On 2007-07-01 09:21:38 +0100, ":Jerry:" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-06-30 22:15:34 +0100, ":Jerry:"
said:

snip

Your point being what, other than tool / brand snobbery?

It isn't an issue of snobbery, but of sound business principle.

Sorry but that is exactly what it is, many of the arguments you are
putting forward are of the straw man type.

Absolutely not. They are clearly explained. Different people may have
different criteria for purchase, but that doesn't alter the principles.




If I were to buy a product at a low end price point, I could take a
view on it and consider that it will be a disposable item after the
warranty runs out in 2 perhaps 3 years. Certainly the retailer
won't be repairing it if there are failures during this time.
snip

Equally you could buy a product at a low end price point which will
last a life time of hard use, because of were it's been made, or the
fact that it's a re branded product that would normally had a well
known brand mark in an existing market.

I'm not passing judgment on Kress (or any other manufacturer), just
the straw arguments that you are using,

They aren't straw arguments.

The only judgment that can be
used is how they perform - not what they look like, what they are
called, where they can be bought or what the service arrangements are.

I disagree.

Of course how they perform is important.

However, don't confuse ergonomics with appearance. Ergonomics is
about ease of use, weight, balance, controllability and so forth.

Where they can be bought is also extemely important. For the
consumer, the contract of sale is with the retailer and he bears
primary responsibility for the quality and servicability of the goods.
A supermarket operation is not geared up to provide service and so
the quality manufacturers provide spares and service arrangements. As
long as these are effective, it doesn't matter where the product is
purchased. OTOH, the unbranded tools sold as low end products in the
DIY stores are not provided with service and spares because it is not
economic to do so. The retailer and supplier take a commercial view on
the returns rate and pricing is adjusted to account for that. As long
as the customer understands that he is getting a 1,2 or 3 year product
that is living on borrowed time after that, then no problem.

I choose not to subscribe to the disposable tools business model.



When I look at Kress, the alarm bells begin to ring for all of the
reasons mentioned above. I am not commenting on whether or not
the make a good product. Clearly they aren't in Festool's league
or they would be competing with innovative rather than me-too
products.

Well having worked with certain tools within the Festool range I'm not
overly impressed, not good when each (basic range) unit cost circa 1k
ukp *each* - one should not have bearings failing each year, plastic
clips breaking off in use, hoses connections failing, or indeed hoses
failing in use - true the machines are extensively used but what do
Festool expect when selling to the commercial sector?

The basic range models do not cost circa £1k each. Drills and sanders
are in the £200-300 range. All of mine perform excellently.



OTOH, they don't appear to have the resources of the major players.
Despite comments that spares will be available for ten years, that
is only true as long as the company remains in business. Given the
market
snip

Well your latter point is true for all companies, if DeWalt or Festool
went bust spares would become a problem too.

Of course. The big difference is that they have a sustainable business
model, so that is highly unlikely.