Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Ted Banks on 29 Mar 2010 01:46 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:10:42 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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 Well, yes. But you have to understand ... the majority of the pretend-photographer trolls that you are trying to explain "common sense" issues to, don't have any ... "common sense" that is. :) How much do you want to bet they are just shills for their respective DSLR divisions? Desperately trying to keep their con-man jobs by continuing to perpetuate the easily revealed scam. No matter how convoluted and distorted their justifications and delusional reasonings. The CHDK folk are making some phenomenal strides in unlocking all the disabled features in the entry-level cameras. Making their performance every bit as equivalent to those of the higher-priced units ... as they were before the marketing department got their claws into defining the market-level firmware for everyone. This is not unlike the "for profit only" insurance industry playing doctor by decreeing what services should be rendered to their dying customers. Both paradigms will eventually come crashing down around them and they'll have to find another way to pay for their yachts and vacation villas ... if they still have them by then.
From: tony cooper on 29 Mar 2010 01:50 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:10:42 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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 ^_^ > No he didn't. The strategy makes sense for the company, adds to the profit of the company, and provides a product to the consumer that the consumer wants and can afford. No fools involved. If Zippo Camera Company can make a camera platform with 20 features built into it, and then make five different cases labeled Z-1, Z-2, Z-3, Z-4, and Z-5, they have five different models at roughly the same cost for each. Some slight differences for the costs of disabling and the fanciness of the cases. If the Z-1 has all but 5 features disabled, there could be a market for the Z-1 at $100. The Z-5, however, has no features disabled and there can be a market for that model at $500. The Z-2 through Z-4 have some, but not all features disabled and are priced from $200 to $400. There are customers who buy a Z-1 that would not buy any other model, and so on through Z-2 to Z-5. The customer gets, and pays for, only the features they think they need. The customer is not deceived. They know the Z-1 has less features than the other models. They don't feel they need more features and don't want to pay over $100. The company is making a profit on the Z-1. Let's call that "P". There's a cost to disabling and different cases which we'll call "D". The company makes a profit on the Z-2 of (P+100-D), a profit on the Z-3s of (P+200-D), and so on up to the Z-5 at (P+400-D). So even if "P" is small, the profit increases as the model number increases. Theoretically, the company could sell the Z-1 at $100 even if there is no profit at all in it if the company feels that an advertised price of $100 will bring people into the store, but enough people can be upgraded to at least a Z-2 by the sales staff or be sold accessories that have a built-in profit. We now have what you misidentified in an earlier post: a loss leader. Everyone wins. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Ted Banks on 29 Mar 2010 02:12 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:50:13 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:10:42 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" ><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Ted Banks wrote: >>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:15:57 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoj778$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 ^_^ >> >No he didn't. The strategy makes sense for the company, adds to the >profit of the company, and provides a product to the consumer that the >consumer wants and can afford. No fools involved. > >If Zippo Camera Company can make a camera platform with 20 features >built into it, and then make five different cases labeled Z-1, Z-2, >Z-3, Z-4, and Z-5, they have five different models at roughly the same >cost for each. Some slight differences for the costs of disabling and >the fanciness of the cases. > >If the Z-1 has all but 5 features disabled, there could be a market >for the Z-1 at $100. The Z-5, however, has no features disabled and >there can be a market for that model at $500. The Z-2 through Z-4 >have some, but not all features disabled and are priced from $200 to >$400. > >There are customers who buy a Z-1 that would not buy any other model, >and so on through Z-2 to Z-5. The customer gets, and pays for, only >the features they think they need. > >The customer is not deceived. They know the Z-1 has less features >than the other models. They don't feel they need more features and >don't want to pay over $100. > >The company is making a profit on the Z-1. Let's call that "P". >There's a cost to disabling and different cases which we'll call "D". >The company makes a profit on the Z-2 of (P+100-D), a profit on the >Z-3s of (P+200-D), and so on up to the Z-5 at (P+400-D). So even if >"P" is small, the profit increases as the model number increases. > >Theoretically, the company could sell the Z-1 at $100 even if there is >no profit at all in it if the company feels that an advertised price >of $100 will bring people into the store, but enough people can be >upgraded to at least a Z-2 by the sales staff or be sold accessories >that have a built-in profit. We now have what you misidentified in an >earlier post: a loss leader. > >Everyone wins. The only ones that win are the scam artists that think anyone would buy that bullshit reasoning. I guess that's people just as stupid as you.
From: David J. Littleboy on 29 Mar 2010 03:52 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> > No he didn't. The strategy makes sense for the company, adds to the > profit of the company, and provides a product to the consumer that the > consumer wants and can afford. No fools involved. > > If Zippo Camera Company can make a camera platform with 20 features > built into it, and then make five different cases labeled Z-1, Z-2, > Z-3, Z-4, and Z-5, they have five different models at roughly the same > cost for each. Some slight differences for the costs of disabling and > the fanciness of the cases. But the cameras really are different. The low-end cameras are much lighter, have fewer weather seals, have much slower frame rates, simpler AF systems. And really are cheaper to produce. They're not loss leaders: quite the contrary, they're where the most money is made. But since it's cheaper to use the same control chip across the whole line, they have the ability to do all sorts of hairy things. The problem is that the target market for the low-end cameras wouldn't have much use for (or ability to use) tethered operation, HDR, DoF stacking, etc. etc. So the support costs (dealing with confused customers who don't understand what the functions are for) would make the low-end cameras less profitable. The only problem is when an idiot too cheap to buy a mid-range or pro camera buys a low-end camera and then complains that they didn't get the mid-range features. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
From: Truman on 29 Mar 2010 04:14
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:52:13 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: > >The only problem is when an idiot too cheap to buy a mid-range or pro camera >buys a low-end camera and then complains that they didn't get the mid-range >features. The only problem is when an idiot is too stupid to realize that the same features could be purchased in the lower priced units if they weren't brainwashed into believing you have to pay more to get the same hardware with the very same features as already exist in that platform enabled by marketing campaigns and the marketing departments. Are you people really this pathetically stupid and have to go to these lengths to retain your bliss of ignorance? Or are you just shills for those divisions that get more income by disabling built-in features in the lower priced units. Unit A has features 1 enabled, features 2, 3, 4, and 5 disabled. It costs $500. Unit B has features 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 all enabled even though it has the identical software and hardware platform as Unit A. It costs $1500. Minus the marketing department's decision to disable those features offered in unit A. But you go ahead. Buy unit B for $1500. Even thought unit A has the very same features set, if re-enabled, for only $500. You buy a vehicle that can go 80 mph. It has the very same engine, drive-train, and everything else as another vehicle that can go 120 mps for 10x's the cost. The only difference is that the marketing department decided that to limit the 80 mph vehicle to its performance by changing a simple spring on the carburetor. You can buy that replacement spring for $0.05. You swap out the spring and bring that 80 mph vehicle's performance up to the identical performance as the 120 mph vehicle, for 5-cents Who's the idiot? Got a mirror handy? |