Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 25 Mar 2010 02:22 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoejp4$7n4$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Neil Harrington wrote: >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:hoe99k$pcg$1(a)news.albasani.net... > >>> So you think some engineers took it upon themselves to develop that >>> image sensor and make up the product and THEN the marketing people get >>> to try to sell them? If you believe this you are "truly ignorant" of how >>> things work in the real world. >> >> I can't imagine "the marketing people" had anything to do with the design >> OR selling of a very limited-production $25,000 camera. I think they were >> out of that loop entirely. > > So who do YOU think gave the engineering department the green light to do > the research for the project? Management. Of course. > The engineers themselves? Someone had to determine if the project was > going to be profitable, if the size of the camera was too absurd to even > consider buying etc etc. Profitability was not likely to be much of a factor in the decision to make such a camera. A company makes lots of money by selling zillions of cheap products, not a handful of very expensive ones. Henry Ford made his enormous fortune by selling Model Ts, the cheapest car you could buy -- not big 12-cylinder Lincolns. Those early Lincolns were Ford's prestige cars, probably didn't matter much if they made a profit or not. > > >> >> To take a more extreme example: how many of Rockwell's "marketing people" >> do you suppose were involved in the design of the space shuttle? >> >> > > > And how many space shuttles did they sell to the public? That is my point. The space shuttle was not designed for the mass market. Neither was the $25,000 Kodak DSC. Ergo, there was no particular reason for your "marketing people" to be involved.
From: Chris H on 25 Mar 2010 03:27 In message <J8-dnSMPkMKQYDfWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes > ><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoek2h$88c$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> Neil Harrington wrote: >>> "Laurence Payne" <lp(a)laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:atalq5ta5kfajcnpn22jepajim90jm6ng3(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:05:10 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> But for seven or eight years in the '40s Kodak also made its quite >>>>> elaborate >>>>> Ektra camera and lenses, intended to compete with Leica and Contax and >>>>> generally more advanced than either (if less reliable, unfortunately). >>>>> They >>>>> only made a couple thousand or so, sold 'em for $700 each (BIG money in >>>>> those years; you could almost buy a new Ford or Chevy for that), and >>>>> reportedly lost $300 on every one they sold. Surely you could not say >>>>> the >>>>> Ektra was designed by "marketing people." >>>> It was encouraged by them though. Presumably because they felt such a >>>> prestige product, although it lost money, would enhance Kodak's >>>> reputation so in the longer term much MORE money came in. >>> >>> Prestige was the idea, yes. I doubt the "marketing people" had anything >>> to do with continuing to make the camera year after year while it was >>> losing money. >> >> >> So if not for this prestige, which is used to market the lower end >> cameras, why do YOU think they did it? > >Read what I said. I said it WAS for the prestige. Why do automobile makers >build "concept cars" for auto shows that they have no intention of ever >producing? Why do they enter cars and teams in international auto races at >great expense? For the prestige, of course, and to gain public attention. Otherwise known as marketing... -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 25 Mar 2010 03:29 In message <0eGdnXZHW9MCMDfWnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes > ><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoe99k$pcg$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> Neil Harrington wrote: >>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:hodgtp$hp9$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >>>>> news:oB6c2LJU7hqLFACK(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>>>> Actually they are designed by engineers to a specification drawn up my >>>>>> marketing people. The specifications are also worked out by the >>>>>> strategists. >>>>> All of which seems reasonable and efficient to me in so far as it is >>>>> true, but it's true only to a limited extent. Obviously the SLR did not >>>>> appear because "marketing people" wanted it, or the focal plane >>>>> shutter, or the pentaprism, or the zoom lens, and so on and so forth. >>>>> Engineers and designers create products; marketing people do not. >>>> >>>> Obviously the marketing people don't do the engineering. I didn't think >>>> I needed to explain that but obviously now I see I needed to for some >>>> people. Design and engineer are two different things. >>> >>> As I said. >>> >>>> But I can promise you the DSLR came into existence because the marketing >>>> people PUSHED to have the company spend the money to develop it after >>>> they did market studies to see how many people wanted them etc. Without >>>> the marketing people PUSHING to have the $$$ spent to engineer these, >>>> they wouldn't exist. I also would bet the marketing people do DESIGN >>>> what the end product should look like as well. >>> >>> No offense, but you are seriously ignorant of DSLR history. The earliest >>> DSLR as far as I know was the Kodak DSC of 1991, a Kodak sensor (with a >>> whopping ONE megapixel!) in a much-modified Nikon body. It sold for about >>> $25,000. Now if you think something like that had anything to do with >>> "marketing people" you must have some kind of hugely exaggerated faith in >>> the power of "marketing people"! >>> >> >> >> So you think some engineers took it upon themselves to develop that image >> sensor and make up the product and THEN the marketing people get to try to >> sell them? If you believe this you are "truly ignorant" of how things work >> in the real world. > >I can't imagine "the marketing people" had anything to do with the design OR >selling of a very limited-production $25,000 camera. I think they were out >of that loop entirely. Then you are an idiot. >To take a more extreme example: how many of Rockwell's "marketing people" do >you suppose were involved in the design of the space shuttle? It was only marketing people who decided that. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Martin Brown on 25 Mar 2010 05:23 Chris Malcolm wrote: > In rec.photo.digital stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Neil Harrington wrote: >>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hodgtp$hp9$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >>>>> news:oB6c2LJU7hqLFACK(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>>>> Actually they are designed by engineers to a specification drawn up my >>>>>> marketing people. The specifications are also worked out by the >>>>>> strategists. >>>>> All of which seems reasonable and efficient to me in so far as it is >>>>> true, but it's true only to a limited extent. Obviously the SLR did not >>>>> appear because "marketing people" wanted it, or the focal plane shutter, >>>>> or the pentaprism, or the zoom lens, and so on and so forth. Engineers >>>>> and designers create products; marketing people do not. >>>> Obviously the marketing people don't do the engineering. I didn't think I >>>> needed to explain that but obviously now I see I needed to for some >>>> people. Design and engineer are two different things. >>> As I said. >>> >>>> But I can promise you the DSLR came into existence because the marketing >>>> people PUSHED to have the company spend the money to develop it after they >>>> did market studies to see how many people wanted them etc. Without the >>>> marketing people PUSHING to have the $$$ spent to engineer these, they >>>> wouldn't exist. I also would bet the marketing people do DESIGN what the >>>> end product should look like as well. >>> No offense, but you are seriously ignorant of DSLR history. The earliest >>> DSLR as far as I know was the Kodak DSC of 1991, a Kodak sensor (with a >>> whopping ONE megapixel!) in a much-modified Nikon body. It sold for about >>> $25,000. Now if you think something like that had anything to do with >>> "marketing people" you must have some kind of hugely exaggerated faith in >>> the power of "marketing people"! > >> So you think some engineers took it upon themselves to develop that >> image sensor and make up the product and THEN the marketing people get >> to try to sell them? If you believe this you are "truly ignorant" of how >> things work in the real world. DC-120 and DC-210 were the first Kodak Mpixel class cameras to make the breakthrough to being useful for quick turnaround digital images. The former looked a bit like a StarTrek tricorder and sold for �1000. DC120 found a niche market for itself in early scientific digital imaging. > >> Until it was determined there would be a market for that product, how >> many units they could sell at a given price point, what it would ~cost >> to make them etc, they would never have spent the money for the research >> to make it. > > In high tech products there have been a number of instances where > almost all the research and development money for a new product line > went to large engineering teams working closely to designs which had > been decided by marketing and management after a very careful study of > the market. But elsewhere in the company a small team of men whose You can add to that the "careful" study of the market is frequently done by external consultants who already know what senior managers want to hear. The result is independent advice that confirms what the CEO wants to believe even if the real evidence does not support it. Or as happened in my experience the target market was so conservative that the product was doomed to failure simply for being too new and innovative. The only people who bought it were those who could not afford a proper one. It stole sales off the premium product without bringing in any new ones. > skills they didn't want to lose were working away at something of no > particular importance which management and marketing had no interest > in. In effect they were being allowed to play on a pet project of > their own just to keep them happy and occupied. > > And it came to pass that the big huge project ran into problem after > problem and eventually produced a giant lemon that didn't > sell. Luckily the small team of engineers playing unsupervised in a > corner by themselves had developed a wonderful innovative product that > saved the company's bacon. Lots of hitech companies have similar little groups, and occasional spin-offs after spats with the CEO or sales and marketing types. Our S&M group would happily sell things that were required to defy the laws of physics to close the sale and get their bonus knowing full well that they would have moved on to another job before the sh*t hit the fan. > > There have also been a number of cases where what management and > marketing were insisting on working on was considered to be so stupid > by some of their best engineers that they left and formed their own > company to develop the new innovative product that those engineers > were sure the market wanted, but which the company refused to put a > penny of development towards. Exactly right. UK management seems to specialise in this particular form of myopia. Regards, Martin Brown
From: Chris Malcolm on 25 Mar 2010 06:38
In rec.photo.digital stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Neil Harrington wrote: >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hodgtp$hp9$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >>>> news:oB6c2LJU7hqLFACK(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>>> Actually they are designed by engineers to a specification drawn up my >>>>> marketing people. The specifications are also worked out by the >>>>> strategists. >>>> All of which seems reasonable and efficient to me in so far as it is >>>> true, but it's true only to a limited extent. Obviously the SLR did not >>>> appear because "marketing people" wanted it, or the focal plane shutter, >>>> or the pentaprism, or the zoom lens, and so on and so forth. Engineers >>>> and designers create products; marketing people do not. >>> >>> Obviously the marketing people don't do the engineering. I didn't think I >>> needed to explain that but obviously now I see I needed to for some >>> people. Design and engineer are two different things. >> No offense, but you are seriously ignorant of DSLR history. The earliest >> DSLR as far as I know was the Kodak DSC of 1991, a Kodak sensor (with a >> whopping ONE megapixel!) in a much-modified Nikon body. It sold for about >> $25,000. Now if you think something like that had anything to do with >> "marketing people" you must have some kind of hugely exaggerated faith in >> the power of "marketing people"! > So you think some engineers took it upon themselves to develop that > image sensor and make up the product and THEN the marketing people get > to try to sell them? If you believe this you are "truly ignorant" of how > things work in the real world. > Until it was determined there would be a market for that product, how > many units they could sell at a given price point, what it would ~cost > to make them etc, they would never have spent the money for the research > to make it. > I highly doubt there was a group of people at kodak that said "Hey > wouldn't it be cool to make a digital SLR?" and for free they worked to > develop a prototype, to then pitch it to the marketing people. I don't know what happened in Kodak, but in some large high tech companies that is exactly what happens. The development engineers are organised into semi autonomous teams who bid for the development contracts put out by marketing advised top management. It's supposed to be the case that all the work these teams do is for particular contracts funded by the budget they're given for those contracts. But bidding for a contract takes a certain amount of work, money, and time. The winner will often be the team who put the most resources into their bid. So some teams start using a strategy of identifying what they think will be future bids they'd like to win, and doing some of the early development work for it unofficially on the side using resources siphoned off from the contracts they're currently working on. This can develop to the stage that teams using this strategy can do a large proportion of the development work in advance of marketing asking for any bids. A team working like that can then make a bid quoting a development time which teams not using that strategy can possible meet. That enables them to charge more, because hitting the market a year earlier is worth money. The more successful such teams are with that strategy, the more they shift towards using today's contract money to fund tomorrow's contract. Of course this strategy will only work if the engineering teams can accurately predict what marketing will decide they want a year or few in advance. In markets which are dominated by continuing technological innovation this is often the case. So although the formal organisation of the company is top down funding decisions led by marketing and top management, beneath that there is sufficient decentralisation to allow this kind of unoffocial engineering led development. > And in case you don't understand, the people who make marketing > decisions goes all the way up to the CEO of the company. It also matters a great deal who the CEO is. Sometimes the CEO is the original founder of the company and basically a visionary engineer. In those cases we often see that when the original CEO dies or retires accountants advised by marketing take over the running of the company. The company stops being visionary and becomes more of a conservative "me-too" player in the marketplace. It ossifies and stops being innovative. > Again if you > think the people in the labs decide what they are going to design for > their company to sell, you really don't understand how this works. You understand how these companies are meant to work, and how the top management often think they work, but not how in practice how some of the most successful really work. There are also some companies whose top management is sophisticated and intelligent enough to organise themselves in such a way as to encourage that kind of decentralised thinking which gives the head to their best engineering visionaries. -- Chris Malcolm |