I take this as insincere. You already acknowledged it was of little value when you asked me to look at it, why, I think I know why, because I explained in an eariler post that these kinds of "studies" are not very reliable due to too many unknowns.
Secondly my experince has been primarily in electronics engineering but I can read english and you never stated anywhere in that letter what would have or will have happened if pentax did or will do what? dontya think that might be part of the request if you want me to make comments on your estimates?? JCO -----Original Message----- From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:13 PM To: pentax-discuss Subject: RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) J.C., The stuff below is already simple and straightforward. I figured with your many years of engineering experience you would have been able to "decipher" if fairly easily. If it's that hard for you to understand, it's probably not worth any additional effort on your part. I'm gonna have to call it quits on this thread. My apologies to the folks who lost interest a long time ago. --Mark "beware the carpenter who claims twenty years experience and has one year of experience twenty times" "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >could you please simplify what you have posted? >I don't understand the numbers or the premise. >What exactly are you estimating and if pentax does >what? Ill look at them for you but I cant decipher at this point... >jco > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 1:16 AM >To: 'pentax-discuss' >Subject: RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) > > >J.C. Wrote: >> >>I am waiting too, where are your estimates showing their decisions >>were >justified? >> >>If you don't provide HARD EVIDENCE >>and or estimates, why are you insisting >>that I have to? My lack of "HARD" evidence isnt any worse than yours >>is... >> >>GET IT? >> >>jco > >I don't like to quote my own messages, but here are some estimates that >I sent back on Sept 20 in response to a message by Herb Chong: > >I wrote: >>"Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> given that Pentax hopes to sell 120K DSLRs this fiscal year, all of >>> which are low profit margin, what do you think? >>> >>> Herb... >> >> >>The question is not how many people are unhappy with the limited K/M >>compatibility, but how many people (who would otherwise buy a Pentax >>DSLR) are so unhappy that they are withholding their $$$? >> >>Let's say it's 1200. That's 1% of the 120K number you quote above. >>Let's say that Pentax gets $500 US per DSLR. That's $600K in lost >>revenue this fiscal year. Let's say that Pentax takes a $50 profit >>per camera. That's $60K in lost earnings this fiscal year. Not a >>very big number, is it?
