Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Shapiro
JON- There is nothing wrong with obsolesce when a new and better methodology or technology arises out of engineering which make for better quality and more efficient performance in all sorts of photographic gear. This is a natural progression in progressive thinking where the old gives way to and is left behind by the new.
|
This is not what I was talking about, and I agree with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Shapiro
The negative aspect that I was alluding to is when obsolesce is engineered into a product whereby an expensive piece of gear will unceremoniously drop dead beyond repair after a certain period or cycle of usage. We have cardboard cameras for that not DSLRs costing many thousands of dollars.
|
This is what I was talking about. "Designed to fail" is not an urban legend or an old wives tale. Many companies have discovered (some of them - like the DeLorean Motor Company and Tektronix - the hard way) that if they don't design failure into components that they'll go broke before long.
A friend of mine in Toronto works for Magna in the role of redesigning parts for an earlier failure. For those that don't know, Magna produces many many automobile subassemblies for most of the OEM brands and nearly all of the aftermarket brands (TRW, Moog, etc).
A non-failing product>no replacement sales revenue/no parts sales revenue/no repair revenue>company is in serious trouble.
This is a reality of business.
It is not different in the "DSLRs costing many thousands of dollars" market. If you have an S2 with a failed shutter today (I do), the cost of having the shutter assembly replaced will be cost prohibitive when comparing to replacing the camera. That is, if the parts are even available.