Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Feb 2012 09:47 UTC
Permalink for comment 508969
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-14
If you follow economics even a bit, you'd be familiar with the concept of supply and demand. The demand for them is obviously greater than the supply right now at this price point.
Either:
They're leaving a lot of money on the table right now, because they aren't good with the business side of things.
Or
By leaving the price point where they ultimately want it, they may just be using the shortage of devices and low price as a marketing strategy.
Or
They're low on operating capital and could only afford to order so many units. Raising the price to the demand level at that quantity may have pushed it above that of a reasonable alternative device.
Or
They had advertised the price well before they figured out how many and how quickly they could make them.
I'm not so sure which strategy would be best in the long term, if they had a choice. That last one seems to be the right answer, which of course I figured out after writing the others. But its still interesting to think about what they should have done, if they had a choice.