Ken Norton wrote:
>Gary,
>Glad to see that the tutu still fits.
Thanks (I think?)
>It's been the responsibility of the manufacturer to "create" the
>demand through marketing. If it wasn't for IBM's highly successful
>advertising we all would be mousing away on Macs right now.
And how exactly would that be a BAD thing? You're actually making
my case: we often end up with the inferior technology dominating the
marketplace, because interests other than consumer's well-being win
the battle. Consumers as an entity have no voice, no lobbys, no
power, and when they finally wake up -- it's usually too late.
[snip]
>Supply or demand side economics. That's what we are discussing here.
This was definitely NOT the main point of my arguments. Pls reread my
original post -- I stayed clear of politics. For the record, I'm a firm
believer in the free market system, and am opposed to unnecessary or
excessive government regulation (liberals are NOT socialists, contrary
to what you may have heard from the Institue of Advanced Conservative
Falsehoods :-)).
I was merely lamenting the fact that technological progress has become
the goal rather than the means, and in the process the human factor, i.e.
the consumer, is left behind -- befuddled, confused, often incapable of
absorbing the innovations at the rate they seem to appear and disappear.
(Hey, 80 percent of VCR owners still can't program them :-)).
It'd be nice if the product cycles weren't as short as they now are,
and if successful, well-made, reliable products were kept longer on the
shelves, refined, and well supported. However, this means that far
fewer new products would sell overall, and the industry simply can't
have that, now can it?
Now, I never proposed any regulatory solutions to this porblem, although
I would be firmly in support of some independent consumer advocating
bodies. In the past, the product-oriented press used to perform this
function. However, the manufacturers with their deep advertising
pockets effectively made all consumer electronics publications their
mouthpieces (PopPhoto is a good example), and so now the average
consumer has no place to turn to. E.g. evidence the enormous number of
pleas for help re: purchasing decisions on the net (in our case -- in
the various rec.photo.* newsgroups).
>If we could get OM's listed as endangered species! The government
>will pay us to keep them in use!
Not a bad idea! I'll bring it up at the next meeting of the vast
left-wing conspiracy. :-)
>To bad Olympus isn't an American company located in a farmer's field
>in California.
I agree! It's such a drag to have to fly to Tokyo for those $16 a
piece 2-series focusing screens. Now, if Olympus was headquartered
in Bakersfield... :-)
Cheers,
/Gary Schloss.
Studio City, CA
schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|