I think separating the idea of value from the actual costs of the
item is what's wrong with most people's thinking. It's thinking
from the perspective of the company's marketing, not the consumer's
preferences.
And in a way, what's wrong with thinking from the companies perspective? By doing that, one can understand where the company is coming from, and be better informed when making purchasing desicions. "Know they enemy, and know thyself" if you will. Thinking from the consumer's preferences isn't always realistic, becuase the consumer wants all the best stuff, for nothing. Every company would go broke!
They have to offer something that consumers want, and for a price they are willing to pay. If the 300D cost more than consumers were willing to pay, it would not of sold! That's a guarantee! And that is where the idea of "worth" comes into play. That is not company thinking, that is CONSUMER thinking. Don't blame Canon for making something the consumer will snap up like hotcakes, blame the CONSUMER for buying them like crazy, giving Canon the message that they "did right". Personally, I think they did right, and gave them my cash. That's not company thinking, that's MY thinking. As a consumer. I think Canon did a good job of challenging the marketplace to come up with "more for less". And at least one competitor has bitten, with the D70. Do you think Nikon would have come out with it if Canon hadn't "tested the waters" first? Or would they have made the price much higher? Hard to say, my predictions into alternate realities aren't as good as they used to be!
Again, I'm the consumer, not the company. And to say
they "can't canniballize the sales of the 10D" is more of the same
thinking. Nikon did essentially that with the D70 vs the D100.
Right, but look at the product life cycles. The 10D was still somewhat early in its life, whereas the D100 was nearing its end, due for a replacement coming soon anyways. The D100 had already made its money. Product life cycles are VERY important to development, and everything is based around it. If the D100 was still very new, I think Nikon would have a different story to tell.
The fact is that they CAN make a camera that good and sell it for
$1000..... and they did.
And I guess Nikon could have done that with the D100 when it came out, but didn't. Didn't, in fact, until competition FORCED them to do so. Nikon is just as guilty as any other company. Because of the need to compete in the Digital Rebel era, the D70 was born. Nikon didn't have a sudden change of heart, become more ethical, or get a sense of ideology or altruism. They got competition. So they responded. Nikon could have done it earlier too, but there was no need.
Canon could have done essentially the
same with the 10D but didn't. As a consumer, I view that a little
like the gas station owners who tried to gouge prices the day after
9/11 simply because they thought the market would bear it.
And I assume consumers flipped them the finger too. The difference is, gas is an essential product, necessary to our society, and since they have market domination, almost a monopoly when they work together, there is not much we can do. We don't really have an alternative. Canon does NOT have a monopoly, they are not essential to our society as a whole, and we DO have other choices. But until the Rebel came along, all the other choices cost twice as much. Likely as "artificially inflated" as anything else.
Just because someone can get away with something doesn't mean I have to
defend it. I think it's pretty contemptible.
Never said you had to defend it. But until the world gets a big shift in the way it works and conducts business, it's something you have to live with. Not from Canon, but with EVERYTHING you buy.
If you believe it's unfortunate, why are you defending it so
vigorously?
Well, where would be the fun in that?! I am not saying I personally BELIEVE in the way the system works, or that it will stay the same when I become Emperor of the world, I am just saying the way it is now. And looking at the way things are done, I don't think Canon did anything horrible or reprehensible. If anything, they forced the hand of the market to make cheaper, but still quality digital cameras, and that IS good for the consumer.
This issue isn't how it's done, but whether it should
be done that way. It seems we actually may agree about that. The
bottom line is, I'm a consumer and that's why my point of view is
the way it is. I will look out for MY interests no less so than
the company will look out for theirs.
Right, it's done how it's done. Should it be that way? Maybe not, but that's the way it is, which is what we have to deal with day to day. I don't know if I even have a better way to do it. I'm no economist. But it's still fun to debate. I don't plan on actually changing any minds. If I do, that's a bonus. If someone opens their mind just to see another point of view, even better! I debate for me. It forces me to think through my position and my logic more thoroughly, and allows me a glimpse into other ways of thinking, which might give me a better understanding of people in general.
My position is, given the circumstances of the way business is done, I think Canon did a great job in bringing the Rebel to market!
Don
