Shel B. wrote:
> I don't subscribe to that logic. I like things that last, and
> that I can use and take pleasure in for the rest of my life.
> It's comfortable, it's convenient, it saves money, it saves
> time. I like things of substance, and that have a timeless
> quality about them. That's not to say you're wrong, it's just
> that I don't think quality items that last a long time and
> give satisfaction and pleasure is a "quaint notion". Sadly,
> quality - in both goods and service - is becoming obsolete.
> What a shame.
I agree. I'm drinking coffee right now out of a mug that I bought at a
Shaker Village in Kentucky when I was 9. I tend to get attached to things.
If I do get attached, I want them to at least potentially last. *I'M* not
going to last all that long, so I don't think it's a lot to ask that some of
my possessions at least have the potential to outlast me.
I really loathe the cheapening of America. It's most visible in the housing
stock. If you think of it, a house doesn't really "belong" to one person.
You live in it for a while, you sell it, another person buys it, that person
sells it, etc. The housing stock belongs to the society, to all of us. The
houses that are being built all over America these days are atrocious--huge,
ostentatious, shoddily built. They are future white elephants--they'll be
falling apart in no time (a matter of decades), be expensive to maintain,
and eyesores.
I had to edit a paper about roofs a while back. The oldest roof in America
is a tern (metal) roof on a President's house (I think it was Andrew
Jackson?? Not sure), and it's 200+ years old. There's a church in England
that has a slate roof that's 800 years old. The slate has holes in it and is
hung on oak pegs. Every 400 years they have to replace the pegs.
With materials science what it is, we could be building comfortable, highly
durable, low maintenance housing that would last and last. Instead we're
pandering to all the worst instincts in buyers--get the showiest for the
least money, and quality and maintainability be damned.
Back on topic, cameras are fun to collect simply because older ones were
made so nicely. Many of them are beautiful and can still be used today.
Personally I think Pentax's aim to make a camera that users will want to
take to their graves is admirable. Granted, the market for such a thing is a
minority market. But I'm definitely part of it.
Bring it on, Pentax.
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
