chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Keeping the body size down is one aspect but probably secondary to the
> reliability engineer's direction to use soldered connections whenever
> possible and practical. Cables and internal plug-in sockets don't cut the
> mustard from a reliability standpoint. It will be cheaper to replace the
> fewer complete assemblies that fail than the greater number of
> sub-assembly/component failures that would occur. No need to look for
> nefarious intent.
>
And while you are at it, add cost to size and reliability as reasons for
the soldered on card slot. Put in cables, plugs and sockets and you cost
shoots up. You may not think that one item will make or break a camera,
but it's a high volume, low margin business in the mass market DSLRs and
in digicams. A handful of those kind of design decisions may make the
difference between acceptable profit and a camera model as economic failure.
From another perspective, I'd bet that virtually all card slot failures
are, like this one, operator error. Why bend over backward to design for
those who will just go ahead and jam in something that doesn't fit?
As to the repair business, I can sympathize with people like John H. But
I can also see how and why an optimal repair strategy would lead to the
situation he describes. Local repair by knowledgeable technicians in
places like Europe and No. America will be quite expensive. My bet is
that the process for all DCs but higher end DSLRs involves at most local
sub-assembly replacement by workers with limited training. For the
cheaper models, I'd bet they simply replace the damaged camera with a
new or refurb unit.
The subassemblies and defective units then go to a repair center in a
low cost country. There, I would guess that no repairs are started on
any particular type of item until original stock off the assembly line
earmarked for replacement use is about to be exhausted. Once repair of
any given model is no longer planned, any unrepaired return items are
simply destroyed. Not long thereafter, the repaired items that haven't
already gone out to local repair facilities would follow them.
Inexpensive model, slow sales and the replacement already on the
horizon? Just give 'em new cameras free for warranty or at the normal
repair price for others; don't spend a nickel on repairs. Of course, you
cost that against the net return from clearance house sales. But
remember, those sales will take away some sales of the replacement
models, so the net is a complex thing to calculate. Whereas giving out a
new, but now low value, camera for a warranty repair builds brand
loyalty. It's a complicated business.
Were I operating such a strategy, I wouldn't even have repair manuals in
any language other than that of the country where repairs, rather than
sub-assembly replacement, are done. Nobody else needs them, so why go to
the expense? Even those manuals would be very short on detail that is
obvious to those who work on similar items all the time. If you repair
Canon A series main boards, or lens assemblies, all you need is info on
what has changed on any new model.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|