Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

RED iPod Nano Tomorrow?

clintob said:
It should be free market - the more competition exists, the more alternatives exists, the faster prices drop and quality goes up. That's economics 101. People, both in this country and worldwide, could only stand to benefit from a more open Pharmaceutical industry.
Click to expand...
I appreciate where you are coming from, but without patent protection there would be much less drug development: the only drugs would come from Academia, and they would take 10x the time to become usable.
patents are essential in any field where progress requires massive investment
 
clintob said:
I think part of the problem is that we have to make a distinction between the various sectors of the Pharmaceutical industry. The REAL problem is that most of these billion dollar profit margins that I've spoken about are actually fueled predominantly by non-essential medications. There needs to be a distinction between drugs like Viagra, Propecia, and the medication for "Restless Leg Syndrome", and drugs that are in R&D for Cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and the like.

I'm all for protecting companies who want to make an investment into Cancer and AIDS research, but that's not where the money is and we both know that. There's no advertising market in that so there's no push for it (although there certainly should be). Those R&D projects are mostly privately funded, whereas the R&D for Viagra and Propecia is funded by sponsors and investors who stand to make a buck.

Drawing a line between medication that is designed to cure disease and aid suffering, and medication that is designed for pure and simple profit, would be a perfectly good comprimise here (both to our own discussion and to the problem as a whole). Perhaps allow drug companies the same profit margins they've had all along, but insist than 30 - 40% of that money be re-invested into R&D projects that have no financial backing from ad campaigns. Now THAT is a cause I'd rally for.
Click to expand...

Hmm..what you're saying now makes less sense though. Before I understood that you had a moral issue with Pharmaceuticals profiteering from life-saving medicines. But now it seems like you have a problem with them making money from things like Viagra, which you admit is the bulk of their profits. Why on earth shouldn't Pfizer make maximum profit from Viagra?!? They invented something that *every* civilization for *thousands* of years had attempted to invent. An aphrodisiac that's actually guaranteed to work. I say more power to them for that. It sounds like you just have a problem with Pfizer making billions of dollars, because they could also *potentially* also make life-saving drugs. I disagree with making the distinction between "essential" and "non-essential" drugs however. Once you do that, Pharmas would just want to get out of the business of "essential" drugs.

If the only money to be made was through selling things like Viagra, diet pills, or acne-preventing pills, then Pharmas would only make these drugs. If you believe in free market for life-saving drugs, then you should let Pharmas make profits on those too, without any caps or restrictions. Otherwise, may as well just make it a nationalized industry. I wouldn't dismiss that idea totally out of hand. I mean, we spend $500 Billion on defense, including several nationally-run science labs. What if we spent just $100 billion to run national labs that would focus on developing life-saving pharmaceuticals and disease prevention? Can you imagine?

Basic research in science is in a sense one of the "failures" of capitalism (such as monopolies or environmental protection). The problem is capitalism is based on the notion that everyone is acting perfectly rationally at all times, but the problem is that people don't. For example, most people's time horizon for making decisions is only a few years, whereas basic research can take decades to result in something that brings concrete material gain. Really, if everyone was rational then a much, much larger percentage of GDP would go to science research, since it has a large "multiplier" effect that leads to *massive* increases in well being down the road.
 
wcalderini said:
So....how well do you think WoW will play on this thing?
Click to expand...
I think it'll run exceptionally well... 200+ fps at all times on that 1.5" screen at 176x132! :D
 
peas said:
what's funny?
if it's not simple, it's not worth doing.
i'm all for simplifying a process, but to say "i'd help if i could just click on it in itunes" is just down right lazy.
Click to expand...

Read the fine print. The suggestion is so that you can use your iTunes balance to make a donation. A lot of people get iTunes gift cards, etc. Instead of buying an extra songs, maybe I would like to pass the gift along. Nothing lazy, just thoughtful. Besides, it may get a few lazy people to contribute when they never would have in the first place.
 
Bono is awesome. He's got a fortune and he could be golfing and living it up every day and instead he chooses to fight for a better world. Nobody else has so much success yet dedicates so much time to a cause. It makes me laugh whenever I see some idiot "gangsta" on TV rapping about how much money they have. Bono has was more and he aint promoting his bling, he's simply trying to help the world. Like their tunes or not, it's people like this that you want your kids to look up to. Big ups to the Irish fella. :cool:
 
It looks excellent. If I was in the market for a new iPod I'd consider buying one. Although I'd (shock!) rather have a white 1G Nano, to go with my MacBook ;) !
 
should also this be called the ipod nano special target edition?;)

...soon to come the walmart lightblue special

Personally I think that 5% of the value given as a donation is better than 100% of nothing.
Hopefully it will raise more awareness about this global problem.
 
bretm said:
Here's an idea... just send your money to a worthly charity on your own! Why does SOMEONE else have to donate THEIR money before you'll buy their products? Perhaps they should offer a 5% discount to anyone that shows they've donated $5 to the fund.

Sometimes I really wonder what logic people are using...
Click to expand...

That's a good idea too. I don't know why you picked out my post to respond too. I was just pointing out the fact that corporations are legally dissuaded from charitable acts that do not ultimately contribute to their bottom lines.
 
Bono & Oprah Spent A Total Of 2 Minutees 13 Seconds On The Red Nano Segment

It was a 2-minute infomercial. :eek: :rolleyes:

Great Christmas Stocking Stuffer Color - Valentines too. ;)

Record "Will You Marry Me?" and make that the only track queued up on the Red iPod Nano you give your prospective wife for Valentines Day.
 
Shipped!

Just got my shipping confirmation from Apple!

Fedex from China as of 8:07 AM Shenzhen, China time!

Woooooohooooooo!!!!!!!!!!


I so shocked that it's going out so fast since I had it engraved! Cool!
 
I like the color and i'm glad that it's going to a good cause. It's bright but not a crazy neon explosion, quite nice. If i was in the market for a Nano, i'd be all over that :)
 
Personally, I think they're a good idea. Sure, Apple will still make money on them (it couldn't really justify to its shareholders selling them if there were no profit), but the fact is, they cost the same as all of the other 4GB Nanos, and $10 goes to a good cause. The more of these products consumers buy, the more companies like Apple will be encouraged to give back to the community in creative ways like this.

This is really a huge boost for the (Product)Red campaign. Apple is selling iPods at a rate of 32 million per year, so if 20% of those were Red Nanos, that would represent 64 million dollars for the campaign. Not the mention the free publicity for the campaign (and yes, for Apple, too).
 
MacinDoc said:
Personally, I think they're a good idea. Sure, Apple will still make money on them (it couldn't really justify to its shareholders selling them if there were no profit), but the fact is, they cost the same as all of the other 4GB Nanos, and $10 goes to a good cause. The more of these products consumers buy, the more companies like Apple will be encouraged to give back to the community in creative ways like this.

This is really a huge boost for the (Product)Red campaign. Apple is selling iPods at a rate of 32 million per year, so if 20% of those were Red Nanos, that would represent 64 million dollars for the campaign. Not the mention the free publicity for the campaign (and yes, for Apple, too).
Click to expand...

I'm totally glad they didn't pull a U2 ipod and charge extra
 
lmalave said:
Hmm..what you're saying now makes less sense though. Before I understood that you had a moral issue with Pharmaceuticals profiteering from life-saving medicines. But now it seems like you have a problem with them making money from things like Viagra, which you admit is the bulk of their profits. Why on earth shouldn't Pfizer make maximum profit from Viagra?!? They invented something that *every* civilization for *thousands* of years had attempted to invent. An aphrodisiac that's actually guaranteed to work. I say more power to them for that. It sounds like you just have a problem with Pfizer making billions of dollars, because they could also *potentially* also make life-saving drugs. I disagree with making the distinction between "essential" and "non-essential" drugs however. Once you do that, Pharmas would just want to get out of the business of "essential" drugs.
Click to expand...

Nope, I said the opposite. I said that while I do have a problem with profiting from life-saving essential drugs, I DON'T have a problem with capitalizing on non-essential drugs.

More to the point, what I said is that of course drug companies are in it for the money... so if that's the case, since there's SO much money in it for them to develop these non-essential drugs, why not allow them to do so, but insist that a portion of those proceeds be invested into R&D for essential drugs.

While some might argue this happens already, the fact is it doesn't. R&D for life saving medications are funded by charities, fund-raisers, and private investors. Drug companies do not fund these developments themselves because, as you've pointed out, they're not profitable. So allow the companies to profit wildly from their non-essential drugs, but force a portion of those profits be reinvested to cancer, AIDS, or other life-saving research. Best of both worlds.

Or, as you said, do away with the system entirely, join the rest of the world, and universalize health care. Our military budget is bloated beyond recognition and it would take less than a third of that money to get the job done.
 
R&D is expensive

I work in R&D for a company that used to be owned by Pfizer. We make medical devices, not pharmaceuticals.
This time last year, there were 7 or 8 devices in development. Along the way, they were dropped, one by one for various reasons - too small a market, too hard to build in quantity, materials issues, etc.
Now, There are 2 left that are almost ready for release. Nothing new has been released in two years. No bonus this year, raises are expected to be minimal.

Bottom line is, a good Research & Development department has a huge overhead and has to produce results for the company, AKA profitable products.

A small percentage of "R" actually makes it to the "D" and onto a shelf.
 
I was kinda-on-the-market for a new nano, after my 60gb-photo feels a little bulky nowadays. After seeing this, I'm absolutely buying one. Red looks great and 10 bucks for the folks in Africa sounds truely noble.. Its not like taking an homeless and feeding him in Ramazan month, but the same 10 bucks is given away for something even better..

Plus, wearing or using these kinds of stuff is a way of stand for a person. You tell everyone around you, your friends, family, even the guys that see you on the subway that you do care about things happening on the other sides of the earth and so should they do!..

If you were already on the market for a new nano, go buy a red one. Metallic gray or blue or pink is always preety and always will be, but will never show anything other than your color preference..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back