Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst
enri
intervention nor abuse of any sort after approximately 5000 shots over
less than three years
The lens mechanism wouldn't retract. This is the infamous "Error #45"
which I learned a posteriori, was a well-known common problem in this
camera.
A call to the KODAK service revealed that the camera would not be
repaired by them, that the unit was no longer in production and that
there weren't any parts available.
"Management had decided that it was not in Kodak's best interest to
repair this kind of problem in this particular camera"
They offered to replace the damaged camera with a refurbished DX7630
camera for $125.00 + $10.95 shipping plus the old camera shipped at my
expense, i.e. roughly $150 for a refurbished, an euphemism for "used",
camera available for about $250 new.
I took the trouble to find out which part needed replacement finding
out that the part in question is a plastic gear costing less than 10
cents (I know this because I worked optical production issues at
Lockheed Martin).
What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
more than $500 without doing very much about it.
The case of Iomega and its "click of death" Zip drive went to court
eroding its customer base and driving down the price of its stock.
Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
the original vehicle.
Kodak could at least had issue a warning to its customers of a
potential gear problem; the problem was known to them shortly after
releasing the LS443 to the market. If one knows that the camera has a
gear problem one would not retract its lens so frequently to save
battery power.
This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.
enri
James Gifford
> Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
> transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
> offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
> the original vehicle.
It's unlikely that the cost of repairing the Civic would exceed its value,
or even be a large fraction of its value. You bought an inexpensive camera;
you used it for three years and 5000 shots; it doesn't really matter
whether the failure was an expensive part and you're the only one it's
happened to or a ten-cent gear that's happened to thousands of them.
Digital cameras are fragile. Since people want them small, light, fast and
cheap, things like short lifespans or trouble points on lens systems, card
doors, etc. are common.
Bummer. But I think you're shoveling too much on Kodak.
--
|=- James Gifford = FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY -=|
|=- So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? -=|
Alturas
<n...@nitrosyncretic.kom> wrote:
>enri <enri...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
>> transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
>> offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
>> the original vehicle.
>
>It's unlikely that the cost of repairing the Civic would exceed its value,
>or even be a large fraction of its value. You bought an inexpensive camera;
>you used it for three years and 5000 shots; it doesn't really matter
>whether the failure was an expensive part and you're the only one it's
>happened to or a ten-cent gear that's happened to thousands of them.
>
>Digital cameras are fragile. Since people want them small, light, fast and
>cheap, things like short lifespans or trouble points on lens systems, card
>doors, etc. are common.
>
>Bummer. But I think you're shoveling too much on Kodak.
The poster mentioned paying $500, which isn't my idea of cheap. I
think Kodak pushes the "EasyShare" concept too much and people buy
into it. With most Kodak models, the photos themselves don't get top
ratings. I'd rather get the best possible lens/sensor than mediocre
photos that are easier to "share" (share with the neighbors?)
Plugging in a USB cable and browsing for a removable drive is no
hardship.
Alturas
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Alturas
>What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
>company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
>more than $500 without doing very much about it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=kodak+easyshare+LS443+review
That and other Kodak digicams have never gotten top ratings for image
quality, so it might have done you a favor by quitting. I've been
hustled to buy Kodak models in several electronics chain stores,
knowing from online samples that they were mediocre. I'd never buy a
camera on features alone, like the hyped "EasyShare" system. I'm not
knocking Kodak's potential but there are better buys out there.
Ron Hunter
parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
Nothing lasts forever. BTW, I can't buy 'design flaw' is this case
since it is a part that failed. Parts wear out. Lots of MY parts are
wearing out, should I complain to the designer?
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
Then replace the LS443 (one of Kodak's better efforts, BTW) with a nice
new Canon DSLR for about $1500, and then complain about IT.
Sigh.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
enri
wrote:
>> This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
>> install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
>> fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.
>>
>> enri
>>
>Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
>parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
>pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
> Nothing lasts forever. BTW, I can't buy 'design flaw' is this case
>since it is a part that failed. Parts wear out. Lots of MY parts are
>wearing out, should I complain to the designer?
Go ahead and Goggle LS443 "error 45", you will find out that they
are many, many entries, suggesting that a *lot* of people had this
problem. Not to mention the large amount of LS443 cameras sold "for
parts only" sold in everyday in Ebay.
Other Kodak camera models do not show such frequent problems. In my
book this is a classical case of engineering design flaw.
Also, years and years of handling failures of optical assemblies
tells me that 5000 shots is not a large number. Typically a properly
designed gear assembly for a modestly priced Zoom lens has a MTBF
(Minimum Time Between Failures) of over 50,000 "shots" or lens
motions.
enri
enri
wrote:
>> The poster mentioned paying $500, which isn't my idea of cheap. I
>> think Kodak pushes the "EasyShare" concept too much and people buy
>> into it. With most Kodak models, the photos themselves don't get top
>> ratings. I'd rather get the best possible lens/sensor than mediocre
>> photos that are easier to "share" (share with the neighbors?)
>> Plugging in a USB cable and browsing for a removable drive is no
>> hardship.
>>
>> Alturas
>>
>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
>Then replace the LS443 (one of Kodak's better efforts, BTW) with a nice
>new Canon DSLR for about $1500, and then complain about IT.
>Sigh.
Are you implying that reliability lies only in the realm of *very*
expensive camaras? I suggest you review the US auto industry
reliability problems of the 60's and 70's vs. Japan auto industry.
"Six Sigma" and "Kaizan" are now common terms in US auto industry
changing our perceptions of automobile reliability forever.
enri
enri
shots over less than three years
The lens mechanism wouldn't retract. This is the infamous "Error #45"
which I learned a posteriori, was a well-known common problem in this
camera.
A call to the KODAK service revealed that the camera would not be
repaired by them, that the unit was no longer in production and that
there weren't any parts available.
"Management had decided that it was not in Kodak's best interest to
repair this kind of problem in this particular camera"
They offered to replace the damaged camera with a refurbished DX7630
camera for $125.00 + $10.95 shipping plus the old camera shipped at my
expense, i.e. roughly $150 for a refurbished, an euphemism for "used",
camera available for about $250 new.
I took the trouble to find out which part needed replacement finding
out that the part in question is a plastic gear costing less than 10
cents (I know this because I worked optical production issues at
Lockheed Martin).
What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
more than $500 without doing very much about it.
The case of Iomega and its "click of death" Zip drive went to court
eroding its customer base and driving down the price of its stock.
Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
the original vehicle.
Kodak could at least had issue a warning to its customers of a
potential gear problem; the problem was known to them shortly after
releasing the LS443 to the market. If one knows that the camera has a
gear problem one would not retract its lens so frequently to save
battery power.
This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
Rob Novak
>Are you implying that reliability lies only in the realm of *very*
>expensive camaras? I suggest you review the US auto industry
>reliability problems of the 60's and 70's vs. Japan auto industry.
The usage patterns and designs of point-n-shoot cameras make them
inherently less reliable long-term than more advanced/expensive kit.
Think about it - they get thrown into purses, backpacks, and
belt-pouches to bounce around with spare change, crumbs, and your
house keys. They have nifty zoom-y lens barrels that extend and
retract with every on/off cycle and every stab at the wide/tele rocker
switch on the back. They dangle on a wrist-strap and get banged into
things. Lens barrels are frequently composite materials and extend
far beyond the camera body without the benefit of robust mechanical
support. They're a melange of design compromises that give people the
glitzy features they clamor for.
There are reliable models out there, but they're expensive. Consumers
want a pocket camera that is small, light, convenient, and not too
expensive. However, "small" and "light" don't play well with
"durable", and when you get the three of them together in the same
place, "affordable" goes out the window. Exhibit A - Leica. Sure,
they're light, fast, small, and will last forever. The materials used
and mechanical design employed are light years beyond the average
injection-molded conglomeration of plastic parts that comprise the
average consumer camera, though.
People are just not willing to pay for durability coupled with
convenience. To keep the price point low, increased durability only
comes at the expense of size and weight, which goes against the market
demand for smaller and lighter. Few want to drop the extra cash for
the exotic materials and complex tooling that allow for the latter.
--
Strange, Geometrical Hinges: http://rob.rnovak.net
Bill Funk
>Also, years and years of handling failures of optical assemblies
>tells me that 5000 shots is not a large number. Typically a properly
>designed gear assembly for a modestly priced Zoom lens has a MTBF
>(Minimum Time Between Failures) of over 50,000 "shots" or lens
>motions.
MTBF = Mean Time Between Failures.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Peter Boulding
wrote in <sqi2k15oei7oakeue...@4ax.com>:
>>Also, years and years of handling failures of optical assemblies
>>tells me that 5000 shots is not a large number. Typically a properly
>>designed gear assembly for a modestly priced Zoom lens has a MTBF
>>(Minimum Time Between Failures) of over 50,000 "shots" or lens
>>motions.
>
>MTBF = Mean Time Between Failures.
But when the manufacturer decides not to supply parts, it has to stand for
Mean Time BEFORE Failure.
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
Ron Hunter
manufactured (part failure), or was specified incorrectly/inadequately.
Many companies order parts from a given supplier, in the normal course
of manufacturing, and if a part fails, then a company can take a 'bum
rap'. I suggest that it is unlikely that you KNOW which is the case,
and are just assuming that the error was in Kodak's specification, or
lack of testing.
When a consumer product fails, it is also often the case that the user
routinely used a device in ways not anticipated by the manufacturer,
which can lead to component failure. This is another 'imponderable'.
It may be that the part was weak, the usage was extreme, or that the
part was not correctly specified. I can't see how you can choose
between those alternative explanations for failure.
Concluding, without definitive information, that Kodak was at fault
leads me to believe there is bias in your conclusions.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
a part often fails in a certain model of camera. If you explore
failures in other similar cameras from a range of manufacturers, you MAY
find that the complaint isn't specific to Kodak, but common of many zoom
cameras. And, yes, if you pay more, you will probably get a camera that
will last longer, and will have parts available for a longer period of
time (the Rolls Royce example).
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Chip C
> They offered to replace the damaged camera with a refurbished DX7630
> camera for $125.00 + $10.95 shipping plus the old camera shipped at my
> expense, i.e. roughly $150 for a refurbished, an euphemism for "used",
> camera available for about $250 new.
An unimpressive experience and definitely on the low end of customer
satisfaction, but probably not actionable except to cross them off your
list of brands for future purchases. Post-warranty repairs are at their
discretion and struggling old-guard companies that damn near missed the
whole digital boat just aren't going to have the resources to do it
right. I suspect they didn't do the core design in-house, in this case,
and they probably have poor commonality across their various models, so
repairs on old models will be even less cost-effective than the
notoriously low norm on mass-market consumer electronics.
Two experiences of my own that you've reminded me of:
About 10 years ago I was working for a place that bought D*ll machines.
One desktop came with a non-functioning monitor: "DOA" as we say. Well,
such things happen, and the tech came the next day with a replacement -
a refurb unit. But we paid for a new one, we said. Well, they said,
warranty replacements are handled with fully-warranted refurbs, no
matter how soon the problem crops up. But it was DOA, we said. Tough,
they said, DOAs are handled as warranty calls. So we paid full price
for new equipment and never, not even for a minute, got it.
At least X***x put in the fine print on their quotes that some models
of their big printers were fully reconditioned "factory rebuilt" units,
so they could make a stronger case that you were stupid to have dealt
with them to begin with.
> I took the trouble to find out which part needed replacement finding
> out that the part in question is a plastic gear costing less than 10
> cents (I know this because I worked optical production issues at
> Lockheed Martin).
You are aware, of course, that diagnosis, labour and shipping far dwarf
the nominal cost of the part, so whether it's 10 cents or 10 bucks is a
bit of a red herring. I'd guess that any repair relating to the lens
would require a nontrivial alignment and testing effort, so this is
probably a significant repair. To make the job feasible at all they'd
probably have to replace some large subsystem, like the whole
retractable lens assembly, constituting most of the camera's value.
These were all made at some contract factory overseas which has long
since retooled for other clients, and it would be ludicrously
uneconomic to make more of them now. They would have kept some number
on hand for warranty repairs, used up the leftovers for post-warranty
work, and now they're gone.
> What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
> company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
> more than $500 without doing very much about it.
The picture I get is what I said above: a desperate old-guard outfit
struggling to keep a share in a market that their name is no longer
synonymous with, and finding out along with their remaining customers
that they really aren't up to it.
(Cynically, if they'd designed it "right", all units would have failed,
with a uniformly random distribution of problems, the day the warranty
expired. That all the failures are the same part means that all other
components were overdesigned!)
But I do agree that $500 is a price point that should put the thing
above the disposable level.
> Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
> transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
> offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
> the original vehicle.
Imagine a Honda dealer telling someone in 2005 that they carried no
parts, and would provide no service, for a 19xx model, but would offer
them a $YY trade-in allowance against a newer warranted used vehicle on
the lot, even though your car's a junker that they'll have to pay to
get rid of. Perfectly resonable, even generous, for some values of XX
and YY, no? So it's a good measure of their customer service commitment
- and their cash flow - but it's not a qualitatively unacceptable
position.
> This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
> install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
> fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.
Effort is money, and the burden of any post-warranty repair or
replacement will unavoidably fall on the consumer. They've calculated
that a sustainable price to do the repair would result in the vast
majority of customers - maybe even you! - not taking them up on it. So
they've said screw this, let's let folks buy a more current model for
about what we'd have to charge them to fix the old one. Frankly I'd
expect many folks to prefer it.
Chip C
James Gifford
> No, I am implying that you don't KNOW that Kodak was at fault, only
> that a part often fails in a certain model of camera. If you explore
> failures in other similar cameras from a range of manufacturers, you
> MAY find that the complaint isn't specific to Kodak, but common of
> many zoom cameras. And, yes, if you pay more, you will probably get a
> camera that will last longer, and will have parts available for a
> longer period of time (the Rolls Royce example).
Absolutely. As I said and as others have said, the market forces for
consumer point-and-shoots are absolutely contradictory to durability
under their normal usage conditions. Failure, even widespread and
consistent failure, of very delicate and easily-abused things like lens
extension systems is common across makers and models.
I have an Olympus C-3000; the whole line is prone to damage of the
extender. The only real solution is to put "lens armor" on it, which
reduces the pocketability of the camera.
I bought my daughter a slimmer Oly P&S, which requires you to close the
front protective shutter to within a fraction of an inch of the extended
lens assembly - no less and no more; the window is VERY small - and this
has proven difficult to do without great patience and delicate handling.
I can see lots of damage occurring from mommies and daddies trying to get
the damned lens closed so they can chase Junior.
OTOH, I bought a Canon A-95 for general family use, and I don't have a
single complaint with it. Small, fast lens extension and retraction, and
nothing about it requires delicate handling or seems fragile.
I suggest that anyone buying a digicam of any price range do a ton of
homework - the info is out there, on various review web sites - and then
go to a B&M store and handle, handle, handle the two or three final
candidates to make sure they suit your intended usage style and to make
sure they don't have a "gotcha" that will prove to be irritating or make
the cam damage-prone in their hands.
In particular, pay attention to early reports of fragile parts - easily
damaged lens assemblies or card doors, fragile connectors, easily
scratched screens. It doesn't take long for this info to start showing up
when new models are released.
Alturas
wrote:
>Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
>parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
>pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
> Nothing lasts forever. BTW, I can't buy 'design flaw' is this case
>since it is a part that failed. Parts wear out. Lots of MY parts are
>wearing out, should I complain to the designer?
I think that many photos should be no sweat for a well-made camera.
With the quickness of digital I could easily take 250 shots on a
weekend trip, or 1,000 pictures a month if I was so inclined. I guess
5,000 may seem like a lot for 35mm with a lot more care put into each
costly snap. If the complainant paid $500 for the camera and only got
5,000 shots, he paid 10 cents per image, but digital should knock it
down to a penny, IMO.
Boron Elgar
>My LS443 Kodak Digital camera failed all of a sudden, with no human
>neither intervention nor abuse of any sort after approximately 5000
>shots over less than three years
blah, blah, blah...yada, yada, yada
Quite interesting that you posted this here a second time, with an
automatic "reply to" that does not include afca at all, but only
rec.photo.moderated.
You bought a toy & it broke 3 years later...long after the warranty
was up. You were offered a deal by Kodak which you snubbed because
they were going to give you a refurb, which you considered "used."
What exactly were you expecting? A brand new unit to replace your very
much used and out of date camera? If you were so smart that you knew
this camera had a design flaw, why didn't you get an extended warranty
or talk to Kodak while it was still in warranty?
Your Iomega and car examples are totally irrelevant to this.
There are several of your camera on eBay. If you like it so much, get
another one, or get one you can cannibalize for parts. Surely you can
get one for cheaper than it would cost you to have anything repaired
out of warranty, anyway. Kodak did not do you wrong. No one covers
repairs 3 years out without an extended warranty and most electronics
companies will not have all the parts for a 3 yr old camera. At the
price level you bought, these are disposable items.
Now hush before you are offered a swift kick in your posteriori.
Boron
enri
wrote:
>> Are you implying that reliability lies only in the realm of *very*
>> expensive camaras? I suggest you review the US auto industry
>> reliability problems of the 60's and 70's vs. Japan auto industry.
>>
>> "Six Sigma" and "Kaizan" are now common terms in US auto industry
>> changing our perceptions of automobile reliability forever.
>>
>> enri
>>
>No, I am implying that you don't KNOW that Kodak was at fault, only that
>a part often fails in a certain model of camera. If you explore
>failures in other similar cameras from a range of manufacturers, you MAY
>find that the complaint isn't specific to Kodak, but common of many zoom
>cameras. And, yes, if you pay more, you will probably get a camera that
>will last longer, and will have parts available for a longer period of
>time (the Rolls Royce example).
"The buck stops here" should be a phrase of wisdom in this case. The
blame game is of no interest to me or to the teeming millions affected
by the problem. The issue is one of confidence, once is its broken it
will stay perhaps forever.
Having said that and having heard your arguments, as well as the
arguments of other posters, I will now swallow my anger and feelings
of impotency and treat Kodak as another company caring very little
about my opinion.
enri
enri
<n...@nitrosyncretic.kom> wrote:
>
>I suggest that anyone buying a digicam of any price range do a ton of
>homework - the info is out there, on various review web sites - and then
>go to a B&M store and handle, handle, handle the two or three final
>candidates to make sure they suit your intended usage style and to make
>sure they don't have a "gotcha" that will prove to be irritating or make
>the cam damage-prone in their hands.
>
>In particular, pay attention to early reports of fragile parts - easily
>damaged lens assemblies or card doors, fragile connectors, easily
>scratched screens. It doesn't take long for this info to start showing up
>when new models are released.
You are right. I learned a posteriori that the infamous error E #45
was known in Dec 2002, only months after the release of the LS443
camera into the market.
enri
Blinky the Shark
>
> I think that many photos should be no sweat for a well-made camera.
> With the quickness of digital I could easily take 250 shots on a
> weekend trip, or 1,000 pictures a month if I was so inclined. I guess
> 5,000 may seem like a lot for 35mm with a lot more care put into each
> costly snap. If the complainant paid $500 for the camera and only got
That's only a couple hundred rolls of film. That's nothin'.
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
James Gifford
>> In particular, pay attention to early reports of fragile parts -
>> easily damaged lens assemblies or card doors, fragile connectors,
>> easily scratched screens. It doesn't take long for this info to start
>> showing up when new models are released.
> You are right. I learned a posteriori that the infamous error E #45
> was known in Dec 2002, only months after the release of the LS443
> camera into the market.
As I've found each time I've researched a new cam (and I buy more than
most, some for professional use and some for family use), I've found the
online digicam and camcorder community to be a surprisingly well-organized
and - with caution - reliable source. Sometimes everyone bitches about a
"problem" that I don't see as a drawback, but a little comparison of
opinions, reviews etc. and you can derive a pretty clear picture of which
cams might suit you and which are dogs to be avoided.
Blinky the Shark
>
> Then replace the LS443 (one of Kodak's better efforts, BTW) with a
> nice new Canon DSLR for about $1500, and then complain about IT.
> Sigh.
Does anybody else within the sound of my keyboard agree that two
old-tech companies that haven't been able to make the transition are
Kodak and Polaroid? I absolutely respect Kodak film. I wouldn't touch
a Kodak digital camera. Or any of their film cameras made since...oh,
maybe the 1940s or 1950s.
Harvey Van Sickle
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.fan.cecil-adams.] Ron Hunter
> wrote:
>>
>> Then replace the LS443 (one of Kodak's better efforts, BTW) with
>> a nice new Canon DSLR for about $1500, and then complain about
>> IT. Sigh.
>
> Does anybody else within the sound of my keyboard agree that two
> old-tech companies that haven't been able to make the transition
> are Kodak and Polaroid? I absolutely respect Kodak film. I
> wouldn't touch a Kodak digital camera. Or any of their film
> cameras made since...oh, maybe the 1940s or 1950s.
You've got agreement here.
FWIW, I also don't consider that the OP's original $500 price tag put
this camera in the range of an almost-disposable point-and-shoot. (If
that's the price Kodak is charging for "what else did you expect at
that price" products, they're *way* overpricing their stuff.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
James Gifford
> Does anybody else within the sound of my keyboard agree that two
> old-tech companies that haven't been able to make the transition are
> Kodak and Polaroid?
Here!
And on that train of thought... "Packard-Bell Computers."
James Gifford
> FWIW, I also don't consider that the OP's original $500 price tag put
> this camera in the range of an almost-disposable point-and-shoot.
I've only done a quick run, but it looks like street price three years ago
was ca. $300.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>> Does anybody else within the sound of my keyboard agree that two
>> old-tech companies that haven't been able to make the transition are
>> Kodak and Polaroid?
>
> Here!
>
> And on that train of thought... "Packard-Bell Computers."
Right on. They were okay back when they were making high-end cars with
phones in them, but then okay ended. ;)
I just saw in a documentary, last week, that Packard had a
distinctively-shaped radiator; I did not know that. Did any of their
contemporaries also make an identity point of their radiator shapes?
James Gifford
>> And on that train of thought... "Packard-Bell Computers."
> Right on. They were okay back when they were making high-end cars with
> phones in them, but then okay ended. ;)
I don't know if P-B had anything to do with Packard cars... Packard-Bell is
a famous old name in the Big Wooden Radio era. I recall scratching my head
furiously at the phrase I quoted above - right up there with, I dunno,
maybe "Raggedy Ann Cosmetics."
> I just saw in a documentary, last week, that Packard had a
> distinctively-shaped radiator; I did not know that. Did any of their
> contemporaries also make an identity point of their radiator shapes?
I did a quick Google and can't determine if Packies actually had an
unusually shaped radiator or a unique radiator shell/grille. Nearly every
make of car ever made had the latter, and some are clearly identifiable
across decades and decades of models.
Greg Goss
>"The buck stops here" should be a phrase of wisdom in this case. The
>blame game is of no interest to me or to the teeming millions affected
>by the problem. The issue is one of confidence, once is its broken it
>will stay perhaps forever.
I bought my wife a combined MP3 player and simple digicam. The
packaging material described a promotion with no obvious expiry date.
The camera seemed to be designed to stretch battery life. The various
compromises were all in the direction of reducing battery load. But
the camera sucked batteries dry WHEN TURNED OFF. For a while, we
stored it next to its batteries. Quickly we just plain stopped using
it.
And the promotion was time-limited, running out four months BEFORE my
purchase date. But I didn't find this out until after filling out a
long, complex web form that they've been spamming me from ever since.
I'm not sure which pissed me off more. The engineering failure that
made the camera unusable, or the marketing failure that left me
feeling ripped-off and spammed.
Either way, I no longer have ANY interest in Kodak products beyond
generic film for my old-style camera. Once you've broken the
customer's confidence, they may hate you forever.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Greg Goss
>Does anybody else within the sound of my keyboard agree that two
>old-tech companies that haven't been able to make the transition are
>Kodak and Polaroid? I absolutely respect Kodak film. I wouldn't touch
>a Kodak digital camera. Or any of their film cameras made since...oh,
>maybe the 1940s or 1950s.
I had three of their point'n'click cameras in the seventies. For the
price and convenience, I was happy. So it's not "any" camera since
the forties.
Greg Goss
>> And on that train of thought... "Packard-Bell Computers."
>
>Right on. They were okay back when they were making high-end cars with
>phones in them, but then okay ended. ;)
>
>I just saw in a documentary, last week, that Packard had a
>distinctively-shaped radiator; I did not know that. Did any of their
>contemporaries also make an identity point of their radiator shapes?
When I was growing up, Pontiacs always had a painted nose through the
radiator. It was quite distinctive over several decades. I don't see
it anymore, though the Saturn I was given a ride in last Wednesday
looked like it had a "pontiac nose".
Buick had chromed holes in the side of the fender. I've been told it
had something to do with brake cooling ducts before becoming a style
feature.
Mustangs were a rear-engine two seater when making the car-show
circuit before they "went real". The production car had the engine up
front, but the air intake vent for the rear engine remained and has
been a styling element ever since.
Everyone knows the Rolls Royce radiator.
James Gifford
>> Does anybody else within the sound of my keyboard agree that two
>> old-tech companies that haven't been able to make the transition are
>> Kodak and Polaroid? I absolutely respect Kodak film. I wouldn't touch
>> a Kodak digital camera. Or any of their film cameras made since...oh,
>> maybe the 1940s or 1950s.
> I had three of their point'n'click cameras in the seventies. For the
> price and convenience, I was happy. So it's not "any" camera since
> the forties.
I don't recall Kodak film cameras being anything but the lowest tier of
snapshot box. I can identify an Instamatic photo on first sight, about
eight times out of ten. Slightly blurry, usually off-center or off-axis,
and with heavy color balancing in the processing.
I also don't think there were any competitors. Once Kodak had the market
with the Instamatic cartridges, no one in those markets wanted to fool with
roll film. And I don't think the technology was licensed until very late in
the game.
Greg Goss
>I don't know if P-B had anything to do with Packard cars... Packard-Bell is
>a famous old name in the Big Wooden Radio era.
As a child I had a Northern Electric BWR. If I'd known that the
company that made it would absolutely dominate the Canadian investment
landscape in the early 2Ks under the name Nortel, I would have kept
it.
James Gifford
> Buick had chromed holes in the side of the fender. I've been told it
> had something to do with brake cooling ducts before becoming a style
> feature.
Ha, ha, ha... yeah, right. No, the "ventiports" (to use official
terminology") have never been anything but decorative. I believe a few
early models had actual openings into the wheel well, but to absolutely no
useful effect.
Ghod, in googling around on the Packard thing, I came across a horrifying
flashback:
Gremlins with Levi's interiors. S'help me, I *remember* those.
Greg Goss
>>After 5000
>>pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
>
>I think that many photos should be no sweat for a well-made camera.
>With the quickness of digital I could easily take 250 shots on a
>weekend trip, or 1,000 pictures a month if I was so inclined. I guess
>5,000 may seem like a lot for 35mm with a lot more care put into each
>costly snap.
On my move from Vancouver to Calgary, I brought along a friend to keep
me awake for the twelve hour drive. He's a not-quite-pro with a $2000
primary camera. I forget the brand/model. He brought along two
camera bags and a bag of personal items for the trip about a quarter
the size of the camera stuff.
He took 1400 pictures on the trip. Driver problems with unloading the
memory cards meant that he only had space for 200 more in Calgary and
on the return air trip. That left him feeling massively constrained.
Greg Goss
>Imagine a Honda dealer telling someone in 2005 that they carried no
>parts, and would provide no service, for a 19xx model, but would offer
>them a $YY trade-in allowance against a newer warranted used vehicle on
>the lot, even though your car's a junker that they'll have to pay to
>get rid of. Perfectly resonable, even generous, for some values of XX
>and YY, no? So it's a good measure of their customer service commitment
>- and their cash flow - but it's not a qualitatively unacceptable
>position.
JVC lost my interest when they were unable to replace the record/play
head on a deck I liked. The head should be a generic part like buying
a new wheel for a civic. I'm sure you can buy a 2005 wheel from Honda
that can bolt onto a 77 civic.
JVC looked like they were more interested in getting me to buy a new
unit. But my new unit had "Toshiba" stamped into the case, and I was
uninterested in JVC when shopping for electronics for twenty years or
so.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
>parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
>pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
Actually, they won't, but that's beside the point. As you said -
Nothing lasts forever.
Blinky the Shark
Frankly, I wasn't talking about "point'n'click" cameras, toys, or
disposables.
But I didn't make that clear.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>James Gifford wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>>> Does anybody else within the sound of my keyboard agree that two
>>> old-tech companies that haven't been able to make the transition are
>>> Kodak and Polaroid?
>>
>> Here!
>>
>> And on that train of thought... "Packard-Bell Computers."
>
>Right on. They were okay back when they were making high-end cars with
>phones in them, but then okay ended. ;)
>
>I just saw in a documentary, last week, that Packard had a
>distinctively-shaped radiator; I did not know that. Did any of their
>contemporaries also make an identity point of their radiator shapes?
The search for that answer is likely to Bugatti the hell out of you.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>>> And on that train of thought... "Packard-Bell Computers."
>
>> Right on. They were okay back when they were making high-end cars with
>> phones in them, but then okay ended. ;)
>
> I don't know if P-B had anything to do with Packard cars... Packard-Bell is
You missed my wink, then? On the sentence that also included a
humorous reference to their "partner" Bell Telephone?
>> I just saw in a documentary, last week, that Packard had a
>> distinctively-shaped radiator; I did not know that. Did any of their
>> contemporaries also make an identity point of their radiator shapes?
>
> I did a quick Google and can't determine if Packies actually had an
> unusually shaped radiator or a unique radiator shell/grille. Nearly every
> make of car ever made had the latter, and some are clearly identifiable
> across decades and decades of models.
In the doc, they were distinguishable by the shape of the brightly
polished brass-or-whatever shell housing that formed the visual
impression of the radiator.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> And on that train of thought... "Packard-Bell Computers."
>>
>>Right on. They were okay back when they were making high-end cars
>>with phones in them, but then okay ended. ;)
>>
>>I just saw in a documentary, last week, that Packard had a
>>distinctively-shaped radiator; I did not know that. Did any of their
>>contemporaries also make an identity point of their radiator shapes?
>
> When I was growing up, Pontiacs always had a painted nose through the
> radiator. It was quite distinctive over several decades. I don't see
> it anymore, though the Saturn I was given a ride in last Wednesday
> looked like it had a "pontiac nose".
I'm not talking about bodywork.
> Buick had chromed holes in the side of the fender. I've been told it
> had something to do with brake cooling ducts before becoming a style
> feature.
>
> Mustangs were a rear-engine two seater when making the car-show
> circuit before they "went real". The production car had the engine up
> front, but the air intake vent for the rear engine remained and has
> been a styling element ever since.
>
> Everyone knows the Rolls Royce radiator.
Really? What shape (not counting bodywork or the Flying Lady ornament)
has it?
Bob Ward
If this ever happens to you, you can normally offload your photos to
CD at nearly any one-hour pkoto kiosk. Last time I did this they
would only place about 250 shots on each disk, but it should still be
cheaper than buying additional flash memory.
Harvey Van Sickle
> Harvey Van Sickle <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, I also don't consider that the OP's original $500 price tag
>> put this camera in the range of an almost-disposable
>> point-and-shoot.
>
> I've only done a quick run, but it looks like street price three
> years ago was ca. $300.
Fair enough; I was going on the price as stated.
(Wouldn't you still expect a $300 camera to do more than 5,000 shots in
3 years, though? That's only an average 30-35 shots a week -- one roll
of film in old money.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Chip C
Greg Goss wrote:
> "Chip C" <chipc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Imagine a Honda dealer telling someone in 2005 that they carried no
> >parts, and would provide no service, for a 19xx model, but would offer
> >them a $YY trade-in allowance against a newer warranted used vehicle on
> >the lot, even though your car's a junker that they'll have to pay to
> >get rid of. Perfectly resonable, even generous, for some values of XX
> >and YY, no? So it's a good measure of their customer service commitment
> >- and their cash flow - but it's not a qualitatively unacceptable
> >position.
>
> JVC lost my interest when they were unable to replace the record/play
> head on a deck I liked. The head should be a generic part like buying
> a new wheel for a civic. I'm sure you can buy a 2005 wheel from Honda
> that can bolt onto a 77 civic.
For the specific example you mention, I would not be so sure; I've
found that wheels aren't as generic as you might think, with various
parameters to play with, and the dealer supply chain has very little
interest in older stuff. Of course truly generic parts like plugs and
belts, sure, *if* you know the current part numbers. I wouldn't expect
a current dealer to have the refs to tell you which part is right,
though. And of course the indie parts market can get it for you.
It would be an interesting experiment to do.
But cars are a poor analog, anyhow, because the whole north american
economy revolves around keeping them running. I would also have thought
a key (and readily removed and installed) part like a tape head would
be in their parts bin for ages. They may have found that the part was
systemically faulty, run out of replacements, and just washed their
hands of the whole model that used them. And, evidently, of some of
their customer base.
> JVC looked like they were more interested in getting me to buy a new
> unit. But my new unit had "Toshiba" stamped into the case, and I was
> uninterested in JVC when shopping for electronics for twenty years or
> so.
But are any of them any better than the others? If true long-term
serviceability is not marketable (because it is unknowable to the
customer at time of purchase) there is no driver for the companies to
improve it; market forces will push them to a convergence of business
models as well as core technology.
Chip
James Gifford
Yes, but knowing that digicams often have points of fragility, I wouldn't
be surprised to have one fail within a few years. Much depends on the usage
and user, aside from any design faults.
John Hatpin
>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:38:44 -0400, enri <enri...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>My LS443 Kodak Digital camera failed all of a sudden, with no human
>>neither intervention nor abuse of any sort after approximately 5000
>>shots over less than three years
>
>blah, blah, blah...yada, yada, yada
>
>Quite interesting that you posted this here a second time, with an
>automatic "reply to" that does not include afca at all, but only
>rec.photo.moderated.
[...]
Ah, so that's what happened. That's why Agent didn't warn me about
cross-posting, and why my reply only went to the photo group, whom I
don't know. I just hope the moderator dumps the post, since it was a
silly one.
--
John Hatpin
Email (ROT-13): wsubcxva NG tznvy.pbz
Boron Elgar
<n...@nitrosyncretic.kom> wrote:
>Harvey Van Sickle <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, I also don't consider that the OP's original $500 price tag put
>> this camera in the range of an almost-disposable point-and-shoot.
>
>I've only done a quick run, but it looks like street price three years ago
>was ca. $300.
Exactamundo...our protestor is either exaggerating for effect, or not
only did he not do his research before buying, but he bought it at
Saks Fifth Avenue, too.
FWIW, I have a one of the early Kodak digitals...I think it is way
less than a megapixel (640?) and it is still working perfectly after
being used by us and then successively by 3 teenagers. The pix are
fine, too. Delightfully so.
Boron
Boron Elgar
Yeah...I consider that action just one more nail in the whiner's
coffin. He's a BS artist who did not do his homework.
And I do not blame Kodak at all. They offered to take his 3 year old
camera & let him trade up to a refurb for a minimal price. They had no
responsibility to do diddly after 3 years.
Boron
enri
As the protestor I am deeply hurt by Boron's suggestions,
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/ls443.html
"The LS443 is the latest addition to Kodak's award-winning EasyShare
digital photography system. In addition to the Kodak EasyShare
software, the LS443 comes with a new special edition dock and
rechargeable battery pack. The complete package will be available in
October 2002 with a suggested retail price of $499.95."
enri
enri
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Now hush before you are offered a swift kick in your posteriori.
>
>Boron
Why do you single me out and treat me like a kid?
enri
Boron Elgar
I have been buying cameras for about 35 years...I have had maybe a
dozen film SLRs & medium formats and 6 digital ones. I have owned
Minolta, Nikon, Fuji, Mamiya, Canon, Kodak, Pentax and Olympus. I have
a closet full of filters, lenses, cameras, developing and printing
equipment and lots of pictures, too.
Never once have I paid MSRP for one bit of equipment I have bought. If
you don't know how to buy a camera, either by researching it or by
checking around for the best pricing, I suggest you take your lumps
gracefully, go sit in a dark corner and lick your balls, as that is
the only comfort you'll get.
Boron
Boron Elgar
Many people here will testify that I have not singled you out.
Boron
enri
I must have unwillingly generated The Wrath of Boron and I apologize.
I dare to say that you probably would not talk to me like this in a
live forum. I dare to speculate that you have been properly educated
having spent many hours in your fathers knees with a red bottom.
Oh my, I am probably old enough to be your father.
enri
enri
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:41:17 -0400, enri <enri...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:53:32 -0400, Boron Elgar
>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Now hush before you are offered a swift kick in your posteriori.
>>>
>>>Boron
>>
>>Why do you single me out and treat me like a kid?
>>
>>enri
>
>Many people here will testify that I have not singled you out.
>
>Boron
Then let us hear from them, I have followed this group for years and I
have never witnessed rudeness coming from you. I do not know what
I have done to trigger your animosity but rest assured that you have
my apologies. Galantry and good manners are not quite dead.
enri
Blinky the Shark
>
> JVC lost my interest when they were unable to replace the record/play
> head on a deck I liked. The head should be a generic part like buying
> a new wheel for a civic. I'm sure you can buy a 2005 wheel from Honda
> that can bolt onto a 77 civic.
Why should a helical-scan video head/drum assembly have the generic
quality of a Honda automobile wheel?
Blinky the Shark
She's not flying; don't know where that came from.
Blinky the Shark
>
> (Wouldn't you still expect a $300 camera to do more than 5,000 shots in
> 3 years, though? That's only an average 30-35 shots a week -- one roll
> of film in old money.)
Yes. Not necessarily very well, but yes.
Blinky the Shark
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:58:27 -0400, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I suggest you take your lumps gracefully, go sit in a dark corner
>> and lick your balls, as that is the only comfort you'll get.
>>
>>Boron
>
> I must have unwillingly generated The Wrath of Boron and I apologize.
Why? Just because it appeared again doesn't mean it was warranted.
Blinky the Shark
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:03:27 -0400, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:41:17 -0400, enri <enri...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:53:32 -0400, Boron Elgar
>>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now hush before you are offered a swift kick in your posteriori.
>>>>
>>>>Boron
>>>
>>>Why do you single me out and treat me like a kid?
>>>
>>>enri
>>
>>Many people here will testify that I have not singled you out.
>>
>>Boron
>
> Then let us hear from them, I have followed this group for years and I
> have never witnessed rudeness coming from you. I do not know what
Then you haven't been paying attention. Try your kill filter and see
if that doesn't improve the neighborhood.
James Gifford
>> JVC lost my interest when they were unable to replace the record/play
>> head on a deck I liked. The head should be a generic part like buying
>> a new wheel for a civic. I'm sure you can buy a 2005 wheel from Honda
>> that can bolt onto a 77 civic.
> Why should a helical-scan video head/drum assembly have the generic
> quality of a Honda automobile wheel?
Actually, Blink, you should know that many such parts in consumer gear are
generic components or modules dropped into a brand-name box. There are
factories that turn out nothing but tape transports, head assemblies etc.
and these go into lower-end equipment the way commodity components go into
computers.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>>> JVC lost my interest when they were unable to replace the record/play
>>> head on a deck I liked. The head should be a generic part like buying
>>> a new wheel for a civic. I'm sure you can buy a 2005 wheel from Honda
>>> that can bolt onto a 77 civic.
>
>> Why should a helical-scan video head/drum assembly have the generic
>> quality of a Honda automobile wheel?
>
> Actually, Blink, you should know that many such parts in consumer gear are
> generic components or modules dropped into a brand-name box. There are
> factories that turn out nothing but tape transports, head assemblies etc.
> and these go into lower-end equipment the way commodity components go into
> computers.
I guess not this one, eh?
James Gifford
>> Actually, Blink, you should know that many such parts in consumer
>> gear are generic components or modules dropped into a brand-name box.
> I guess not this one, eh?
I'd have questioned JVC or a third-party repair house a little harder. But
some are unnecessarily proprietary, yah.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>>> Actually, Blink, you should know that many such parts in consumer
>>> gear are generic components or modules dropped into a brand-name box.
>
>> I guess not this one, eh?
>
> I'd have questioned JVC or a third-party repair house a little harder. But
> some are unnecessarily proprietary, yah.
I'd guess that something like a preamp sub board might be genericized,
but I'm less prone to think that's going to be the case with a
head/drum assembly.
James Gifford
> I'd guess that something like a preamp sub board might be genericized,
> but I'm less prone to think that's going to be the case with a
> head/drum assembly.
Nope, really. Cassette tape transport and head assemblies, VCR transport,
transport/head, or "all in one" assemblies, etc. are quite common in lower-
end gear. JVC, Sony, Philips etc. often don't build their own bottom-end
stuff but have it built from more or less off-the-shelf components in a box
of their style and brand.
True of many things. The companies build or at least closely oversee their
better stuff, but slap a sticker on the cheap stuff.
Boron Elgar
Hon, if you have followed this group for years and never witnessed
rudeness from me, you have not truly followed this group. Google words
of my authorship in afca such as "fuck" and "horse."
You came in here with a major kvetch about a problem that doesn't
exist:
**You have a broken camera at least 2 years out of warranty.
**The camera was not a good one, which you would have found out had
you researched it before you bought it.
**You insist you paid top dollar for it, too, another basic consumer
no-no.
**Kodak offered you a refurb tradeup. They needn't have done that.
After all, your camera was way out of warranty.
So why is Kodak at any fault here? So why are you moaning?
And to top it off, you re-posted your original bitchfest TO THIS
GROUP, but with an auto-reply to a different group. You have to go to
some effort to do that. Where else in Usenet are you taking your
complaint? Have you tried any binary groups?
Somehow I am supposed to pat you on the head & fix you a martini? I
dun thin so, Lucy.
Now, if you want to know my secret about digital cameras? Buy
refurbs.(after investigating on c-net or http://www.dpreview.com/)
Three of my digitals are refurbs and nary a one has failed, but then I
have no qualms about replacing them when some new camera covered in
hot-shit gewgaws comes along.
Boron
Boron Elgar
>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:58:27 -0400, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I suggest you take your lumps gracefully, go sit in a dark corner
>> and lick your balls, as that is the only comfort you'll get.
>>
>>Boron
>
>I must have unwillingly generated The Wrath of Boron and I apologize.
>I dare to say that you probably would not talk to me like this in a
>live forum. I dare to speculate that you have been properly educated
>having spent many hours in your fathers knees with a red bottom.
Nah.
>
>Oh my, I am probably old enough to be your father.
>
Maybe. You well into your 70's?
Boron
John Hatpin
>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:03:27 -0400, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:41:17 -0400, enri <enri...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:53:32 -0400, Boron Elgar
>>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Now hush before you are offered a swift kick in your posteriori.
>>>
>>>Why do you single me out and treat me like a kid?
>>
>>Many people here will testify that I have not singled you out.
>
>Then let us hear from them, I have followed this group for years and I
>have never witnessed rudeness coming from you. I do not know what
>I have done to trigger your animosity but rest assured that you have
>my apologies. Galantry and good manners are not quite dead.
Posting so that any follow-ups were sent to another group was your
biggest mistake. That was extremely silly, not at all gallant and not
at all good manners. If I'd wanted to post to rec.photo.moderated,
I'd have lurked there, read the FAQ, and all the other gallant and
good-mannered things one does before posting. And I didn't even want
to post there.
At least have the gallantry and good manners to admit and explain your
mistake, if indeed it was a mistake.
Boron is not the only person who's pissed-off, believe me.
Ulo Melton
To me, she looks like she's flying (in some variations, at least). In
any case, the official name for the ornament is The Spirit of Ecstacy,
but The Flying Lady is the common name for it. Even the magazine of the
Rolls-Royce Owners' Club is called The Flying Lady.
--
Ulo Melton
http://www.sewergator.com - Your Pipeline To Adventure
"Show me a man who is not afraid of being eaten by an alligator
in a sewer, and I'll show you a fool." -Roger Ebert
Ron Hunter
> enri wrote:
>
>> They offered to replace the damaged camera with a refurbished DX7630
>> camera for $125.00 + $10.95 shipping plus the old camera shipped at my
>> expense, i.e. roughly $150 for a refurbished, an euphemism for "used",
>> camera available for about $250 new.
>
> An unimpressive experience and definitely on the low end of customer
> satisfaction, but probably not actionable except to cross them off your
> list of brands for future purchases. Post-warranty repairs are at their
> discretion and struggling old-guard companies that damn near missed the
> whole digital boat just aren't going to have the resources to do it
> right. I suspect they didn't do the core design in-house, in this case,
> and they probably have poor commonality across their various models, so
> repairs on old models will be even less cost-effective than the
> notoriously low norm on mass-market consumer electronics.
>
> Two experiences of my own that you've reminded me of:
>
> About 10 years ago I was working for a place that bought D*ll machines.
> One desktop came with a non-functioning monitor: "DOA" as we say. Well,
> such things happen, and the tech came the next day with a replacement -
> a refurb unit. But we paid for a new one, we said. Well, they said,
> warranty replacements are handled with fully-warranted refurbs, no
> matter how soon the problem crops up. But it was DOA, we said. Tough,
> they said, DOAs are handled as warranty calls. So we paid full price
> for new equipment and never, not even for a minute, got it.
>
> At least X***x put in the fine print on their quotes that some models
> of their big printers were fully reconditioned "factory rebuilt" units,
> so they could make a stronger case that you were stupid to have dealt
> with them to begin with.
>
>> I took the trouble to find out which part needed replacement finding
>> out that the part in question is a plastic gear costing less than 10
>> cents (I know this because I worked optical production issues at
>> Lockheed Martin).
>
> You are aware, of course, that diagnosis, labour and shipping far dwarf
> the nominal cost of the part, so whether it's 10 cents or 10 bucks is a
> bit of a red herring. I'd guess that any repair relating to the lens
> would require a nontrivial alignment and testing effort, so this is
> probably a significant repair. To make the job feasible at all they'd
> probably have to replace some large subsystem, like the whole
> retractable lens assembly, constituting most of the camera's value.
> These were all made at some contract factory overseas which has long
> since retooled for other clients, and it would be ludicrously
> uneconomic to make more of them now. They would have kept some number
> on hand for warranty repairs, used up the leftovers for post-warranty
> work, and now they're gone.
>
>> What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
>> company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
>> more than $500 without doing very much about it.
>
> The picture I get is what I said above: a desperate old-guard outfit
> struggling to keep a share in a market that their name is no longer
> synonymous with, and finding out along with their remaining customers
> that they really aren't up to it.
>
> (Cynically, if they'd designed it "right", all units would have failed,
> with a uniformly random distribution of problems, the day the warranty
> expired. That all the failures are the same part means that all other
> components were overdesigned!)
>
> But I do agree that $500 is a price point that should put the thing
> above the disposable level.
>
>> Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
>> transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
>> offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
>> the original vehicle.
>
> Imagine a Honda dealer telling someone in 2005 that they carried no
> parts, and would provide no service, for a 19xx model, but would offer
> them a $YY trade-in allowance against a newer warranted used vehicle on
> the lot, even though your car's a junker that they'll have to pay to
> get rid of. Perfectly resonable, even generous, for some values of XX
> and YY, no? So it's a good measure of their customer service commitment
> - and their cash flow - but it's not a qualitatively unacceptable
> position.
>
>> install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
>> fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.
>
> Effort is money, and the burden of any post-warranty repair or
> replacement will unavoidably fall on the consumer. They've calculated
> that a sustainable price to do the repair would result in the vast
> majority of customers - maybe even you! - not taking them up on it. So
> they've said screw this, let's let folks buy a more current model for
> about what we'd have to charge them to fix the old one. Frankly I'd
> expect many folks to prefer it.
>
> Chip C
>
Chip,
Some of your remarks are WAY off base, and not related to reality.
Before you make such statements about a company, check their P&L
statements, and their sales and market share figures, so you don't look
like an idiot.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:24:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
>> parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
>> pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
>> Nothing lasts forever. BTW, I can't buy 'design flaw' is this case
>> since it is a part that failed. Parts wear out. Lots of MY parts are
>> wearing out, should I complain to the designer?
>
> I think that many photos should be no sweat for a well-made camera.
> With the quickness of digital I could easily take 250 shots on a
> weekend trip, or 1,000 pictures a month if I was so inclined. I guess
> 5,000 may seem like a lot for 35mm with a lot more care put into each
> costly snap. If the complainant paid $500 for the camera and only got
> 5,000 shots, he paid 10 cents per image, but digital should knock it
> down to a penny, IMO.
>
> Alturas
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
I have had my current digital for just about 1.5 years, and am around
2200 shots. I don't think I would want to continue using a hi-tech
gadget with a rapidly improving price/performance ratio and increasing
sophistication and capability for 50,000 shots. I won't likely LIVE
that long!
If a digital camera is 3 years old, it is probable hopelessly obsolete.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:13:32 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Are you implying that reliability lies only in the realm of *very*
>>> expensive camaras? I suggest you review the US auto industry
>>> reliability problems of the 60's and 70's vs. Japan auto industry.
>>>
>>> "Six Sigma" and "Kaizan" are now common terms in US auto industry
>>> changing our perceptions of automobile reliability forever.
>>>
>>> enri
>>>
>> No, I am implying that you don't KNOW that Kodak was at fault, only that
>> a part often fails in a certain model of camera. If you explore
>> failures in other similar cameras from a range of manufacturers, you MAY
>> find that the complaint isn't specific to Kodak, but common of many zoom
>> cameras. And, yes, if you pay more, you will probably get a camera that
>> will last longer, and will have parts available for a longer period of
>> time (the Rolls Royce example).
>
> "The buck stops here" should be a phrase of wisdom in this case. The
> blame game is of no interest to me or to the teeming millions affected
> by the problem. The issue is one of confidence, once is its broken it
> will stay perhaps forever.
>
> Having said that and having heard your arguments, as well as the
> arguments of other posters, I will now swallow my anger and feelings
> of impotency and treat Kodak as another company caring very little
> about my opinion.
>
> enri
>
>
I am sure they care about your opinion, but one should base his opinion
on reality, not supposition. The camera is discontinued. I am sure
that if Kodak maintained parts stocks for every camera it ever made, you
would probably have had to spend a LOT more for the camera. Now you
know why a Rolls Royce costs so much!
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.fan.cecil-adams.] Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Then replace the LS443 (one of Kodak's better efforts, BTW) with a
>> nice new Canon DSLR for about $1500, and then complain about IT.
>> Sigh.
>
> Does anybody else within the sound of my keyboard agree that two
> old-tech companies that haven't been able to make the transition are
> Kodak and Polaroid? I absolutely respect Kodak film. I wouldn't touch
> a Kodak digital camera. Or any of their film cameras made since...oh,
> maybe the 1940s or 1950s.
>
>
NO. Please check Kodak market share and sales. I have owned Kodak
camera since the 1940's, and have been quite happy with most of them.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Ron Hunter
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:24:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
>> parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
>> pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
>
>
> Nothing lasts forever.
>
Check with Rolls Royce. Give them the motor number, and the model, and
if they don't have the part, they will have it made for you. That's the
way they have always done business. I doubt it has changed.
Of course their cars aren't 'consumer' devices.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Greg Goss
>Greg Goss wrote:
>>
>> JVC lost my interest when they were unable to replace the record/play
>> head on a deck I liked. The head should be a generic part like buying
>> a new wheel for a civic. I'm sure you can buy a 2005 wheel from Honda
>> that can bolt onto a 77 civic.
>
>Why should a helical-scan video head/drum assembly have the generic
>quality of a Honda automobile wheel?
This was an audio cassette deck. It's a bolt-on component that stuff
gets dragged past. The materials and head gaps can change, but the
bolt holes and the electrical impedance are unlikely to. If the bolt
holes change, then it's more likely because someone WANTED
incompatibility.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
enri
<no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>Posting so that any follow-ups were sent to another group was your
>biggest mistake. That was extremely silly, not at all gallant and not
>at all good manners. If I'd wanted to post to rec.photo.moderated,
>I'd have lurked there, read the FAQ, and all the other gallant and
>good-mannered things one does before posting. And I didn't even want
>to post there.
>
>At least have the gallantry and good manners to admit and explain your
>mistake, if indeed it was a mistake.
>
>Boron is not the only person who's pissed-off, believe me.
Mr. Hatpin, cross-posting is not my forte and I apologize for my grave
error. I was under the false impression that when replying to a
message, at least in Agent, one had the option to reply to all groups
or to an individual group. I also incorrectly believed that posting to
a moderated group did not involve exuberant caution, that the
moderator himself would police the adequacy and relevance of a
posting. My mistake, and again accept my sincere and humble apology.
enri
enri
>Posting so that any follow-ups were sent to another group was your
>biggest mistake. That was extremely silly, not at all gallant and not
>at all good manners. If I'd wanted to post to rec.photo.moderated,
>I'd have lurked there, read the FAQ, and all the other gallant and
>good-mannered things one does before posting. And I didn't even want
>to post there.
Mr. Hatpin, now I understand the source of the mistake that created so
much annoyance and ill-will.
From the rec.photo.moderated "Guideline to Posting":
"Crossposting is allowed to two groups other than
rec.photo.moderated, and followups must be to a maximum of two
groups. If the followups header is not set by the poster it will
default to rec.photo.moderated alone."
The second sentence reveals a hitherto unknown to me policy on the
part of this group. This policy is not at all obvious and is not
present in other moderated groups.
Nevertheless this does not excuse my errand ways. I certainly
should have memorized the rules of the group prior to any posting
to it.
enri
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>> I'd guess that something like a preamp sub board might be genericized,
>> but I'm less prone to think that's going to be the case with a
>> head/drum assembly.
>
> Nope, really. Cassette tape transport and head assemblies, VCR transport,
> transport/head, or "all in one" assemblies, etc. are quite common in lower-
> end gear. JVC, Sony, Philips etc. often don't build their own bottom-end
> stuff but have it built from more or less off-the-shelf components in a box
> of their style and brand.
Okay.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>>Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Greg Goss wrote:
>>>> Everyone knows the Rolls Royce radiator.
>>>
>>> Really? What shape (not counting bodywork or the Flying Lady ornament)
>>> has it?
>>
>>She's not flying; don't know where that came from.
>
> To me, she looks like she's flying (in some variations, at least). In
> any case, the official name for the ornament is The Spirit of Ecstacy,
> but The Flying Lady is the common name for it. Even the magazine of the
> Rolls-Royce Owners' Club is called The Flying Lady.
Well, I guess that's where I got it, then. It *is* a nicer name than
Lady Leaning Into A Strong Wind.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.fan.cecil-adams.] Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Then replace the LS443 (one of Kodak's better efforts, BTW) with a
>>> nice new Canon DSLR for about $1500, and then complain about IT.
>>> Sigh.
>>
>> Does anybody else within the sound of my keyboard agree that two
>> old-tech companies that haven't been able to make the transition are
>> Kodak and Polaroid? I absolutely respect Kodak film. I wouldn't touch
>> a Kodak digital camera. Or any of their film cameras made since...oh,
>> maybe the 1940s or 1950s.
>>
> NO. Please check Kodak market share and sales. I have owned Kodak
1. They still sell film; they are not dependent on camera sales.
2. People will buy anything; I spoke of quality, not sales.
> camera since the 1940's, and have been quite happy with most of them.
That could be two bought in 1949. Elaborate, please.
John Hatpin
Accepted. You're using Agent 1.91, same as me, and by default it
warns you about potential cross-posts and offers you the option of
posting only to the group you have open at the time. How that managed
to translate into a faulty follow-up header, I've no idea.
It's not any majorly serious thing, but I'm a little puzzled by your
logic. If I read your post right, you're saying that (a) you thought
that the post would go to the right place, and (b) that you thought it
didn't matter if it didn't, since a mod would take care of it in the
photo group.
That's a bit like saying "Officer, I wasn't anywhere near the bank at
the time of the robbery, and if I was, I wasn't carrying a gun. And
if I was carrying a gun, it wasn't loaded, and if it was loaded, I had
no intention of using it, and if I did use it, I pressed the trigger
by mistake."
At least you didn't shoot anyone, just pissed off Boron and me for a
bit.
James Gifford
> Check with Rolls Royce. Give them the motor number, and the model,
> and if they don't have the part, they will have it made for you.
1) I think this is into UL territory.
2) They won't do it for free, or for the price in the '49 parts book.
> That's the way they have always done business. I doubt it has
> changed. Of course their cars aren't 'consumer' devices.
They are now. Much more so than in decades past. There's a point at which a
company has to stop acting like a gentleman's club and act like a business.
Just ask MG. Whoops, wait... ask Bugatti. Hmm. Try Studebaker. Uh...
Anyway, RR reorganized almost everything a few years and while they still
have the same affectations, they're a real 21st century car maker now.
James Gifford
> This was an audio cassette deck. It's a bolt-on component that stuff
> gets dragged past. The materials and head gaps can change, but the
> bolt holes and the electrical impedance are unlikely to. If the bolt
> holes change, then it's more likely because someone WANTED
> incompatibility.
I'd bet that a *good* third-party repair shop could have fixed it - if by
drilling another mounting hole, then so be it. More likely they just knew
how to find and order industry-standard parts.
James Gifford
>> any case, the official name for the ornament is The Spirit of
>> Ecstacy, but The Flying Lady is the common name for it. Even the
>> magazine of the Rolls-Royce Owners' Club is called The Flying Lady.
> Well, I guess that's where I got it, then. It *is* a nicer name than
> Lady Leaning Into A Strong Wind.
And much better than "I'm Ecstasy, and these are my breasts."
Although I think that is the name of another make's marque... can't bring
it to mind.
John Hatpin
Whoops - didn't see this before posting the other message (about the
bank robbery).
It looks like an odd rule, to be sure, and one that's liable to cause
the kind of error that happened here.
Probably the best policy is to never, ever crosspost. I did it once,
but I think I got away with it (thread merge). There is seldom, if
ever, any point in crossposting to or from AFCA.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Greg Goss wrote:
>>>
>>> JVC lost my interest when they were unable to replace the
>>> record/play head on a deck I liked. The head should be a generic
>>> part like buying a new wheel for a civic. I'm sure you can buy a
>>> 2005 wheel from Honda that can bolt onto a 77 civic.
>>
>>Why should a helical-scan video head/drum assembly have the generic
>>quality of a Honda automobile wheel?
>
> This was an audio cassette deck. It's a bolt-on component that stuff
I didn't see that noted. Yeah, I'd think that more a commodity item
than a h-scan head and drum.
James Gifford
> Sorry - I have no use for combo gadgets that perform none of their
> intended functions well.
Learned that lesson second-hand when I was about eight. Looking through my
dad's Popular Mechanics or whatever and found one of those full-page ads
for a ShopSmith. Ate it up, every word. Said, "Neato" or whatever
equivalent I said at 8. My dad glanced over my shoulder, sighed, and said,
"Yes, it does everything. But it doesn't do anything well." From a man who
had a shop full of first-line tools that added up to about a ShopSmith and
a half, besides being, well, my dad, I took it as gospel.
Learned it - cheaper - firsthand a couple of times. Have no need to relearn
the lesson again.
James Gifford
And while they will probably still be selling film 100 years from now, I
wouldn't want to hold stock in a buggywhip maker, either.
Ulo Melton
>Ulo Melton wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>>>Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>> Greg Goss wrote:
>>>>> Everyone knows the Rolls Royce radiator.
>>>>
>>>> Really? What shape (not counting bodywork or the Flying Lady ornament)
>>>> has it?
>>>
>>>She's not flying; don't know where that came from.
>>
>> To me, she looks like she's flying (in some variations, at least). In
>> any case, the official name for the ornament is The Spirit of Ecstacy,
>> but The Flying Lady is the common name for it. Even the magazine of the
>> Rolls-Royce Owners' Club is called The Flying Lady.
>
>Well, I guess that's where I got it, then. It *is* a nicer name than
>Lady Leaning Into A Strong Wind.
The original design, Lady Breaking a Strong Wind, failed to pass a
consumer review board (it was very popular with 10-year-old boys on the
board, but they were deemed an insignificant portion of the potential
market).
David
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Oxl0f.150$Uk...@fe05.lga...
Kodak issued a firmware update for the LS433 about a year ago. Not sure what
it did, but the information said it was related to the lens retraction
mechanism.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>>> To me, she looks like she's flying (in some variations, at least). In
>>> any case, the official name for the ornament is The Spirit of
>>> Ecstacy, but The Flying Lady is the common name for it. Even the
>>> magazine of the Rolls-Royce Owners' Club is called The Flying Lady.
>
>> Well, I guess that's where I got it, then. It *is* a nicer name than
>> Lady Leaning Into A Strong Wind.
>
> And much better than "I'm Ecstasy, and these are my breasts."
>
> Although I think that is the name of another make's marque... can't bring
> it to mind.
Just because we're talking about RR, I'll note the Snopes entry for 'em:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/dream/rolls.asp
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>> 1. They still sell film; they are not dependent on camera sales.
>
> And while they will probably still be selling film 100 years from now, I
> wouldn't want to hold stock in a buggywhip maker, either.
This makes their cameras great?
Blinky the Shark
>
> Kodak issued a firmware update for the LS433 about a year ago. Not sure what
> it did, but the information said it was related to the lens retraction
> mechanism.
Dear Valued Kodak Customer:
We are retracting all of our lenses.
Please send yours to the following address...
Ray Fischer
>My LS443 Kodak Digital camera failed all of a sudden, with no human
>intervention nor abuse of any sort after approximately 5000 shots over
>less than three years
>
>The lens mechanism wouldn't retract. This is the infamous "Error #45"
>which I learned a posteriori, was a well-known common problem in this
>camera.
It's a common problem in a LOT of P&S cameras.
>A call to the KODAK service revealed that the camera would not be
>repaired by them, that the unit was no longer in production and that
>there weren't any parts available.
Doesn't surprise me. The lifetime of cheap digital cameras is way
short.
>They offered to replace the damaged camera with a refurbished DX7630
>camera for $125.00 + $10.95 shipping plus the old camera shipped at my
>expense, i.e. roughly $150 for a refurbished, an euphemism for "used",
>camera available for about $250 new.
Generous of them. They didn't need to do anything for you.
>I took the trouble to find out which part needed replacement finding
>out that the part in question is a plastic gear costing less than 10
>cents (I know this because I worked optical production issues at
>Lockheed Martin).
>
>What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
>company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
>more than $500 without doing very much about it.
Here's a clue: ALL companies are "greedy". Those that aren't don't
stay in business.
Welcome to 21st century America.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Greg Goss
>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:25:10 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>>enri <enri...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"The buck stops here" should be a phrase of wisdom in this case. The
>>>blame game is of no interest to me or to the teeming millions affected
>>>by the problem. The issue is one of confidence, once is its broken it
>>>will stay perhaps forever.
>>
>>I bought my wife a combined MP3 player and simple digicam. The
>>packaging material described a promotion with no obvious expiry date.
>
>::snort::
>
>Does it make coffee, too?
>
>Sorry - I have no use for combo gadgets that perform none of their
>intended functions well.
An MP3 player is basically a cheap circuit attached to as much memory
as you can afford. A camera is a device that needs memory. This was
a phone-quality camera, suitable to be combined with an MP3 player.
Greg Goss
>Greg Goss wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Greg Goss wrote:
>>>>
>>>> JVC lost my interest when they were unable to replace the
>>>> record/play head on a deck I liked. The head should be a generic
>>>> part like buying a new wheel for a civic. I'm sure you can buy a
>>>> 2005 wheel from Honda that can bolt onto a 77 civic.
>>>
>>>Why should a helical-scan video head/drum assembly have the generic
>>>quality of a Honda automobile wheel?
>>
>> This was an audio cassette deck. It's a bolt-on component that stuff
>
>I didn't see that noted.
I started to post a huffy point that "couple of decades" rules out JVC
helical scan heads, but decided that I round 15 to 20 too often for
that to be critical. :)
Because *I* was thinking audio deck, I didn't think of spinning heads
as a possibility for confusion. (grin)
Richard Bornstein
warranty. I have a Kodak and I am now worried, after the warranty is over,
will i have to throw it away if there is a problem? I am surprised and
disappointed that Kodak won't find a way to fix the camera even if the
customer has to pay something.
"enri" <enri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:v531k1tgrv0kege12...@4ax.com...
> My LS443 Kodak Digital camera failed all of a sudden, with no human
> intervention nor abuse of any sort after approximately 5000 shots over
> less than three years
>
> The lens mechanism wouldn't retract. This is the infamous "Error #45"
> which I learned a posteriori, was a well-known common problem in this
> camera.
>
> A call to the KODAK service revealed that the camera would not be
> repaired by them, that the unit was no longer in production and that
> there weren't any parts available.
>
> "Management had decided that it was not in Kodak's best interest to
> repair this kind of problem in this particular camera"
>
> They offered to replace the damaged camera with a refurbished DX7630
> camera for $125.00 + $10.95 shipping plus the old camera shipped at my
> expense, i.e. roughly $150 for a refurbished, an euphemism for "used",
> camera available for about $250 new.
>
> I took the trouble to find out which part needed replacement finding
> out that the part in question is a plastic gear costing less than 10
> cents (I know this because I worked optical production issues at
> Lockheed Martin).
>
> What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
> company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
> more than $500 without doing very much about it.
>
> The case of Iomega and its "click of death" Zip drive went to court
> eroding its customer base and driving down the price of its stock.
>
> Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
> transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
> offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
> the original vehicle.
>
> Kodak could at least had issue a warning to its customers of a
> potential gear problem; the problem was known to them shortly after
> releasing the LS443 to the market. If one knows that the camera has a
> gear problem one would not retract its lens so frequently to save
> battery power.
>
> This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
> install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
> fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.
>
> enri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
chris greville
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:40:47 +0100, John Hatpin
>
>
> error. I was under the false impression that when replying to a
> message, at least in Agent, one had the option to reply to all groups
> or to an individual group. I also incorrectly believed that posting to
> a moderated group did not involve exuberant caution, that the
> moderator himself would police the adequacy and relevance of a
> posting. My mistake, and again accept my sincere and humble apology.
>
While you are looking for a new camera, you should also be looking for
several bullshit meters to replace the several that you just broke in here.
You knew *exactly* what you were doing. You have apologised for what you did
in a mild version of hamstering mode, but you have not explained the reason
you did it.
Without checking, I wondered if your post to a moderated group had been
rejected.
chris greville
"Boron Elgar" <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o4i3k11926j1oh43b...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Hon, if you have followed this group for years and never witnessed
> rudeness from me, you have not truly followed this group. Google words
> of my authorship in afca such as "fuck" and "horse."
>
>
Aww shucks Hon., please do not put yourself down by pointing out that have
been rude.
That's for the rest of us to do.
Chris Greville
Blinky the Shark
> While you are looking for a new camera, you should also be looking for
> several bullshit meters to replace the several that you just broke in here.
Here's a good one. Animation on.
http://blinkynet.net/stuff/bsm.gif