In Reply to: RE: I think the picture is much bigger than that posted by AbeCollins on September 30, 2017 at 10:17:04:
'but their (poor?) business practices?'
That would be an indictment of the entire Capitalist system I am sure that was not your intend. This happens every day with companies big and small it is how the system works. In some cases it is a good move sometimes it is not. I don't think we can consider this type of activity as good or bad it is all relative to the given company, situation, outcome.
'And if the audiophile market is shrinking - which many believe to be the case'
I am not one of those people. I see the exact opposite thing happening in the market. There are more markets to exploit than ever before. Markets will always change, evolve, shrink and grow over time this is part of Capitalism and companies that wish to be successful in the long term accept this reality and can make the necessary changes to survive. Nothing ever stays the same. And with the natural cycle of things we will see companies disappear even ones that have been in the market for some time. It is always a shock to the system when a long term company folds but it happens. Nothing lasts forever there will always be a beginning and end for everything. But other companies come along to take their place.
'wouldn't it make sense for manufacturers to try and move up market with higher priced gear?'
Depends on ones notion of higher priced gear. ARC, as an example, and most of the others you mentioned earlier in this thread have never been budget, affordable gear for most consumers. They have always been expensive, luxury goods. Yes some of their offerings were affordable for a reasonably well off middle class person, especially buying used, but don't kid yourself this was never inexpensive equipment even 25, 35, 40 years ago. The actual price points over time are largely irrelevant. Remember when you could get a new Marantz 8B for $285? In 1962 that was an incredible price for a stereo toy for most people only the well healed dedicated enthusiast could own such a thing.
'Lower volumes but make up for it with much higher prices and higher profits.'
That is conjecture since none of us will actually know the number of units out the door for any given company. Are they producing lower volume at higher margins? Who knows? And is that really a bad thing in every case?
The sky is not falling. Luxury goods will always be expensive and out of the reach of most.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: I think the picture is much bigger than that - kentaja 09/30/1711:16:39 09/30/17 (8)
- RE: I think the picture is much bigger than that - fantja 12:00:50 09/30/17 (1)
- RE: I think the picture is much bigger than that - kentaja 13:24:09 09/30/17 (0)
- $285 in 1962 would be $2,317 today (@713% inflation) - a bargain! - Chris from Lafayette 11:50:56 09/30/17 (5)
- RE: $285 in 1962 would be $2,317 today (@713% inflation) - a bargain! - kentaja 13:22:52 09/30/17 (4)
- Yes! - but that's mostly because of inflation - both average income AND price points - Chris from Lafayette 20:00:33 09/30/17 (3)
- RE: Yes! - but that's mostly because of inflation - both average income AND price points - kentaja 06:03:28 10/1/17 (2)
- RE: Yes! - but that's mostly because of inflation - both average income AND price points - Charles Hansen 21:30:14 10/1/17 (1)
- RE: Yes! - but that's mostly because of inflation - both average income AND price points - kentaja 06:52:25 10/2/17 (0)