Re: Updated 3Discover Info

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>  The original Kodak cost $25 at the time. That's close to A MONTH'S WAGES
> for the average factory worker, or the equivalent to around $2000 today. You
> call that disposable? The original Kodak was also a QUALITY camera, complete
> with a Rapid Rectilinear lens. My original post was meant to compare the
> difference in quality, not on the fact the they had to be reloaded in the
> factory.

You're saying then, that 3Discover should increase their price to $2000 in
order to be more the same as Kodak a century ago?  3Discover isn't following
the path of Kodak by having their prices too low?   :-)

I can't comment on 3Discover's camera lens selection seeing as how I've not seen it
yet.  When it comes out, should we compare the resulting photo quality to the pictures 
that that original Kodak camera did (even though that camera was a flattie camera,
so maybe 3Discover should price theirs at $4000)?

Seems to me that if 3Discover goes the route of RBT (bless their souls) quality
that their sales volume will be quickly become the same as Tyco's current sales 
volume of Viewmaster Personal cameras.  And that's probably not what they're
after.

Volume is at the low end.  True for almost everything.  The 3Discover product
definitely looks volume-oriented. 

Does it make sense to build and sell a camera who's photographic quality is
ten times the quality of the viewer it's built for?  Build a $4000 quality 
camera and look at the results with a $30 viewer?

Mike K.


------------------------------