samson is “knockoff” ? where did you get that info from?!
they founded Hartke (bass amps), and have been around forever.
I am not sure if you have info that I have don´t, but I always had the impression that other companies were ripping off Samson/Hartke, and not vice versa.
I could be wrong, though, of course.
read above, it IS already lowered.
that info is a few months old, it just re-surfaced recently - sonicstate just needed new content so they regurgitated old info.
fact-check your stuff, folks.
if only to put it into a timeline.
Interesting non-US company prices are dropping. Tariff related?
nope.
for explanation read the source material - or this thread.
it has been explained several times already - sorry for the “rude” (short) reply 
Do guitarists get so upset at all the Fender and Gibson design knock-offs? All you have to do is flip through a Sweetwater catalog once in a while to see all sorts of guitar design copies.
How about software versions of classic hardware - things like Garageband with all of it’s sly amp and pedal knock-offs?
What about Arturia classic synths? Do they pay a license fee perhaps? People loved Rebirth and it’s just 303/808/909.
I agree Behringer is pushing the boundaries. I can totally see holding a grudge for all the old half-assed products in the past. But heavily borrowing from famous products in the past is done routinely in other music tech areas and I don’t see much uproar. Then again, I don’t frequent any guitar forums. Maybe they are having the same debates there.
Quality is important, and i don’t like to buy from Behringer, when there is maybe planned obsolescence components build in.
Its also a question how the production is - is everyone treated fair? Why not build green electronic devices?
Planned obsolescence is some devious shit. Apple claimed not to be doing it intentionally with their recent slowing down of older phones to “save battery life”. But, really? C’mon.
I can see how planned obsolescence would work in that case. Apple has newer shinier phones to upgrade to and people are already conditioned to that.
But if a Behringer Model D kicks the bucket, most would just… what? Go buy another Behringer Model D since they want that sound. But, planned obsolescence strategy would fail in that case, wouldn’t it? I’d be wary of buying an exact copy of the thing that just broke. But maybe Behringer would have brought out the Shinier Model D mkII by that time.
Planned obsolescence is about short life cycle, not necesseary upgrading the product line. People throw away things just because its cheaper to go and buy new instead of fixing broken old things. Its planned obsolescence 101.
As I understood it the above is simply consumerism and wasteful behavior.
Planned Obsolescence meant an actual corporate Plan to make people keep buying/upgrading continuously by making a product not last a long as it should. There is some hazy area in there as well in the case of Apple, because a lot of their model is Perceived Obsolescence, etc. - making people want newer shinier even though old model still works just fine. The recent case was pretty well documented and Apple admitted tinkering with OS to make iPhones slower.
To me there’s a big leap between that and companies using cheaper parts to make cheaper products. That seems an obvious risk the consumer takes - “hey I know this thing is cheaply made and might break sooner than I wish but I’ll take the risk because it’s cheap.”
I think the product breaking or not lasting as long would be more of a side-effect, possibly not Planned, designed, baked-in, or manipulated via software updates. But maybe I am splitting hairs. Neither practices are great but one is clearly more devious than the other, imo.
This has nothing to do with any kind of “planned obsolescence”.
There was an issue where older iPhone with heavily used batteries could suddenly shut down. Because of this, they released on iOS update that reduced the processor speed when the battery capacity dropped below a certain level so that they device would no longer suddenly shut down. They also reduced the pricing of their battery replacement service for these devices at the same time.
You can read more about this at iPhone battery and performance - Apple Support
Nothing? Not at all related? Not a slightly similar strategy - to make an expensive device suddenly become slow and hold out a shiny new version to upgrade to? That has nothing to do with planned obsolescence? Maybe I have always had the wrong definition for planned obsolescence? I’m willing to learn the correct definition.
I’m going by news stories and class-action lawsuit, not by what the company writes on its website. We can agree to disagree, that’s fine. I still own Apple products and will gladly buy an iPhone. Doesn’t mean I’m going to trust what they say on issues such as this.
I can understand how this might have been different from a pure Planned Obsolescence strategy, but the choice they made midstream was to secretly slow the phones (what do people usually do when gadgets become old and slow? get the latest fastest one?). Only when people complained did they admit and offer to fix.
No, that’s not what happened.
The only thing Apple did a bad job at was explaining how your mobile device constantly needs to find a balance between performance and battery condition, and that you will notice your battery ageing not only because you’ll need to recharge more often, but that this also has an impact on sustained peak performance. They do a better job at that now.
Going by news stories and class-action lawsuits can be fun, but is not the best way to inform yourself about somewhat complex technical challenges.
I work in cellular phone sales and planned obsolescence is great for me and the company but terrible on the consumer end. I feel for people when they have to upgrade their phone after 2 years because the battery life sucks. And the phones are getting out of control expensive! The highest priced device, iPhone XS Max 256gb is over $1500 when you add in the taxes. I’ve payed less for a car.
Is it just me, or does Behringer seem to be hated by journalists as well? I find it really hard to find reviews of their stuff, and don’t really see them popping up on best synth lists and stuff like that. I suppose it might be because there are so many clones and your musicradars and soundonsounds don’t really want to review stuff like that. Or I could be wrong about the whole thing 
Except that they do: Behringer Model D
You could tell them they can get their battery replaced for much less… Apple currently does that for $29 when you’re below 80% capacity.
Uli stated a long time on the gearslutz forums, that they do not send products out to magazines etc for reviews, as magazines like to charge for the privilege of a review, also the reason why they don’t advertise either, keeps costs low, keeps prices down too for us I guess
the only thing I hold against Behringer is the choice of a red faceplate on the Neutron.
Shame on them 
Behringer doesn’t advertise on magazines, thus magazines don’t cover their products much.
Usually the glowing reviews you read in magazines are accompanied by several pages of ads that the synth manufacturer has paid good money for.
Yeah, fair point.