Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 24 Mar 2010 20:30 "Laurence Payne" <lp(a)laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message news:atalq5ta5kfajcnpn22jepajim90jm6ng3(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:05:10 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> > wrote: > >>But for seven or eight years in the '40s Kodak also made its quite >>elaborate >>Ektra camera and lenses, intended to compete with Leica and Contax and >>generally more advanced than either (if less reliable, unfortunately). >>They >>only made a couple thousand or so, sold 'em for $700 each (BIG money in >>those years; you could almost buy a new Ford or Chevy for that), and >>reportedly lost $300 on every one they sold. Surely you could not say the >>Ektra was designed by "marketing people." > > It was encouraged by them though. Presumably because they felt such a > prestige product, although it lost money, would enhance Kodak's > reputation so in the longer term much MORE money came in. Prestige was the idea, yes. I doubt the "marketing people" had anything to do with continuing to make the camera year after year while it was losing money.
From: stephe_k on 24 Mar 2010 23:02 Neil Harrington wrote: > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoe99k$pcg$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> 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. > > I can't imagine "the marketing people" had anything to do with the design OR > selling of a very limited-production $25,000 camera. I think they were out > of that loop entirely. So who do YOU think gave the engineering department the green light to do the research for the project? The engineers themselves? Someone had to determine if the project was going to be profitable, if the size of the camera was too absurd to even consider buying etc etc. > > To take a more extreme example: how many of Rockwell's "marketing people" do > you suppose were involved in the design of the space shuttle? > > And how many space shuttles did they sell to the public? Talk about apples and oranges!
From: Chris Malcolm on 24 Mar 2010 23:05 In rec.photo.digital stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Neil Harrington wrote: >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hodgtp$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. In high tech products there have been a number of instances where almost all the research and development money for a new product line went to large engineering teams working closely to designs which had been decided by marketing and management after a very careful study of the market. But elsewhere in the company a small team of men whose skills they didn't want to lose were working away at something of no particular importance which management and marketing had no interest in. In effect they were being allowed to play on a pet project of their own just to keep them happy and occupied. And it came to pass that the big huge project ran into problem after problem and eventually produced a giant lemon that didn't sell. Luckily the small team of engineers playing unsupervised in a corner by themselves had developed a wonderful innovative product that saved the company's bacon. There have also been a number of cases where what management and marketing were insisting on working on was considered to be so stupid by some of their best engineers that they left and formed their own company to develop the new innovative product that those engineers were sure the market wanted, but which the company refused to put a penny of development towards. Two famous examples of that were the transition between the second and third generations of computers, and ten years later the transition between the third and fourth generations. -- Chris Malcolm
From: stephe_k on 24 Mar 2010 23:07 Neil Harrington wrote: > "Laurence Payne" <lp(a)laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message > news:atalq5ta5kfajcnpn22jepajim90jm6ng3(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:05:10 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> >> wrote: >> >>> But for seven or eight years in the '40s Kodak also made its quite >>> elaborate >>> Ektra camera and lenses, intended to compete with Leica and Contax and >>> generally more advanced than either (if less reliable, unfortunately). >>> They >>> only made a couple thousand or so, sold 'em for $700 each (BIG money in >>> those years; you could almost buy a new Ford or Chevy for that), and >>> reportedly lost $300 on every one they sold. Surely you could not say the >>> Ektra was designed by "marketing people." >> It was encouraged by them though. Presumably because they felt such a >> prestige product, although it lost money, would enhance Kodak's >> reputation so in the longer term much MORE money came in. > > 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. > > So if not for this prestige, which is used to market the lower end cameras, why do YOU think they did it? 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, they thought this would make the company profits, even if this one product lost them money. The marketing department is who decides or at the very least makes the recommendations on these sorts of things. Stephanie
From: Neil Harrington on 25 Mar 2010 02:04
<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoek2h$88c$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Neil Harrington wrote: >> "Laurence Payne" <lp(a)laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:atalq5ta5kfajcnpn22jepajim90jm6ng3(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:05:10 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> But for seven or eight years in the '40s Kodak also made its quite >>>> elaborate >>>> Ektra camera and lenses, intended to compete with Leica and Contax and >>>> generally more advanced than either (if less reliable, unfortunately). >>>> They >>>> only made a couple thousand or so, sold 'em for $700 each (BIG money in >>>> those years; you could almost buy a new Ford or Chevy for that), and >>>> reportedly lost $300 on every one they sold. Surely you could not say >>>> the >>>> Ektra was designed by "marketing people." >>> It was encouraged by them though. Presumably because they felt such a >>> prestige product, although it lost money, would enhance Kodak's >>> reputation so in the longer term much MORE money came in. >> >> 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. > > > So if not for this prestige, which is used to market the lower end > cameras, why do YOU think they did it? Read what I said. I said it WAS for the prestige. Why do automobile makers build "concept cars" for auto shows that they have no intention of ever producing? Why do they enter cars and teams in international auto races at great expense? For the prestige, of course, and to gain public attention. > > You think the engineers are the ones who decided to continue production of > a loss leader product? The Ektra was not "a loss leader product." You are using terms you apparently don't even understand. |