|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Mar 1, 2:32*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 24, 5:01*am, wrote: On Feb 24, 1:07*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Feb 23, 5:24*am, wrote: On Feb 21, 3:29*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Feb 19, 5:55*am, wrote: On Feb 19, 4:46*am, Martin Brown wrote: On 19/02/2011 07:48, Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Feb 18, 7:59 am, *wrote: On 03/02/2011 08:54, Too_Many_Tools wrote: I had one mother discuss her experiences on CN where she sought advice as to which scope to buy for her son...what a train wreck.. The advice of serveral CNers was to spend several thousand dollars on a scope...anything else was deemed inferior. That's easy: A Skywatcher 150P. I've read your other replies, so don't bother saying I have not given a 100% correct reply when I indeed have. -- Rob- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Got a link to a US vendor and price? You could always set up shop and import them from directly from China if you really believe there is a huge untapped market available. I think you will lose your shirt if you do. I will grant you that there isn't that much in the under $200 category that is worth buying new in the USA but there is some. HandsonOptics conveniently allow a search on price range - some are OTAs only. http://handsonoptics.com/index.php?m...earch_result&k... There are a couple of get what you pay for scopes there under $200. Almost every product in the world is "[you] get what you pay for." Here is a $100 scope with excellent reviews: http://www.telescope.com/control/tel...elescopes/orio... It is an upgraded version of one of my first scopes. *It has better eyepieces and focuser than mine did, yet costs about half as much after adjusting for inflation. Now the Skywatcher might be a good deal at $400, the question arises, would one be better off with a larger, cheaper 8-inch Dob, or even better off by saving up an additional $150 or so and buying an 10-inch Dob instead?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In this discussion, you have $200 to spend...not any more. This reminds me of how Bush turned a $100 billion surplus that he got from Clinton into a 1.3 trillion deficit that he gave to Obama along with a crashed economy. Obama spent $700 billion on "stimulus" that intelligent people (ie, conservatives) knew would fail. He even wasted several $billion on the Cars-for-Clunkers fiasco. Obama wants to spend $53 billion on a rail system that few people will use or be able to use. If you have $200 to spend, you don't buy $400 scopes. Obviously not, only the government can spend more than it steals, er, takes in. *However, the $200 number you gave was an AVERAGE. *Have someone (an eight-year-old perhaps) explain that concept to you.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - LOL...have an eight year old explain to you how every dollar Obama has spent has kept this Country in a *a deeper recession that Obama wishes upon us. I was just reading several discussions where conservatives (probably not conservatives) *are whining about higher taxes...because the Obama money the local governments were using is running out. Of course they don't want to cut any services. If tax rates and revenues decrease, only then can we talk about cutting services.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It was conservatives. They still haven't paid the bills they ran up under George "I'm on vacation" Bush. It would be great if Zerobama and the Dems would go on vacation for the next 22 months, and let the Republicans try to salvage something out of the mess that the Dems have created. |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Mar 1, 2:34*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 24, 5:29*am, wrote: On Feb 24, 12:53*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Feb 22, 12:33*am, (Brian Tung) wrote: Too_Many_Tools wrote: It is because other manufacturers CAN do it that tells us that astronomy manufacturers SHOULD do it. In a completely different kind of manufacture? *Not compelling. I've not made a telescope myself, but a couple of good friends have.. It is an enormously time-consuming process. *Automated processes can only get you so far. I'm willing to be convinced that somewhere there's gouging, but I won't be convinced by arguments from electronics manufacture. *Chipsets are basically die cut. *You can't do that with optical components because the tolerance ratios are ridiculous. *A chip may have tolerances on the nanometer level, but those tolerances are local only; that is to say, one does not have to make sure that two components a centimeter apart are calibrated to one another. *An optical surface has to be accurate to a quarter-wave on a surface that is perhaps a million times wider than that; the *whole* thing has to be like that. You started this thread, but I think you only want comments that are sympathetic to your point of view. -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/ *Unofficial C5+ Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/ *My PleiadAtlas Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/ *My Own Personal FAQ athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html A good discussion has arguments and proofs for the many facets of the subject. My opinions are not the only ones that count. I do understand your argument concerning electronics and I would agree to a point...it is that "magic" that has allowed GOTO mounts to occur and the revolution in imaging. The evolution of cheaper H-alpha filters and other specialized filters for night time viewing is another example. I also agree with the relative precision concerning optics..but much of that now is automated with the final figuring perhaps done by hand...statistical sampling can and does go far with providing us with good optics. When one considers the significant price reduction that has occurred once the Chinese began producing telescopes tells us that there was a significant protected profit margin...and a significant portion still remains. If you really believe that, then start a company that builds telescopes that sell for a price that you think is fair and that gives you profits that you think are fair. A recurring example in this hobby is where a manufacturer will closeout a product by cutting it to less than half price...and the vendors still make a profit selling it. A recent example is where Meade has closed out its SolarMax offerings at 50%...and a number of vendors have complained that Meade did not allow them to sell that closeout product. Obviously there was profits made even at the firesale prices. They were probably selling off the remaining inventory, in order to concentrate on more profitable products.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And showed us the real profit margin the product has...you know that "razor thin" margin that vendors always claim they are just living on...while driving their Lexus and BMW. By way of example, if they were making just a $50 profit on a $1000 item, and sold 9,900 of them at full price, they would take in a $495,000 profit. If they slashed the price in half on the last 100 units of a total production run of 10,000 they would only lose $45,000. In some cases that might be a good business decision since the quick sale of the last 100 units would bring in $50,000 cash that could be used to launch a new product. |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Mar 1, 2:25*am, Martin Brown
wrote: On 01/03/2011 07:34, Too_Many_Tools wrote: On Feb 24, 5:29 am, wrote: On Feb 24, 12:53 am, *wrote: On Feb 22, 12:33 am, (Brian Tung) wrote: A recurring example in this hobby is where a manufacturer will closeout a product by cutting it to less than half price...and the vendors still make a profit selling it. A recent example is where Meade has closed out its SolarMax offerings at 50%...and a number of vendors have complained that Meade did not allow them to sell that closeout product. Obviously there was profits made even at the firesale prices. SolarMax is something of a special case since precision interferometric filters are hard to make and very high value. Any alternative way of making them like the traditional quartz/calcite sandwich method requires high precision and exquisite oven temperature control of the stack to get anything like a decent view. I can believe that SolarMax is priced at what the market will stand rather than cost plus X%. There is no cheaper alternative available. If you think you can do better give it a try - you will lose more than your shirt on this one! It is classic Hitech business practice to skim the cream of early adopters first and recoup the R&D costs more quickly before dropping prices and sometimes quality for the mass market. In as much as there is a mass market for solar prominence filters. But only a complete moron would price a virtually unique specialist product at cost + X%. TMT is demonstrably one of them. They were probably selling off the remaining inventory, in order to concentrate on more profitable products.- Hide quoted text - I guess they want to concentrate on selling complete systems. And showed us the real profit margin the product has...you know that "razor thin" margin that vendors always claim they are just living on...while driving their Lexus and BMW. Why should the dealers and manufacturers have to suffer living on the breadline and driving a rust bucket? Companies have a duty to shareholders to maximise their profits and someone has to pay for the equipment and R&D that creates these products. Regards, Martin Brown LOL..so you are saying that Meade is still making a pile of money...even after cutting the prices by 50%. That would seem to support my argument....the complete moron's argument. :) So are you saying that the profit margin is what ...60, 70, 80, 90%? FWIW..it is common for astro products to be cut by 50% for closeout...I own a number of them...and the vendors still made a significant profit when they sold them. TMT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids | [email protected] | SETI | 3 | April 20th 08 06:04 PM |
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids | [email protected] | Policy | 7 | March 13th 08 08:01 PM |
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids | [email protected] | History | 2 | March 7th 08 03:41 AM |
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids | [email protected] | FITS | 0 | March 6th 08 08:01 PM |
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids | [email protected] | CCD Imaging | 0 | March 6th 08 07:25 PM |