5 ms·

There are schools of (microeconomic) thought that would encourage them to raise prices even further in order to reduce demand to match their supply capability.

There are schools of (microeconomic) thought that would encourage them to raise prices even further in order to reduce demand to match their supply capability. If the second-hand market prices a good higher than the original seller, that's a very clear signal to increase the price. At least that way the profits end up in the manufacturer's pocket (which they can use to increase volume) instead of a speculator's. That is all to say, their raising prices is ethical, legal, and moral. You seem to be seeing something nefarious in their discontinuing the OP-1, and then re-continuing it at a higher price. Even absent the above, it makes perfect sense that they could be losing money on a product, and then re-introduce it at a higher price so they stop losing money. Now, should they have been losing money at the lower price point? You talk a lot about CoGS, but that completely neglects things like design and development time. The OP-1 is, by all accounts, extremely well-designed and built. Economies of scale let companies like Apple pick lower margins because that R&D time is amortized over a huge number of devices manufactured. Boutique operations can't do that. All that still ignores squishier questions like choosing to keep a price point in order to fund other projects (that may never be built) with increasing margins over time, or hell, I dunno, paying bigger bonuses to employees. Clearly people are willing to pay it, and they're under no obligation to price their goods according to any objective thing at all. Maybe the CEO is a mystic and likes the numerology of the new price better.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
brandonmenc 6y ago
> You seem to be seeing something nefarious in their discontinuing the OP-1, and then re-continuing it at a higher price. This is typical behavior of a certain large class of musicians, particularly electronic ones. The message boards are full of people complaining that these companies charge "too much." They will also then complain that Behringer sucks for "stealing" ideas and pricing them affordably. Meanwhile, it has never been cheaper to buy music equipment and software. And there are tons of high quality free software out there. I would hesitate to enter into the business of selling music software or hardware. It seems pretty thankless.
- tinco 6y ago
  If it were truly possible to create and sell the OP-1 or an equivalent device for under $1000, some company would have done it already. I'd gladly buy a Behringer copy of the OP-1 for $500, and I bet loads of other people would as well. It could even be twice the volume and be ugly AF. I don't know why it's so difficult or unattractive to put a sequencer, a sampler and a synthesizer in one box with a keyboard on it, but the OP-1 seems to be the only successful implementation of that idea.
- SauciestGNU 6y ago
  The Behringer thing is really confusing to me. I know there are other personal/ethical reasons to dislike them, but cloning out of patent devices is not one of them. That's what patents are for and why they're only valid for a defined period of time. It makes even less sense to criticize them when the originals they are cloning aren't even made anymore.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    I don't think Behringer only creates clones of "out of patent" hardware but also current gear that is still being sold. I guess the latest example is the Behringer Swing that is obviously a clone of the Arturia Keystep.
    - brandonmenc 6y ago
      There are only so many ways to arrange three knobs and transport controls on a keyboard. This is like two mobile phone companies putting their volume buttons in the same place. This is another weird aspect of the (often amateur, electronic) music production world - making something simple and obvious seem like a mysterious and unique breakthrough. This is a community that likes to use the terms “aleatoric” and “euclidian” instead of “random” and “evenly distributed”. Yes, I know the origins of those two terms but I don’t care - I eyeroll every time I hear them.
      - SauciestGNU 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

brandonmenc 6y ago

> You seem to be seeing something nefarious in their discontinuing the OP-1, and then re-continuing it at a higher price. This is typical behavior of a certain large class of musicians, particularly electronic ones. The message boards are full of people complaining that these companies charge "too much." They will also then complain that Behringer sucks for "stealing" ideas and pricing them affordably. Meanwhile, it has never been cheaper to buy music equipment and software. And there are tons of high quality free software out there. I would hesitate to enter into the business of selling music software or hardware. It seems pretty thankless.

tinco 6y ago
If it were truly possible to create and sell the OP-1 or an equivalent device for under $1000, some company would have done it already. I'd gladly buy a Behringer copy of the OP-1 for $500, and I bet loads of other people would as well. It could even be twice the volume and be ugly AF. I don't know why it's so difficult or unattractive to put a sequencer, a sampler and a synthesizer in one box with a keyboard on it, but the OP-1 seems to be the only successful implementation of that idea.
SauciestGNU 6y ago
The Behringer thing is really confusing to me. I know there are other personal/ethical reasons to dislike them, but cloning out of patent devices is not one of them. That's what patents are for and why they're only valid for a defined period of time. It makes even less sense to criticize them when the originals they are cloning aren't even made anymore.
- capableweb 6y ago
  I don't think Behringer only creates clones of "out of patent" hardware but also current gear that is still being sold. I guess the latest example is the Behringer Swing that is obviously a clone of the Arturia Keystep.
  - brandonmenc 6y ago
    There are only so many ways to arrange three knobs and transport controls on a keyboard. This is like two mobile phone companies putting their volume buttons in the same place. This is another weird aspect of the (often amateur, electronic) music production world - making something simple and obvious seem like a mysterious and unique breakthrough. This is a community that likes to use the terms “aleatoric” and “euclidian” instead of “random” and “evenly distributed”. Yes, I know the origins of those two terms but I don’t care - I eyeroll every time I hear them.
    - SauciestGNU 6y ago