Deferred "Planned Ob$olescence" disguised as an "Obsolescence Obsolete" ?

[James Falco]

Crapy samurais are always upset when the blacksmith who crafted there expensive sharp steel drops the price on it.
Because once the majority of skilled poor samurais are able to afford a good blade, it will out them as being just collectors of expensive iron and not masters of the sword.

Reality is that a good samurai will do a killing no matter if his blade is RED or not.
Where the other will just carrie it for show on weddings to justify there wage.

The once that truly suffer are the armories that rent out blades. As they clean the blood, its value fades.

Now the moral of the story, is NO BLADES, NO GLORY.

///

 

[Marc Wielage]

I understand RED needs to evolve and try to stay ahead of the curve & its business not personal BUT in a parallel manner... aren't they going against their own "Obsolescence Obsolete" slogan in a way by devaluing their own product?

I try not to take sides in this, but one can make an argument that technological obsolescence is not the same thing as financial obsolescence.

Whether you paid $40,000 for an Epic or $19,000 for an Epic, chances are, you'll get your money's worth out of the camera over time. In truth, most DP/camera owners I know have far more invested in lenses and accessories than the camera itself.

I sympathize with camera owners and rental houses who now have to work against people who only have to spend half as much as they did as the initial investment. But as Jannard said elsewhere, he's not playing the usual game played by computer and pro video people, which is to wait X months or years and then come out with a new model number that has a new price (when it's really just the old model in a new box with a new name). Apple has done this a dozen times in 25 years and never offered a rebate or a promotional refund. Good or bad, it's the price of progress.