His provided numbers are stupid in that they are not meaningful by themselves. If you sell a million Cameras at $1000, thats 1 $BILLION in revenue And the extra $5 million in cost is very small at that scale so it's all relative. Secondly, I honestly feel a separate model AT A HIGHER PRICE (just like anti-shake feature is marketed) could certainly overcome the extra production cost and be actually profitable on the body. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 8:30 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept. I knew a number of people in the automotive business many years back, and they'd watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys discuss costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about spacing bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four instead of five bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt (which seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt during manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole. John Celio pointed out that the mechanism is more complicated than some may realize, and while the actual cost of parts may be trivial, the cost of the steps needed to include those parts also must be included, as you say. Plus there's the time involved, and the possibility that there may be more rejected items, and inventory and storage/shipping costs. The truth is, we _don't_ know the true cost of including the item on contemporary DSLR camera bodies. We're just not privy to that information. I think JCO, with his continued harping on the cost being $5.00 is just blowing smoke. It's a number he pulled from the air, based on some abstract calculation that he came up with. For all we know, including the aperture simulator on contemporary cameras, especially after the design has been set to not include the item, may cost more than the inclusion of shake reduction. Are you listening, John. There's a lot more to the true cost of an item than the small cost of materials. And just because the peripheral costs may not have been very great on K-bodied cameras, those numbers may be completely different for the DSLR. BTW, Leica found out about the cost of the need for precision manual assembly, and their newer cameras were designed to eliminate as much of that type of work as possible. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Pål Jensen > ----- Original Message ----- > > How do you know the part in question costs $5.00? > > Does the $5.00 reflect only the cost of materials, or > > does it include any manufacturing and setup > > costs to implement the item in cameras that were > > designed not to include the part? > > > If it cost $5 and you sell a million cameras thats five million. > I personally believe that the lens mount without mechanical coupling are > more suited for robotic assembly. Mechanical linkages needs precision and is > probably far more expensive to manufacture I suspect. Therefore I don't > think we will see a completely compatible lens mount in anything but a > top-of-the-line body if at all. > Personally, I find this issue trivial. Although it would have been nice with > complete comaptibility with K and M lenses, Pentax after all fully support > all lenses made after 1983. Thats best in business. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
