RE: [Leica] Leicavit, After Market Products, etc.

["Kit McChesney | acmefoto" <kitmc@acmefoto.com>]

John--

Please, don't apologize. You didn't do anything wrong! ;-)

That said, Isn't that what I've been saying? That they are DIFFERENT? Yes, I
believe that I said that. The argument, which has become quite
argumentative, unfortunately, is that they are very different products, but
people are wondering why the cost is different. At the same time, I think it
isn't totally unfair to say that Tom's product is a development of a product
that already existed, and one that he improved upon in the process of
developing his model. That doesn't mean that what he's got isn't great,
because it is!

Folks were saying, "How come this thing is more expensive when they're the
same thing?" I said that no, they are not the same. And they are not the
same. I have no idea at this point, and neither does anyone else, if the new
Leicavit-M is better than Tom's winder, or if Tom's is a better winder. But
in reality, though they both wind, one is a winder made by one company,
another winder made by another. And I also said, "May the best product win."
I suspect both will win, in different markets, and among different kinds of
customers. We will see, won't we? Yes, we will. ;-)

As far as profit margins go, how do you know that Tom's margin is lower than
Leica's? There is no justification for making that judgment, once again,
since we are comparing apples and oranges. Tom's may cost less, but how do
you know that he isn't making a higher profit percentage than Leica is
making on theirs? That's a good question to ask. I'm not going to answer it,
but it is a good question to ask, nevertheless. At least something to figure
in, while you're figuring.

Kit

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of John
Collier
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:19 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leicavit, After Market Products, etc.


Sorry Kit,

Tom's product is completely different internally from the original
Leicavit and much better too for that matter. The new Leicavit follows
Tom's line of thought and also has no connection to the original. Let's
face it, the price must mostly come down to Leica having a much higher
profit margin. The only debt Tom owes to the original design is that if
there was no original Leicavit or Winder-M, there would be no body
coupling.

John Collier

On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 12:09 PM, Kit McChesney | acmefoto wrote:

> With MORE all due respect to everyone, including Tom, there is one
> factor
> that we haven't actually factored into this equation: Tom's products
> would
> not exist in their current configuration (if at all) had Leica not
> invested
> in R&D in the original Leicavit product when it was first introduced.
> That
> fact may or may not be relevant now, but it is true that it would be
> much
> easier for one to take apart an existing product and remanufacture or
> improve upon the original design, than to make a totally new design,
> completely from scratch. There is engineering and design time and
> investment
> in the original product that is absent from the manufacture of the
> redesigned product made by an after-market concern. Not only that, but
> there
> is a tremendous investment in the total product line, with hundreds of
> items
> from lenses to cameras to parts ad infinitum, that is absent from the
> small
> after-market operation. Every Leica product that is currently
> manufactured
> is part of a manufacturing matrix, a web of products that are
> interconnected
> in thousands of different ways, both in design and in overall cost to
> create. Don't forget all that.

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html