Ideal Product Life-Cycles [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Ideal Product Life-Cycles



Ajani
04-18-2010, 05:43 PM
I'm just curious what persons think is an ideal life-cycle for HiFi products:

5 years? A lot of gear seems to conform to this timeframe.

1 year? Like in mass market gear.

10 years? A number of brands also approach/exceed this figure.



Shorter life-cycles ensure that products are always up-to-date, but lowers resale value (assuming you trade gear) and are ofen regarded as being evidence that the manufacturer lacks confidence in the product (Musical Fidelity gets accused of that quite often)...

Very long life-cycles show great confidence in the product by the manufacturer, but means that potential consumers are left wondering if they should hold off on buying, in case a replacement model is around the corner... I've also noticed that many products with long life-cycles actually update components several times during the lifecycle, so initial models may sound and perform quite differently from earlier production models (for example, the current Benchmark DAC1 has numerous improvements over the original released in 2002 and sounds far better by all accounts)...

Medium length (approx 5 year) life-cycle changes are fairly standard, but they mean that there is always debate about whether new versions of a product are really an improvement or just an excuse to raise prices....

Should there even be a consistent life-cycle for a brand or should they just release new gear when they have something they want to release?

RGA
04-18-2010, 09:33 PM
SS amplifier technology barely changes or improves - so the only reason to change a $3k amplifier is precisely what you noted. To try and convince previous customers that the new one is better.

To be fair though there are "some" real improvements that can be made. Perhaps the new unit will offer some beneficial features that some will want such as adding remote control to the Sugden A21, or changing the way the amplifiers handles hear and this will make the new amplifier run cooler and thus improve the life of the unit. I think if there is "real" improvement going on then a manufacturer has to look into them.

The counter to this is determining the companies who genuinely want to improve their products versus the ones that genuinely want to improve market share. The companies that change every 4-5 years like clockwork and that "everyone" can plainly see do this all the time then it's "clearly" not about making better products but to not let sales bottom out.

The best way to do that is to bring out new models every 4-5 years because it takes about 1-2 years for the products to make the rounds in the press - get terrific reviews. Then some time maybe 1 year to let shoppers see the reviews and press and advertisements and then 1 year to put out "rumor" that a new and improved model is coming to a dealer near you with all the "fake" hush hush" that goes along with it. This is the time dealers get to point this out to customers of the "old and now obsolete" version to order their now while they can still get 30% trade in on their old one. Not to mention it now allows the dealer to put up some advertising that the old model will go for 40-50% off.

Your alternate argument is for products that stay out there for well over a decade. This is advantageous to owners resale values in a sense as a 20 year warranty is advantageous. But it helps more if the same product sees prices rises over that time.

Take my AN J Spe loudspeaker. It currently retails for $5,000 Cad and you will get a used one for $2500-$3,000. But if you bought one in 2000 you would have originally paid $2500. 10 years later you are getting exactly what you paid (well you lost inflation) but I can tell you that that is very rare. If you paid $2000 for a B&W CDM 1NT for example back in 2000 - well no one wants a 1NT because it's been replaced. Someone might pay you $500 for a 1NT - you lost $1500 (and inflation). It doesn't work at the top end of the market because the RICH won't buy used as often so the price drops are massive whether it's on the marker for 20 years or not. But it does work I think in that under $10k zone.

I've had my OTO for about 4 years and I can sell it for what I paid for it. I have seen them on Ebay go for a few hundred more than what I paid. But of course if I sell it and want to upgrade with the same brand then it doesn't get me anywhere because everything got more expensive.

I prefer the companies that have stuff in their line for many many years and make subtle but sonically relevant improvements. Some of the Chinese brands unfortunately sell while the advertising is there and dump it for some new kit on the block leaving the customer with something has almost zero resale. I think owners get more pride of ownership and long term resale if they buy something like a Sugden A21a from the early to mid 1990s. It still stands with anything sonically at the price and above - old tech or not. It looks out of date and rather old fashioned but I can tell you if I am spending $1500 on a SS amp and I can buy a 1995 one of those - I would certainly buy it over Musical bloody Fidelity that when you drop $3k it could be only months before the new unit comes out and your unit is now worth $1500. And listening to MF - it looks better has more power - I'll take the Sugden - I value my music too much.

RGA
04-18-2010, 09:41 PM
Also your example with benchmark is different - they are making improvements as DA converter technology changes - they didn't reinvent the entire box and bring out a new model in different colours with new blather that no one cares about - except for those who do in which case their ears would not likely appreciate it anyway.

The only difficulty of that is that used buyers have a harder time with figuring out which one they should be buying on the used market.

Also, for what it's worth - The Benchmark room at CES was one of my top 5 rooms at the Show. They chose to bring Studio Electric speakers and amps- and it WAS Benchmark who made the selection and good for them to choose a local builder and having the balls to choose a less well known (almost zero known) speaker company in a high stakes environment like CES where you're trying to get dealers to want to carry your products.

The speakers are not typical of what I like - but they managed to impress me greatly. When a SET guy can say that - then you're doing something right!

poppachubby
04-19-2010, 01:36 AM
Ideally? Any manufacturing scenario should have one goal, to build somethiing that lasts. I like when a company offers upgrades to their customers older units. To me, this is a solution that makes everyone happy.

A company that quickly moves away from their last release in design and function, is a company with no real direction. The better producers have generally found their niche and when they make an improvement, it doesn't mean the entire product will end up being different. Linn, Audio Research, companies like this offer substantial improvements as upgrades so previous customers can benefit, and not feel that they are being made to re-buy.

I think this also shows that they respect their customer base. Only a fool believes that things change and improve all the time in this industry. The truth is, there hasn't been alot of great improvements in the last 10-15 years. Digital is another story. So for a brand to be constantly telling me I need to buy another product for "improvements", they better be real and audible.

Real confidence in manufacturing comes with trouble free, long life. That's how reputations get sealed and eventually, intangible value gets added to the brand and product. I have no confidence in a brand that is forever changing their line up, and not for the right reasons.

Feanor
04-19-2010, 04:40 AM
I'm just curious what persons think is an ideal life-cycle for HiFi products:

5 years? A lot of gear seems to conform to this timeframe.

1 year? Like in mass market gear.

10 years? A number of brands also approach/exceed this figure.

...
Speaking to my own situation, I would prefer to get 10 years out of almost any product. My days are over for constantly swapping expensive equipment in the quest for some elusive, tiny, marginal improvement. 10 years is optimistic technologically for things like disc players and AV receivers, obviously. But it certainly applies to speakers, amps, and even DACs.

To wit, my 10 year old Assemblage DAC 1.5 still sounds very good allowing that I did upgrade the opamps to OP627's. This DAC has the CS8412 receiver, PDM100 HDCD decoder, and PCM1702 20-bit "ladder" DAC. Well-regarded components, (possibly excepting CS8412), that still sound good though they won't handle hi rez.

In marketing terms, the apparent strategy of most makers is to shorten the life cycle to the least interval that development and retooling permit.

Ajani
04-19-2010, 09:39 AM
SS amplifier technology barely changes or improves - so the only reason to change a $3k amplifier is precisely what you noted. To try and convince previous customers that the new one is better.

To be fair though there are "some" real improvements that can be made. Perhaps the new unit will offer some beneficial features that some will want such as adding remote control to the Sugden A21, or changing the way the amplifiers handles hear and this will make the new amplifier run cooler and thus improve the life of the unit. I think if there is "real" improvement going on then a manufacturer has to look into them.

The counter to this is determining the companies who genuinely want to improve their products versus the ones that genuinely want to improve market share. The companies that change every 4-5 years like clockwork and that "everyone" can plainly see do this all the time then it's "clearly" not about making better products but to not let sales bottom out.

The best way to do that is to bring out new models every 4-5 years because it takes about 1-2 years for the products to make the rounds in the press - get terrific reviews. Then some time maybe 1 year to let shoppers see the reviews and press and advertisements and then 1 year to put out "rumor" that a new and improved model is coming to a dealer near you with all the "fake" hush hush" that goes along with it. This is the time dealers get to point this out to customers of the "old and now obsolete" version to order their now while they can still get 30% trade in on their old one. Not to mention it now allows the dealer to put up some advertising that the old model will go for 40-50% off.

Your alternate argument is for products that stay out there for well over a decade. This is advantageous to owners resale values in a sense as a 20 year warranty is advantageous. But it helps more if the same product sees prices rises over that time.

Take my AN J Spe loudspeaker. It currently retails for $5,000 Cad and you will get a used one for $2500-$3,000. But if you bought one in 2000 you would have originally paid $2500. 10 years later you are getting exactly what you paid (well you lost inflation) but I can tell you that that is very rare. If you paid $2000 for a B&W CDM 1NT for example back in 2000 - well no one wants a 1NT because it's been replaced. Someone might pay you $500 for a 1NT - you lost $1500 (and inflation). It doesn't work at the top end of the market because the RICH won't buy used as often so the price drops are massive whether it's on the marker for 20 years or not. But it does work I think in that under $10k zone.

I've had my OTO for about 4 years and I can sell it for what I paid for it. I have seen them on Ebay go for a few hundred more than what I paid. But of course if I sell it and want to upgrade with the same brand then it doesn't get me anywhere because everything got more expensive.

I prefer the companies that have stuff in their line for many many years and make subtle but sonically relevant improvements. Some of the Chinese brands unfortunately sell while the advertising is there and dump it for some new kit on the block leaving the customer with something has almost zero resale. I think owners get more pride of ownership and long term resale if they buy something like a Sugden A21a from the early to mid 1990s. It still stands with anything sonically at the price and above - old tech or not. It looks out of date and rather old fashioned but I can tell you if I am spending $1500 on a SS amp and I can buy a 1995 one of those - I would certainly buy it over Musical bloody Fidelity that when you drop $3k it could be only months before the new unit comes out and your unit is now worth $1500. And listening to MF - it looks better has more power - I'll take the Sugden - I value my music too much.

:thumbsup:

When I first got into this hobby, I thought shorter product life-cycles were a sign of innovation. Now I realise it is very often just a reflection of profit motive...

I've actually heard Musical Fidelity gear that I like (the hybrid X-T100 integrated), but I really lost my interest in the brand because of how fast they turn out products... Between 2005 and 2010 they have released the A3.5 Integrated (150 watts SS class A/B), replaced by X-Tl00 (50 watts hybrid class A/B), replaced by A1 (30 watts SS class A) and now M3i (75 Watts SS class A/B)... So 4 Integrateds in about 6 years and each time they've gone in a different direction (High powered SS, Tubes, low powered class A, low powered A/B)... Had they just released a range of different alternatives and kept them all for 6 years, I'd be much more impressed... instead it just seems like flip flopping from one tech to the next with no clear direction for the brand....

Also part of what got me thinking about life-cycles was a recent amplifier group test in the UK in which the 10 year old Quad 909 won! A 10 year old amp won a group test with newly released gear from major rivals...

Now I still think that some manufacturers are just damn lazy and won't spend the R&D time/money to update their gear, but I see that there is really value in products having longer lifespans...

Ajani
04-19-2010, 09:43 AM
Also your example with benchmark is different - they are making improvements as DA converter technology changes - they didn't reinvent the entire box and bring out a new model in different colours with new blather that no one cares about - except for those who do in which case their ears would not likely appreciate it anyway.

The only difficulty of that is that used buyers have a harder time with figuring out which one they should be buying on the used market.

Also, for what it's worth - The Benchmark room at CES was one of my top 5 rooms at the Show. They chose to bring Studio Electric speakers and amps- and it WAS Benchmark who made the selection and good for them to choose a local builder and having the balls to choose a less well known (almost zero known) speaker company in a high stakes environment like CES where you're trying to get dealers to want to carry your products.

The speakers are not typical of what I like - but they managed to impress me greatly. When a SET guy can say that - then you're doing something right!

My issue with the Benchmark is (as you stated) that it's hard to know which used model to buy... Also, people who heard an old model and had issues with it, will repeat those issues on forums etc, without realizing that they are no longer applicable to current production units...

So I find the incremental update model very confusing for customers... maybe if more manufacturers would put a subtle version number on the product (without hyping it up as a "new product") then it would be less confusing...

Ajani
04-19-2010, 09:47 AM
Ideally? Any manufacturing scenario should have one goal, to build somethiing that lasts. I like when a company offers upgrades to their customers older units. To me, this is a solution that makes everyone happy.

A company that quickly moves away from their last release in design and function, is a company with no real direction. The better producers have generally found their niche and when they make an improvement, it doesn't mean the entire product will end up being different. Linn, Audio Research, companies like this offer substantial improvements as upgrades so previous customers can benefit, and not feel that they are being made to re-buy.

I think this also shows that they respect their customer base. Only a fool believes that things change and improve all the time in this industry. The truth is, there hasn't been alot of great improvements in the last 10-15 years. Digital is another story. So for a brand to be constantly telling me I need to buy another product for "improvements", they better be real and audible.

Real confidence in manufacturing comes with trouble free, long life. That's how reputations get sealed and eventually, intangible value gets added to the brand and product. I have no confidence in a brand that is forever changing their line up, and not for the right reasons.

Agreed.... I think the aim should be to build a quality product that will stand the test of time... And I've always been impressed with manufacturers who allow you upgrade your old units to current versions... Most improvements should not require scrapping the entire product and starting over....

Ajani
04-19-2010, 09:50 AM
Speaking to my own situation, I would prefer to get 10 years out of almost any product. My days are over for constantly swapping expensive equipment in the quest for some elusive, tiny, marginal improvement. 10 years is optimistic technologically for things like disc players and AV receivers, obviously. But it certainly applies to speakers, amps, and even DACs.

To wit, my 10 year old Assemblage DAC 1.5 still sounds very good allowing that I did upgrade the opamps to OP627's. This DAC has the CS8412 receiver, PDM100 HDCD decoder, and PCM1702 20-bit "ladder" DAC. Well-regarded components, (possibly excepting CS8412), that still sound good though they won't handle hi rez.

In marketing terms, the apparent strategy of most makers is to shorten the life cycle to the least interval that development and retooling permit.

Even AV Receivers/Processors can be made modular/upgradable... So that you don't need to toss the entire thing everytime a new Dolby format is released...

blackraven
04-19-2010, 10:16 AM
Part of the reason that I like Van Alstine gear is that Frank is always looking for ways to upgrade his equipment and can usually pass the upgrades on to his older gear. Some of the upgrades come from his customers and are passed on to him to evaluate and if he thinks its better he will incorporate it into his gear.

Ajani
04-19-2010, 10:55 AM
Part of the reason that I like Van Alstine gear is that Frank is always looking for ways to upgrade his equipment and can usually pass the upgrades on to his older gear. Some of the upgrades come from his customers and are passed on to him to evaluate and if he thinks its better he will incorporate it into his gear.

Such is a major advantage of using smaller HiFi outfits... (assuming of course that you find a reputable one and not someone just looking to make a quick buck or has good intentions but not the skills and experience to deliver the results)....

errol van
04-20-2010, 09:19 PM
The gear I have was purchased in Germany while I was in the Army during the 80s! So I don't have a time frame for gear. I will upgrade my JVC receiver soon to a preamp/power amp combo soon and I'm adding a universal cd/dvd/blu ray player to my system! I just wait until something breaks and upgrade!

rob_a
04-21-2010, 11:20 AM
Well, I would hope the product lasts as long as I want to use it and then I can sell it. After that it can break. Thats about it :cornut:

Ajani
04-21-2010, 04:10 PM
Also, for what it's worth - The Benchmark room at CES was one of my top 5 rooms at the Show. They chose to bring Studio Electric speakers and amps- and it WAS Benchmark who made the selection and good for them to choose a local builder and having the balls to choose a less well known (almost zero known) speaker company in a high stakes environment like CES where you're trying to get dealers to want to carry your products.

The speakers are not typical of what I like - but they managed to impress me greatly. When a SET guy can say that - then you're doing something right!

Interesting is that a $1K Benchmark was paired with a $7.35K amp and $7.9K speakers...