At 6:07 PM +0000 2/3/02, olympus-digest wrote:
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:49:43 +0000
From: dolphans1@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [OM] Irony of discontinuing of the OM series
Well Allan, I guess thatís where we'll agree to disagree
on. I feel a corporation does owe its "loyal" customers
an obligation to support its product.
Do you not feel that if you purchase a product, you
should be able to service it within a "life time"? ( I
know, what is considered a lifetime?)
I must say that I don't feel that Olympus has abandoned me. They
supported the OM line for thirty years. How many manufacturers (of
anything, not just cameras) can even come close to that kind of a
record? One can count them on the fingers; toes not likely required.
I do not agree with the "policy" of dumping good camera
parts into a landfill as being one of them, if this is
even true. If so, this "policy" prematurely exasperates
or accelerates the OM's series demise.
I recall John Hermanson saying in a past posting something like the
US Tax Code forced Olympus to do this, even as John hopefully
hovered around the dumpster. One can only hope that this time, John
will be allowed to loot that dumpster.
In my opinion, the OM series is a classic camera line.
Why let it die? To become a collectable or to be forced
to switch to digital?
Because the remaining OM community isn't large enough to support the
product line anymore. Companies don't generally just up and kill
profitable product lines. Money talks.
Olympus could out-source or licenses out its classic
line parts, to another corporation who may be interested
in supporting it.
If Olympus couldn't make any money on it any more, why would some
other corporation do any better? Or even be tempted to try? The
Zukiholoic community isn't getting any larger.
Just for curiosity, how many Zuikoholics are there in the world?
Can we estimate this?
And, what is their average age? (I'm 55.)
I guess in the end, "we" as consumers, do have some sort
of recourse, we can always walk away from those products
and go elsewhere. Perhaps "brand loyalty" is no loner
important in today's corporate culture.
I think that thirty years is extraordinary support, especially these
days. What other 35mm camera manufacturer would you suggest as the
newfound alternative?
Olympus could sell their residual parts supply for a song, and get
most of the tax benefit, I suspect, because they are now getting out
of the OM business forever, a one time event.
Joe Gwinn
I would agree to a certain extent if the OM system were some sort of
poorly functioning relic of the past. In its current form it is just
as viable as the new FM3a and the relatively new Aria. The manual
Nikon system is older than the OM system if I am not mistaken and
they brought out a very nice manual, pancake 45mm lens for the FM3a.
Olympus has just chosen not to market their system. There has not
been a system ad for what 10, 15 years? Or an SLR ad for the same
length of time. All their ad money went for consumer fixed lens
cameras. No little upgrades to justify a change in nomenclature such
as OM4nTi which would get reviews which would put it back in the view
of camera buying customers. At some point a long time ago someone
at Olympus decided they were no longer in the pro camera business and
not to spend another dime on OM system and to milk its prestige in
ads for its consumer cameras. I am sure that they will use the new
camera for the same purpose and it may be more relevent to customers
being sold a digital point and shoot. Make no mistake, the OM has
been dumped, but it was done a while ago.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|