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. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
