Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:41:35 -0500, Seth Rosner <sethrosner@nycap.rr.com> wrote: ... > I do not know the source of the anger at Leica that is on this list every > day and whatever the source, I do not understand it. This is a company that > has delivered absolutely world-class products to photographers for 80 > years, > is under financial pressure because its design, development and product > policies - make the best product you can with the greatest quality, > longevity, flexibility and continuity and price it to make a fair profit - > are inconsistent with today's business mode - make a cheap, "good-enough" > product, design into the product immediate obsolescence so that buyers are > compelled in one or two years to throw away the product and replace it with > another based upon the same premise. > > Is Leica struggling with this scenario? Of course. Today's commercial world > is not consistent with the philosophy that has enabled us to have 50 + > year-old cameras and lenses that today continue to function as they did > when > they were new and to produce world-class images. > > If you divide the cost of my new M4 & DR Summicron outfit in 1967 ($400.) > by > the number of years it has worked wonderfully for me and given me great > pleasure in its use, the annual cost is a hair over $10. If you divide the > cost of the obsolescent products marketed today by their lifespans - > planned > from inception - it will be in the thousands of dollars per year. Which is > "cheaper"? "make the best product you can with the greatest quality, longevity, flexibility and continuity and price it to make a fair profit " IS todays' business mode. Just "longevity" has a different meaning in times of rapid technology change. It is not a problem with "todays business mode". It is a problem that Leica has not been able to adapt to the current world of technology change -- in the body world, at least. In 1967, Leica was building a product that was almost at the end of its development life cycle. Very little new in the world of rangefinder 35mm came after that time. The cost was astronomical, even then. For me, it would have represented 3 used cars, or almost a year's rent. Way beyond anything I could even dream of buying at that time. Todays "obsolescent products" are made obsolescent by the pace of technology change. These changes are not driven by "today's business mode". They are driven by the constraints of technology. If the industry could build a full frame digital sensor now -- they would. It can't be done at reasonable cost - yet. Leitz was once (in the 30s) a driver of technology change. Like many other companies, they were unable the follow through with changes that would keep them competitive - in the camera body world, at least. Leica continues to make its old products "obsolete" in the world of lens design. Witness the multiple generations of design as new coating, glass, ASPH grinding and computational capabilities enabled new versions of classic lens designs to be produced. They old design were "good enough" -- they were the best that could be done. The newer design are also "good enough" -- surely not perfect. Similarly, digicams today are the best that can be done - at the current state of the technology. Given that current Leica lenses are near the top of their class, Zeiss glass is arguably in the same class -- at much lower cost for the G series, at least. Possibly because they do not come in designer editions? There are two classes of companies: (1) -Those wedded to a single, often brilliant, product concept (2)- Those wedded to innovation, damn the consequences to their current business and products. The first class develop companies with a loyal customer base who love their superior product, even if nobody else buys it. The second class thrives in the long run. I guess that I jumped into this thread to reinforce the thought that Leica could do better in building tools for making pictures if it stopped wasting time on special edition collectors' items that will never be used for taking pictures. I think this is a source of the anger. I guess that another reason I jumped in is that I have just finished scanning a roll of film that was develop and scratched almost beyond repair by my local Walgreens, and I want a camera that handles like a Leica, but provides digital convenience. Anyone can do digital (except Leica, it seems), but only Leica can provide the "feel" of the camera (or not, but nobody else has yet) "But if Leica Camera does not succeed, it will be a business tragedy and one more nail in the coffin of quality." It will not be a nail in the coffin of quality. It will simply reflect that Leica was unable to deliver the quality that others could using the best technology available. It will be another nail in the coffin of companies that cannot delver the best available technologies in packages that people want to buy. -- Clive http://www.pbase.com/chmoss