Gonz wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> P. J. Alling wrote: >> >> >>> If were better wouldn't it be >>> logical to expect better sales to old farts like us? >> >> But Pentax have concluded there wouldn't be *enough*. >> >> If adding the aperture simulator costs $5.00 per camera (much lower >> than what I've heard from people at Pentax but it'll do for >> demonstration purposes) a production run of 10,000 cameras will have an >> additional manufacturing cost of $50,000.00. >> >> If it results in sales of 1000 cameras to *people who wouldn't have >> bought the camera otherwise*, that's not even going to come close to >> recouping its cost. Of course we can argue the numbers, like the actual >> per-camera cost and the number of people to whom this feature is a >> deal-breaker (I'd guess far less than 1000, you'd certainly predict >> more), but the bottom line is that Pentax has already made these >> calculations to their satisfaction. >> >> >> > You dont think they get more than $50 profit per camera? > > rg >
Yes and No. certainly not on the K100D/K110D (where the likely profit is quite low to keep the pricepoint down). Possibly on the K10D, but I'd suspect the profit is around that across Pentax and the retailer. Certainly on a flagship body. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
