Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 26 Mar 2010 09:57 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:18:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: > >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:tjlmq5d52141e66cpl37fnm3q9unu06d0l(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:22:35 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> So who do YOU think gave the engineering department the green light to >>>> do >>>> the research for the project? >>> >>>Management. Of course. >> >> You seem to think that "management" is a separate function. In >> actuality, some of the management people and some of the engineering >> people are in management. Some of the top management will come from >> the engineering side and some from the marketing side. >> >>>> 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. >> >> That's a silly example. The shuttle was not designed to be re-sold so >> there is no "market" involved. > >You think Rockwell built it for NASA for free? > >How are resellers necessary for a market to exist? Many houses (perhaps >most) are built to sell directly to the end buyer. Are these not part of the >housing market? > >In the case of space shuttles, NASA is the market, is it not? No. NASA is contracting with suppliers to furnish components. That does not fit any definition of "the market". "The market" is the potential buyers of something offered for sale. The shuttle was never offered for sale. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: J. Clarke on 26 Mar 2010 11:20 On 3/26/2010 9:57 AM, tony cooper wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:18:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<never(a)home.com> > wrote: > >> >> "tony cooper"<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:tjlmq5d52141e66cpl37fnm3q9unu06d0l(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:22:35 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<never(a)home.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> So who do YOU think gave the engineering department the green light to >>>>> do >>>>> the research for the project? >>>> >>>> Management. Of course. >>> >>> You seem to think that "management" is a separate function. In >>> actuality, some of the management people and some of the engineering >>> people are in management. Some of the top management will come from >>> the engineering side and some from the marketing side. >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> That's a silly example. The shuttle was not designed to be re-sold so >>> there is no "market" involved. >> >> You think Rockwell built it for NASA for free? >> >> How are resellers necessary for a market to exist? Many houses (perhaps >> most) are built to sell directly to the end buyer. Are these not part of the >> housing market? >> >> In the case of space shuttles, NASA is the market, is it not? > > No. NASA is contracting with suppliers to furnish components. That > does not fit any definition of "the market". "The market" is the > potential buyers of something offered for sale. The shuttle was never > offered for sale. So you're saying that the whole defense industry is not a market? That's news to the contractors.
From: tony cooper on 26 Mar 2010 13:24 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:20:26 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >On 3/26/2010 9:57 AM, tony cooper wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:18:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<never(a)home.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> "tony cooper"<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:tjlmq5d52141e66cpl37fnm3q9unu06d0l(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:22:35 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<never(a)home.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> So who do YOU think gave the engineering department the green light to >>>>>> do >>>>>> the research for the project? >>>>> >>>>> Management. Of course. >>>> >>>> You seem to think that "management" is a separate function. In >>>> actuality, some of the management people and some of the engineering >>>> people are in management. Some of the top management will come from >>>> the engineering side and some from the marketing side. >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> That's a silly example. The shuttle was not designed to be re-sold so >>>> there is no "market" involved. >>> >>> You think Rockwell built it for NASA for free? >>> >>> How are resellers necessary for a market to exist? Many houses (perhaps >>> most) are built to sell directly to the end buyer. Are these not part of the >>> housing market? >>> >>> In the case of space shuttles, NASA is the market, is it not? >> >> No. NASA is contracting with suppliers to furnish components. That >> does not fit any definition of "the market". "The market" is the >> potential buyers of something offered for sale. The shuttle was never >> offered for sale. > >So you're saying that the whole defense industry is not a market? >That's news to the contractors. The defense industry is a market to firms that supply goods and services to the defense industry. The military is a market to firms that produce products used in defense. 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. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Chris H on 26 Mar 2010 14:27 In message <jdqpq5hbci9cu5ni5h4m4ic44qsidloh7p(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:20:26 -0400, "J. Clarke" ><jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>On 3/26/2010 9:57 AM, tony cooper wrote: >>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:18:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<never(a)home.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> "tony cooper"<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>> news:tjlmq5d52141e66cpl37fnm3q9unu06d0l(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:22:35 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<never(a)home.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> So who do YOU think gave the engineering department the green light to >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> the research for the project? >>>>>> >>>>>> Management. Of course. >>>>> >>>>> You seem to think that "management" is a separate function. In >>>>> actuality, some of the management people and some of the engineering >>>>> people are in management. Some of the top management will come from >>>>> the engineering side and some from the marketing side. >>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> That's a silly example. The shuttle was not designed to be re-sold so >>>>> there is no "market" involved. >>>> >>>> You think Rockwell built it for NASA for free? >>>> >>>> How are resellers necessary for a market to exist? Many houses (perhaps >>>> most) are built to sell directly to the end buyer. Are these not >>>>part of the >>>> housing market? >>>> >>>> In the case of space shuttles, NASA is the market, is it not? >>> >>> No. NASA is contracting with suppliers to furnish components. That >>> does not fit any definition of "the market". "The market" is the >>> potential buyers of something offered for sale. The shuttle was never >>> offered for sale. >> >>So you're saying that the whole defense industry is not a market? >>That's news to the contractors. > >The defense industry is a market to firms that supply goods and >services to the defense industry. The military is a market to firms >that produce products used in defense. And there are many militaries who want goods. In fact several in most countries. >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.... -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 26 Mar 2010 14:23
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. > 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? -Wolfgang |