mike wilson wrote: > If that's what I think (Land Rover?) then it is a better > example than the other two mentioned. There is nothing as > good in most ways as a LR for the job it does. Same for the > LX. For both of them, minor tweaks would improve them but > everyone wants different tweaks. If you put _all_ the tweaks > on them, it would not be the same thing. Too heavy, too > complicated. The best bit about both of them is the modular > construction, so that the tweaks can be applied selectively. BUT.... > this is an expensive method of construction; labour intensive > and difficult to design properly. Therefore it is less > profitable than it could be. Therefore it doesn't get done. > In the beancounter manual, making less profit than you should > is the same (or maybe worse) than making a loss. > > The local brewery was making £6million a year nett profit. > That was deemed unacceptable, so it was closed with the loss > of 600 jobs. One more 6 and we would have had 666. I like > to think a committee of 6 beancounters was responsible.
Yes, it's a Land-Rover so no surprise there. The LX has quite a few similarities with useful interchangeable parts and does the job. On both vehicles and cameras, manufacturers are at the mercy of beancounters who never understand the product. Malcolm
