Hi,
This is true insofar as you cannot say "I want a Samsung Galaxy Tab" before such a product is introduced.
However demand can still exist for the KIND OF PRODUCT (e.g. "I want a Tablet with a 10" Screen that is not cripple ware like the iPad and costs a lot less").
I will repeat, people are blinded mostly by what Apple seems to be doing (but does not actually do).
In the real world demand often exists prior to products being available, it is just untapped, unfilled demand.
The opposite (there is no demand but the introduction of a new kind of product suddenly creates the demand) is extremely rare, in fact, I am trying to think of examples that do not (literally) go back to the stone age and sliced bread and I am coming up pretty empty.
Ciao T
This is true insofar as you cannot say "I want a Samsung Galaxy Tab" before such a product is introduced.
However demand can still exist for the KIND OF PRODUCT (e.g. "I want a Tablet with a 10" Screen that is not cripple ware like the iPad and costs a lot less").
I will repeat, people are blinded mostly by what Apple seems to be doing (but does not actually do).
In the real world demand often exists prior to products being available, it is just untapped, unfilled demand.
The opposite (there is no demand but the introduction of a new kind of product suddenly creates the demand) is extremely rare, in fact, I am trying to think of examples that do not (literally) go back to the stone age and sliced bread and I am coming up pretty empty.
Ciao T
Well, it's a good idea to compare like to like.
supply to demand (sales) - stuff/services to stuff/services
or
supply to demand (desire) - stuff/services to internal psychological state.
(If supply creates its own demand, then the first comparison is better, I think).
Otherwise folk get into trouble down the line when they start to do theory and analysis on a macro level. But we don't, honestly don't, truly don't, want to go there. It gets p-------l.
It used to be traditional. Look up JB Say. He's served badly by his translators and he wasn't very clear, but you'll see why I don't want to go there.Gotta go practice music.
Hi,
Funny, while I did not want the iPad (it's just an overgrown iPhone with similar limitations), I have wanted personally something like the crop of Tablets since around 2004 when I got my first Windows Smart Phone (a monsterous Slate with a bigger screen than the iPhone, buggy as heck and all, it was something I realised I had needed since about turning 15...).
BTW, I have a 10" aPad which cost me the grand total USD 149 and has non of the limitations of the iPad, except it is not quite as stylish.
Ciao T
Funny, while I did not want the iPad (it's just an overgrown iPhone with similar limitations), I have wanted personally something like the crop of Tablets since around 2004 when I got my first Windows Smart Phone (a monsterous Slate with a bigger screen than the iPhone, buggy as heck and all, it was something I realised I had needed since about turning 15...).
BTW, I have a 10" aPad which cost me the grand total USD 149 and has non of the limitations of the iPad, except it is not quite as stylish.
Ciao T
Hi,
I guess some guys like small speakers and big amp's, others like big speakers and small Amp's, me, I like Big Speakers AND Big Amp's.
To me a good Amplifier quality measurement is DF (Dunker Factor - After Thomas Dunker who made a pair of 50Kg Monoblocks that output around 900mW at clipping) which is derived by dividing amplifier weight by output power in Watt's.
Amplifiers with a DF below 20 are commercial kids toys, just as speakers with mid-woofers smaller than 15"are kids toys...
Ciao T
I guess I have always had indecent speakers .......
I guess some guys like small speakers and big amp's, others like big speakers and small Amp's, me, I like Big Speakers AND Big Amp's.
To me a good Amplifier quality measurement is DF (Dunker Factor - After Thomas Dunker who made a pair of 50Kg Monoblocks that output around 900mW at clipping) which is derived by dividing amplifier weight by output power in Watt's.
Amplifiers with a DF below 20 are commercial kids toys, just as speakers with mid-woofers smaller than 15"are kids toys...
Ciao T
That re-entry thing is very interesting, in the history of the space race.
A good read is "Red Moon Rising", this one
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Moon-Rising-Sputnik-Rivalries/dp/080508147X
It chronicles the late 50's developments from both the US and Russian perspectives, starting with the end of WWII. It was written post cold war, using research material from both sides that was relatively new, and certainly unknown way back when. Turns out all the best technology for both countries came from plundering the post WWII German rocket R&D materials, often hidden away in unusual places.
The Russians made a brute force rocket that could get into space, but could not figure out how to do re-entry without burning up. This was useless for the military guys, as the whole point was to use it for intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear type. This was their effort to leapfrog American superiority in long range bombers.
The lead Russian rocket scientist was a geek at heart, and his personal pet project was to launch a satellite. Since they couldn't do missiles, Khrushchev agreed to it. It was called Sputnik.
In the mean time, the US military thinking was dominated by men pushing the "more long range bombers" idea - if you had more bombers than the enemy, you would win the nuclear war. So no need to invest in space.
At the time, even the Russian leaders had no idea what a media sensation the 1957 Sputnik launch would become. It was not calculated, or even expected. But they did they best to take advantage of it, and the US was embarrassed.
All of a sudden, on the world stage, the US was *behind* the Russians. That led to a lot of things in the next 6 years, including the Apollo moon program.
Last edited:
One more story: Japanese designers were thinking that the world is behind their best audio production until Soviet deceiver landed Mig-25 in Japan, They found 6S33S tube and realized that Japan is behind.
Just kidding, but each joke has part of truth in it: what is "behind" in technology is very relative. If digital transistor switches followed directly electro-magnetic relays analog audio would be regarded as fresh and revolutionary technology, and vacuum tubes would be the top of the fashion.
Just kidding, but each joke has part of truth in it: what is "behind" in technology is very relative. If digital transistor switches followed directly electro-magnetic relays analog audio would be regarded as fresh and revolutionary technology, and vacuum tubes would be the top of the fashion.
No doubt. I think most products are a response to an existing demand, whether real or perceived. Problems appear when the perceived demand is seen as much greater than it really is, or when it's misinterpreted and the product does not fully address the issues.
Those wishing to launch a product for which they have to create a demand are the ones who have their job cut out for them. To be sure, it's possible, but it's also far more risky and far more expensive in most cases.
A misunderstanding here - when I said I've been down that road, I meant the whole path from an idea to an actual product, which then had to be sold as well as possible. Not an actual product like yours, which means there will be differences in the sales process, but I think more similarities than differences.
Ultimately, each and every product needs its own sales strategy, so no two are really ever the same, just similar. Even my own three cases were just similar, not the same. I have no doubt yours will, by its very nature, be still more different.
However, as I understood you, you are really developing a technology much more than a single product, or even a line of products, which is what I did. That alone will bring in many differences. Since I have practically zero insight into your line of work, I cannot even guess what all the differences might be, but selling a new product does have some similarities with others anyway.
Well there's one difference - mine does not have to 'be sold' in that sense. Rather people will acquire it of their own accord - pull, rather than push. Secondly, I'm not going to be directly involved in that side of the business as I prefer to devote my efforts towards design and marketing. Marketing success to me means products (solutions in my case) sell themselves.
You dont want an 15 inch driver doing your midrange , Large speakers, large Amplifiers, always had from the age of 14. At 17 I had an pr of MC3500's, 60 Kg each, luckily i had plenty of friends to help lift at the time ..
I got into sand stuff after auditioning an custom built fully regulated SS beasty, (78) a yr later i heard @ Peter McGrath's, The levinson based QED system...
Never looked back .........
Hi,
Correction, YOU dont want an 15 inch driver doing your midrange.
I do, lower midrange, below around 600...800Hz.
2-Way with a 15" Bass-Mid and a suitable HF System is something else.
On of my all time favourite Speaker had a pair of 15" Mid-Woofers loaded into short front horns, a 2" exit (4" voice coil/diaphragm) compression driver above around 500Hz and a 1"Compression driver tweeter.
While this is a PA Speaker for use > 150Hz only (you could EQ it to go down to 60Hz but doing that was a waste of a top notch "top". The sound even running at very high levels is all you ever wanted from a HiFi Speaker.
This system was rated 1KW AES and 110dB/W/m...
We used to drive them with bridged big Yammies and for a short time some Crown Macrotech 10K, before these got relegated to sub bass duties driving Bass Tech Seven's and 4 * 10" Midbass horns to fill in between them and the tops...
Ciao T
Correction, YOU dont want an 15 inch driver doing your midrange.
I do, lower midrange, below around 600...800Hz.
2-Way with a 15" Bass-Mid and a suitable HF System is something else.
On of my all time favourite Speaker had a pair of 15" Mid-Woofers loaded into short front horns, a 2" exit (4" voice coil/diaphragm) compression driver above around 500Hz and a 1"Compression driver tweeter.
While this is a PA Speaker for use > 150Hz only (you could EQ it to go down to 60Hz but doing that was a waste of a top notch "top". The sound even running at very high levels is all you ever wanted from a HiFi Speaker.
This system was rated 1KW AES and 110dB/W/m...
We used to drive them with bridged big Yammies and for a short time some Crown Macrotech 10K, before these got relegated to sub bass duties driving Bass Tech Seven's and 4 * 10" Midbass horns to fill in between them and the tops...
Ciao T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.