I believe it's all about M-O-N-E-Y; corporate revenue to be more precise;
profit from the revenue to be even more precise. If they provided the
adapters for free, you'd be using your existing OM lenses or buying used OM
lenses. It means less revenue for the Mother Ship that thrives on retail
sales of new equipment. I don't know the business sufficiently to know the
profit margin on their camera bodies versus lenses and other accessories,
but if it's greater on the lenses and everything else, there's additional
motive to not provide and (indeed) denigrate the adapter. Threatening to
void warrantee with something that Olympus makes (or has made for them),
presumably carrying the Olympus logo, and provides elsewhere is over the top.
Is this an Evil Thing (except for the warrantee threat)? Perhaps in the
eyes of those with OM systems who want to buy into their digital
products. In reality, it's not. This strategy is for-profit, investor
owned (i.e. common stock), corporate MBA 101:
* Make new product
* Better yet, make completely new technology with same function
* Even better than that, create a required "subscription" feature in the
process to create a Cash Cow of continuing after-sale revenue stream
* Convince target market it's a Must Have that's the Greatest Thing Since
Sliced Bread
* Denigrate prior and competitor products to convince target market they're
the Worst Thing since before sliced bread and that it's an embarrassment to
own or use it
* Design in "programmed obsolescence" to force periodic replacement
* Design purely for initial assembly; design out ability to repair to make
replacement economically less expensive than repair
* Design out compatibility with any prior product accessories
* Design out compatibility with any competitor's products, past or present
and design in things that inhibit others from making compatible products
(use of proprietary intellectual properties in doing this is a real plus)
* Use only sufficient advancement of key technologies that will stay ahead
of all competition. Sandbag anything more than that for response to
competitors and/or forcing obsolescence (perceived or real) in the future.
I could probably think of more to add to this list given more time. I
didn't make this up . . . it's one philosophy of how to create a retail
market for new products and protect its market share that was taught to me
in graduate school.
For-profit corporations are in business for one thing and one thing alone .
. . profit. There is no such thing as doing anything for the "benefit of
society." Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, and many times it's
pure perception; the smoke and mirrors of marketing. If one realizes this
at the outset, and understands the terms, conditions and rules of The Game,
it can be liberating. Rest assured that the for-profit corporate world
would just as soon Joe Consumer remained entirely ignorant of all this.
No, Virginia, there no Santa Claus in the world of retail business.
Thus endeth my rant for the month (OK, week; ummmm, maybe just for the day).
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|