Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Made in the USA...

D Fuller said:
I think this is the most important barrier to economic recovery at work today, and it's a real structural problem. A 20-something or 30-something entrepreneur gets offered so much cash that it's hard to refuse, then the company is controlled by people who don't have the passion for the business that grew it. The VCs are interested in harvesting all the money they can as fast as they can, so they look to a "China strategy" to deliver maximum short-term profit margins. Along the way, two things are lost: the business loses a founder who has passion for the idea, and the founder loses the opportunity to learn how to take a company through scale-up to maturity. And the economy as a whole suffers a lot from this.

No less an entrepreneur than Andy Gove (one of the founders of Intel) spoke to this in this article about a year ago. http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_15537041?source=rss Fascinating (and a little disturbing) reading.
Click to expand...

Dave thanks for posting the link to that article.

I think there were at least 30+ points in there that really resonated with me. Quite humbling in a way. A lot of these things I/we have direct experience of.

The points that were made about scaling up on US soil are very valid. On the one hand yes one can scale up a business from a small set of innovations, but the ability to innovate in a continued and substantial way to get to much more fundamental technological development is very difficult to achieve. [That is one of my personal goals]. The universities can innovate in their own way; but for a lot of what is really needed in the future requires very deep corporate R&D investment that has in mind a longer arc or trajectory. Unfortunately a lot of US (mid sized and even larger) companies get locked into a business model that does not support fundamental R&D. In essence the R&D and innovation becomes much more superficial and therefore we get into a negative spiral of diminished return on every dollar spent on useful R&D, and instead we concentrate on developing the I-phone 9, that has marginally more capability than i-phone 6. I think over the past ten to fifteen years I feel that the rate of fundamental innovation has substantial declined in favor of superficial quick buck tech. In the long run this approach is going to be very damaging I think.


I think the proposed remedial action (in the cited article) is sound; BUT this requires “politicians” and strict enforcement of international business law. Unfortunately I don’t see Judge Dred putting on a suit and tie and do battle on the international stage. I also feel that the “softness” of western attitudes will be taken advantage of. The irony is that the finger is usually pointed at corporate interest as to why the US political system does not serve the interests of the common man. Ironically it seems that US corporate interests are not politically up held on the international stage? [Apart from the ludicrous “oil” wars…which have totally bankrupted the nation but obviously helped a handfull of US corporate giants (talk about the ultimate "hand-job" as Jim might put it)]. Short term “greed” and lack of appropriate representation on the world stage will in the end be our undoing. That coupled with business models that don't or can't support fundamnetal and useful R&D.

Eric
 
Jannard said:
Robots aren't the question... who is running them and where is. Life moves forward at a breakneck pace. Where things are made matters. Every company also needs accounting, legal, support, etc. Businesses put people to work in a number of ways. If everything is made outside the country, it won't be long before brands are built where stuff is made. You can already see brands springing up in China.

Japan began building stuff for American companies (brands)... then quickly started building brands themselves before taking over the world of business as it related to electronics. Companies that manufacture in Asia are inadvertently helping them get started.

We are empowering China to build the future. It doesn't have to be so. If companies don't get back to inventing, engineering and producing in the US, we are likely to become solely a service and distribution country... which is OK if that is all we aspire to be. But it certainly would disappoint me.

Americans have a history of being brave, ingenious and entrepreneurial. We traditionally set big goals (remember the lunar program?). I hope that spirit stays alive.

Jim
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
The problem. I've personally experienced with the VC crowd is not just that they sell out and their tech languishes under some beauocracy somewhere but that they don't see a product or a customer in the interim. Everything is polished to package up and sell. Instead of growing a customer base and forcing the big guys to defensively buy you up or license your tech they just do the bare minimum to attract vc. When you view investors as your customers instead of the people who would buy your product you're bound to focus on all the wrong things.

Our business philosophy has always been "Do good work and people will find you." Too many companies just view their business as accounting gymnastics: cut price of widgets, increase product; they forget to actually create a product people would want. Apple has been proof that people will spend more for a better widget. Going back to courage though I think it takes courage and vision--something most executives don't want to acknowledge since the vision and creativity aren't in most mba programs.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
The problem. I've personally experienced with the VC crowd is not just that they sell out and their tech languishes under some beauocracy somewhere but that they don't see a product or a customer in the interim. Everything is polished to package up and sell. Instead of growing a customer base and forcing the big guys to defensively buy you up or license your tech they just do the bare minimum to attract vc. When you view investors as your customers instead of the people who would buy your product you're bound to focus on all the wrong things.

Our business philosophy has always been "Do good work and people will find you." Too many companies just view their business as accounting gymnastics: cut price of widgets, increase product; they forget to actually create a product people would want. Apple has been proof that people will spend more for a better widget. Going back to courage though I think it takes courage and vision--something most executives don't want to acknowledge since the vision and creativity aren't in most mba programs.
Click to expand...

My father actually worked at NASA from before its earliest days (ABMA) till about the mid 60’s. [To go into the movie business…] (before I was Born). I think it’s very hard for anybody to understand the nervous energy and pressure of working in such an environment during the height of the cold war. Even in the “civilian” space program you really felt that the fate and freedom of the western world was in the balance and rested on your shoulders.

Like the Russians, before and during the second world war they were our allies, and immediately afterwards they quickly became our ideological enemies. Today it seems that former allies in the form of China now seem to become our undoing or our enemy in a trade related “cold war”? I have to admit when Warren Buffet also looks at things in these terms (it is a little worrying to say the least). At what point do we cross a threshold when we finally realize that we are working for the Chinese? I think the politicians would prefer that we are lulled into a false sense of security.


[As far as tech investment I feel like parading outside my local Apple store wearing a sandwich board that says “If you REALLY like tech, forgo your latest I-phone and invest your $500.00 in an American start up!”. [Emphasis being on using US employees, and late stage start ups, with deep technology not a rehash of the .com BS]. Much more exciting I think than a “tossy” new app (I think).

Ta.
 
Eric Lange said:
Well Kris, Australia is a nice place, and I’m glad that you don’t share my “pessimism”. I try to think of it a as realism...?

I think the micro loans program is the closest that we will ever get to buying the world a puppy.

So as I said I had adopted my daughter from Vietnam almost ten years ago, love her to bits (I have a bio son too). Years ago we actually tried to set an Orphanage up out there (mainly focused on children that have birth defects from (still) agent orange from the Vietnamese wars), and have been very active in other countries for similar reasons. Basically you could say that been there done that and bought the “T” shirt (made for $0.0003).


So no matter how “noble” the cause or otherwise as soon as you turn up with a dollar in your pocket there are 50 people all lined up that are on the make at every level to get their cut. In a communist country you still have an oppressive and restrictive regime (that has the ultimate power to stop anything), then you have the corrupt higher level officials, then the corrupt local officials and then you have a whole chain of crooks in between. It’s not that folks in these countries are morally bankrupt; it’s just that there is not a system of law that protects the individual or any other entity regardless of size or nationality.


The (Italian)/venetians in the 1300’s had figured out that a very cohesive and strict code of law would HAVE to be set up if “international” commerce and trade was going to be successful and stable and able to grow and prosper. Fast forward to today and the China of today. I have friends and colleagues that are manufacturing relatively simple items (such as machine tools) over there. These are more than widgets but much less than less than the latest ground breaking tech. For real high tech, China is a nightmare as there is no practical system of law that protects or respects intellectual property of any kind. Basically all of your best R&D efforts are basically stolen (period). I.e. they did not pay to develop such technologies in the first place. This is absolute theft, and there is absolutely no recourse what so ever. To add insult to injury a cheap “knock off” is the likely outcome; this is hard enough to defend on US soil, but absolutely impossible in China itself. This is not good. If they had a system that respected IP things would be VERY different.


What Jim is suggesting I think is that US companies DO have a responsibility to hang onto US assets. The reality is that world economics and business go hand in hand (obviously) and also (obviously) political and national security are also directly affected. Anyone that has studied the history of the 20th century even in the most cursory way will understand the link between economic stability and “world” stability and security. Right now the Chinese are holding onto more dollars than they know what the hell to do with. The US is in greater debt than ever before, and has borrowed to a ridiculous degree from China. China has had its eye on Taiwan for several decades now (actually really Jonesing to grab it). Basically if the borrowing and debt situation gets worse then the US will be totally behind the 8 ball; totally powerless to say “Oi, China, you can’t march into Taiwan”; the Chinese will of course, and the US won’t be able to lift a finger in its defense as we owe the Chinese Trillions of dollars....…And we are already up to the neck and maxed out on “perpetual” war in other regions of the world

People talk about the butterfly effect; in essence the way we do business (today) does in fact determine the fate of nations. One might ponder if that should be so or allowed to happen in the first place? Unfortunately it’s a massive double standard that Chinese companies if they wish can file IP in the United Sates and have the benefit of one the world’s best legal systems, and yet if we try to do the same in China, you are absolutely screwed. I think it’s a huge mistake to believe that we are all playing by the same rules,… we are not. If I was Taiwanese I would be very worried right now.

The world is a mess especially in developing countries as there are no real systems of law that protect the individual. I think this is one of the things we take for granted in the US or don’t fully appreciate.


Eric
Click to expand...

I agree with you in some part, don't think I'm having a shot at you. Sorry if it that's how it cam across.

And yes, Australia is very nice. It's not called 'the lucky country' for nothing. I recognise everyday how fortunate I am to live here.

I guess my (badly articulated) point was that we do have the ability to change things. We might not have the scale and thump that a Donald Trump or Bill Gates has but we *can* do things that will bring change for the better. Sometimes it feels like those things are too insignificant to make a difference but, as I mentioned, in my experience those are the ones that bring the deepest, longest lasting effects. They're the ones that ripple out.

I'm not trying to be a 'glass half full/half empty' guy. I'm more interested in how the water gets to the tap.... hope that makes sense. Maybe I'm just naive.

hmm... lots of water analogies here.... maybe I'm thirsty? :-)
 
Kris Anderson said:
I agree with you in some part, don't think I'm having a shot at you. Sorry if it that's how it cam across.

And yes, Australia is very nice. It's not called 'the lucky country' for nothing. I recognise everyday how fortunate I am to live here.

I guess my (badly articulated) point was that we do have the ability to change things. We might not have the scale and thump that a Donald Trump or Bill Gates has but we *can* do things that will bring change for the better. Sometimes it feels like those things are too insignificant to make a difference but, as I mentioned, in my experience those are the ones that bring the deepest, longest lasting effects. They're the ones that ripple out.

I'm not trying to be a 'glass half full/half empty' guy. I'm more interested in how the water gets to the tap.... hope that makes sense. Maybe I'm just naive.

hmm... lots of water analogies here.... maybe I'm thirsty? :-)
Click to expand...

Oh don’t worry, I felt what you wrote had a very genuine sentiment. I am forever trying to give people a leg up, or trying to improve their lot especially if I see talent (or someone that just needs a break or a fresh start), occasionally I get burnt, but it is still a good thing to do.

Also, don’t worry in the least..I think I have managed to insult a far eastern super power of 1 billion plus, the population of California and a little corporation called Apple and probably everyone that owns an i-phone. Not bad for a morning’s casual posting.

So the question is who are our allies?

Cheers,

Eric
 
My 2 cents.

I live on the other side of the world, in the place some of you are calling "the enemy". There are good, creative people over here. There are good projects, creative ideas (you can see that by the quality films coming out from China lately). In our field, China is actually being quite a pioneer in the lighting business, with very interesting products coming from there. But they also have a problem, which was already said here, which is intelectual property protection. This works bad not only for investors going in with their businesses, but with chinese own goods, too. This lack of intelectual property protection is making many creative chinese entrepreneurs to move to other countries, namely (ironically) to the US.

Someone talked about BMW needing to create a factory and rename their cars in China. That is not true. BMW, Mercedes, well, the high end luxury brands (including Ferrari) do NOT need to do that, only the VOlkswagens, Toyotas, Hondas, Suzukis, etc. They are basically the same cars with a different local name, normally associated with the region or city they are built, but they are still owned by the foreign companies (in joint ventures). There's not a strong chinese car manufacturer, maybe one, but nowhere comparable to the likes of Volkswaggen, and this chinese manufacturer needed to distance themselves to the other manufacturer's designs. This is were they are years behind- originality and creativity. There are incredible, talented people there, but the whole system currently doesn't work to help the insurgence of creative entrepeneurs. Of course there are exceptions, mainly in the internet area, with the likes of Alibaba and other software(which mirror some western counterparts but with very chinese specificities), but in other areas its still decades behind other countries.

Another aspect to take into consideration is that China is turning to be one of the main markets of "quality" worldwide products. One of the most lucrative Louis Vuitton stores is right here where I live. Why? Because people, whatever their culture or location, when provided with the chance, want "quality". In China, the most sellable brand of car is Volkswagen, because its a quality car, reliable, and provides great value. In Europe, what is the most sellable car? Again, Volkswagen, for the same reasons.

We live in a World Economy. We can currently buy goods from all over the world by the click of a mouse on our computers. Its a world of communication, of internet forums, of mouth to mouth marketing, were good and bad experiences are shared almost immediately between costumers. Nowadays, a bad product, may it be a phone, a soda, a digital cinema camera or a car failure or success is much more determined by its quality than ever before. For the costumer, quality means reliable, innovative, user friendly, value and also service and support. The less a costumer neeeds to compromise in any of these areas, the more satisfied he will be. Brand loyalty comes from a costumer feeling that a certain product can fullfill mostly those following criterias. A brand like Ferrari or BMW fulfills those criteria for their costumers, as a brand like Volkswagen does for theirs (I hate Volkswagen's design, though). These companies have their own, unique philosophies, and that's why they prevail. They do outsource their manufacturing but keep core manufacturing and R&D in their countries. Also, these companies hire the best in the world to help them develop, independent of their nationalities. They employ locals, but also go for the best talent in the world market for key areas. This is important, because what matters is also the company's "philosophy", reason of being and what they are aimed to achieve with their products. Profitability comes if behind the company there's a solid "philosophy"- of commitment to innovation, reliability, value and passion for the product. How do you translate "passion" into a product? Look at Red right now. That's why I compared Red to early "Ferrari" in a previous post.

I would love, however, for Red to be the early Ferrari, the outsider, and give me a chance to be able to "drive" one of their cars, before they go "modern" Ferrari- still passionate, but not accessible, and more of a luxury product.

Red first and foremost needs to keep its "Philosophy" defined- what is Red here for? What does Red aim to achieve, what does it want to become? What does it want to provide to the world of filmmaking? What does it want to do for me, a potential costumer, for example?

To conclude, The fact that Jim pushed for the "Made in USA" brand for RED shows pride and commitment to the product to become a prestigious "flag" for the country. This is good. Ferrari is a good representation of Italian products, for example, or Volkswagen. There's obviously a big responsability by raising that flag. Because when Jim proudly says Made in USA, he knows that me as a costumer will judge that product's quality, innovation, reliability and value with USA manufacturing. I'm currently happy with Made in Japan and Made in Germany, so lets see what this Made in USA means :)

Sergio
 
Jannard said:
One of the problems I see is that young vision guns get bought up early by VC's and don't have a chance to take it all the way. Many take the 1st $20M they are offered after a year of work and go to Tahiti.

Jim
Click to expand...

So Tahiti might be a good place for a think-tank :-) ? Highly skilled people around...?

Honestly, I fully understand why poeple are proud of making most if not all of a product in their own country. "Made in Germany" was always a sales argument (and still is). So a "Made in USA" will be as well for many buyers.
After all, I don't really mind about where exactly all of the product is made. And it appears to me that some part of this move was caused by the Japan desaster. Which might be a good decision, given what happend to Sony media production since. A little bit of globalization doesn't really harm in a gloablized world, especially if customer safety plays a roll. Imagine you could have your Porsche only repaired in Germany...

The whole discussion is the same in almost every country that is exporting goods.
Do we export the jobs as well?
Do others (buying nations) force us to sell of the know-how and jobs as well?
Do they force one to have local production in place?

As we are in a niche market this way with a comparably small turn-over, there is likely not much ruling around. But we have seen e.g. tax additions to Japanese broadcast electronics in the past. Something I think is preventing/hindering any kind of technological improvement in the long run. Best competition is competition, not protection under big brother's eyes and saving hands.

Axel
 
Axel Mertes said:
So Tahiti might be a good place for a think-tank :-) ? Highly skilled people around...?

Honestly, I fully understand why poeple are proud of making most if not all of a product in their own country. "Made in Germany" was always a sales argument (and still is). So a "Made in USA" will be as well for many buyers.
After all, I don't really mind about where exactly all of the product is made. And it appears to me that some part of this move was caused by the Japan desaster. Which might be a good decision, given what happend to Sony media production since. A little bit of globalization doesn't really harm in a gloablized world, especially if customer safety plays a roll. Imagine you could have your Porsche only repaired in Germany...

The whole discussion is the same in almost every country that is exporting goods.
Do we export the jobs as well?
Do others (buying nations) force us to sell of the know-how and jobs as well?
Do they force one to have local production in place?

As we are in a niche market this way with a comparably small turn-over, there is likely not much ruling around. But we have seen e.g. tax additions to Japanese broadcast electronics in the past. Something I think is preventing/hindering any kind of technological improvement in the long run. Best competition is competition, not protection under big brother's eyes and saving hands.Axel
Click to expand...

MADE IN USA:

(apologies for length).

What does that mean? Depends what you are buying. I understand Jim’s comment and sentiment of being a bit of a “hand job” to say designed in the US…(i.e. manufactured in China). It’s a bit like saying “we are a bunch of wankers”.


Obviously for things to work one needs “bases or outposts” in other countries. We have a history of being in the UK and the US (virtually simultaneously) so we have US programmers and UK programmers; this doesn’t mean that out of national pride we must fire our UK programmers and specialists? (right?). But at least through filed and granted patents that we have the ability (legally) to potentially control who is allowed to run with the technology. All the hardware we are trying to put together (small scale specialized very high precision (complex) instruments) will NECESSARILY be/are being designed AND produced in the USA (so we can put the MADE IN USA on the side of the system/instrument).

I am a fan/like the Germans and the Japanese, especially because there is an honorable code of law in each of those countries. In Japan patent infringement is federal offense, you can be put in jail for that and do a few years behind bars. So working with specific companies (that happen to be in different countries) that offer world expertise in a particular area (in cooperative development) is a necessity, but at least everybody understands the consequences for dishonorable actions.


However, in terms of the small number of core technical people that I hire/work with, contract and so on, I place loyalty and trust as the number 1 criterion, above technical expertise or anything else. So at least you know that they take pride in what they are doing (share the vision and are enthusiastic), but also that they are not (necessarily) going walk out the door with your best ideas intellectual capital and so on. However if they do or if our technologies are knocked off or stolen at very least we can drag them into court and make them squirm. So there are consequences for theft of IP. Having the granted patents etc in various territories is really essential, so that we have the possibility of protecting ourselves against larger and more aggressive companies (if need be). So for a lot of smaller companies that is really essential. So at least if we work with folks from let’s say the UK, Germany Japan etc. we know that effectively USA tech is secure (as anybody can make it).


As soon as you attempt any of the same in for example China, all of this flies out of the window (in an instant) as there is no legal consequence for theft of know how or IP. Essentially what one is doing is giving away your best technologies and knowhow to the Chinese (for free), for short term gain with the future promise of “access” to one of the largest consumer markets in the world. [(Essentially an irresistible (“prick teasing”) carrot of gigantic proportions]. The Chinese are very smart and their government business policies have a very patient and long term strategy (something that we don’t have in the US).

To my eye, China (in terms of manufacturing) seems like one of the biggest Casino’s in the world. As a foreign investor you may make some short term gains, you may win some, you may lose some, but basically if you averaged out every interaction it seems that the Chinese come out on top. Like a Casino, no matter what, it will always take 5% of the money flowing through there. However, the Chinese can and will make a profit in most cases; the 5% drain I’m talking about refers to IP, knowhow and our best tech. Because there are no systems of law (in China) that enable a level playing field, ultimately the deck is stacked against the US and in favor of the Chinese. This therefore represents a constant “bleeding” out of the US’s BEST assets. Numerous trade delegations over the years have petitioned the Chinese to respect and enforce IP, but the Chinese know that that would damage their “business’ model. It’s hard to respect a business model that is based on theft. The Chinese get the edge because they see a lot of individual foreign companies as soft, greedy and short sighted (this basically totally plays into their hands). It seems that the net effect of these interactions is that the US “capability” becomes eroded “drop” by “drop” to a Kris type “water analogy”.

[With some of the larger US corporations such as Westinghouse having 100’s of simplified nuclear reactors built on Chinese soil for the Chinese market this now gets into an entirely new level of “interaction”. I’m not entirely convinced that providing a really easy way to make vast amounts of plutonium is such a good idea?).]

So I really don’t believe that purely market driven decisions are in the nation’s best interest (at all). Companies and company owners do have in essence a moral responsibility to decide what types of technology that they choose to give away for free to the Chinese. There ARE key technologies if given away (for short term gain, or massive profits (even)) that ultimately can damage the US and the west to a pretty substantial degree; you can’t get that back.

The migration of certain technologies (not just military) but commercial tech is a threat ultimately to national security. Should an individual company owner (with very key technologies) have the right to ultimately compromise economic survivability or prosperity of their “host” nation?

I do see a return to the 70’s with very tense and difficult trade and licensing wars.

At the moment the US standard of living is propped up by cheap goods manufactured in China (read Wall Mart). I am very concerned that the US is going to get itself into an economic trap (with the Chinese) that it can’t get itself out of.(It may allready be too late...).

It seems to me that Jim (Jannard) does see and think about the long term consequences of his actions. He is looking ahead; he sets an amazing example and is DOING the “right thing” and has a super viable business. Hats off. I know that this has given me pause for thought and a LOT to think about…

Cheers ALL,

Eric
 
Eric,

are you referring to my sentence that you marked yellow with your post?

I agree that protection of IP is essential, especially with Chinese partners, that might be more true than we might like.

What I was pointing to was protective tax on foreign country goods to make them reasonably more expensive, so that locally produced ones could compete better. I find this kind of protection pretty artificial and not customer friendly in the short term. But that has nothing to do with stealing IPs, but with production and development cost. Cleary products build with bigger tolerances and in low payment regions will be cheaper than others. So the question which is surviving a market competition is pretty much in the hands of end users, customers. Thats how it should be.

I don't like not being able to buy a cheap camera, because a local camera manufacturer isn't capable of delivering a competitive product. A few years ago Thomson/GrassValley (if I remember correctly) tried to get back the same kind of protective tax system in EU that was making Triax cameras a lot more expensive a decade or two ago. Consequently that would have killed the home video market for all Japanese companies, leading to big frustration on the consumer side. Happily that wasn't accepted, but it was long time not clear how the results would be.

One point here:

Imagine the EU would put a 50% "punishment tax" on top of each RED item imported to EU for being a competitive product to say ARRI and Thomson/GrassValley/Aaton, just hypothetical (PURELY HYPOTHETICAL!). That would clearly mean that less RED items will be sold in the end, which will lead to a situation where REDs sales goals would not be reached anymore. Consequently the development cost involved may be required to be spread among less items sold, ie. their price must raise in the end, even outside the EU, even in USA.

Freedom of market prevents this scenario pretty much, in my opinion. As a customer I'd like to be able to choose, not get regulated by regulators which have no blank idea of what they regulate at all.

That clearly doesn't mean we want to see any IPs copied/stolen/whatever by any competitor, of course not!

And in a globalized world it my be worth to have a few know how centres in place, spread over the globe, to be easier to reach and somewhat "mission critical". What we all experience with Sony tape media these days is a sign of how concentrated to a single place it should preferably never be...

Cheers,
Axel
 
Axel Mertes said:
Eric,

are you referring to my sentence that you marked yellow with your post?

I agree that protection of IP is essential, especially with Chinese partners, that might be more true that we might like.

What I was pointing to was protective tax on foreign country goods to make them reasonably more expensive, so that locally produced ones could compete better. I find this kind of protection pretty artificial and now customer friendly in the short term. But that has nothing to do with stealing IPs, but with production and development cost. Cleary products build with bigger tolerances and in low payment regions will be cheaper than others. So the question which is surviving a market competition is pretty much in the hands of end users, customers. Thats how it should be.

I don't like not being able to buy a cheap camera, because a local camera manufacturer isn't capable of delivering a competitive product. A few years ago Thomson/GrassValley tried to get back the same kind of protective tax system in EU that was making Triax cameras a lot more expensive a decade or two ago. Consequently that would have killed the home video market for all Japanese companies, leading to big frustration on the consumer side. Happily that wasn't accepted, but it was long time not clear how the results would be.

One point here:

Imagine the EU would put a 50% "punishment tax" on top of each RED item imported to EU for being a competitive product to say ARRI, just hypothetical (PURELY HYPOTHETICAL!). That would clearly mean consequently that less RED items will be sold in the end, which will lead to a situation where their goals would not be reached. Consequently the development cost involved may be required to be spread among less items sold, ie. their price must raise in the end.

Freedom of market prevents this scenario pretty much, in my opinion. As a customer I'd like to be able to choose, not get regulated by regulators which have no blank idea of what they regulate at all.

That clearly doesn't mean we want to see any IPs copied/stolen/whatever by any competitor, of course not!

Cheers,
Axel
Click to expand...

Yup, I was responding to what I highlighted in your post.

AXLE writes : “What I was pointing to was protective tax on foreign country goods to make them reasonably more expensive, so that locally produced ones could compete better. I find this kind of protection pretty artificial and now customer friendly in the short term.”

...
...

I totally agree, and I am not a master economist, but intuitively this seems like a negative economic spiral that encourages lack of productivity.

I think US companies simply have to get into new and useful market segments, and create markets that cannot so easily be implemented in China (and the like).

Some of the things we are putting together have very strict export licenses (these are not defense/nuclear items either), and we would not be allowed to manufacture these things overseas (or in particular countries), and we would not be allowed to sell to certain countries. Certain capabilities and technologies are enabling to other countries that can be detrimental to the US (without question).

You have to look ahead and plan accordingly; identifying and AKNOWLEDGING the problem(s) is the first step. New types and very old types of business models and attitudes are going to be required if we (the US) are going to survive and be successful. But one thing that is clear, that more of the same is not good, even in a stable ecconomy.

As I said earlier we really don’t have too many opportunities left where we (the US) can afford to screw up. I personally think a coalition government would be a better move and to put US business centre stage...(rather than acting on the behalf of lobbyists and a few giant corporations). Of course this will never happen…(super team or no super team)...

Cheers,

Eric
 
Bill Prouty said:
The significance of "Made in the USA" really hits home after listening to the recent This American Life episode, "Mr Daisey and the Apple Factor"
Click to expand...

That’s an amazing and beautiful link and presentation of Mr Daisey’s performance. Very thought provoking and spine chilling.

Thanks for that.

It’s funny now months later we see stories on the news about “in-sourcing” and made in America. As usual RED/Jannard is ahead of the pack. (maybe not such a Zombie thread after all).

E
 
Not only "made in USA", but WELL MADE in USA. Every single bit of red gear I've received so far prior to the arrival of my Epic is top quality and excellent design: The moment one picks up the side handle and the new touch LCD one can immediately see the build quality and attention to detail they had in development. The side handle, specially, fits just perfect in one's hand, the buttons are where they should be and it just "oozes" quality. This is what should differentiate one's products vs the others. Made in USA should be sinonimous to this, to quality and value- but never in detriment of quality!
 
Sergio Perez said:
Not only "made in USA", but WELL MADE in USA. Every single bit of red gear I've received so far prior to the arrival of my Epic is top quality and excellent design: The moment one picks up the side handle and the new touch LCD one can immediately see the build quality and attention to detail they had in development. The side handle, specially, fits just perfect in one's hand, the buttons are where they should be and it just "oozes" quality. This is what should differentiate one's products vs the others. Made in USA should be sinonimous to this, to quality and value- but never in detriment of quality!
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

I received a couple of Scarlets last week and was absolutely blown away by the solidity of the units, the materials and surface finishes and the way things feel and function. I have ordered the Aluminum Canon mount just to remove it so I can work with more specialized lenses. I was really blown away about how professional and solid the mounting ring and stage and baffles are on just the Aluminum mount, the Titanium one must be amazing. You get the sense that Jannard really cares about this and how the camera feels, looks and works way beyond the imagery that it produces; that certain things had to be a certain way to meet his own standard of what he himself would want in a camera. As someone that has handled a lot of high end “mission critical” components and systems you really get the sense that you are REALLY GETTING SOMETHING for a smidge under $10k for a Scarlet X unit. You really feel that you are getting a lot of bang for your buck especially with the scarlet X. This sets an amazing example and it should really say MADE by RED (In the USA)… as the quality and price point are still I think atypical of what made in the USA normally conjures up… hopefully others in US industry will be minded to deliver a similar idea.

Cheers,

Eric
 
Not to drag up an old thread or anything, but as a fellow manufacturer of goods in the USA, I say job well done, and thank you for keeping it in the USA! Although I did stop by the Irvine offices when I was in the area a few weeks ago, and was disappointed that I couldn't even see a little teaser of any of the magic. I know you don't want the riff raff stopping by and stealing secrets, but I would love to have been able to see something other than just a fabulous front desk. Some of us love the process as much as the product!
 
TowerJazz just opened up an image sensor fab in Newport Beach, CA. If they are the ones who fab RED image sensors, then that would mean that even the sensors could be built here.
 
Truely Awesome Jim,makes you proud to see and be able to say Proud to Be An American, and thank you for keeping the dream alive. Made In America, and the American way! I truely hope more people will be seeing Red in a positive way!
 
A Video of some behind the scenes at the RED factory in Irvine would be really cool Jim!!! Just putting that out there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top