Maybe Pentax expected to exactly break even on the 645d and use it as a selling point, (loss leader), that's not necessarily bad business, but it wouldn't appeal to Sparx corporation. While I think that Pentax'd get better bang for the buck with the so called "K1D" with a larger sensor, (with or without an aperture simulator), using the 645d and breaking even isn't a bad idea, just not as high profit.
Tom C wrote: >> I felt the words "strategies... crafted to block a takeover bid" are what >> gave the news a different slant. >> >> To me that is highly relevant. I am sorry, Tom, if you think I was saying >> anything else. >> >> HTH, Marnie aka Doe :-) >> >> > > As far as the news is concerned, I don't quite understand how Pentax mgmt. > thinks this will block a takeover bid. Hoya simply has to tender an offer > and it will likely go to a vote. > > What Pentax is implicitly admitting here is that they been going down the > wrong path, flushing precious resources down the drain, and *now*, just > *now???*, they're waking up and going to make changes? First off by nixing > development of their acclaimed flagship? (I agree that I don't think it > would have been profitable in the face of competition, but this is an about > face). > > This would not engender confidence in me, were I a shareholder, nor would > the sale of a high percentage of corporate property in Tokyo. I'd be saying, > yikes... might be better to sell ourselves to Hoya. > > Tom C. > > > > -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
