I suspect that few mfrs. offer many products at a loss at the incremental unit production cost level. However, IMHO it is likely that in some instances they do not recover development costs on some "pro" models. Thus any major increase in volume for whatever reason is actually a benefit not a problem, even though over all a program may not by itself be profitable.
Otis Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > I sincerely doubt that Canon and Nikon lose money on their pro bodies. > Individuals (pros and amateurs) buy retail and not from the company's national > distributor. A place like B&H doesn't have a two tier pro/am price list. If > they were losing money on every body they could have a real disaster with a > sales hit. (When the F100 came out it was selling at 10,000 bodies a month.) > Now, when a buyer like a major newspaper does a big buy they probably get a > special package price. > It's always cost money to make money. > > --- frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Of course, it would be a money-loser in the short-term. Indeed, the "pro" > > line in > > and of itself would be a money-loser in the long-term as well. But, the > > benefits > > across the entire product line would be huge. > > > > But as you said, it's not enough to simply produce the product. You gotta > > get it > > in the hands of the PJ's, and that won't be easy... > Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! > http://mail.yahoo.com/ > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
