Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Savageduck on 30 Mar 2010 10:00 On 2010-03-30 05:48:38 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:13:11 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >>> stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Provide proof they lost money. >>> >>> -Wolfgang >> >> http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/corvette/history.html >> >> "Garish or not, the '58 Corvette was a hit and Chevy built 9,168 >> examples. For the first time, say some sources, GM made a profit with >> the Corvette." >> >> http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Corvette/156760 >> >> "The Chevrolet Corvette is GM�s highest quality car, costs more than >> $50,000, and has a very small margin of profit. With such a large >> financial loss in 2007, GM can no longer afford the small profit margin >> and declining sales on such a high priced product." >> >> >> Yeah that sounds like a big profit item for chevy.. *rolls eyes* >> > Your claim was that Corvette was not a profitable car in the 50s and > 60s. You support this claim by citing information about the small > amount of profit outlook in 2008. You do understand that there have > been some changes in the marketplace in 40 years, don't you? Not only that, oppapers.com is hardly an authoritative automotive industry analytical publication. It is a commercial source for term papers for pseudo-students. Calling the Corvette "GM's highest quality car" speaks to an ignorance of the Corvette and GM Divisions. The Corvette has never been a mass market car. There are few automotive products which become profitable during their launch years. The 1953 Harley Earl Corvette prototype was a concept show car, and due to response was brought to production within 6 months. Sales were always limited. Throughout the '50s it was always a niche market car, as it is today. Given the limited production and sales 1958 seems about right for the 'vette to start being profitable. The Corvette in its many versions through its development remains a desired niche market, American performance car with limited production. That limited production has brought high prices and good profit margins for the entire line over the last 25 years, regardless of the vagaries of the economy. GM has benefitted by using the Corvette developed engines in other models such as Cadillacs and Camaros. As far as being GM's "highest quality car" the Cadillac Division would probably argue the point. (with the exception of the 4-6-8) Their higher production figures allow them to bring a better "quality" vehicle to the market at a lower price point than the Corvette. They can even make claims of having a great luxury performance sedan in the CTS-V, which uses the Corvette C6 ZR1 LS9 based LSA engine. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Neil Harrington on 30 Mar 2010 15:38 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hopd1e$c82$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Neil Harrington wrote: >> >> Again: What on earth makes you think a Corvette is "a money losing >> product"? Some Corvettes sell for over $100,000 and yes, they do sell >> them at those prices. And no, a Corvette isn't "a marketing tool just >> like a loss leader." > > In the 50's/60's a corvette was NOT a profitable car, it was to sell their > other products. What makes you think the Corvette was not profitable in ANY period? It has remained in continuous production and evolved dramatically over the years. The original '53 Corvette was a sort of stylish pretend sports car, powered by a modified version of the "stovebolt" OHV straight six that Chevrolet had been making since 1929, and was nothing like what it developed into later -- but it always made money for the company. It's fairly safe to say that no company makes a production model for over half a century without making money on it. > The same for those Acura NSX and the toyota Supra. Those were all to show > their engineering expertise not to make money selling that specific model. I'm only slightly familiar with the Supra and not at all with the NSX, but generally speaking all production cars are built with the expectation of making money. Certainly the models that remain in production for many years (as the Supra has) must make money. The "concept cars" built for auto shows are a different matter, of course. I think you're confusing concept cars with performance cars.
From: Neil Harrington on 30 Mar 2010 15:39 "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message news:OKGdnW0M_LqhZyzWnZ2dnVY3go6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >> Your claim was that Corvette was not a profitable car in the 50s and >> 60s. You support this claim by citing information about the small >> amount of profit outlook in 2008. You do understand that there have >> been some changes in the marketplace in 40 years, don't you? > > You do understand that you are arguing with a table, don't you? <chuckle>
From: Neil Harrington on 30 Mar 2010 15:55 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hos8ag$avq$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >> stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> Provide proof they lost money. >> >> -Wolfgang > > http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/corvette/history.html > > "Garish or not, the '58 Corvette was a hit and Chevy built 9,168 examples. > For the first time, say some sources, GM made a profit with the Corvette." So much for your claim that it was NOT profitable in the '50s and '60s. Obviously the Corvette by its very nature would never compete with four-door sedans in terms of number of units sold. No one ever came into a Chevy dealer wondering, "Let's see, should I buy a Malibu or a Corvette?" And of course it takes a large number of cars sold for the manufacturer to recover the costs of design, engineering, tooling etc. -- only after that number does the car become profitable. > > http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Corvette/156760 > > "The Chevrolet Corvette is GM�s highest quality car, costs more than > $50,000, and has a very small margin of profit. With such a large > financial loss in 2007, GM can no longer afford the small profit margin > and declining sales on such a high priced product." > > > Yeah that sounds like a big profit item for chevy.. *rolls eyes* When did "BIG profit item" suddenly become the only alternative to your claim it "was NOT a profitable car"?
From: Neil Harrington on 30 Mar 2010 16:02
<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hos7le$9ia$1(a)news.albasani.net... > tony cooper wrote: >> 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? > > > Well when the other people here started saying that the engineering > department is the people who decided these things, I thought someone > should point out that isn't the case. And that when they start DISABLING > features on the lower level models to entice consumers to step up to the > next model in the range, that doesn't sound like the engineering > department either. I recently added a new Nikon D3000 to my collection. While I like the camera, I think I would rather it were a D3X, or at least a D300s. Please tell me how I can ENABLE the features to make it so. Thank you in advance. |