Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Your thoughts?
TMT |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Your question didn't provoke any thoughts at all in me. I just can't
imagine why you'd think that these two receivers are at all comparable...and that's saying something, seeing as how I just got back from a Sat 800 reeducation camp in Upstate New York. Darn it, now I have to call in and report myself again. The beds in those places are really uncomfortable, too...and the screaming from various cells really starts to get to me after awhile. Steve |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Don't let the bed bugs bite.
cuhulin |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Too_Many_Tools wrote: Your thoughts? TMT That's akin to suggesting the VW bug killed off the Porsche 911 Targa or otherwise. No comparision between the two. David(N) |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I would think there is....
One is still selling...the other is discontinued. One made money for the company...the other did not. One is the sign of the future...the other is the echo of the past. There is likely to be a Grundig 900...there is no chance there will be a R9. Did the Grundig 800 kill off the Drake R8? Maybe or maybe not...but the buying patterns of SWLers definitely did. TMT |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 26 Apr 2005 09:28:51 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote: I would think there is.... One is still selling...the other is discontinued. One made money for the company...the other did not. One is the sign of the future...the other is the echo of the past. There is likely to be a Grundig 900...there is no chance there will be a R9. Did the Grundig 800 kill off the Drake R8? Maybe or maybe not...but the buying patterns of SWLers definitely did. TMT The era of the HF program listener is rapidly waning. Any demand for the Drake synchronous detector is easily satisfied by the Eton/Grundigs. This, in my case, is almost 100% MWDX program listening after dark. As far as UTE monitoring goes, the sync detector is useless. For me, the R-75 works just as well for listening to airplanes, and it costs about a third of what an R8B costs. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Too_Many_Tools wrote: I would think there is.... One is still selling...the other is discontinued. One made money for the company...the other did not. One is the sign of the future...the other is the echo of the past. There is likely to be a Grundig 900...there is no chance there will be a R9. Did the Grundig 800 kill off the Drake R8? Maybe or maybe not...but the buying patterns of SWLers definitely did. TMT With that logic enjoy your Sat800. Have fun looking at the respective spec sheets on the two. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Too_Many_Tools wrote: I would think there is.... One is still selling...the other is discontinued. One made money for the company...the other did not. I think they certainly made money on all the R8 variants. However, had you followed what had happened, apparently due to an apparent discontinuance of certain parts in the R8B which would necessitate a circuit re-design, Drake decided not to do that. Drake is a pretty small firm. But who is to say? Drake left the amateur and swl market in the past, only to return, at least to the swl market. dxAce Michigan USA Drake R7, R8, R8A and R8B http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
A company would not hesitate to do a redesign IF the product was
profitable. Even in a large company, a redesign usually only involves a few people. Doing a redesign is not a big deal and again would have been done if the company thought the product was profitable. Having a key component become unavailable happens all the time and companies will do a last time buy to insure the product can be built for decades to come IF the product is profitable. The death of the Drake R8B is due to economics and not to technical specs. The Grundig 800 also continues to live due to economics and not to technical specs. TMT |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
A company would not hesitate to do a redesign IF the product was profitable. There are several reasons not to do a redesign. 1) There are no resources available to do the redesign. 2) The available resources can do something with a much better return on the investment. 3) Amortizing the cost of the redesign into the future sales would make the redesigned product unprofitable even when the original product was probably profitable. Even in a large company, a redesign usually only involves a few people. That really depends upon how extensive the redesign is and the effort needed to take a new product to market. A redesign may require new certification. Also, only Drake knows how extensive the redesign would have been. Doing a redesign is not a big deal and again would have been done if the company thought the product was profitable. Not knowing the extent of the redesign means that 'not a big deal' most likely does not apply or at least there is no data to support that statement. The underlaying technology is many years old. It might be necessary to refresh much of the design to significantly increase the market life of the product. Having a key component become unavailable happens all the time and companies will do a last time buy to insure the product can be built for decades to come IF the product is profitable. I suspect that more than one component was near the end of its life. Also, carrying material in inventory is very expensive for a company, it ties up money that can be used to get a better return. Very few products have a useful market life of decades, especially when you consider consumer products. Technology based products generally have a very short life due to the speed at which technology changes. The death of the Drake R8B is due to economics and not to technical specs. Most likely true. After all, most companies are in business to make a profit. So economics is a factor. However, without knowing any of the details, and that information is Drake's business, not ours, nobody outside of Drake knows how economics entered into the decision. Technical specs drive the value in the marketplace, leading to sales and profits. The technical specs for the R8B allowed it to be a viable product for many years. Without those specs, the product would probably have been history years ago. The Grundig 800 also continues to live due to economics and not to technical specs. Only partially true. The technical specs are part of what makes the radio successful in the marketplace. It also takes marketing and low cost manufacturing. Many areas enter into the economics. When the economics dictate, the 800 will no longer be available. TMT While those who like the R8B find it unfortunate that Drake is no longer selling the product, we have to also acknowlege that the market for a high end SW receiver is rather small. I think many would like to see some new high end receivers introduced into the market. The success of some of the Chinese manufacturers to bring sub-$100 mediocre radios to the market indicates that there is interest in SW. However, it also indicates that the marketplace isn't willing to spend big dollars for a high end radio. If manufacturers saw a solid, stable demand for high end radios, then you would see more available. Unfortunately, I don't see the demand. Perhaps this means SWLs will need to get back to building their own radios. There are probably enough folks in the group that can make this a reality if we all work together. craigm |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The Eton E1 XM Radio -=V=- Grundig Satellite 800 M [ Plus Some History ] | Shortwave | |||
DRM "MOD" for the Grundig Satellit 800 Millennium Radio . . . {Eton E1 XM Radio} | Shortwave | |||
Remember the Fugs + tomatoes | Shortwave | |||
YB400PE | Shortwave | |||
Grundig Yacht Boy (YB) Radios that are offered World Wide under the Grundig Yacht Boy (YB) Brand Name | Shortwave |