Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Walter Banks on 26 Mar 2010 16:22 tony cooper wrote: > 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. > Sort of. Rockwell built them after a bidding war. The next round looks like several private suppliers will be bidding for business. Spacex has already launched a satellite after three tries and have plans to launch cargo and crew capsules to the space station. Walter..
From: tony cooper on 26 Mar 2010 15:40 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:22:58 -0500, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > > >tony cooper wrote: > >> 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. >> > >Sort of. Rockwell built them after a bidding war. The next round looks like >several private suppliers will be bidding for business. Spacex has >already launched a satellite after three tries and have plans to launch cargo >and crew capsules to the space station. There is a significant difference, at least in my mind, between shopping for a product and shopping for a vendor to build a product to my specifications. For there to be a market for space shuttles, companies must build space shuttles and then try to find buyers for them. Rockwell, and other companies, will be bidding on the chance to build something to the specifications that NASA provides. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Savageduck on 26 Mar 2010 16:07 On 2010-03-26 11:27:40 -0700, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > 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. ....and then there are Law Enforcement agencies. Just in California, the State, Police agencies, and County Sherif's Departments have equipment budgets which spend millions every year. Every year my old agency purchases, handguns, Remington 870 shotguns, M16A4 rifle, M4 rifle, Heckler & Kock (H&K) MP5A5's, H&K MP5N's, counter sniper rifles from various suppliers, Ruger Mini-14 rifles, 40mm & 37mm grenade launchers, Chemical Agent, grenades & projectiles, and establish ammunition supply contracts. Then there is vehicle purchase. Ford had the Police Interceptor Crown Victoria monopolizing the market for quite a while after GM dropped the PD Caprice. Now there is a new Ford on the way, the Dodge Charger, BMW, and several others eyeing that market. Add on non-patrol vehicles and you are looking at $100s of millions for vehicles alone. The other 49 States might not have budgets as big, but they are considerable. > > >> 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.... ....and there is a massive industry made up of many suppliers feeding off that single customer, and its sub-agencies such as JPL. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: J. Clarke on 26 Mar 2010 16:18 On 3/26/2010 3:40 PM, tony cooper wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:22:58 -0500, Walter Banks > <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> >> >> tony cooper wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Sort of. Rockwell built them after a bidding war. The next round looks like >> several private suppliers will be bidding for business. Spacex has >> already launched a satellite after three tries and have plans to launch cargo >> and crew capsules to the space station. > > There is a significant difference, at least in my mind, between > shopping for a product and shopping for a vendor to build a product to > my specifications. So you're saying that there is no "market" for custom work? > For there to be a market for space shuttles, companies must build > space shuttles and then try to find buyers for them. Rockwell, and > other companies, will be bidding on the chance to build something to > the specifications that NASA provides. You're splitting hairs.
From: stephe_k on 26 Mar 2010 16:58
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > 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. 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. And you don't think the marketing department has any input on a companies marketing strategy? O.o I HIGHLY doubt the engineering staff coerced the management into continuing production of a money losing product that was being sold as a marketing ploy. Maybe you believe that the engineering department is the department that makes recommendations on things like this? I'm not sure what company you have worked for that is set up like that, but it isn't normally how things are done. > >> 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? > 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. Stephanie |