Say Pentax did reimplemented the aperture "simulator" in a future body, you buy the body (for $900, as an example). As a long time Pentax user with a vast collection of K/M glass you're happy as a pig in shit.
Pentax on the other hand have sold you a $900 body & that's all their going to get. Now lets look at a buyer just coming into Pentax they buy the $1000 kit (body + 18-55 lens). In time said user reaches the limitations of the kit lens & decides to buy some new ones. They decide on a DA 16-45 (~$390) & FA 31 (~$880). That's an extra $1270 of product that Pentax has sold. (And if you don't think this scenario is realistic, go over to the the Pentax SLR forum at DPreview and you'll find a lot of people like that.) And this is the point some are try to help you understand. Pentax makes more profit from new users (& long time users) who buy new products & accessories, as apposed to the minimal profit they make from longtime users who only want a body that fully supports their old K/M lenses. Also, you didn't answer my initial question, so I'll ask it again: If you were in the business of manufacturing & selling cameras & associated equipment which type of customer would you prefer? Keep in mind that Pentax are a company driven by profits and not some sort of feel good institute. As to Canon being a good place to start from scratch, I'm sure there were/are a lot of FD users who disagree. Also how much would it cost you to replace your K/M lens line up with Canon equivalents? (If it's even possible) Dave On 10/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Its unethical to disable legacy products without > Good cause and there isnt anything cost or technically > Or new improvements causing it. You cant say its better for them to > Screw prior customers to sell new lenses they wouldn't > Need if they supported them fully. I wont condone it. > I would rather switch brands then do that. Canon is > >From what I can see the best brand to start from scratch with. > And if you have to buy new lenses just for this disabling camera, > Then you are essentially starting from scratch arent you? > jco > > -----Original Message----- > David Savage > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:32 AM > > True, but some customers are more more desirable than others. > > If you were selling a product that supported legacy as well as the new > accessories (read lenses) which customer would you prefer: > > Customer type 1) > Slaps down their credit card and buys a $900 camera body that works > perfectly with there collection of 30 year old lenses, and who has no > intention of ever buying a new lens > > or... > > Customer type 2) > Slaps down their credit card and buys a $900 camera body & $390 DA > 16-45mm f4. And who at some stage may pick up a $200 FA 50mm f1.4, > $540 DA 70mm f2.4 Ltd, $675 FA 77mm f1.8 Ltd., $880 FA 31mm f1.8 > Ltd..... > > Pentax certainly aren't going to make as much profit from customer > type 1. Pentax have clearly indicated which customer they desire most. > > Now in all honesty John, if you were in the business of manufacturing > & selling cameras & associated equipment which customer would you > prefer? > > Dave > > On 10/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All customers are desireable. I don't buy > > The argument that they only make money > > On lens sales and "give away" the bodies > > For no profit or even worse, loss. > > jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
