Jannard posted some good news regarding RED EPIC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems strange to me that anyone with $58k can now jump the queue of dedicated RED early users and get a nice Epic-M package, still rare enough to rent for good money. Once the Epic-X arrives, the market will be saturated with M's. So the X-guys hoping to make some extra cash for being the first on the block with an Epic seem a bit short changed... well, they get a GREAT upgrade deal, so can't really cry, but I just thought it odd.
 
I don't think that's the point. I'm thinking the good news is that it's available. And, yeah, it's more money, BUT isn't it still less than comparable cameras?
 
Epic-M is available, at $58,000. Epic-X isn't available. It got a price increase, but it's still not in production. Only Epic-M is in production and available.
 
The economic of red are a bit baffling, so when normally everything will be working more or less ok in Japan, like 9 month after the tsunami the prices will go up. There were many shortage after the tsunami that made prices go up and in general they have either stabilized or gone to there old level. Most of the reason the prices have gone up nowadays is because of the stronger yen. I think they have used the tsunami excuse so much and it is still working that they decided to use it again for a price hike. I feel like during primary school days after a storm, ' Yes Sir, I could not do my homework because my room was inundated with water, their was no electricity, etc..." except that my teachers never fell to that!!!

I can hear in the background the slow agonizing sound of the potential $ 7000 scarlet s35, then $ 12 000 Epic S, now realizing that they will price out because this move will make way for a $ 17000 - $ 20000 Epic S.
 
Red's economics aren't baffling. Prices go up. Simple as that. You can get distracted by things such as "tsunamis" or "feature increases" or whatever, but the one inexorable truth has been -- whatever you're told initially, the price will be higher. Red One was initially $17,500, but before it was released they raised the price on the minimum configuration and gave us reservation holders a $2500 credit to make up for some of the price increase, but if you didn't prepay your reservation you got hit with the price increase. (And now body-only it's $25k.) Epic was originally $28k, but the first ones released (Epic-M) are in fact $58k, and the Epic-X is now $35k. Scarlet was initially $3k, now tentatively priced at $5750. Scarlet S35 was initially $7k, now changed to Epic-S at $12-$14k, and if you think it'll be a penny below $18k I think you're smoking parsley.

The trend is clear -- they announce low, but deliver higher. This is the opposite of what Panasonic and Sony tend to do; they tend to announce higher and deliver it at lower. Canon tends to announce it at exactly what it is, and hold that line tenaciously.
 
TimurCivan said:
Don't be surprised if they dump the epic S.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if they drop it, but if I had to bet, I'd bet it'll still come out but will be priced SUBSTANTIALLY above the indicated $12k. More like $20k. There's not a lot of rationale as to why any Epic should cost less than a Red One, after all. And with the Epic-X moving to $35k for the base brain, my guess on the Epic-S is that it will be no less than $20k.
 
They tried to. They said it was end of line, that it was discontinued. People shouted because they still wanted a lower-cost option, so they reversed their decision and decided to offer it on an ongoing basis.

Undoubtedly the One will be discontinued at some point, and the Epic-S will replace it as the low-cost large-sensor Red. But why should it cost any less than the One did? Is there any valid reason Red should offer more capability for less dollars, when people are content to pay more dollars for less capability?
 
I think the last part of your question really sums it up. "...when people are willing to pay more..." is the key.

I don't know how much it costs to make one Red One vs that of an Epic-S, M, X, any other letter in the alphabet. But I know that with the changes in technology, things get cheaper. I should imagine the cost of the S would be substantially less than the original One (all speculation here. I have NO figures to go off). Should they pass those savings on. That's an ethics question. WILL they? Seemingly not.
 
Looks like their prices "manned" up. :evil:

I do find it funny that some people think of that as good news. :huh:
 
Hawk Teflon said:
I don't know how much it costs to make one Red One vs that of an Epic-S, M, X, any other letter in the alphabet.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. Cost of components has zero to do with what a finished product is priced at. The marketplace operates on the law of supply and demand, not on the cost of raw materials.

I think people oftentimes confuse the MANUFACTURING business with the RESELLING business. In reselling, your cost is fixed -- you buy something from your distributor, and you sell it to the customer. You mark it up based on what you need to make a profit.

In manufacturing, a tremendous percentage of the money you spend to develop the product is not reflected in any way in the core component costs. Epic has over three years of who knows how many engineers working on it, plus the massive costs to build the factory and manufacturing capability, etc. Does it really matter if the core costs of materials to make an Epic are forty bucks? Of course not. When you spend millions of dollars in R&D, you have to recover that, and you get it back from camcorder sales.

Again, cost of manufacturing has zero to do with end cost to the consumer.

Manufacturing is all about supply and demand. Does it really matter whether it costs Apple 8 cents or 22 cents or $4 to make an iPhone? They're going to sell every one of them they can make, at $199 or $299 or whatever.

Or, let's put it this way -- let's say you worked three years tirelessly and finally wrote a brilliant screenplay, and Holllywood came to you and offered to buy it, and their offer was $1.22. You'd be pretty furious, right? You'd say "that took me three years of my life!" And Hollywood responds by saying "maybe, but we based our calculations on what it cost you. We figure that's 72 cents for the paper you printed it on and 50 cents for the ink."

See what I mean? Cost of manufacturing is irrelevant when it comes to setting your final price, when you're in the manufacturing business.

I should imagine the cost of the S would be substantially less than the original One
Click to expand...
We'll see. The core manufacturing cost might be a little less, but what about the years of development? As a practical matter, it's a product that will do more than the Red One does. Why would they sell it for less? Just because they're nice guys? I don't think so. Remember, Jannard made his billion dollars off of selling sunglasses for $200/pair. This is not a company that is trying to compete on price. They're charging $2,000 for a PL mount. $3,000 for a side handle! This company is not in the loss-leader business. They will charge just as much as people will pay. Hence why the Epic-M is here. They found out that people would pay $58,000 for a product they initially announced at $28,000 -- why wouldn't they want to make as many Epic-M's and sell them, as they possibly can?

And when you've got a client base that will pay $58,000 for your $28,000 product -- where, exactly, is the rationale to come out and undercut it with an Epic-S? Makes no sense. Which is why they won't do it. Epic-S will cost $18k to $20k, not a doubt in my mind. Of course, like you, I am only speculating, but I'm willing to put my prediction out there.

As far as it being an "ethics question" as to whether they should sell products for less than people are willing to pay -- I would dispute that. The market is made up of willing buyers and willing sellers. Jannard owes it to himself and his employees to charge as much as people are willing to pay. It makes no sense to "leave money on the table" by giving your products away for less than people would willingly spend on them. He'd be shortchanging Red, and their ability to hire more, develop more, and build more and innovate more, if he lowered prices below what his customers were willing to pay.

Let's put it this way -- say you wrote a brilliant screenplay, and Hollywood came to you and offered you $1,000,000 for it. Would you consider it ethically questionable to accept their offer? I mean, after all, it only took you a year to write it, so maybe you should only charge them $150,000 for it. That's still a fair profit for you, right?
 
So if the demand is more than there, why doesn't companies like Sony and Panasonic just make cameras with similar specs? In theory, since they have more facilities, employees, resources, and customer base than Red they could surely build a similar camera for cheaper and faster; and still sell it for the same price as Red.
 
You make very good points, Barry. So to that, I should think there would be more of an uprising from the Red Community for this. But looking through the thread, people seem to be saying, "Awesome! Hurray! You're the best!" Am I missing something?

I'm not versed on much of the Red flow (not workflow, but company flow) as they're far out of my price range (in the same manner that I don't look into the Viper), but I should imagine this would not be a good thing to do to people (especially more than once). But it doesn't seem to matter. People are still on board. Which is great for Red. And more power to them. But what's the point in releasing a price like $3500 for a camera that will be 5x that later?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top