Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Savageduck on 26 Mar 2010 18:06 On 2010-03-26 14:47:38 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:07:47 -0700, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-03-26 11:27:40 -0700, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >> >>> In message <jdqpq5hbci9cu5ni5h4m4ic44qsidloh7p(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >>> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes ------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>> However, this part of the thread pertains to the ridiculous claim that >>>> NASA constitutes a market for space shuttles. NASA does not shop for >>>> space shuttles. >>> >>> It is a "market" with one customer.... >> >> ...and there is a massive industry made up of many suppliers feeding >> off that single customer, and its sub-agencies such as JPL. > > None of this addresses the question of "Is there a market for space > shuttles?" > > NASA is a market for many products from many suppliers. It is not a > market for space shuttles. Agreed. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 26 Mar 2010 18:14 On 2010-03-26 14:56:24 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:01:05 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> tony cooper wrote: >> >>> >>> However, this part of the thread pertains to the ridiculous claim that >>> NASA constitutes a market for space shuttles. NASA does not shop for >>> space shuttles. >>> >> >> Which has no relevance whatsoever into the discussion of why a >> manufacturer would DISABLE hardware that already exists in a cheaper >> model in their lineup. To even insinuate that anyone other than the >> marketing people would do this is silly! > > Thread subjects are not cast in concrete. Any point of a discussion > can be addressed. What I'm addressing is the ludicrous example of > there being a market for space shuttles. There is so little market for space shuttles, there will be no more as we know them. There will certainly be other vehicles for NASA and agencies of other nations, for payload and personnel delivery, but the market for space shuttles is nonexistent. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Neil Harrington on 26 Mar 2010 18:57 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >> stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Neil Harrington wrote: >> >>>> Prestige was the idea, yes. I doubt the "marketing people" had anything >>>> to do with continuing to make the camera year after year while it was >>>> losing money. >> >>> You think the engineers are the ones who decided to continue production >>> of a loss leader product? Of COURSE it was the marketing people who had >>> this production continued, >> >> Apart from the fact that that's not a loss leader product, I >> must assume your "marketing people" include every CEO and member >> of the board --- for no mere marketing person has the power to >> decide company strategy. > > I wrongly assumed people here would understand my point was: that this is > a money losing product to get people into the store. Like like a super > fancy car (corvette, NSX etc)gets people into the showroom to then sell > them a midrange sedan. You still don't seem to understand what "loss leader" means. The Ektra certainly was never sold as a loss leader and neither is the Corvette. > > And you don't think the marketing department has any input on a companies > marketing strategy? O.o > > I HIGHLY doubt the engineering staff coerced the management into > continuing production of a money losing product that was being sold as a > marketing ploy. Maybe you believe that the engineering department is the > department that makes recommendations on things like this? I'm not sure > what company you have worked for that is set up like that, but it isn't > normally how things are done. > > >> >>> The marketing department is who decides or at the very least makes the >>> recommendations on these sorts of things. >> >> Oh, and the engineers just nod when they are (again) being told >> by marketing to violate the laws of physics, right? >> > > Did you even bother to read to context of this tread? It was about them > DISABLING features a lower price camera that already has the capabilities > of in hardware, to entice the consumer to purchase a more expensive model > that they have enabled said feature on. Where did you figure this > "violates the laws of physics" disabling hardware using the firmware? They > seem to be able to do this quite easily. You have claimed that those perfidious "marketing people" do this with DSLRs. Please identify a DSLR "that already has the capabilities [of more advanced features] in hardware" that has had those features deliberately "disabled" at the behest of "marketing people." For example: Nikon's lowest priced DSLR at present is the D3000. Do you really believe that the D3000 "already has the capabilities of" say a D90, a D300s or a D3X "in hardware" such that it could become the functional equal of those more expensive models if only those features were enabled?
From: John McWilliams on 26 Mar 2010 19:14 Neil Harrington wrote: > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >>> stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>>> Prestige was the idea, yes. I doubt the "marketing people" had anything >>>>> to do with continuing to make the camera year after year while it was >>>>> losing money. >>>> You think the engineers are the ones who decided to continue production >>>> of a loss leader product? Of COURSE it was the marketing people who had >>>> this production continued, >>> Apart from the fact that that's not a loss leader product, I >>> must assume your "marketing people" include every CEO and member >>> of the board --- for no mere marketing person has the power to >>> decide company strategy. >> I wrongly assumed people here would understand my point was: that this is >> a money losing product to get people into the store. Like like a super >> fancy car (corvette, NSX etc)gets people into the showroom to then sell >> them a midrange sedan. > > You still don't seem to understand what "loss leader" means. The Ektra > certainly was never sold as a loss leader and neither is the Corvette. > >> And you don't think the marketing department has any input on a companies >> marketing strategy? O.o >> >> I HIGHLY doubt the engineering staff coerced the management into >> continuing production of a money losing product that was being sold as a >> marketing ploy. Maybe you believe that the engineering department is the >> department that makes recommendations on things like this? I'm not sure >> what company you have worked for that is set up like that, but it isn't >> normally how things are done. >> >> >>>> The marketing department is who decides or at the very least makes the >>>> recommendations on these sorts of things. >>> Oh, and the engineers just nod when they are (again) being told >>> by marketing to violate the laws of physics, right? >>> >> Did you even bother to read to context of this tread? It was about them >> DISABLING features a lower price camera that already has the capabilities >> of in hardware, to entice the consumer to purchase a more expensive model >> that they have enabled said feature on. Where did you figure this >> "violates the laws of physics" disabling hardware using the firmware? They >> seem to be able to do this quite easily. Another way to look at this: say the internals of cameras A and B are the same, and so mfg. costs are reduced with higher volume. The lower priced camera has some functions curtailed in software, thus enabling more people to buy the lower priced camera. > You have claimed that those perfidious "marketing people" do this with > DSLRs. Please identify a DSLR "that already has the capabilities [of more > advanced features] in hardware" that has had those features deliberately > "disabled" at the behest of "marketing people." > > For example: Nikon's lowest priced DSLR at present is the D3000. Do you > really believe that the D3000 "already has the capabilities of" say a D90, a > D300s or a D3X "in hardware" such that it could become the functional equal > of those more expensive models if only those features were enabled? I can personally attest to a hack I used eons ago on my Canon 300 D. It did a few more things, but didn't turn it into a Mark2... Now, I don't think I'd bother with any hacks; just not worth the time and effort. -- John McWilliams
From: Neil Harrington on 26 Mar 2010 19:23
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:37bqq5lae5qlj25ta76s28bm5aa6jq51ou(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:01:05 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>tony cooper wrote: >> >>> >>> However, this part of the thread pertains to the ridiculous claim that >>> NASA constitutes a market for space shuttles. NASA does not shop for >>> space shuttles. >>> >> >>Which has no relevance whatsoever into the discussion of why a >>manufacturer would DISABLE hardware that already exists in a cheaper >>model in their lineup. To even insinuate that anyone other than the >>marketing people would do this is silly! > > Thread subjects are not cast in concrete. Any point of a discussion > can be addressed. What I'm addressing is the ludicrous example of > there being a market for space shuttles. There probably isn't NOW, because the space shuttle as we know it is getting long in the tooth. But when NASA was *in the market* for space shuttles, ipso facto that market existed. Your position seems to be that a market cannot exist if there's only one customer, i.e. if other countries and/or agencies needed space shuttles then there would a market for them, but since only NASA bought them no market existed. I don't see how that logically follows. NASA's being the world's largest consumer of space shuttles I think makes them a market. If someone else were able to produce a significantly better, safer and more capable space shuttle at a much better price, presumably NASA would have bought it, wouldn't they? Doesn't that in itself make them a market? |