It is hyperbole. It is an insult leveled at some of the more distasteful aspects of market segmentation. There, I've said it. Distasteful: some aspects and applications of it.
You haven't provided a text book definition of market segmentation/differentiation at least up to this point in the thread so I will continue on with my own understanding of the term and perhaps, unwittingly, rolling in other marketing principles into the mix.
There are market segmentations that are easy to understand because the value is easy to ascertain. This type of market segmentation is, I believe, universally accepted.
A 2000 sq. foot home vs. a 10,000 sq. foot home. It is obvious why there should be a difference in price (though it may not be immediately obvious why the price differential may or may not be linear relative to the square footage).
What is less obvious is why one DSLR can be priced at $500 and another priced at $8000 because they all have a mirror, shutter, sensor, and create exposure through SS, aperture and ISO.
I am not going to elaborate on the following statement so as to avoid getting mired in the details. What I want to point out is the macro economics of the camera business as I have observed it. As a business major, maybe you can help me understand. I hope you do not get mired in the details too should you decide to respond.
Market segmentation is one of the rationales for price strata, othrwise, who would care?
I began using 35mm format DSLRs in 2003. I was shocked that there were only two main competitors in the format, Canon and Nikon. All of those other famous names I had heard of for years didn't seem to be a factor and today they are mostly marketers of tiny sensor, mirrorless cameras. A couple of manufacturers still have "token" DSLRs. (see? I've just thrown out a passive aggressive insult much in the same style as the "cripple" insult)
IMO, this lack of competition allows Canon to create, in some cases, artificial market segmentations through the inclusion/exclusion of features some of which would only cost a few dollars to create and implement. Thank God for Nikon pushing the envelope (and perhaps the 2008 world-wide recession too) as we've seen Canon begin to include features that heretofore had been excluded in cameras of certain price strata (i.e. become more competitive). Nikon is not guiltless either. The DSLR market needs more competition. Thanks should goes out to Magic Lantern too (the sometimes awkward implementations of this software notwithstanding) for showing us how easy it is for any old armchair schlub to program major features - for free.
I think the exclusion of simple features (not the major ones) obstensibly to help bolster a sense of market segmentation comes across as artificial and contrived and is distasteful to most folk as a rationale to charge prices they consider to be outrageous (right or wrong).
As a business major with a job in marekting, you appear to admire Canon management. But, I think, as a customer, you are losing sight of who is the boss of things in a free market. As the customer, you have much of the power as long as you are willing to exercise your power (and as long as there is real competition). Just because Canon can pick your pocket doesn't mean you have to let them pick your pocket. (Another good reason for a dual platform.)
--
Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Mystery Gardner: "Rick, you have a passion for photography but not a position. That's a good thing." Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc.
https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie
