On 9/9/2011 6:21 AM, John Hermanson wrote:
> Nevermind, this claim was a false alarm.
Even if it weren't, I can see it making sense.
On 9/9/2011 7:48 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Wouldn't surprise me at all for two reasons:
>
> 1. The product is built to not fail or break.
> 2. Cost of repair exceeds the cost of manufacturing.
>
> In the first case, I would say that this is highly possible. A properly
> "hardened", engineered and manufactured product is designed to last the
> expected life-span without ever breaking down.
I can't imagine this is true all, or perhaps even most of the time.
Particularly in the consumer P&S business, the cost
of engineering and implementing what you call a "hardened" product would add
cost, and probably size and weight. A lot,
I suspect most, of these products are made in one production run, so any kind
of redesign based on practical testing,
feedback from buyers or feedback from repair can't be done.
Sure, lessons learned can be applied to the next iteration, or the one after
that, depending on the cycle time. But
there will always be something new and not thoroughly tested.
> In the second case, I would also say this is highly possible. If we figure
> that the typical service costs the company approximately $100 USD, we have
> to ask what the manuafacturing costs of the product were? If it is
> approximately the same amount, then it's a simple matter of figuring out
> what the expected failure rate is and build that amount of extras to be used
> for swaps.
I'm sure that has been done for some products. More common, and a very old
process, is the module replacement mentioned
by others. I've also experienced that with a Canon P&S. I lost by balance on a
slippery log on the shore of Moosehead
Lake, and threw my hands out for balance. I didn't fall, and the camera neither
left my hand nor hit anything, but the
snap deceleration broke a plastic part in the lens/zoom assembly.
Canon repaired it under warranty without question - by replacing the lens
module.
Over the years, I've been aware of both kinds of programs, outright replacement
and module replacement. In addition,
I've seen both based on either premaking of sufficient replacement models or
modules in the initial production or on
consolidated, strategically located repair.
This works by replacing units or modules for quick, low labor cost turn-around
of local repairs. The defective stuff is
then sent to a repair facility in a low cost area of the world. With low labor
costs and specialized equipment and
training, very low repair costs are possible with very high quality control.
Parts can also be scavenged where
replacements aren't available anymore. Repairs are possible long after initial
production has ceased and intentional
spare parts are gone.
Which model any given manufacturer uses will depend on analysis of their
particular products, product cycles and repair
needs against the cost, timeliness, etc. They probably change over time, too.
> Another factor to consider: When a product is designed for servicing, it
> requires screws, clips and other attachments which the technician uses to
> disassemble. But if a product is designed to never be disassembled, the
> parts inside can be bonded together in a manner that not only reduces
> manufacturing costs, but makes for a far more robust product.
I've seen that on simple, cheap stuff. Don't know if it's hit low end P&Ss yet.
I have yet to meet a camera I couldn't
open up, even in a fish camp on a remote lake, with a little help from the
local store with a Radio Shack section - and
put it back together so the repair facility didn't notice. :-)
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|