Australian Image wrote:There's far more to it than that. First there's the engineering and design costs of not just the swivel mechanism, but the camera body itself, the housing for the screen, the cabling etc (the side ports may have to be redesigned etc). Then there's a lot of testing to determine actual functionality, durability, MTBF etc; we're talking about a screen that's starting to weigh a lot more if it's to be robust and not flex. Then you have to add in the additional manufacturing, assembly, parts and servicing requirements, inventory, warehousing costs etc. These aren't all of the costs involved. No change is trivial.
Well, Christmas is over, but you guys are still here.
Repeating things I've said me doesn't make me wrong you know. Of course bug accommodated all those things spread across the production life of the product, which is the way to use them. So when they make a new model, the sales of that model divide up the cost between them reducing the price o'er unit. This is exactly how the pocket 4k fits in the current price. So, in the end, the extra cost is absorbed a lot, and maybe a lot lower then you might expect to begin with.
Look, AI, in every forum there are a handful of people that want to challenge things, the same people on lots of threads. They might see themselves as defending concepts (their interpretation) of what is right, their mind has a storage place which says something is something, and they hold onto it, spreading negatively about challenges to their concepts. Where life is learning. Rationalising what could be actually, and is. Dynamically and flexibly. In the Bible where two groups. One the Pharisees who worked out what to believe, and one the Sadducees who maybe were too liberal instead of conservative. Both where denounced by Jesus as missing the point. In Biblical context it was about relating to and loving and as a consequence obeying God, depending on him to work things out. Its not the sane here, but the two groups illustrate the point. If we were to look at another example this time, Doc Martin TV series from England. The Doc is a bit of a doofus. He has this massive knowledge beyond his specialist field as a surgeon where he just comes up with the ideal diagnosis at the drop of a hat, and the often errant medical establishment is the all seeing guide to knowledge, and outside is fraud.. Very unrealistic. On the other hand, in the series House, House has massive knowledge, deals with highly complex cases, and investigates and seeks out new knowledge in order to cure people, inside or outside the medical establishment, whatever is true. He is not constraining himself. One of these in real life is a fantasy way of doing things, one is not. We get doctors thinking they can be like a Doc Martin without external reference. If you have a challenging condition past their limited in real life knowledge, they can seriously negatively affect you or kill you. Where as in real life, not the fantasy half gone House character, a highly skilled person like this can seek out more, and have a wider field of knowledge because of it, spend time actually diagnosing and researching a problem looking for proof outside of prelearned route medical knowledge as need be (a lot of future medical practice cones up in research many years before, even decades, and as a lot of medical issues are biochemical, it means that the successful practices of alternative medicine can indicate biochemical paths), and find better avenues for hard to treat conditions. Seeing their limitations they seek out more. Now, while a wishful Martin might be more to kill you given a challenging enough condition past their limited competence in 2 minute+ consultations. A competent House is only really likely to kill you if he must in order to stop you dieimg now. The show is a bit of a joke, they are always talking about risk assessment of allowing him to treat people much more likely to die in other doctors hands, which is negligence. People likely to die die more often, and people likely to due note often in another's hands, are more likely to die. You won't save everybody, but as long as you can competently save more and in a better way. There is a lot to argue about that example and how things operate in real life, but the illustration of the method if thinking holds, a competent person that thinks they know it, but is not open to learning more if there is significant more to learn, is in the end incompetent. The competent person who can recognise limitation and learn note, is potentially competent about the circumstance. However, the incompetent person who can't learn more might be competent depending on circumstance. The incompetent who is open to learn more is still potentially incompetent, or maybe just stuff it up (get a competent second opinion). Don't regard doctors personabilty first, regard their professional competence.
Now, when my autism spectrum disorder gets going despite treatment, I walk around like a Doc Martin (though I'm not as rude, or grumpy). So, I KNOW what I'm talking about, and I she the limitations. That should cover multiple angles.