No one has as far as I can remember, said that this didn't add a few
pennies to Pentax's bottom line, to be either passed on to the consumer
or the stock holders or most likely both. I think it's the result of a
questionable marketing strategy, and based on the last few years, and
the current state of Pentax's sales I think I have a bit of point.
Pentax doesn't seem to be able to sell ice cubes in hell. In one of
these stupid threads someone pointed out that Scrap bookers were buying
Nikon D70's. Hell for most of them the *ist-Ds would be just as good an
option, maybe better, but that's not the camera being recommended to
them, in spite of the fact that those particular consumers are right in
the middle of Pentax's target demographic!
Mark Roberts wrote:
Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've heard that automobile engineers sometimes eliminate parts worth
$0.25 because a million or more cars are going to be built with a
particular design, thus saving $250,000 or more, and justifying his salary.
I've seen this at a company that made products which cost $20,000.00
each and only sold in quantities of a few thousand (over the lifetime of
the product).
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
