"Crippling" a product to "protect" higher end sales

Jonathan Brady · Nov 18, 2014

I see this sentence (or something similar enough) ALLLLLLLLLL the time and having a BS in Business Management along with quite a bit of real world experience in management and sales, I have to wonder what people are thinking when they say this.

The most recent example I saw was that Canon "crippled" the 6D to "protect" the 5D Mark III with regards to the focusing system. But I've seen it a lot with regards to 4K video to "protect" the Cinema line, not releasing a more robust mirrorless to protect DSLR's, etc..

I'm wondering how well people who throw out the word "crippled" in regards to these products really understand things like product differentiation, hardware costs, software costs, support costs, market research, profit margins, etc. Do the folks who toss these sorts of (basically) attacks at Canon know what they're talking about, or do they just want everything for free and/or built specifically for THEM and THEIR needs?

And finally, if these people are in the market for a new car, do they say to Ford (for instance) "why can't I have the Taurus for the price of the Fusion? You're just crippling the Fusion so I'll buy the Taurus!"

I can't stop anyone from replying with whatever they want but I'm not concerned about Canon's competitiveness within the market place for this particular discussion (for example, with 4K video, or DR, or mirrorless AF, etc.) and how they're doomed to fail if they don't _________. Let's just assume that Canon, being the worldwide leader in the photography industry, probably knows more than all of us combined on this board, and especially that a single one of us can't come up with a better company strategy than the collective at Canon has developed to continue to be the market leader. So if you're willing, please keep any comments within the scope of Canon.

Also, I'm not saying Canon is infallible (I think they really botched the EOS M system because they didn't do good enough market research). I don't think any company or human is infallible. Heck, the company I work for REALLY botched the launch of our newest product by filling market research rooms with "yes men" and "yes women" and SEVERELY overforecasted sales (our product launch meeting was very uncomfortable as they were on stage saying to expect all these great things while those in attendance were dead silent with looks on their faces that said "they have NO IDEA what they're talking about" and those in attendance were right and those on stage have since been let go). "Mistakes" are a different discussion from "crippling".

I'm interested in hearing the "Canon cripples their products" people voice their reasoning behind their statements so that I can better understand where they're coming from.

meland · Nov 18, 2014

Jonathan Brady said:
I see this sentence (or something similar enough) ALLLLLLLLLL the time and having a BS in Business Management along with quite a bit of real world experience in management and sales, I have to wonder what people are thinking when they say this.

The most recent example I saw was that Canon "crippled" the 6D to "protect" the 5D Mark III with regards to the focusing system. But I've seen it a lot with regards to 4K video to "protect" the Cinema line, not releasing a more robust mirrorless to protect DSLR's, etc..

I'm wondering how well people who throw out the word "crippled" in regards to these products really understand things like product differentiation, hardware costs, software costs, support costs, market research, profit margins, etc. Do the folks who toss these sorts of (basically) attacks at Canon know what they're talking about, or do they just want everything for free and/or built specifically for THEM and THEIR needs?

And finally, if these people are in the market for a new car, do they say to Ford (for instance) "why can't I have the Taurus for the price of the Fusion? You're just crippling the Fusion so I'll buy the Taurus!"

I can't stop anyone from replying with whatever they want but I'm not concerned about Canon's competitiveness within the market place for this particular discussion (for example, with 4K video, or DR, or mirrorless AF, etc.) and how they're doomed to fail if they don't _________. Let's just assume that Canon, being the worldwide leader in the photography industry, probably knows more than all of us combined on this board, and especially that a single one of us can't come up with a better company strategy than the collective at Canon has developed to continue to be the market leader. So if you're willing, please keep any comments within the scope of Canon.

Also, I'm not saying Canon is infallible (I think they really botched the EOS M system because they didn't do good enough market research). I don't think any company or human is infallible. Heck, the company I work for REALLY botched the launch of our newest product by filling market research rooms with "yes men" and "yes women" and SEVERELY overforecasted sales (our product launch meeting was very uncomfortable as they were on stage saying to expect all these great things while those in attendance were dead silent with looks on their faces that said "they have NO IDEA what they're talking about" and those in attendance were right and those on stage have since been let go). "Mistakes" are a different discussion from "crippling".

I'm interested in hearing the "Canon cripples their products" people voice their reasoning behind their statements so that I can better understand where they're coming from.

Of course there is a lack of knowledge about why Canon does what it does (and other companies too but you asked us to keep the discussion to Canon). But then I guess most people on here don't have business management or marketing qualifications and don't understand product segmentation either. Being realistic why should they? Most are probably on here because of a fascination about camera products, their specifications and performance and I suspect it would be unrealistic for them to really understand the strategic decisions a company like Canon has to make.

But haven't you yourself just made a similar kind of mistake? You said "I think they (Canon) really botched the EOS M system because they didn't do good enough market research." But isn't that just your supposition? One thing I can tell you is that sometimes Canon possibly does too much market research and there can be a tendency to over analyse certain things. But either way they feel / felt that there is / was a space in the market for a product like the M and early iterations are also a test bed, or market research if you prefer, for subsequent versions. You also suggest the EOS M system is a botch. Based on what - the fact that you might not like it? Based on bleats on this forum from people who probably were never intended as targets for the EOS M system in any case? The fact that the price was reduced? Or the fact that the M/M2 has been fairly consistently either No. 1 or 2 in sales in Japan?

Sorry probably slightly off topic there but ............

Landscapeforfun · Nov 18, 2014

I think people say they crippled the 6d because there is no other reasonable explanation for the AF system on the 6d. The released a number of crop sensor enthusiast level cameras with very nice AF systems and then after that they released the 6D with the AF system similar to the $300 rebel.

meland · Nov 18, 2014

Landscapeforfun said:
I think people say they crippled the 6d because there is no other reasonable explanation for the AF system on the 6d. The released a number of crop sensor enthusiast level cameras with very nice AF systems and then after that they released the 6D with the AF system similar to the $300 rebel.

--
-Adam
https://www.flickr.com/photos/90719248@N04/

Adam. you really think the 6D's AF system is similar to that on a $300 Rebel? Based on what? The number of focus points? The sensitivity? The type of sensors used?

Landscapeforfun · Nov 18, 2014

meland said:
Landscapeforfun said:

I think people say they crippled the 6d because there is no other reasonable explanation for the AF system on the 6d. The released a number of crop sensor enthusiast level cameras with very nice AF systems and then after that they released the 6D with the AF system similar to the $300 rebel.

Click to expand...

Jim Cassatt · Nov 18, 2014

To me the word crippled with respect to a produst means that the feature is there, but it is cheaper to disable it rather than redesign the product without the feature. I do not see anything new here.

When the original 300D was released, it was crippled to protect the sales of the 10D. A hacker found a way to cure the camera by re]storing the crippled features and the hack became widely avgailable. I remember with Intel released the 386 processer, they crippled the math coprocessor to bring out a lower price chip for cheaper computers. I think DEC did the same thing with one of its computers.

meland · Nov 18, 2014

Landscapeforfun said:
meland said:

Landscapeforfun said:

I think people say they crippled the 6d because there is no other reasonable explanation for the AF system on the 6d. The released a number of crop sensor enthusiast level cameras with very nice AF systems and then after that they released the 6D with the AF system similar to the $300 rebel.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jonathan Brady · Nov 18, 2014

I actually own and like the M. In fact, I don't currently have it in my possession because I let my dad borrow it and he won't give it back! I think it's a great camera! I just don't think Canon did enough research to determine the optimal feature set vs price, worldwide - hence the lack of success until DRAMATIC price cuts compared to MSRP.

Jonathan Brady · Nov 18, 2014

I've only had the 6D for a short time, but I've found that in indoor light and better, the outer points work very well, even wide open on fast lenses (1.4, 1.8, and 2).

meland · Nov 18, 2014

Jonathan Brady said:
I actually own and like the M. In fact, I don't currently have it in my possession because I let my dad borrow it and he won't give it back! I think it's a great camera! I just don't think Canon did enough research to determine the optimal feature set vs price, worldwide - hence the lack of success until DRAMATIC price cuts compared to MSRP.

Jonathan, what you are saying is still an assumption. For all you know Canon strategically priced it high initially to see what would happen. It was a new market for Canon and they had no historical data of their own on which to fall back on. For all we know the current price was always the price that they were prepared to bring it down to. It's a strategy which Canon have certainly used before on new market entries and it can be quite effective.

Jonathan Brady · Nov 18, 2014

You could be absolutely correct with that theory! I doubt it, but you could be. Or it could be something neither of us have thought of.

meland · Nov 18, 2014

Jonathan Brady said:
You could be absolutely correct with that theory! I doubt it, but you could be. Or it could be something neither of us have thought of.

Always possible. I suspect things will become much clearer as the M series or its successors develop.

riknash · Nov 18, 2014

Jonathan Brady said:
I see this sentence (or something similar enough) ALLLLLLLLLL the time and having a BS in Business Management along with quite a bit of real world experience in management and sales, I have to wonder what people are thinking when they say this.

The most recent example I saw was that Canon "crippled" the 6D to "protect" the 5D Mark III with regards to the focusing system. But I've seen it a lot with regards to 4K video to "protect" the Cinema line, not releasing a more robust mirrorless to protect DSLR's, etc..

I'm wondering how well people who throw out the word "crippled" in regards to these products really understand things like product differentiation, hardware costs, software costs, support costs, market research, profit margins, etc. Do the folks who toss these sorts of (basically) attacks at Canon know what they're talking about, or do they just want everything for free and/or built specifically for THEM and THEIR needs?

And finally, if these people are in the market for a new car, do they say to Ford (for instance) "why can't I have the Taurus for the price of the Fusion? You're just crippling the Fusion so I'll buy the Taurus!"

I can't stop anyone from replying with whatever they want but I'm not concerned about Canon's competitiveness within the market place for this particular discussion (for example, with 4K video, or DR, or mirrorless AF, etc.) and how they're doomed to fail if they don't _________. Let's just assume that Canon, being the worldwide leader in the photography industry, probably knows more than all of us combined on this board, and especially that a single one of us can't come up with a better company strategy than the collective at Canon has developed to continue to be the market leader. So if you're willing, please keep any comments within the scope of Canon.

Also, I'm not saying Canon is infallible (I think they really botched the EOS M system because they didn't do good enough market research). I don't think any company or human is infallible. Heck, the company I work for REALLY botched the launch of our newest product by filling market research rooms with "yes men" and "yes women" and SEVERELY overforecasted sales (our product launch meeting was very uncomfortable as they were on stage saying to expect all these great things while those in attendance were dead silent with looks on their faces that said "they have NO IDEA what they're talking about" and those in attendance were right and those on stage have since been let go). "Mistakes" are a different discussion from "crippling".

I'm interested in hearing the "Canon cripples their products" people voice their reasoning behind their statements so that I can better understand where they're coming from.

One big difference between your automobile analogy and cameras are that many features could run the same on either platform with no physical changes. The cost is zero but the features are limited in the lesser camera. The only obvious explanation is that it was deliberate. With your background, you must be aware of marketing strategies where two similar products/services must be promoted with little difference between them?

hotdog321 · Nov 18, 2014

I've been guilty of stating that Canon crippled the 5D III SD card slot's write speed to avoid further cannibalizing sales of the flagship 1DX which came out just months later. The SD card slot was rendered useless for many pros and most, such as myself, only use the CF slot.

I really doubt it would have added significant expense to the US$3000 5D III to make the SD card slot handle modern high speed SD cards.

Willing to be corrected, but that's my theory.

meland · Nov 18, 2014

hotdog321 said:
I've been guilty of stating that Canon crippled the 5D III SD card slot's write speed to avoid further cannibalizing sales of the flagship 1DX which came out just months later. The SD card slot was rendered useless for many pros and most, such as myself, only use the CF slot.

I really doubt it would have added significant expense to the US$3000 5D III to make the SD card slot handle modern high speed SD cards.

Willing to be corrected, but that's my theory.

terence_boylen · Nov 18, 2014

Jonathan Brady said:
I can't stop anyone from replying with whatever they want but I'm not concerned about Canon's competitiveness within the market place for this particular discussion (for example, with 4K video, or DR, or mirrorless AF, etc.) and how they're doomed to fail if they don't _________.

then this

Jonathan Brady said:
I'm interested in hearing the "Canon cripples their products" people voice their reasoning behind their statements so that I can better understand where they're coming from.

Sounds like you're looking for an argument. After all, you have a BS in business.

jffielde · Nov 18, 2014

This crippling doesn't bother me (I understand the business justification for it), but I also see that it's embarrassing when identified by the consumer.

The car example is a terrible one because they differ in production cost, but Intel does it all the time with their CPUs. If they want to produce 3.0ghz, 3.5ghz and 4.0 ghz chips, it's much cheaper for them to produce them all at 4.0ghz (only one line of production) and then artificially limit the speeds / features of the cheaper chips.

It makes good business sense, but it's annoying when you discover it (and want to "enable" the forbidden features).

Jonathan Brady · Nov 18, 2014

jffielde said:
This crippling doesn't bother me (I understand the business justification for it), but I also see that it's embarrassing when identified by the consumer.

The car example is a terrible one because they differ in production cost,

AF modules almost certainly differ in production costs.

Also, I worked for a company that bought hundred of thousands of cars from Ford annually. Back when I was there (almost 10 years ago), they were buying Ford Taurus' for less than $11,000 each, brand new. Ford was selling them to customers on their lots for double that (well, the sticker price anyway). The Fusion was being sold to my company for MORE than the cost of a Taurus. (consequently, we had a crap ton of Taurus') Don't think that just because something is more expensive to a consumer than an alternative that it's more expensive to manufacture. Value to the consumer is VERY important.

What about car options? Most people want a CD player in their car, right? That means that most factory radios have a CD player meaning the cost to the manufacturer to include the CD player is probably very minimal as their economies of scale must be ENORMOUS. What about a consumer who doesn't want one. Really... doesn't even want a radio at all. I wonder how expensive it is for that company to put an AM/FM radio in there without a CD player in it? They have to build that radio especially for that consumer! Heck, the second scenario (no radio) isn't even an option on any car that I know of because it would be more expensive to implement than to just stick a free CD player in there! lol So, in the case of an AM/FM radio, you're right, production costs are different - in an inverse type of way (I surmise, of course).

jffielde said:
but Intel does it all the time with their CPUs. If they want to produce 3.0ghz, 3.5ghz and 4.0 ghz chips, it's much cheaper for them to produce them all at 4.0ghz (only one line of production) and then artificially limit the speeds / features of the cheaper chips.

It makes good business sense, but it's annoying when you discover it (and want to "enable" the forbidden features).

Yeah, it's annoying. But, you didn't pay for and thus, aren't entitled to the forbidden feature. Essentially, the end consumer is stealing from the company if they manage to find a way to do it. Right? Because they're getting something for free that wasn't intended by the sales contract for them to have (sales contract meaning the consumer gave the company $X for feature set Y, not feature set Y+1).

Frontfocus · Nov 18, 2014

Jonathan Brady said:
I actually own and like the M. In fact, I don't currently have it in my possession because I let my dad borrow it and he won't give it back! I think it's a great camera! I just don't think Canon did enough research to determine the optimal feature set vs price, worldwide - hence the lack of success until DRAMATIC price cuts compared to MSRP.

What you write about the M is the same I feel about the 6D. Unfortunately for us (me) there is no "cheaper" option to choose from.

By the way, I appreciate your initiative to start this thread. It sounds well thought.

Happy shooting, Chris

Jonathan Brady · Nov 18, 2014

Frontfocus said:
Jonathan Brady said:

I actually own and like the M. In fact, I don't currently have it in my possession because I let my dad borrow it and he won't give it back! I think it's a great camera! I just don't think Canon did enough research to determine the optimal feature set vs price, worldwide - hence the lack of success until DRAMATIC price cuts compared to MSRP.

Click to expand...

What you write about the M is the same I feel about the 6D. Unfortunately for us (me) there is no "cheaper" option to choose from.

By the way, I appreciate your initiative to start this thread. It sounds well thought.

Happy shooting, Chris

It was simply a bad value proposition for most people. It functioned as intended and as advertised. (it was never advertised to have FAST autofocusing nor with an exhaustive suite of EF-M lenses)

Thanks for the kudos. I try to put at least a little thought into what I write. Doesn't always happen though!

"Crippling" a product to "protect" higher end sales

Veteran Member

meland

Guest

Leading Member

meland

Guest

Leading Member

Veteran Member

meland

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

meland

Guest

Veteran Member

meland

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

meland

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts