When is a new product actually a new product?

[Ajani]

I noticed that the Audeze Audio LCD-2 Headphones have been updated, yet Audeze opted not to change the model number to LCD-3 or even LCD-2.2... There are both sonic and cosmetic changes: 1) There is a new driver that is supposed to result in improved bass and, more importantly, to create more extended highs (as the LCD-2 have been criticized as being much darker sounding than other high end headphones)... 2) The metal headband with exposed memory foam (often criticized for looking cheap and nasty) has been replaced with a sexy looking leather headband...

So all that got me thinking; when should a product be called a new product?

Also, is it reasonable for a manufacturer to claim that a product is the same product, if they have altered the design of the product?

Some persons want to buy "new products", while others want a proven product that has been around "unchanged" for 20 or more years... So it seems manufacturers merely pick their strategy and may claim that the same old product, with a face-lift, is really a new product to drum up sales OR may pretend that a product design has remained unchanged for well over a decade, despite the fact that significant internal changes have been made over time...

So back to my question; in your opinion, when is a new product really a new product? OR when is a product still the same old product?

[kelsci]

If the product has been around since its birth it certainly is an original new product. If this product undergoes any kind of change, it should be stated so somehwere that informs the potential buyer. It also should reflect this in a stock number. For instance say the original new product had a number like 23. Than the change comes along. It should be called 23A. If it is revised again, then the same thing should happen again with info to a purchaser and a stock number 23B. A new "new" product should be something totally new that has been manufactured and look nothing like the old product and its revisions.

[Ajani]

If the product has been around since its birth it certainly is an original new product. If this product undergoes any kind of change, it should be stated so somehwere that informs the potential buyer. It also should reflect this in a stock number. For instance say the original new product had a number like 23. Than the change comes along. It should be called 23A. If it is revised again, then the same thing should happen again with info to a purchaser and a stock number 23B. A new "new" product should be something totally new that has been manufactured and look nothing like the old product and its revisions.

I interpret what you just wrote to mean that minor changes would receive a new version number (so 23 - 23A - 23B in your example). While a radical redesign should probably get a new name entirely?

That makes sense to me, but sadly it doesn't seem to be the case with many manufacturers...

[kelsci]

Ajani; you are most likely right. Offhand, I cannot think of thingys that should have been listed as new products with the exception of the car industry. For instance, a toyota corolla made before 1990 had a certain squared look while from 1990 and on it had a look resembling most cars of the areodymaically kind. Actually, there was such a huge change between 1989 and 1990 that it really should have been a new classification of model but they kept the corolla name. I liked the pre 1990 Corollas. They were comfortable, well made, drove nicely on the road and gave astonishing less tire wear. A friend of mine had 65,000 miles on the same tires and they still had tread. I had to go back to Toyota on my 1990 model which wore out tires after only driving 5000 miles.

[pixelthis]

Ajani; you are most likely right. Offhand, I cannot think of thingys that should have been listed as new products with the exception of the car industry. For instance, a toyota corolla made before 1990 had a certain squared look while from 1990 and on it had a look resembling most cars of the areodymaically kind. Actually, there was such a huge change between 1989 and 1990 that it really should have been a new classification of model but they kept the corolla name. I liked the pre 1990 Corollas. They were comfortable, well made, drove nicely on the road and gave astonishing less tire wear. A friend of mine had 65,000 miles on the same tires and they still had tread. I had to go back to Toyota on my 1990 model which wore out tires after only driving 5000 miles.

THESE are minor details, really.
PRODUCTS evolve, rarely is a product all new.
THE Prius is new, completely. THE MP3 and associated tech
were new.
SACD, DVDAUDIO, BOTH NEW. And dead.
THE "NEW" camaro? NOPE, just restyled, guess the marketing
dept at GM finally got back from vacation.
BLU RAY? An evolution of DVD, one that was planned before
DVD even came out.
CELL FONES? Not just new but the rare thing(like cars and
better hygiene ) that fundamentally change the human world.
AND now tablets, in fifty years when you mention a computer
you will be talking about a tablet. SERVERS will be what they
wi-fi with.
AND dont even mention the "net".
NOTHING like it since the printing press.
When GUTENBURG'S little invention started churning out Bibles
it led to the PROTESTANT reformation when people discovered that the Bible did not say what the CATHOLIC CHURCH said it did.
WITH the "net" a six year old boy can put up a web page and instantly have not millions, but billions created across
the world, every time the site is accessed. THE PRINTING
press is crude by comparison, and look at how it
changed the world. LOOK at how the net has changed things already, and with the power of portable devices.
Talk about NEW, the web is the "newest" thing since the invention of fire.