That's not a conspiracy theory, that's just sustaining business. Have you ever wondered why everything's so damn cheap these days? People these days will buy technology willy nilly and not give it a moment's thought when it breaks. I bought a £250 portable media player in 2007 and it broke after 20 months, I contacted the makers (Creative) and instead of giving genuine concern that such an expensive device had such a short lifespan, they offered me a discount on my NEXT model. If you buy something that's made quickly and cheaply overseas, then it's gonna have flaws.
For example; I have a Nikon D700, and a friend of mine had a Nikon D40. The D700 cost me £3,000 at the time, and the D40 cost my friend £300. They're both SLR cameras made by the same company, so why such a big price difference?
This is purely down to manufacture cost and location. Her D40 was manufactured in China with a plastic body, grabbed off the shelf in Argos and evidentially sustained irrepairable damage when dropped. My D700 was manufactured in Japan with a magnesium alloy body, had to be ordered in specifically at my local camera shop, and suffered an even greater drop (some stupid bint at a tradeshow knocked it flying in January) and the only thing to fall casualty was the UV filter on the lens that's there for that very reason. Even though the D700 is ten times the price, the profit margin is a much much smaller percentage than the D40; purely because it cost a lot of money to develop and produce, but they still want to be able to sell it. The D40 is much more inexpensive, so it's much more appealing to the everyday joe who wants an SLR camera, therefore more units will be sold. When my dad was a pro photographer many centuries ago, the only people he knew with SLR cameras was him and my uncle, because they were so damned expensive to buy, they were bought as professional equipment. Now everyone and their mum has an SLR because they're cheap to make and cheap to buy. His Nikon F is like, 40-something years old and still works perfectly, yet my friend's D40 died after 2 years. Just a disposible economy, nothing eerie about it.
Oh yeah, speaking of my dad; he said the following re: Freemasons if anyone's interested:
"It's like a gentlemen's golf club...without the golf."
For example; I have a Nikon D700, and a friend of mine had a Nikon D40. The D700 cost me £3,000 at the time, and the D40 cost my friend £300. They're both SLR cameras made by the same company, so why such a big price difference?
This is purely down to manufacture cost and location. Her D40 was manufactured in China with a plastic body, grabbed off the shelf in Argos and evidentially sustained irrepairable damage when dropped. My D700 was manufactured in Japan with a magnesium alloy body, had to be ordered in specifically at my local camera shop, and suffered an even greater drop (some stupid bint at a tradeshow knocked it flying in January) and the only thing to fall casualty was the UV filter on the lens that's there for that very reason. Even though the D700 is ten times the price, the profit margin is a much much smaller percentage than the D40; purely because it cost a lot of money to develop and produce, but they still want to be able to sell it. The D40 is much more inexpensive, so it's much more appealing to the everyday joe who wants an SLR camera, therefore more units will be sold. When my dad was a pro photographer many centuries ago, the only people he knew with SLR cameras was him and my uncle, because they were so damned expensive to buy, they were bought as professional equipment. Now everyone and their mum has an SLR because they're cheap to make and cheap to buy. His Nikon F is like, 40-something years old and still works perfectly, yet my friend's D40 died after 2 years. Just a disposible economy, nothing eerie about it.
Oh yeah, speaking of my dad; he said the following re: Freemasons if anyone's interested:
"It's like a gentlemen's golf club...without the golf."
