Originally posted by jsherman999 Yep.
Pentax focused on the 18-month plan for a couple decades, and ended up at the bottom of that chart.
It costs too much money to move off m42, lets wait. It costs too much to introduce autofocus, let's wait. It costs too much to offer full frame, let's wait...
I suspect Ricoh is more interested in the 10 year plan for interchangible lens cameras than Pentax-standalone could be, or Hoya wanted to be.
.
.
That chart measures *marketshare,* not 'Profitability.' Or 'Being Worth Dealing With.' ...People seem to mix that up a lot.
People act like being smaller and solid is actually somehow a *bad* thing.
That's a market share chart. Who cares how much more volume you're doing, if you can make a good living, and a good product?
Speaking of accountancy being a parasite on all this: they talk about 'Who's biggest' and then to everyone who's not biggest, they say, if they (we) want to do something good, 'Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait... Now Hurryhurryhurryhurryhurryup! Oh, you couldn't suddenly outperform multinationals? You must be such a 'loser.'"
I don't *give* a crap how Pentax 'compares' for marketshare. Put what I need. In my hands. For what I can pay. I don't care if they do it outta Gramma's basement.
Seriously, do you think I try to shoestring together 'RML Enterprises' on ... well, nothing but some gear at this point (That I hopefully won't have to sell... in a worse market than I scavenged it from in the first place..... ) and think being smaller than Magnum or Bachrach is my big problem? Buy some stock, and we'll talk, maybe. But even then.
Let's put it very simply. There's *no* way I will look good compared to some big corporations. Can I potentially turn a profit on milk money, by providing some things some people might like? Gods, I hope so. Or else some parasitic beancounters have some explaining to do. Tormenting serfs like that. Tsk. You know? If we're going to be all feudal, how bout a little o the old noblesse oblige?