i dunno, but when i look at the over all picture, i still see it as a branding thing mostly.
almost all the sub $1000 guitars are gone from the line up.
30% price increase across the board.
the available guitars have been culled and simplified significantly.
years ago i saw the interview where henry j responded to a question about gibson's pricing and he stated simply that his data showed that sales increased when prices went up. he created some formula that he uses to keep sales at a certain level. he said then that when he came on board gibson was hurting. part of what turned them around was their branding. they evoke nostalgia, and boutiquey-ness. exclusivity. class. it's kinda the same reason people seem to love relics so much. he doesn't care about music in the slightest. he doesn't care about the customer in the slightest. he's a ceo. for him it's all numbers and shareholders to answer to, etc.
time will tell if it was a bold stroke of genius or an overzealous cash grab. the thin with the tuners and zero nut thing, i think is them trying to move things forward, technologically. how do you be old-school with out being stodgy, cumbersome, slow? maybe one might try taking the guitar to a new place with the help of new technology. that seems to be the road they are taking/attempting.
i have to say, for me, i am disappointed to learn those tuners don't work. the idea is a good one, despite what many people think. i had every intention of buying a set for my strat. but if it doesn't work, then it's crap. surely gibson know this. yet they are forcing them on people and upcharging them for it to boot. that's just typical corporate greed, ubiquitous these days. if the zero nut thing works or not i don't know. if it does, than it's a good thing, that needs to be executed in a more attractive fashion. we'll see if the buyer's pockets are as deep as henry predicts they are. i don't think they are but i've been wrong before.