Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/03/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]As a private company that releases no data, I have, nor will I have, any data that supports my theory. If they drop the product line or go completely out of business, there still will be no proof. Expectations are funny things.... Whose expectations? Mine ? Yours? Leica's? Some camera magazine prognosticator or blogger? Is the promoted expectation based upon facts or hype? ( see PT Barnum) I will not debate the optical qualities of the Leica system. It may and probably is in a world superior to the competition. Pure product superiority is good, but it rarely makes for success. ( Tucker cars... all 51 of them. Betamax anyone?) The cost of developing a new product such as the S family, with all the lenses, is enormous. They are charging an equally enormous (competitive pricing issue for the same functionality) amount for each item. Their competitors are huge ( company to company comparison), charging substantially less for the same functionality, and had a large established base. They discount heavily. They are widely represented in the marketplace. Leica is none of these. Leica is owned by a single Person (majority ownership) , and a US Venture Capital group (minority ownership). While the person may live with years of lower profit expectations, the VC group will not. The only places new product development funding can be found is in profits, new rounds of funding, "commercial" loans, or out of the owners' pocket. The majority owner has bailed them out before. I suspect commercial loans are possible, but they need to be repaid. New rounds of funding are an unlikely possibility, unless there is a different business plan than we see on the surface. Leica has several product lines of which I am not familiar ( Geosystems and Sports optics). Maybe they are wildly profitable. Maybe the Pana-Leica line provides terrific profits. The sale of either of these product lines would finance new product development. At the expense of profits from the sold off entities. Companies like Rollei (that had a really technically superior product to the Hasselblad but were not widely established in an entrenched market), simply go belly up, get sold off ( Hasselblad itself merged with a significantly smaller company, which then sold itself to another owner), or dissolve into oblivion (Pontiac). The other question is... with limited resources ( all companies have this, not limited to Leica ), is opportunity loss. The resources spent on developing the S line came at the "expense" of some future M product that was not developed. Or something else that, in theory, would have supplied higher profits for sustained corporate health. That opportunity is gone. Lost. The M(240) is stalled in the market. ( Saturated market? ) Not a good sign if you have spent your resources in some other direction which is not producing profits, when your cash cow is faltering and you have a VC that expects to make money on their investment. Simply put the S line is not a likely financial win for Leica, and may cause the faltering to failure of the company as a whole, for a lot of reasons. Yes, I have no proof, but my business sense says the S line was and is a mistake. Flipping the coin the other way, what proof is there that the S line is a success? Is it producing profits? Paid its development costs? Is taking significant market share? Is anything other than a technically superior product? This is where this discussion started..... There is no proof. Frank Filippone Red735i at verizon.net ROI is more important than profit and unless you've got some inside information I'm not sure how you've determined it's a marketplace failure. All I've heard is that it's selling better than expectations, and I would imagine that the target ROI at the expected sales volume would be sufficient. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com http://doug-herr.fineartamerica.com -----Original Message----- >From: Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> >Sent: Mar 14, 2015 11:04 PM >To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug at leica-users.org> >Subject: Re: [Leica] URL: WSJ on Leica > >I guess I was more focused on .... profits..... rather than optical >superiority..... > >Frank Filippone >Red735i at verizon.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: LUG [mailto:lug-bounces+red735i=verizon.net at leica-users.org] On >Behalf Of John McMaster >Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 10:50 PM >To: Leica Users Group >Subject: Re: [Leica] URL: WSJ on Leica > >Really? It is regarded by most to have the best lenses available >(outside of technical cameras) and beats anything else I have used by a >large margin when it comes to results... > >john > >-----Original Message----- >From: LUG [mailto:lug-bounces+john=mcmaster.co.nz at leica-users.org] On >Behalf Of Frank Filippone >Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2015 6:42 p.m. >To: 'Leica Users Group' >Subject: Re: [Leica] URL: WSJ on Leica > >Spinmeisters...... > >I still do not believe the S series is or will be other than an >expensive marketplace failure.. > >Frank Filippone >Red735i at verizon.net > >Doesn't say much, but passes a couple of minutes... > >http://www.wsj.com/articles/camera-maker-leica-survives-the-digital-shi >ft-14 >26295228?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories > >john > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information