Quote:
Originally Posted by wower
The bigger picture is working its way into the thread. I kind of want to push my point further but I don't want to seem pushy.
|
Feel free to push harder...I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Don't worry, we can take it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wower
It's just an interesting subject so I'll add my thoughts while respecting these points-of-view. Both quotes take a rather cynical view of, well, economics.
|
It
is an interesting subject. I admit, my reaction is cynical, however I think cynicism is one of the healthier possible reactions to something like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wower
If they weren't producing anything of value they would cease to exist in the marketplace.
|
That's a bit naive. Some companies exist on the "value" of their brand alone. Look at Coke & Pepsi. Neither is going away in my lifetime, but which is producing caramel-colored sugar water of such value that the world would dramatically change if their product were to disappear?
You really should read this article:
Money and the High End - The Price is the Product, written by Brian Cheney, who makes highly regarded $20,000+ speakers. It presents a different perspective on "producing anything of value" than you're probably familiar with.
Obviously, there are enough people around convinced of Goldmund's value to keep the company afloat. Like any smart business unit, they charge what the market will bear. That the market will bear quite a bit in their case isn't necessarily because the folks at Goldmund are thieves (although charlatans may be accurate).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wower
their strategy is ripping people off on their lower models, if we take the analysis of these photos in this thread as fact, to subsidize their high-end range.
|
Considering the prices of their high-end range, I'd say they subsidize themselves just fine.