From: dube@cpdvax.CSc.ti.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Boycott Icom (fwd)
Date: 16 Apr 1992 13:38:37 -0700
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu


>Dube/AB5AP writes:
>
>> If you want new, state-of-the-art technology, then you have to pay the price
>> that goes with the fact that as technology advances, the "old" gets left
>> behind bacause there's not enough time, space or money to take care of both
>
>Well, if we're talking state-of-the-art, then lets not worry about ICOM
>735's, 725's, 751's.  They were/are neat radios, but not anything to base
>a cutting-edge technology talk on.  About all we can do is discuss the ICOM
>781 (and I still don't think that's state-of-the-art technology, just
>state-of-the-art consumer affairs).  But does your concept apply there?
>$5,000 for 10 years.  Should I expect to throw this radio away in the year
>2001 because I can't get a replacement CPU chip?  Or do I have to buy two
>radios to be sure I can keep one going?  Can't buy it (the radio OR the
>"throwaway" concept).
>
>steve - W3GRG
>mosier@uncg.bitnet
>mosier@steffi.uncg.edu
 
The concept especially applies.  State-of-the-art advances very often obsolete
everything prior.  Cost doesn't affect that.  If one chooses to pay 
big bucks for the latest gizmo, in the midst of a technology explosion, then
one must reasonably expect that next week, month or year it will have been
left in the dust, and therefore perhaps of little value.  That's what I meant
when I said it's the price we pay.  I have a TS-820.  It doesn't have all the
new-fangled computer-controlled stuff, dozens of memories, etc.  It just does
a good job of transmitting and receiving.  I don't need pre-programmed freqs,
nor do I mind the occasional final tuning when I change freqs.  But that's 
my choice to forego all the expensive frills and still get the thrills.

For many products, the effect of technology advances has been to drive
prices down; to the point where an equivalent product today costs one
twentieth of what it did 15 or 20 years ago.  There are no parts available
for the early products, because today's entire product costs less to build 
than some replacement parts would.

For an expensive piece of equipment, though, given that the owner would rather
pay, say, 20 percent of it's replacement cost to get it repaired, it looks 
like a good opportunity for someone to make some bucks doing "aftermarket"
CPUs, etc.  Could you make a living at it?  Depends on what the failure
rates are.  I have a feeling that for, say, one failure out of a thousand,
it wouldn't pay for either the manufacturer or the aftermarket vendor to try
to service the stuff.  "You pays yo money and you takes yo chances", I've 
heard said; and I guess it still applies.

It reminds me of my Sony TV.  The picture tube failed.  If I replace it
myself, it'll cost about $350 just for the tube.  Am I gonna do it?  No,
even though it originally cost $1200, the 10-year-old set isn't worth it;
especially when I can get a comparable one new for $350.  At my age
(geezer zone) I never thought I'd consider such an item a "throw-away", 
yet there it was, in black and white (and magenta :-) ).  I lay it to the
fact that technology advances and market pressures pushed the price down.

73,
Dube     AB5AP        <dube@cpdvax.csc.ti.com>

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc