Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 27 Mar 2010 10:37 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:55:21 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >Car buyers aren't drawn into a dealership to look at a 'vette, and then >buy a Malibu. They aren't pulled into a camera store by the allure of a >D3X and when their budget only allows them to buy a P&S. I dunno about cameras since I haven't seen an instance of when a camera store had a camera on display that was too expensive for anyone to buy. There are high-end cameras, but people buy them. I don't know if the price includes a profit or not. The Plymouth Prowler may have been an instance of a car designed primarily to bring people into the showroom. Some were sold, but I doubt if the line was a money-maker. I don't think the Corvette is unusual enough to bring people into a showroom. You see Corvettes on the street. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 27 Mar 2010 10:39 On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:59:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: > >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:fnlqq5h01rjqaf1daruvtog2nh1aoikg51(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >Very well. You're right. > Thank you for that. One doesn't see "You're right" very often in newsgroups. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Neil Harrington on 27 Mar 2010 11:20 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:p36sq5t8ndqtll4eedsk5tdmi30m878rc3(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:59:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> > wrote: > >> >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:fnlqq5h01rjqaf1daruvtog2nh1aoikg51(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. >> >>Very well. You're right. >> > Thank you for that. One doesn't see "You're right" very often in > newsgroups. <chuckle> I guess you're right about that too.
From: Wilba on 27 Mar 2010 11:22 tony cooper wrote: > Neil Harrington wrote: >> >> Very well. You're right. > > Thank you for that. One doesn't see "You're right" very often in > newsgroups. You're right!
From: Peter on 27 Mar 2010 14:09
"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message news:Qe6dncfGVobF4TfWnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > THAT is, yes. But it logically follows in the manufacture of CPUs. Intel > used to (presumably still does) test individual chips as they came from > the wafer, throw out the rejects and "bin" the good ones according to the > speed they were tested safe for, then price the assembled CPUs > accordingly. If demand was higher for the lower-priced chips, they would > just package higher-tested ones that they had in surplus for the lower > speed to meet that demand. Similarly, some AMD quad-core chips would have > one bad core and so be finished as triple-core CPUs, sold at a lower > price, and if demand for those became very high because of the lower price > AMD would (reportedly) just disable one core of a good quad-core chip and > sell it as a triple-core. > > All of which makes perfect marketing sense. The manufacturer wants to > maximize his profits, in whatever is the best way to do it. The buyer of a > triple-core CPU isn't being cheated because his chip actually was a good > quad-core to begin with. He's getting what he paid for. > This is not limited to firmware. I knew a builder who accidently added a fireplace to a house. The prospective owners stood by and said nothing. At the closing they refused to pay for the fireplace, claiming they had no use for a fireplace and did not even want it. In fact they asked for a price reduction because of it. The builder pretended to concede and cemented a sheet of glass at the top of the chimney. When the inevitable happened and the owners complained about the result, the builder reminded them that they "would never use the fireplace." They finally agreed to pay for it and the builder rendered it operable by smashing the glass. -- Peter |