Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Peter on 27 Mar 2010 14:15 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... > > Did you even bother to read to context of this tread? It was about them > DISABLING features a lower price camera that already has the capabilities > of in hardware, to entice the consumer to purchase a more expensive model > that they have enabled said feature on. Where did you figure this > "violates the laws of physics" disabling hardware using the firmware? They > seem to be able to do this quite easily. > Nope. It's called lowering production and inventory costs. Much less expensive to put in the additional features and disable them in lower priced models. Similarly the dashboards of many cars have the capacity to accept wiring for upgrades. It's a variation on the same theme. -- Peter
From: Peter on 27 Mar 2010 14:25 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoe99k$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. > > 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. > > And in case you don't understand, the people who make marketing decisions > goes all the way up to the CEO of the company. 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. And.... The purpose of any manufacturing company is to make and sell. Yup! I too believe in motherhood and like hot apple pie with vanilla ice cream. As Tony said, what is your point? -- Peter
From: Peter on 27 Mar 2010 14:29 "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message news:asOdnRZ0YdQsqDHWnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "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 $25,000 Kodak DSC. Ergo, there was no particular reason >>>for >>>your "marketing people" to be involved. >> >> That's a silly example. The shuttle was not designed to be re-sold so >> there is no "market" involved. > > You think Rockwell built it for NASA for free? > Ever hear of an RFP? How do you think an RFP is produced, in the real world. -- Peter
From: Peter on 27 Mar 2010 14:35 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoj7b8$fg6$2(a)news.albasani.net... > tony cooper wrote: > >> >> However, this part of the thread pertains to the ridiculous claim that >> NASA constitutes a market for space shuttles. NASA does not shop for >> space shuttles. >> > > Which has no relevance whatsoever into the discussion of why a > manufacturer would DISABLE hardware that already exists in a cheaper > model in their lineup. To even insinuate that anyone other than the > marketing people would do this is silly! See my prior post on costs. -- Peter
From: Peter on 27 Mar 2010 14:57
<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hojtnv$g8b$1(a)news.albasani.net... > > And back to the thread topic, nasa decided the "feature set" not rockwell > :-) > Yes and consumer demand determines the feature set, at a pricing point. It's part of the job of marketing to determine the demand and pricing points. It's part of the job of engineering and cost accounting to determine if the product can be profitably produced at the demand pricing point. A Bentley would sell a lot more vehicles if they lowered the pricing point. Salt used to be the classic example of a commodity with an inelastic demand. Now some gourmet food companies have come up with the concept of sea salt to be ground in a salt grinder at the table. That is a similar product with a highly elastic demand. When you understand this, you may respond with a meaningful comment. -- Peter |