🚀 go-pugleaf

Harry Lavo wrote:
> <calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1121122018.926694.172900@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

(snip)

> > In all consumer products-and many capital ones too-there is a quality
> > curve. The best are made at some point where they have the tech pretty
> > well down but the pressure to cut costs hasn't set in and there is a
> > desire not to monkey with the good thing. Once cost cutting sets in,
> > quality goes out the door because given the time value of money people
> > perceive that the cheaper one is "good enough" and the delta in price
> > can be reinvested to replace it: also, the buyer doesn't understand the
> > difference between the new one and the old one and so the new shiny
> > warranted one looks pretty good.

You make a lot of good points. I'll add that in the case of a CD
player, there's less demand for CD players of any price because so many
people will want a DVD player instead, because the DVD player will play
CDs and also provide DVD functionality. I don't own any freestanding
CD players now and I doubt I'll ever buy another. I could imagine
buying a Pioneer DVD-A/SACD player or something similar, but that's
as close as I'd get.

(snip)

> > A lot of this is perception. When the customer perceives that the old
> > one was better, he gets conservative and less likely to buy, and our
> > economy is set up so you buy, buy, buy.

Ain't that the truth. And part of the problem is that the newer gear
just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, to the point where replacing
hardware is cheaper, faster, and simpler than repairing old gear. I
realize that's a strange thing to complain about.

(snip)

> About two years ago I listed on eBay a video unit that consisted of a top
> quality (circa '82) Panasonic portable video camera, along with a two piece
> portable video recorder.  Picture quality is superb; low light sensitiviy
> was as good as any Panasonic has ever made.  Build quality was
> excellent...this was top of the line gear that together retailed for close
> to $2500 in 1980.  It didn't have autofocus, but otherwise met and exceeded
> in picture and sound quality any tape I have seen made in the last ten
> years.  I put it on eBay at $20, and with no reserve, in a ten-day auction.
> I described it well (much more detailed than here).  I felt sure some
> aspiring film student or amateur videographer would grab it.  I didn't get a
> single bid.

While I know little about video cameras, the eBay failure is a little
surprising. eBay is often a good place to buy and sell obscure gear
that's appreciated by the few who know what it is and understand it.
I've seen a number of things on eBay that I assumed that only I and a
few other people would know, appreciate, and want, and these sort of
things often sold for surprisingly (to me) high prices. I've even
seen some hardware that at best, is sort of fun, funky, and odd and
never was particularly good in its day, go for higher prices than I
expected. (Although I suspect the auction format may have something to
do with that.)

> But I won't "throw it".  I simply can't bring myself to destroy perfectly
> good, superbly built gear.

I'm surprised that eBay didn't lead to finding a buyer. Maybe this
is something that nobody wants anymore? You could try posting in
relevant newsgroups and forums thbat are read by the sort of buyers you
seek with a link to your eBay ad. That can be an effective way to reach
your sort of buyers. Or you could place a small ad in a magazine.

I can see how you'd want to hang onto the camera, but when I have
hardware and no takers, I'll give it to a charity store and get a
small tax deduction too. At least the hardware isn't cluttering up my
closet and stands a chance of finding someone who can use it. But
that's your choice, not mine. If I'd kept every piece of cool, but
unused hardware I've owned and enjoyed, I wouldn't have any room
left at home!