> You don't know the difference between shrewd and > Unscrupulous. Disabling older products without > Cost or technical reasons is just that.
There -is- a cost reason for the loss of the simulator. The cost reason is how much Pentax was losing from people not buying new lenses. It's as simple as that. I know the profit margins on cameras and lenses from my last job. I refuse to be specific (out of support for the camera industry), but I know that camera bodies make next to nothing. This is a fact, I promise. Pentax MUST sell lenses and accessories, and if they don't, they go bye-bye. Would you really want that? What you see as regression is simply Pentax protecting their asses. Would you do something at your job that made you less valuable to your employer, thereby threatening your job? Hey, that's a good analogy. We consumers are the employers of the camera companies, deciding what suits us best and "employing" them for their services and products. Employees don't want to lose their jobs, and so must work to keep themselves in demand, in this case by keeping new lens demand at a reasonable level so they can continue to bring in a paycheck. Pentax the employee still allows you to use old technology, but needs you to use their new products in order to keep their job. You can buy all the camera bodies you want, but that doesn't help Pentax if few people buy the products that actually keep them in business. JCO, please tell me you understand this. Don't take it personally, it's just economics! John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement." -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
