Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: stephe_k on 30 Mar 2010 03:01 tony cooper wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:06:33 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> tony cooper wrote: >> >>> OK. I agree that adding a high-end item to the product line solely >>> for the purpose of attracting attention to the brand is a strategy >>> advanced by the marketing people. >> That's all I was saying.. > > And this is worthy of comment? > > Well when the other people here started saying that the engineering department is the people who decided these things, I thought someone should point out that isn't the case. And that when they start DISABLING features on the lower level models to entice consumers to step up to the next model in the range, that doesn't sound like the engineering department either. Stephe
From: stephe_k on 30 Mar 2010 03:13 Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> In the 50's/60's a corvette was NOT a profitable car, it was to sell >> their other products. The same for those Acura NSX and the toyota Supra. >> Those were all to show their engineering expertise not to make money >> selling that specific model. > > Provide proof they lost money. > > -Wolfgang http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/corvette/history.html "Garish or not, the '58 Corvette was a hit and Chevy built 9,168 examples. For the first time, say some sources, GM made a profit with the Corvette." http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Corvette/156760 "The Chevrolet Corvette is GM�s highest quality car, costs more than $50,000, and has a very small margin of profit. With such a large financial loss in 2007, GM can no longer afford the small profit margin and declining sales on such a high priced product." Yeah that sounds like a big profit item for chevy.. *rolls eyes* Stephanie
From: stephe_k on 30 Mar 2010 03:16 tony cooper wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:10:42 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Ted Banks wrote: >>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:15:57 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoj778$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. >>> Well Brainiac, please explain how that works. >>> >>> The lower-priced crippled units should actually cost more than the >>> higher-priced units because they require an additional step of a >>> programmer's time to disable features that were in the firmware code in >>> first place. Then add in the time needed to debug it to make sure >>> everything else works when you disable those features. It also takes time >>> to edit any documentation originally authored for all the features on that >>> particular camera platform to remove any mention of those features from >>> manuals and advertising. That's the only cost issues involved before >>> shipment. It costs more in time and effort to disable a pre-existing >>> feature (covering up one's tracks), therefore the crippled camera should >>> cost more. >>> >>> Q: If it doesn't cost anything more to put those features into the >>> higher-priced units than the lower-priced unit, then why do they have the >>> higher price? Because the average consumer and people like you are fools? >>> >>> A: Yes. >>> >> You correctly answered the question you questioned! LMAO ^_^ >> > No he didn't. The strategy makes sense for the company, adds to the > profit of the company, and provides a product to the consumer that the > consumer wants and can afford. No fools involved. > > If Zippo Camera Company can make a camera platform with 20 features > built into it, and then make five different cases labeled Z-1, Z-2, > Z-3, Z-4, and Z-5, they have five different models at roughly the same > cost for each. Some slight differences for the costs of disabling and > the fanciness of the cases. > > If the Z-1 has all but 5 features disabled, there could be a market > for the Z-1 at $100. The Z-5, however, has no features disabled and > there can be a market for that model at $500. The Z-2 through Z-4 > have some, but not all features disabled and are priced from $200 to > $400. > > There are customers who buy a Z-1 that would not buy any other model, > and so on through Z-2 to Z-5. The customer gets, and pays for, only > the features they think they need. > > The customer is not deceived. They know the Z-1 has less features > than the other models. They don't feel they need more features and > don't want to pay over $100. > > The company is making a profit on the Z-1. Let's call that "P". > There's a cost to disabling and different cases which we'll call "D". > The company makes a profit on the Z-2 of (P+100-D), a profit on the > Z-3s of (P+200-D), and so on up to the Z-5 at (P+400-D). So even if > "P" is small, the profit increases as the model number increases. > > Theoretically, the company could sell the Z-1 at $100 even if there is > no profit at all in it if the company feels that an advertised price > of $100 will bring people into the store, but enough people can be > upgraded to at least a Z-2 by the sales staff or be sold accessories > that have a built-in profit. We now have what you misidentified in an > earlier post: a loss leader. > > Everyone wins. > And you think the engineering department is who devised this marketing scheme and not the marketing department? THAT was my only argument. Stephanie
From: tony cooper on 30 Mar 2010 08:48 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:13:11 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >> stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> In the 50's/60's a corvette was NOT a profitable car, it was to sell >>> their other products. The same for those Acura NSX and the toyota Supra. >>> Those were all to show their engineering expertise not to make money >>> selling that specific model. >> >> Provide proof they lost money. >> >> -Wolfgang > >http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/corvette/history.html > >"Garish or not, the '58 Corvette was a hit and Chevy built 9,168 >examples. For the first time, say some sources, GM made a profit with >the Corvette." > >http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Corvette/156760 > >"The Chevrolet Corvette is GM�s highest quality car, costs more than >$50,000, and has a very small margin of profit. With such a large >financial loss in 2007, GM can no longer afford the small profit margin >and declining sales on such a high priced product." > > >Yeah that sounds like a big profit item for chevy.. *rolls eyes* > Your claim was that Corvette was not a profitable car in the 50s and 60s. You support this claim by citing information about the small amount of profit outlook in 2008. You do understand that there have been some changes in the marketplace in 40 years, don't you? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: David J. Littleboy on 30 Mar 2010 09:18
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> > Your claim was that Corvette was not a profitable car in the 50s and > 60s. You support this claim by citing information about the small > amount of profit outlook in 2008. You do understand that there have > been some changes in the marketplace in 40 years, don't you? You do understand that you are arguing with a table, don't you? -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |