Serviceability M8 & M8.2 displays

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Gentlemen (I see no ladies), this thread was stuck here as a platform to publicize the statement by Leica.

Obviously everybody has the freedom to discuss this statement, as it was not locked.

However it appears to me that this is not the place to heap fiery coals on Leica's head, nor to belittle those that have genuine concerns.

[Peter H]

Presumably, but not really, Peter.

Doing it like Canikon would be good enough and considered professional......

 

.........

 

How do they guarantee the availability of the parts they don't make themselves?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest]

:D

 

PS: sorry, Jaap and Peter my emoticons refered to Philipps post.

 

It's always good when people are made to think, come with a solution and... why not? continue thinking.

That's how I understood pop's post.

 

Have a fine afternoon gentlemen

and a wonderful spring season, Sir!

Edited September 6, 2012 by tri
PS

[earleygallery]

How do they guarantee the availability of the parts they don't make themselves?

 

Supply chain logistics, contracts, agreements, commitment to stock, alternative suppliers, etc. etc. Lots of companies do this type of thing.

[Peter H]

Supply chain logistics, contracts, agreements, commitment to stock, alternative suppliers, etc. etc. Lots of companies do this type of thing.

 

Not all these things work in every situation. Some don't work at all.

 

Those that do (and those that don't, for that matter) have a per-unit cost, which of course grows as the scale reduces.

 

My question related to whether the cost in the case of Leica would be commercially viable.

 

Can anyone shed some light on that please? I'd appreciate it.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Peter H

[earleygallery]

Only Leica can answer that question for you. I don't know who is in charge of purchasing. Chances are they're not going to share their costs with you though.

 

Supply chains are pretty vital for most manufacturers I've worked with. They employ people just to look after this aspect of their business. Even small companies (smaller than Leica).

 

I don't know what Leica do so can't comment, but hopefully they do take similar precautions (now) with the suppliers they choose to work with.

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Not all these things work in every situation. Some don't work at all.

 

Those that do (and those that don't' date=' for that matter) have a per-unit cost, which of course grows as the scale reduces.

 

My question related to whether the cost in the case of Leica would be commercially viable.

 

Can anyone shed some light on that please? I'd appreciate it.[/quote']

 

It is up to Leica to choose suppliers that are reliable, secure, long term suppliers. They exist... Then make a contract with those suppliers that assures availability for the long term. It is done every single day in the commercial world. Companies committed to the long term viability of their products (electronic or not) take care of this detail. Sure, it costs more to do it properly, but if your reputation rests on "a lifetime of service" AND you're charging $5,000-$8,000 for a camera body, you pay the price or you're going to take heat (justifiably IMO) when it doesn't work out. That Leica didn't take care of this with certain parts on the M8 shows me that are not committed to their reputation and makes me wonder about the long term viability of other Leica products.

[pop]

:D

 

I agree with 20/20 hindsight that the relevance of my post may not have been all that obvious.

 

The bloke did not take into account that by the time his tree was soaked the other trees would not be of any use to him. They would be soaked, too.

 

The parallel with a stock of spare parts seems striking. By the time the need arises to use your stock of spare parts you might detect that they have the same defects as the parts you want to replace.

[Peter H]

Thanks for the response James.

 

But my point is that whilst its reasonable to talk about improved security of service, it makes no sense simply to insist on such things without knowing the cost. (This is a separate point from the marketing one: clearly if you can't guarantee something you shouldn't suggest that you can.)

 

There's not a lot of comfort in having a watertight contract with a supplier who goes bust. There's not a lot of genuine comfort to customers in giving guarantees that depend of the viability of third-party suppliers.

 

The only way of getting close to guaranteeing something (and no guarantee is 100% safe, not least because of credit-risk) is to express the guarantee in financial terms. No one, not even Canon or Apple, can guarantee the supply of all the parts they need. They cannot prevent a third-party supplier going bust, although obviously they have more clout in the market than Leica when it comes to buying up production capacity.) But they can underwrite their guarantees with, in effect, insurance policies: if we can't effect a repair because a part is unavailable, we'll indemnify you against the cost to you of the closest replacement you can find, up to the value of the camera affected.

 

But this is what Leica are offering to do by way of the up-grade programme. I don't know whether the specific terms are fair, and it might be considered restrictive only to offer a Leica product rather than a cash payment, but that's not an unusual practice.

 

But surely there's no point in insisting on something without knowing whether its possible to provide it, and what the cost of doing so might be.

 

I agree an indication from Leica would be helpful, but again, it would be rather more information than most companies would be prepared to reveal, so I'm not holding my breath.

[Guest]

How do they guarantee the availability of the parts they don't make themselves?

 

How are we supposed to know?

Canikon & Sonoly make a good job at that.

Remember Herr Piech hired Mr. Lopez?

That's the future.

 

This thread is about here and now. So what else for M8 owners other than vague promises and scorn?

[earleygallery]

Peter, I've no idea about the cost element.

 

In reality, if a supplier goes bust they will usually go into administration (and hence continue trading) or be sold off, and again, continue in some form. Leica would have to be doubly unlucky for a crucial supplier to go under and fail completely. But yes, it can happen.

 

Stefan Daniel said in his message that they were 'working towards' a 10 year period of availability of spares, so they clearly feel that this is acheivable from a practial and cost point of view.

 

What he hasn't stated however is where they currently are (we can only go upon the 3 years for the M8 at this stage) and how long it will take them to acheive their 10 year target.

[farnz]

It is up to Leica to choose suppliers that are reliable, secure, long term suppliers. They exist....

Easily said but regrettably not so easily done in the current financial climate. I've recently become aware of formerly rock-solid suppliers who have been stable for generations (literally) who have unexpectedly gone to the wall recently. One was the leading telecoms cable manufacturers in the UK with high volumes of worldwide sales and who supplied the majority of British Telecoms cable requirements (ie massive market share). They 'went' overnight in June this year and few in the industry saw it coming.

 

Times for suppliers are much harder than they used to be because of fewer sales, competition fuelled by information available through the internet, and the rise of fly-by-night, service once and disappear without trace companies. This encourages (or requires) suppliers to drop lesser yielding lines far quicker than they used to and bring on new lines to compete, which means that if a company doesn't calculate, buy, and store all its maintenance spares up front then it's likely to find it difficult to obtain them later. But this is a high risk, high outlay strategy that is unlikely to find favour with the bean-counters because the bean-counters don't want capital tied up in stock-holdings for a rainy day when failures need replacing so they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

Pete.

Edited September 6, 2012 by farnz

[Guest]

Leica introduces new support program for young photographers | Leica News & Rumors

 

Would any of the young artists feel humiliated if they got Leica M8 cameras in mint or A condition for free?

 

With the income of the art that will follow, they will later buy S2.

 

Remember Leica M4-P of the young Chinese artist, who was honoured last year in Paris by Leica. His portfolio was very, very impressive imo.

[Ronazle]

Well, I naively bought a couple M-8s and cannot intelligently add to the previous comments inre to the M8. However, my naive belief in lifetime support further enticed me to buying over 1000 USD worth of uv/ir filters to interface the M-8s with all of my Leitz lenses. Does anyone have a good suggestion (leaving myself open!) of what to do with the filters when the m-8's terminally fail? regards, ron

[farnz]

How do they guarantee the availability of the parts they don't make themselves?

As James said in part, dual- or multiple-sourcing of suppliers so that if one gets into difficulty the parts, or similar compatible parts, are available from the other supplier(s). The trick with this though is keeping more that one supplier 'warmed up'; if you give all of your business to Supplier 1 then Supplier 2 will look for other avenues to make his profit, which means that if Supplier 1 fails Supplier 2 will need lead time to supply the parts or at worst decides that the new source(s) of income he's found in the meantime are all he can handle or wants to handle. Unforrtunately there's very little loyalty in business.

 

On the other hand if you split your demand 50-50 between the two suppliers it might not be enough to provide either of the suppliers with sufficient business to prevent them from seeking other revenue streams and you're worse off. It's a tricky balancing business that depends on the size of the market, your demand, the percentage of the market your demand represents, and the potential for profit (mark up).

 

Of course, if you're using a component that is only available from one supplier because he's invented and patented it you're on difficult ground.

 

Incidentally, in my experience contractual obligations don't count for too much in keeping a supply line open because at the point that one of the parties pulls out the contact it's already too late to save the relationship or the line of supply.

 

Pete.

[jaapv]

Well, I naively bought a couple M-8s and cannot intelligently add to the previous comments inre to the M8. However, my naive belief in lifetime support further enticed me to buying over 1000 USD worth of uv/ir filters to interface the M-8s with all of my Leitz lenses. Does anyone have a good suggestion (leaving myself open!) of what to do with the filters when the m-8's terminally fail? regards, ron

 

 

I use them quite regularly on my M9. They improve colour rendering in high-IR conditions. Contrary to popular belief, the M8 is not the only camera that is sensitive to IR light. Many digital cameras do so to varying degrees. These filters existed well before the M8 came to the market.

[Peter H]

Peter, I've no idea about the cost element.

 

In reality, if a supplier goes bust they will usually go into administration (and hence continue trading) or be sold off, and again, continue in some form. Leica would have to be doubly unlucky for a crucial supplier to go under and fail completely. But yes, it can happen.

 

Stefan Daniel said in his message that they were 'working towards' a 10 year period of availability of spares, so they clearly feel that this is acheivable from a practial and cost point of view.

 

What he hasn't stated however is where they currently are (we can only go upon the 3 years for the M8 at this stage) and how long it will take them to acheive their 10 year target.

 

James, if it were true that companies "usually" end up selling off their component parts ensuring that supply continues after going into administration, the cost of credit insurance wouldn't be so high, and the world recession wouldn't be nearly so severe.

 

The fact is, whatever measures Leica takes to improve the security of supplies will have a cost and there's no point on insisting on things before we know the cost: we might prefer not to pay the price. I know we feel it should have been there all along, but as you say, we're dealing with the present and the future..

 

It may soon become slightly clearer: the pricing of any new products will have to cover any improvement in the company's ability to provide the level of service its customers are demanding.

[kdriceman]

But this is a high risk' date=' high outlay strategy that is unlikely to find favour with the bean-counters because the bean-counters don't want capital tied up in stock-holdings for a rainy day when failures need replacing so they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

Pete.[/quote']

 

No doubt the bean counters like the, uh, substantial sales price of the camera though... They can get this price as a direct result of the reputation... Which might cost more in parts inventory, etc... You make fair points here, but the result is that Leica is choosing not to fully support a $5000/$6000 camera after only only 3 years. Whatever the reason, it adversely affects their reputation with many of us.

[earleygallery]

James, if it were true that companies "usually" end up selling off their component parts ensuring that supply continues after going into administration, the cost of credit insurance wouldn't be so high, and the world recession wouldn't be nearly so severe.

 

The fact is, whatever measures Leica takes to improve the security of supplies will have a cost and there's no point on insisting on things before we know the cost: we might prefer not to pay the price. I know we feel it should have been there all along, but as you say, we're dealing with the present and the future..

 

It may soon become slightly clearer: the pricing of any new products will have to cover any improvement in the company's ability to provide the level of service its customers are demanding.

 

Peter, credit insurance is my game! The cost of credit insurance is pretty low at present, rates are nearly as good as they were pre credit-crunch but it's still a hard product to sell to companies who are looking to cut costs!

 

Perversely, it sells very well when things are good and companies feel they have cash to spare, and company failures are few and far between.

 

We pay many claims due to companies going into administration, or simply ceasing to trade. I very rarely see an administrator or new owner agreeing to honour the debts racked up by the business. Pre-pack administrations are particularly annoying, as the company is sold on, continues to trade but has no liability for any debts left behind. The argument in favour of it is that it saves jobs, but they don't mention the jobs lost because of suppliers failing due to the domino effect.

Edited September 6, 2012 by earleygallery

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[farnz]

No doubt the bean counters like the, uh, substantial sales price of the camera though... They can get this price as a direct result of the reputation... Which might cost more in parts inventory, etc... You make fair points here, but the result is that Leica is choosing not to fully support a $5000/$6000 camera after only only 3 years. Whatever the reason, it adversely affects their reputation with many of us.

I agree. To be clear I wasn't intending to defend Leica's position or response, just to explain the experience I've gained through the years.

 

Pete.