Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John McWilliams on 28 Mar 2010 14:13 tony cooper wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:59:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: >> Very well. You're right. >> > Thank you for that. One doesn't see "You're right" very often in > newsgroups. You're right, tony, and Neil, of course, too. -- john mcwilliams
From: stephe_k on 29 Mar 2010 01:06 tony cooper wrote: > > OK. I agree that adding a high-end item to the product line solely > for the purpose of attracting attention to the brand is a strategy > advanced by the marketing people. That's all I was saying..
From: stephe_k on 29 Mar 2010 01:10 Ted Banks wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:15:57 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> > wrote: > >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> >>> Did you even bother to read to context of this tread? It was about them >>> DISABLING features a lower price camera that already has the capabilities >>> of in hardware, to entice the consumer to purchase a more expensive model >>> that they have enabled said feature on. Where did you figure this >>> "violates the laws of physics" disabling hardware using the firmware? They >>> seem to be able to do this quite easily. >>> >> Nope. It's called lowering production and inventory costs. Much less >> expensive to put in the additional features and disable them in lower priced >> models. > > Well Brainiac, please explain how that works. > > The lower-priced crippled units should actually cost more than the > higher-priced units because they require an additional step of a > programmer's time to disable features that were in the firmware code in > first place. Then add in the time needed to debug it to make sure > everything else works when you disable those features. It also takes time > to edit any documentation originally authored for all the features on that > particular camera platform to remove any mention of those features from > manuals and advertising. That's the only cost issues involved before > shipment. It costs more in time and effort to disable a pre-existing > feature (covering up one's tracks), therefore the crippled camera should > cost more. > > Q: If it doesn't cost anything more to put those features into the > higher-priced units than the lower-priced unit, then why do they have the > higher price? Because the average consumer and people like you are fools? > > A: Yes. > You correctly answered the question you questioned! LMAO ^_^ Stephanie
From: stephe_k on 29 Mar 2010 01:15 Neil Harrington wrote: > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoju68$gsh$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> Neil Harrington wrote: >>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >>>>> 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. >>> >> >> Are you always such a bone head? OK it's not a "loss leader" I used the >> wrong term > > YOU used the wrong term so I"M the bonehead? I said I used the wrong term and explained my point multiple times yet you kept going back to this 'loss leader' mess. > >> but I just described what I meant in this last post for the third time and >> you continue to argue semantics without answering the question. > > "What you meant" is still wrong. What on earth makes you think a Corvette is > "a money losing product to get people into the store"? > >> So you think the marketing people had nothing to do with putting a money >> losing product in the showroom as a tool to get people into the store to >> then sell them the cheaper mainstream product they do make a profit on? I >> could give a flip what you want to call this high end money loser, it's a >> marketing tool just like a "loss leader" is. > > Again: What on earth makes you think a Corvette is "a money losing product"? > Some Corvettes sell for over $100,000 and yes, they do sell them at those > prices. And no, a Corvette isn't "a marketing tool just like a loss leader." > In the 50's/60's a corvette was NOT a profitable car, it was to sell their other products. The same for those Acura NSX and the toyota Supra. Those were all to show their engineering expertise not to make money selling that specific model. Stephanie
From: tony cooper on 29 Mar 2010 01:16
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:06:33 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >tony cooper wrote: > >> >> OK. I agree that adding a high-end item to the product line solely >> for the purpose of attracting attention to the brand is a strategy >> advanced by the marketing people. > >That's all I was saying.. And this is worthy of comment? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |