rbelyell
Well-known
Quite. And, at that point, enough people find that the Leica delivers enough "bang for the buck" to keep the company in business. "Bang for the buck" then pretty much ceases to be a rational argument, because everyone has a different view of "quality, user experience, IQ AND price"
Cheers,
R.
yup, up to this point, youre correct. but that is exactly what this thread is about isnt it? not that 'leica is doomed' or 'it will go out of business'--those are equally not rational, and as i re-read the posts here, no one made such claims. rather the point is that the circumstances that gave leica a particular market share may have changed with these products. i dont have to be near the photographer as many here, nor have near the storehouse of information, to understand that for any product the market is made up of diehards and edge-feeders. what this article is saying, and what rational thought based on economic theory provide, it is those 'edge-feeders' that are most prone to calculating the 'bang for buck' proposition in favor of these new sony products if they are as claimed. and that can most definitely have a noticeable effect on leica market share.
and just because folks differ on the subjective nature of the bang for your bucks elements, that doesnt mean discussion 'ceases to be rational'. that only happens when one or more parties decide not to discuss subjective matters rationally--people decide that, its not preordained. a good rule of thumb for rational discussion is for folks to not present opinions in such a way as to paint any contrary opinion as foolish. thats typically when things devolve.