The quad module is really just big enough to hold 4 REDvolts and 2 REDvolt XLs. Power outs would definitely make it bigger. The beauty of this module system is RED could make another little module you can click on the back that has the power outs we all need.
It is tricky to see the true genius of the modular design with the parts trickling in like this but I think once they are all designed and shipping everything will make sense.
I think we have consistently shown we listen. And have changed our minds, policy, whatever, if it makes sense. If Stage 2 or 3 was like the EPIC-M package where the sum of the parts was equal to the package price, there is no issue not taking delivery of an item - it is a true package, not a bundle (where the total is cheaper than the sum of the parts). We had a similar situation with the RED ONE Base Production Pack. It was a bundle - one part number for many parts. Some people wanted to take out the CRADLE, for example, since they would only run with CF. But on a bundle, how do give full retail value back on one part where the entire bundle is discounted? So, people realized that buying the Base Production Pack was cheaper than buying all the bits a la carte and just not using the CRADLE. So, extend that to Stage 2...
You are asking to get full retail value of credit on a part that is part of a bundle. I know for a variety of reasons, we have to break up each part of the package as its own line item for the Stage 2/3 bundle part number. Again, due to backorders, values needed for customs for each part, tracking of what shipped and what did not, we have to do so. One the invoice, the bundle "discount" or "credit" is applied to the brain while each other part has its retail value. This is not because the brain is worth "less" or anything, it is just the way we had to dial it up on the logistics side. So, if we had done it differently (20/20 hindsight, right?), we could have made brain full value and each other part of bundle a fraction of the cost. Would people be asking for a credit on the battery module if the invoice/"credit "value was $200 and actual retail value is $1950?
But, at the end of the day, what values are on the invoice for various reasons does not change the fact Stage 2/3 is a bundle for a price of $28k (before credits to keep or trade-in RED ONE). As you can imagine, the Stage 2/3 deals were done to reward customers who stood by us at the beginning. Selling these packages at this price is a loyalty-driven move, not a revenue-driven move, trust me.
And, like I mentioned before, these orders are hard orders and our supply chain was driven by them. Making part of a bundle an optional part for delivery puts us in a position where we have purchased materials to support Stage 2, 3, and new orders. We are being asked to take the first two and reduce those numbers and apply it to the third? So, we are double-accounting for the third? Not good from an inventory standpoint.
Also, please remember that every person who placed a deposit on Stage 2 or 3 did so with the battery module as part of the package. Yes, we changed some of the contents of the Stage 2 package after that to get in Ti, SSD, etc. Note that the retail value of what we put in exceeded that of what we took out. So, from a dollar-and-sense (intended), it became a better value compared to the first iteration of the Stage 2 package.
To wrap it up, I am not making excuses here. I know the fact the quad battery module and module adaptor coming out well after the rest of the package is a big driver of your unrest. I am putting myself in your shoes. I ask you take a moment to put yourself in ours. While we are one of the most open, transparent, and generous companies - we are still a business. If we make decisions that are not fiscally responsible, no one wins - not you. Not us.
* People knew battery module was part of Stage 2/3 before they ordered? CHECK
* People knew Stage 2/3 was a bundle before they ordered? CHECK
* RED considered those hard orders where a deposit was placed into their materials planning? CHECK
We are always listening. And if we feel we need to make a change that makes sense for RED and its customers, we will.
I don't think RED actually meant to put is in the same place with our Epics as where we left off with our R-1s.
Wow, Brent, that post made my brain hurt. Ha.
We welcome the delivery of the quad module. Just hope it ships soon!
I certainly understand Red's point of view and I think none of us should insist a loyalty gift horse should have its teeth examined too critically. But I think a lot of the unrest (including most of my own) derives from the long wait and when the horse finally arrives it's hobbled by an obvious design flaw that seems, well, dismaying at this point when so much brilliance has gone into the Epic. The simple fact of no D-tap or accessory power option turns a useful work horse into a kind of recalcitrant mule that balks at carrying a load.
If Red somehow came up with a design modification to correct this flaw, even if it cost us something, I think the unrest would turn into cheers. And the little nick to the gratitude of some, would be instantly healed.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|