Yeah, they (american car companies) did that continuously in the 70's
and 80's until quality got so bad that they had to reverse course,
because foreign companies were eating their lunch with higher
reliability cars. A typical savings was replacing a nylon washer (meant
to isolate a metal/metal contact) like on brake line/body attachment
points, with a steel (and cheaper) washer. Result: rust at the point of
contact, ultimately resulting in a failing or deteriorating brake system.
Lesson: companies will do pretty much anything to reduce manufacturing
cost, even if it means reducing features. As long as the cost reduction
benefits exceed the true market value of the feature they reduced or
eliminated. True market value is the *perceived* value of the feature
to the company going *forward*. The aperture sensor thing did not
*completely* (note: this is typical netiquette if you want to emphasize
a word, not all caps, which usually indicates shouting) cripple the
lenses, you can still take pictures, and I do take some very good pics
with my K/M lenses. The green button fix is not a perfect solution, but
its not the "pentax screwed their customers" situation that is being
argued here.
rg
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Whats suprising about that? Its always better to
eliminate ANY unneeded cost, even a quarter in
a $30,000 car but that's about pure cost reduction while
maintaining or improving the design features and performance, not removing
key features or degrading performance, that's not cost reduction, that's
new lower level model..
jco
-
