Some people would prefer to change the game.
Earl
John A. Lind wrote:
>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
>==============================================
>
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|