the first calculation is ignoring the value (not the same thing as the sale price received!) of your pandora.

 

[b_o_b]

All things considered, while I don't really buy this idea of a limited edition DM3730 run needing to cost $650-700 but I'm much more concerned about the prospect of Pandora becoming a $600 device in the long term.

It can be worse...


Didn't Intel used to sell CPUs that they crippled and sold for less then the regular CPUs? So basically added costs to the lesser expensive product.


It is all business and at the end the customer decides what a fair price is. If the price is too high, they will not sell, if it is too low they will not make a descent profit. Craig is probably trying to maximize profit.


I am still surprised this product hasn't been copied by a chinese firm after all these years.

 

[Binky]

Craig is probably trying to maximize profit.

I think Craig's business instict is stronger than his enthusiasm for open-development/geekyness - It may well be what the project needs atm


And there's always ED's hair ready to uphold the geekdom

 

[TrashyMG]

To me the pricing doesn't make sense for one reason.. there is no incentive for sending in your unit to upgrade to 1Ghz especially if your a Premium/Upgraded owner.. you paid $500 originally and have to pay another $500 dollars to upgrade.. so $1000 dollars in total to get a 1Ghz unit.. or just pay $700 and get another unit without trading it in..


I'm not disagreeing with the the price of $700 for the short run of these.. just that trading in just doesn't make any sense with that price.

The unit is not 1000$ but 500$ so 200$ cheaper then a new one. Basically you are selling your old one for 200$


If you don't think that is a good deal then try to sell it on ebay for more.

Well I don't see it that way, how I see it is that I would spend $1000 dollars for a single 1Ghz Pandora because that is how much money I invested in that unit. You can rationalize that you're selling it for $200 all you like.. But I'd rather pay an extra $200 to have two Pandoras than waste my initial investment on upgrading to a single one.

 

[Exophase]

It can be worse...
Didn't Intel used to sell CPUs that they crippled and sold for less then the regular CPUs? So basically added costs to the lesser expensive product.


It is all business and at the end the customer decides what a fair price is. If the price is too high, they will not sell, if it is too low they will not make a descent profit. Craig is probably trying to maximize profit.


I am still surprised this product hasn't been copied by a chinese firm after all these years.

It isn't that simple. Traditionally processors are binned based on specs like performance (attainable clock speed), power consumption/TDP, and features. The last one means that a lot of crippled devices at least started that way as yield recoveries, where parts of the device really are defective. Yeah, in the long run a lot of this ends up being artificial, where perceived value is created by the price structure.


The big difference is that companies like Intel determine these pricing structures at the start. And when they release a new generation of processors they tend to cost about the same as whatever they're replacing, with the old stuff gradually going down in price after that (to a point). Look at Ivy Bridge vs Sandy Bridge prices, they're following this top to bottom. And so did TI with DM3730 vs OMAP3530, because the former is basically a die shrink of the latter. What companies like Intel and TI also don't do is feed you a line about how they need to keep raising the price of their products in order to barely make even. When Intel publishes huge margins of > 60% they're not hiding much.


I'd probably have less complaints if Craig actually said "I want to make more money and I think you will be willing to pay more."

 

[erico]

...I'd probably have less complaints if Craig actually said "I want to make more money and I think you will be willing to pay more."

But he kind of did state a few times "We need to make more money and we think some of you are able to pay more and want to have a closer experience with the newer stuff."


Either way is fine, there must be profit, and the higher the profits the higher value gets back to the product.


Just my opinion.