Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/03/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]John-- What you are quoting proves my point, which is this: The Rapidwinder, Tom's product, would never have existed had his own Leicavit winders not failed to function, and Leica had not stopped producing them, and by logical (if not practical) extension, had Leica not made the Leicavit winder in the first place. Tom says as much about the winder himself, on his own Web site, that he decided to make a new winder because his old ones no longer worked, were impossible to repair, did not fit his M4-Ps and M6's, and since Leica no longer made them, whatever remained on the market had become "prized collectibles." This is what I meant, and what I said, in the post you are quoting, not exactly out of context, but with your own "spin" on it. It is inconceivable that Tom did not take elements and ideas from the original in creating his own invention vis-a-vis the original's design, even if only to build upon and improve on what wasn't working or what had failed in order to improve upon upon it. And yes, I do believe that Tom probably benefited from Leica's original design (and therefore their investment in the original product) in creating his own. I used the example of an MP "knockoff" to illustrate the point. Production always goes faster when you have a template. And even if Tom substantially changed the template upon which he based his winder, which we know he did in large part, I'm sure he gleaned a great deal of design and engineering information in the process by doing so. That process is valuable. For anyone who has ever designed anything, you must know that design is an iterative process. One after another after another after another, and you refine as you go. Only a simpleton would argue that Tom's design was created in a vacuum, was not influenced by anyone else's work, or did not represent an iteration, albeit an improved one, upon the original. I only brought this up in the context of the original topic of discussion, which was not how Tom designed the winder, but why the differences in cost between the two products. I'm fully aware that Leica's costs are higher. That's a no-brainer. Of course it costs more to run a corporation rather than a small shop. And bottom-line, short answer, simple answer, that's probably why they cost more. But there is more "why" to the "why" than just "Leica's bigger" and "Tom's smaller." There are more costs involved in the operation of a company that has hundreds of interchangeable products in its line, and all the R&D and production costs associated with that, that are all built-in to the price of the Leicavit, than there are in the R&D and production costs for one winder product made by a small concern in a corner of a totally different country. In that regard, my remark is taken "somewhat" out of context. I am not trying to put down or diminish the value of Tom's products. If you would kindly read what I have written in its entirety, instead of pulling out parts to buttress your own preconceived idea about why I wrote what I did, you would probably understand the intent of my remarks. They were posted in large part to counter what I thought were others' overly simplistic view of what it takes to design a product and bring to market. If you don't agree with my view, you can certainly disagree. But don't try to slice and dice what I've said in order to attempt to make it look as though I said something I did not say. 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 2:35 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Leicavit, After Market Products, etc. Your original statement --quoted below-- says that Tom A. was only able to make a cheaper and better RW because of Leica's initial R&D. I think that is not true and I think you also believe that now if I am reading you next statement correctly. John Collier On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 02:01 PM, Kit McChesney | acmefoto wrote: > I did not say "remanufactured Leicavit." I said "redesigned product." > There > is quite a difference between those two concepts. Let it be known that > I did > not say that Tom's winder was a knockoff of the Leicavit. It is a > product > redesigned on the model of the original Leicavit to perform the > function of > the discontinued original Leicavit, a design that eventually improved > upon > and outshone the original Leicavit. >> Earlier you said: >> >> 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... - -- 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