Beginning Of The End for TeleVue?

he reason Televue and the other high end companies
survive is because astronomers, on average, are making significantly more
in
annual salary than the remainder of the population.

They survive because they create high quality instruments. There is a lot more
to a high quality apo besides color correction. A lot more...
rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address

I don't know what TeleVue's cost structure or margins are, and neither
do you, so I don't think either of us is in a position to say whether
they've been price-gouging. I do know that they're not at the
pinnacle of the price structure for the market--both Pentax and Zeiss
make more expensive optics than TeleVue.

If we grant your premise that there are alternatives that offer
98% of the performance for 50% of the cost, well, so what? What if
you need or want that remaining 2%? In optics, as in most precision
engineering fields, there's a law of diminishing returns. Achieving
that last 2% may well double the cost of the finished item.

Consider sports cars. Why buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini (or McLaren
F1) when you can get a Corvette for half the price? The Ferrari
doesn't go twice as fast. But it does go faster, and if you want
that extra speed you have to pay for it.

Quality/price ratio isn't everything. There are those who need or
want the higher quality, even if the law of diminishing returns
says the QPR will be lower. That doesn't make them status seekers.

You are correct, though, that it will be interesting to see how
TeleVue competes. The recent eyepiece sale was their first salvo
in the price war.

-Paul W.

On 2 Jan 2005 15:54:34 -0800, wrote:

Hello all,

After spending a couple years out of the hobby and now getting back
into it, I'm amazed at the quality you can now purchase and the low,
low, low prices associated with these products. Apos and eyepieces in
particular.

This used to be TeleVue's bread and butter, and boy did they know it
with the prices they charge! But now that we, as consumers, have
options where we get 98% of the ultra high quality performance for 50%
of the cost, what does it mean to the company that has been holding us
over the coals for the past 20 years, wringing every red cent out of us
for a high quality eyepiece? Could this competition be the beginning
of the end for them?? Or will there always be status-seekers in this
hobby that decide on purchases based on the name printed on the
eyepiece, as opposed to the quality/price ratio?

I just don't see this company doing well with the price wars that are
being waged right now. Deservedly so? Maybe. That's up for debate.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to be the most expensive company
in astronomy right now....

"Consider sports cars. Why buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini (or McLaren
F1) when you can get a Corvette for half the price? The Ferrari
doesn't go twice as fast. But it does go faster, and if you want
that extra speed you have to pay for it."

aside: I happen to own an Ferrari F355

You example is inaccurate. A C5 Z06 or C6 corvette is simply faster
than a F355 or 360 Ferrari when you look at 0-60, standing 1/4 mile,
and standing 1 mile, 0-100-0 time. At the top end a C5 will do 175
(power limited) a Z06 172 (RPM limited) and the C6 is reported to go
into the mid 180s. A F355 goes 183 a 360 goes 187. In addition, it is
fairly easy to make a LS1/LS6 into a 600 HP monster motor (its only
money standing in the way), while it is reletively impossible to do the
same for the Ferrari motors.

On the other hand, all this may change with the C6 and Ferrari 430.

So in almost any performance metric, the corvette will win.

On the non-performance side, the Ferrari simply is lusted after with
greater intensity than the Vette(s).

OK, I was wrong to use Ferrari (and probably Lambo) against a
'Vette. But if it's a 10-lap race around Monza between a 'Vette
and the McLaren F1 street-legal car (US$500 thousand-plus, last
time I looked at the price), I know which I will lay my money on.

Despite the flaw in my specific examples, I claim that the law
of diminishing returns applies in most fields--at some point,
incremental performance comes only at a disproportionate real
cost (i.e., materials, engineering effort, and manufacturing
effort).

-Paul W.

On 4 Jan 2005 12:18:06 -0800, wrote:

"Consider sports cars. Why buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini (or McLaren
F1) when you can get a Corvette for half the price? The Ferrari
doesn't go twice as fast. But it does go faster, and if you want
that extra speed you have to pay for it."

aside: I happen to own an Ferrari F355

You example is inaccurate. A C5 Z06 or C6 corvette is simply faster
than a F355 or 360 Ferrari when you look at 0-60, standing 1/4 mile,
and standing 1 mile, 0-100-0 time. At the top end a C5 will do 175
(power limited) a Z06 172 (RPM limited) and the C6 is reported to go
into the mid 180s. A F355 goes 183 a 360 goes 187. In addition, it is
fairly easy to make a LS1/LS6 into a 600 HP monster motor (its only
money standing in the way), while it is reletively impossible to do the
same for the Ferrari motors.

On the other hand, all this may change with the C6 and Ferrari 430.

So in almost any performance metric, the corvette will win.

On the non-performance side, the Ferrari simply is lusted after with
greater intensity than the Vette(s).

Only recently did TeleVue begin to appeal to the mass market (sort of).
Its always been a niche market provider. It will continue as that and
can. I would expect it may even raise some of its prices on its better
niche market, items it count on for revenue, as well as its new line of
ep's in development. The market built TV and will sustain it.

There are only two scenarios which could see TV failing: one if the
Old Man leaves and takes the company with him, or two, if he
sells the company and new management ruins the company by playing
games and a new marketing strategy trying to appeal to a mass market.
Under that scenario TV could fail, quickly.

Yukov






wrote:

Hello all,

After spending a couple years out of the hobby and now getting back
into it, I'm amazed at the quality you can now purchase and the low,
low, low prices associated with these products. Apos and eyepieces in
particular.

This used to be TeleVue's bread and butter, and boy did they know it
with the prices they charge! But now that we, as consumers, have
options where we get 98% of the ultra high quality performance for 50%
of the cost, what does it mean to the company that has been holding us
over the coals for the past 20 years, wringing every red cent out of us
for a high quality eyepiece? Could this competition be the beginning
of the end for them?? Or will there always be status-seekers in this
hobby that decide on purchases based on the name printed on the
eyepiece, as opposed to the quality/price ratio?

I just don't see this company doing well with the price wars that are
being waged right now. Deservedly so? Maybe. That's up for debate.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to be the most expensive company
in astronomy right now....

Myullah wrote:
Only recently did TeleVue begin to appeal to the mass market (sort
of).
Its always been a niche market provider.

Hogwash. The TeleVue Plossls and Barlows appealed to the mass market
for a long time and still do.


.. The market built TV and will sustain it.



It works both ways. TV also built the market. If their products
didn't deliver, they would have been history by now.

Clyde

On 4 Jan 2005 06:14:36 -0800, wrote:

Hogwash. The TeleVue Plossls and Barlows appealed to the mass market
for a long time and still do.

Depends on what you consider the mass market. What are TV's sales
figures for Plossls and Barlows, compared to, say, Meade or Orion?

It works both ways. TV also built the market. If their products
didn't deliver, they would have been history by now.

Agreed. TV has delivered noticeably better quality, at a higher
price that is sufficiently painless that a good number of people
(myself included) are willing to pay it.

It's called "charge what the market will bear" (but no more).

-Paul W.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 07:20:13 GMT, Paul Winalski
wrote:

On 4 Jan 2005 06:14:36 -0800, wrote:

Hogwash. The TeleVue Plossls and Barlows appealed to the mass market
for a long time and still do.

Depends on what you consider the mass market. What are TV's sales
figures for Plossls and Barlows, compared to, say, Meade or Orion?

It works both ways. TV also built the market. If their products
didn't deliver, they would have been history by now.

Agreed. TV has delivered noticeably better quality, at a higher
price that is sufficiently painless that a good number of people
(myself included) are willing to pay it.

It's called "charge what the market will bear" (but no more).

-Paul W.

The question is what will the market bear when an alternative (Meade)
comes in at much lower prices?
-Rich

Well, I can't speak to the APO issue, but my 32mm Plossl is a great
eyepiece. I also have a 7mm nagler.

Both eyepieces are terrific. Yes, they are expensive. I haven't shopped
much for new eyepieces lately. I don't think I could afford a new Teleview
now.

One thing about them though, if you buy one, you pretty much know you are
getting a good one. It sucks to buy something and find out it is sub-par.
You can buy a lot of$30 plossls these days - you can probably get two from
the same place, and one will be better than the other.

Now, on the other hand, I have an old 13mm Edmund RKE that rocks. (12mm?)

I am sure there are plenty of good optics out there. But I don't think TV
is going to go under anytime soon.

-Banjo



wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello all,

After spending a couple years out of the hobby and now getting back
into it, I'm amazed at the quality you can now purchase and the low,
low, low prices associated with these products. Apos and eyepieces in
particular.

This used to be TeleVue's bread and butter, and boy did they know it
with the prices they charge! But now that we, as consumers, have
options where we get 98% of the ultra high quality performance for 50%
of the cost, what does it mean to the company that has been holding us
over the coals for the past 20 years, wringing every red cent out of us
for a high quality eyepiece? Could this competition be the beginning
of the end for them?? Or will there always be status-seekers in this
hobby that decide on purchases based on the name printed on the
eyepiece, as opposed to the quality/price ratio?

I just don't see this company doing well with the price wars that are
being waged right now. Deservedly so? Maybe. That's up for debate.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to be the most expensive company
in astronomy right now....

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:57:21 GMT, "Banjo"
wrote:

Well, I can't speak to the APO issue, but my 32mm Plossl is a great
eyepiece. I also have a 7mm nagler.

Both eyepieces are terrific. Yes, they are expensive. I haven't shopped
much for new eyepieces lately. I don't think I could afford a new Teleview
now.

The Plossls are very good, IMO, they don't compare to one of the
Masuyama designs (Tak LE) but they are very good. The 7mm Nagler is a
milestone eyepiece, a real work of art. That member of the Series
1 family had a short enough f.l. so it didn't have the kidneybean
of the higher f.l.s.
-Rich