They didn't always. Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 23/05/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It's balancing act, if you don't look at it in a vacuum. >> >> Lower costs/Lower Profit per unit. -> Lower unit prices -> Higher demand >> -> Higher volume -> Higher overall profits >> >> Of course this assumes you can meet the demand. >> >> Japanese companies have in the past valued market penetration over >> higher profits. That's why Canon will "give" away High cost equipment >> to gain market share. Smaller companies have to have lower profit >> margins to get the same effect, which of course leads to lower marginal >> profits. As long as marginal profits aren't negative Pentax thought >> they were doing well. That was a more or less traditional view. >> > > All well and good but the two top players manage to combine high > volume and high profit per unit. > >
-- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
