Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 26 Mar 2010 19:30 "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hojf5h$79v$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Neil Harrington wrote: >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>> 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. >> >> You still don't seem to understand what "loss leader" means. The Ektra >> certainly was never sold as a loss leader and neither is the Corvette. >> >>> 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. > > Another way to look at this: say the internals of cameras A and B are the > same, and so mfg. costs are reduced with higher volume. The lower priced > camera has some functions curtailed in software, thus enabling more people > to buy the lower priced camera. > > >> You have claimed that those perfidious "marketing people" do this with >> DSLRs. Please identify a DSLR "that already has the capabilities [of more >> advanced features] in hardware" that has had those features deliberately >> "disabled" at the behest of "marketing people." >> >> For example: Nikon's lowest priced DSLR at present is the D3000. Do you >> really believe that the D3000 "already has the capabilities of" say a >> D90, a D300s or a D3X "in hardware" such that it could become the >> functional equal of those more expensive models if only those features >> were enabled? > > I can personally attest to a hack I used eons ago on my Canon 300 D. It > did a few more things, but didn't turn it into a Mark2... > Now, I don't think I'd bother with any hacks; just not worth the time and > effort. Was that a firmware hack (like CHDK)? And were the new capabilities already in the camera but disabled at the direction of "marketing people"? Because that's what Stephanie is claiming to be the case.
From: John McWilliams on 26 Mar 2010 20:27 Neil Harrington wrote: > "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:hojf5h$79v$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Neil Harrington wrote: >>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>> 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. >>> You still don't seem to understand what "loss leader" means. The Ektra >>> certainly was never sold as a loss leader and neither is the Corvette. >>> >>>> 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. >> Another way to look at this: say the internals of cameras A and B are the >> same, and so mfg. costs are reduced with higher volume. The lower priced >> camera has some functions curtailed in software, thus enabling more people >> to buy the lower priced camera. >> >> >>> You have claimed that those perfidious "marketing people" do this with >>> DSLRs. Please identify a DSLR "that already has the capabilities [of more >>> advanced features] in hardware" that has had those features deliberately >>> "disabled" at the behest of "marketing people." >>> >>> For example: Nikon's lowest priced DSLR at present is the D3000. Do you >>> really believe that the D3000 "already has the capabilities of" say a >>> D90, a D300s or a D3X "in hardware" such that it could become the >>> functional equal of those more expensive models if only those features >>> were enabled? >> I can personally attest to a hack I used eons ago on my Canon 300 D. It >> did a few more things, but didn't turn it into a Mark2... >> Now, I don't think I'd bother with any hacks; just not worth the time and >> effort. > > Was that a firmware hack (like CHDK)? And were the new capabilities already > in the camera but disabled at the direction of "marketing people"? Because > that's what Stephanie is claiming to be the case. Yes, but not affirming that is was due to Marketing Dept's. influence, as I doubt they had final say. Input, yes, decision making, no. -- john mcwilliams
From: Better Info on 26 Mar 2010 20:51 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:30:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: > >"John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >news:hojf5h$79v$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Neil Harrington wrote: >>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>> 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. >>> >>> You still don't seem to understand what "loss leader" means. The Ektra >>> certainly was never sold as a loss leader and neither is the Corvette. >>> >>>> 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. >> >> Another way to look at this: say the internals of cameras A and B are the >> same, and so mfg. costs are reduced with higher volume. The lower priced >> camera has some functions curtailed in software, thus enabling more people >> to buy the lower priced camera. >> >> >>> You have claimed that those perfidious "marketing people" do this with >>> DSLRs. Please identify a DSLR "that already has the capabilities [of more >>> advanced features] in hardware" that has had those features deliberately >>> "disabled" at the behest of "marketing people." >>> >>> For example: Nikon's lowest priced DSLR at present is the D3000. Do you >>> really believe that the D3000 "already has the capabilities of" say a >>> D90, a D300s or a D3X "in hardware" such that it could become the >>> functional equal of those more expensive models if only those features >>> were enabled? >> >> I can personally attest to a hack I used eons ago on my Canon 300 D. It >> did a few more things, but didn't turn it into a Mark2... >> Now, I don't think I'd bother with any hacks; just not worth the time and >> effort. > >Was that a firmware hack (like CHDK)? And were the new capabilities already >in the camera but disabled at the direction of "marketing people"? Because >that's what Stephanie is claiming to be the case. > As well as in the Canon 350D and 400D (and possibly the 450D and 500D, they are also working on the 40D, 5D, and 7D models now). They had wider ISO ranges extended and spot metering re-enabled in those where it was disabled. They also re-enabled some custom functions for flash, bracketing sequences, superimposed display, menu position, safety-shift, lens AF stop button, and possibly more. All of these features are built-in and disabled in the firmware by someone's call at Canon.
From: tony cooper on 26 Mar 2010 21:06 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:23:51 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: > >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:37bqq5lae5qlj25ta76s28bm5aa6jq51ou(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:01:05 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.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. >>>> >>> >>>Which has no relevance whatsoever into the discussion of why a >>>manufacturer would DISABLE hardware that already exists in a cheaper >>>model in their lineup. To even insinuate that anyone other than the >>>marketing people would do this is silly! >> >> Thread subjects are not cast in concrete. Any point of a discussion >> can be addressed. What I'm addressing is the ludicrous example of >> there being a market for space shuttles. > >There probably isn't NOW, because the space shuttle as we know it is getting >long in the tooth. But when NASA was *in the market* for space shuttles, >ipso facto that market existed. > >Your position seems to be that a market cannot exist if there's only one >customer, i.e. if other countries and/or agencies needed space shuttles then >there would a market for them, but since only NASA bought them no market >existed. I don't see how that logically follows. NASA's being the world's >largest consumer of space shuttles I think makes them a market. If someone >else were able to produce a significantly better, safer and more capable >space shuttle at a much better price, presumably NASA would have bought it, >wouldn't they? Doesn't that in itself make them a market? > No, my position is that NASA didn't go to the market and purchase any space shuttles. The space shuttles were NASA'S product made to their specifications by sub-contractors. Rockwell didn't produce a space shuttle and then look for a market for it. There isn't a market for space shuttles, and never was a market for space shuttles. NASA was a producer of space shuttles for their own use. The fact that the actual production was done by outside vendors doesn't alter this. The outside vendors supplied the product only at the behest of NASA and under contract to NASA. Without that contract, no space shuttles would have been produced. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: stephe_k on 26 Mar 2010 23:23
tony cooper wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:23:51 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> > wrote: > >> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:37bqq5lae5qlj25ta76s28bm5aa6jq51ou(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:01:05 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" >>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.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. >>>>> >>>> Which has no relevance whatsoever into the discussion of why a >>>> manufacturer would DISABLE hardware that already exists in a cheaper >>>> model in their lineup. To even insinuate that anyone other than the >>>> marketing people would do this is silly! >>> Thread subjects are not cast in concrete. Any point of a discussion >>> can be addressed. What I'm addressing is the ludicrous example of >>> there being a market for space shuttles. >> There probably isn't NOW, because the space shuttle as we know it is getting >> long in the tooth. But when NASA was *in the market* for space shuttles, >> ipso facto that market existed. >> >> Your position seems to be that a market cannot exist if there's only one >> customer, i.e. if other countries and/or agencies needed space shuttles then >> there would a market for them, but since only NASA bought them no market >> existed. I don't see how that logically follows. NASA's being the world's >> largest consumer of space shuttles I think makes them a market. If someone >> else were able to produce a significantly better, safer and more capable >> space shuttle at a much better price, presumably NASA would have bought it, >> wouldn't they? Doesn't that in itself make them a market? >> > No, my position is that NASA didn't go to the market and purchase any > space shuttles. The space shuttles were NASA'S product made to their > specifications by sub-contractors. Rockwell didn't produce a space > shuttle and then look for a market for it. There isn't a market for > space shuttles, and never was a market for space shuttles. > > NASA was a producer of space shuttles for their own use. The fact > that the actual production was done by outside vendors doesn't alter > this. The outside vendors supplied the product only at the behest of > NASA and under contract to NASA. Without that contract, no space > shuttles would have been produced. > > > And back to the thread topic, nasa decided the "feature set" not rockwell :-) Stephanie |