>William Sommerwerck wrote
>The issue is Olympus's careless abuse of language. When >they said they
would continue to provide service for ten >years, they were referring only
to products that are >officially in production at the time the OM system is
>discontinued.
There have been no main products officially or unofficially in production
for some time now. Olympus' 10 year statement applies to the very explicit
list of products still officially on sale from official distributors at the
time of the announcement (i.e. excluding shopkeepers stockholding of
discontinued products). What I have read from Olympus is in pure, un -
abused, English. I'm afraid I can't comment on what they may have said in
Japanese.
>This policy is particularly obnoxious
Why? There is nothing either unreasonable or unusual in this policy.
>because A: Olympus makes most of the components used in their bodies and
lenses,
Do they? I Wonder how you know what Olympus' subcontract arrangements are?
>so there is no excuse (other than money!)
Other than money there was no excuse for developing the damn system in the
first place.
>for not setting aside an adequate supply of service parts
Olympus have guaranteed an adequate supply of service parts for 10 years. If
this turns out not to be true, then they may need some excuse. If not, an
excuse for what?
>andB: serious photographers (or collectors!) accumulate >lenses and other
accessories over a period of years, >often at great expense, and quite
reasonably expect these >products to remain usable for decades.
Which is exactly the case in any walk of life. The world is full of obsolete
products which are used until they break. Why should the OM system be
different just because you happen to like it? I like it too, and will be
very sad when (and it will happen) the last of my user cameras breaks and I
can't find a replacement or get a repair. The market will then decide
whether I star using a "collector" camera, or buy something else.
>There are plenty of people using screw-thread Leicas >and Rolleiflexes and
Speed Graphics,
Really? I never realised that these manufacturers had shifted such volumes.
Makes you wonder why people bother to collect any of it if it's so common.
>and no intelligent person would ever suggest they toss >out "that old junk"
and get something New! New! New!
Leica do this all the time. Who, precisely, do you believe is intended to
buy M7s & R8s? The flood of digital P&S customers, maybe?
>A good camera is a good camera, and the only thing that >can render it
obsolete is not being able to get film. (You >can even have pack-film backs
put on Polaroid roll-film
>cameras.)
True, but that doesn't mean that every single example ever produced should
be fully functional up to the end of film production. It's like suggesting
that Ford should provide factory parts for Model Ts right up until the last
drop of oil gets burned.
>I might add a C: The OM cameras were a conscious >effort to create an SLR
Leica.
No point in confusing a mix up over naming with business reality then. I
think you will find that Leica make SLR Leicas, not Olympus.
.You'd think Olympus would have adopted Leica's policy (at that time)
So if it is no longer Leica's policy, why in the name of God should it be
Olympus'?
>of servicing almost everything they ever made
Most of which (historically) is low tech, and very easy to hand - make small
production runs of parts for.
Julian
< 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 >
|