 |
|
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sawstop--the wrong marketing approach?
It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses occasionally. Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade. Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach. Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to make up the cost in consumables? Be interesting to see some market research on that. If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital visit every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a hospital visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year. So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws? -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace
the parts? Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms yourself? Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market. Bob |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob wrote:
Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace the parts? If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw, then the answer is obvious. Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms yourself? From what the sawstop people say, replacing the cartridge is in the same order of difficulty as replacing a fuse. No "installing" required beyond pull out the old one, stick in the new one. If it's more complicated than that they've got a problem. Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market. How about in a pro market? Bob -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
... Bob wrote: Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace the parts? If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw, then the answer is obvious. Why would that be the only choice? Do you buy a new saw when you have an accident on it? An equally valid choice would be pay $100 or have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich rammed down your throat by a purple titanium robot while you are sleeping. I hate false dilemmas. -j |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
J wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Bob wrote: Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace the parts? If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw, then the answer is obvious. Why would that be the only choice? Do you buy a new saw when you have an accident on it? If the accident does $100 worth of damage to the saw then the choice is to pay the $100 to fix it or to get a new saw. Same situation. An equally valid choice would be pay $100 or have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich rammed down your throat by a purple titanium robot while you are sleeping. How is that an "equally valid choice"? It makes absolutely no sense as an analogy. I hate false dilemmas. What "false dilemma"? If one has a saw equipped with a Sawstop, then the choice is to replace the cartridge for 100 bucks, replace the saw for whatever is the price of a new saw, defeat the absent cartridge, or don't saw. I don't see another option. -j -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... J wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Bob wrote: Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace the parts? If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw, then the answer is obvious. Why would that be the only choice? Do you buy a new saw when you have an accident on it? If the accident does $100 worth of damage to the saw then the choice is to pay the $100 to fix it or to get a new saw. Same situation. ??? really? An equally valid choice would be pay $100 or have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich rammed down your throat by a purple titanium robot while you are sleeping. How is that an "equally valid choice"? It makes absolutely no sense as an analogy. Hey! That is what I was trying to say! I hate false dilemmas. What "false dilemma"? If one has a saw equipped with a Sawstop, then the choice is to replace the cartridge for 100 bucks, replace the saw for whatever is the price of a new saw, defeat the absent cartridge, or don't saw. I don't see another option. Now you offer 4 choices. You understand that this proves that the first post with only two choices was a false dilemma, don't you? -j |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. Clarke" wrote in message What "false dilemma"? If one has a saw equipped with a Sawstop, then the choice is to replace the cartridge for 100 bucks, replace the saw for whatever is the price of a new saw, defeat the absent cartridge, or don't saw. I don't see another option. That is the point he is making. You'd happily pay $100 or more if it save your finger from being amputated. Yes, you'd be very PO'd on a false reaction, but I'd put $1000 in the till if it saves a finger. IMO, the idea if fantastic and I'd be willing to pay a premium to have it on my saw. Just like airbags in a car and life vests on a boat. BUT . . . yes, that is a BUT I want to see it as proven technology that it will save my skin and not give false tripping. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
An equally valid choice would be pay $100 or have a peanut butter and
jelly sandwich rammed down your throat by a purple titanium robot while you are sleeping. That happened to you TOO?? |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Vic Baron" wrote in message
. com... An equally valid choice would be pay $100 or have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich rammed down your throat by a purple titanium robot while you are sleeping. That happened to you TOO?? Nah, I have invented the "PurpleTitaniumRobotWithPeanutButterAndJellySandwi chStop". It works great. As a side benefit, my weiner hasn't been cut off since I've had it. Currently I'm in negotiations to make it mandatory so that no one else will be traumatized again. -j |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Vic Baron" wrote in message . com... An equally valid choice would be pay $100 or have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich rammed down your throat by a purple titanium robot while you are sleeping. That happened to you TOO?? No, I just paid the Hundred .......enjoy |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
In news:Bob typed:
Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace the parts? Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms yourself? Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market. Bob In my case it would be $70- for the cartridge, and $110- for the blade...and I would like to state emphatically "yes" that I would gladly pay that many times to keep my fingers and limbs intact. Is there really any other way to look at it? Maybe for someone that was so cheap that they can justify not spending the money to keep their digits and limbs there is a different answer...but I don't think so! -- Ted Harris http://www.tedharris.com |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ted harris" writes:
In news:Bob typed: Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace the parts? Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms yourself? Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market. Bob In my case it would be $70- for the cartridge, and $110- for the blade...and I would like to state emphatically "yes" that I would gladly pay that many times to keep my fingers and limbs intact. Is there really any other way to look at it? Maybe for someone that was so cheap that they can justify not spending the money to keep their digits and limbs there is a different answer...but I don't think so. The "right way" to look at it is statistically. There are X tablesaws being used in a given geographical area. There are Y tablesaw injuries in that same geographical area. Of those Y injuries, there are Z that would have been prevented by SawStop. Unless Z is a significant fraction of X, SS will likely not find much traction amongst the X tablesaw owners. Isn't easier to just not put your fingers in the blade rather than add hardware to stop the blade when you do? A couple of home-made pushsticks accomplish the same goals as the Saw-Stop, and the SS can't prevent all tablesaw injuries (such as those caused by kickback) and may infact cause more because of operator complacency. scott |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Isn't easier to just not put your fingers in the blade rather than add hardware to stop the blade when you do? A couple of home-made pushsticks accomplish the same goals as the Saw-Stop, and the SS can't prevent all tablesaw injuries (such as those caused by kickback) and may infact cause more because of operator complacency. Yeah, that's my biggest concern with the SawStop. I think it's an interesting idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if, if we ever have a world where it's mandatory, the net number of injuries stays about constant, as people depend on the SS to save them instead of being really aware of what they're doing. The tablesaw is still a dangerous machine even if it won't cut off your finger. -BAT |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Brett A. Thomas" wrote in message ... Scott Lurndal wrote: Isn't easier to just not put your fingers in the blade rather than add hardware to stop the blade when you do? A couple of home-made pushsticks accomplish the same goals as the Saw-Stop, and the SS can't prevent all tablesaw injuries (such as those caused by kickback) and may infact cause more because of operator complacency. Yeah, that's my biggest concern with the SawStop. I think it's an interesting idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if, if we ever have a world where it's mandatory, the net number of injuries stays about constant, as people depend on the SS to save them instead of being really aware of what they're doing. The tablesaw is still a dangerous machine even if it won't cut off your finger. -BAT I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? It isn't human nature to behave that way. Whenever I heard that argument the first thought that comes to my mind is that it's a hollow argument from someone who simply does not like an idea, but has not real argument against it. Sort of a red herring. People have a natural tendency to avoid things that will hurt them whether safety devices are in place or not. The problem comes in if they don't know about the things that can hurt them or if for some reason they believe themselves to be immune to the potential for injury. You know - like we all were when we had our first cars. Before our first accidents... -- -Mike- |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:51:03 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote: In news:Bob typed: Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace the parts? Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms yourself? Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market. Bob In my case it would be $70- for the cartridge, and $110- for the blade...and I would like to state emphatically "yes" that I would gladly pay that many times to keep my fingers and limbs intact. Is there really any other way to look at it? Maybe for someone that was so cheap that they can justify not spending the money to keep their digits and limbs there is a different answer...but I don't think so! ok, ted, your fingers are worth more than a couple hundred bucks. granted. what isn't known is the rate of false positives. that information *cannot* be known until the machine has been in use in actual workshop use for some time. how many times would you pay $180 for a cartridge and blade before you started thinking about either replacing the saw or just disabling the thing. a cabinet saw costs about $2000. that's about 11 false positives. if it does it once a month it's costing you something like 4 new saws a year. how many times HAVE you cut off your fingers on your table saw, anyway? |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Also, the government mandates a technology, and leaves the companies out to dry
when the technology is rushed into use by law. Airbag suits were not thrown out when someone was hurt or killed by an airbag that performed exactly in the mandated manner. Grant wrote: snip There's another problem here. Technology which is rushed into wide use by government mandate may not be completely understood and hence not fully developed. This happened with air bags and produced a lot of injuries. See: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/10/1575 --RC Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
In typed:
ok, ted, your fingers are worth more than a couple hundred bucks. granted. what isn't known is the rate of false positives. that information *cannot* be known until the machine has been in use in actual workshop use for some time. how many times would you pay $180 for a cartridge and blade before you started thinking about either replacing the saw or just disabling the thing. a cabinet saw costs about $2000. that's about 11 false positives. if it does it once a month it's costing you something like 4 new saws a year. If I was worried about false alarms, I would like to find out what testing has been done to prove that it will not misfire. I am quite positive that there are saws somewhere that have been in real woodshops being used in real working conditions since the day it was invented, not to mention possibly even some testing center that was hired to test it. Basically, I am saying that befoe I pursued purchasing the machine I would like to see evidence of testing, or some sort of proof that misfires are some very small percentage or even not possible. I would pay it at least once, and then I would have to figure out whether or not I actually touched the blade, before I pursued other avenues. If I did not touch the blade, I would be on the phone talking to Steve Gass. I am quite sure that he is a reasonable man, and could be convinced one way, cannot be the only way. The reason I know this is because of his invention of the very system we are debating. The system would not even exist if he thought that the possiblity for something that seemed impossible was in fact possible. how many times HAVE you cut off your fingers on your table saw, anyway? Never, but I have touched an alternating tip blade while it was running and not even received a scratch from it. -- Ted Harris http://www.tedharris.com |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:35:37 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote: In typed: ok, ted, your fingers are worth more than a couple hundred bucks. granted. what isn't known is the rate of false positives. that information *cannot* be known until the machine has been in use in actual workshop use for some time. how many times would you pay $180 for a cartridge and blade before you started thinking about either replacing the saw or just disabling the thing. a cabinet saw costs about $2000. that's about 11 false positives. if it does it once a month it's costing you something like 4 new saws a year. If I was worried about false alarms, I would like to find out what testing has been done to prove that it will not misfire. I am quite positive that there are saws somewhere that have been in real woodshops being used in real working conditions since the day it was invented, not to mention possibly even some testing center that was hired to test it. Basically, I am saying that befoe I pursued purchasing the machine I would like to see evidence of testing, or some sort of proof that misfires are some very small percentage or even not possible. Which you could do if you had freedom of choice. You wouldn't if the government mandated this thing. I would pay it at least once, and then I would have to figure out whether or not I actually touched the blade, before I pursued other avenues. If I did not touch the blade, I would be on the phone talking to Steve Gass. I am quite sure that he is a reasonable man, and could be convinced one way, cannot be the only way. snip Your faith is touching, but I suspect misplaced. At this point Steve Gass, no matter how reasonable he might be, is deeply emotionally committed to SawStop. His very natural inclination would be to explain away or simply ignore any evidence of problems. So I doubt seriously you'd get any satisfaction from him -- or indeed anyone else in his position. (My personal belief, based on Mr. Gass' actions, is that he is not nearly as reasonable as you think.) Financial interest aside, people invest in ideas and once they are deeply invested it is extremely difficult to change their opinions. --RC Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
ted harris wrote:
In typed: ok, ted, your fingers are worth more than a couple hundred bucks. granted. what isn't known is the rate of false positives. that information *cannot* be known until the machine has been in use in actual workshop use for some time. how many times would you pay $180 for a cartridge and blade before you started thinking about either replacing the saw or just disabling the thing. a cabinet saw costs about $2000. that's about 11 false positives. if it does it once a month it's costing you something like 4 new saws a year. If I was worried about false alarms, I would like to find out what testing has been done to prove that it will not misfire. I am quite positive that there are saws somewhere that have been in real woodshops being used in real working conditions since the day it was invented, Where did he get the saws? It can't be retrofitted, after all, so he couldn't have modified an existing saw. So he must have had one designed and hand built "on the day it was invented". not to mention possibly even some testing center that was hired to test it. So where's the test report? Basically, I am saying that befoe I pursued purchasing the machine I would like to see evidence of testing, or some sort of proof that misfires are some very small percentage or even not possible. I would pay it at least once, and then I would have to figure out whether or not I actually touched the blade, before I pursued other avenues. If I did not touch the blade, I would be on the phone talking to Steve Gass. I am quite sure that he is a reasonable man, and could be convinced one way, cannot be the only way. Huh? What are you expecting him to do about it? Redesign the whole system because you don't like the way it works? Give everybody who bought one their money back? Free cartridges for the rest of your life? The reason I know this is because of his invention of the very system we are debating. The system would not even exist if he thought that the possiblity for something that seemed impossible was in fact possible. I don't think it ever "seemed impossible". Just that most people were looking for an American-style fix and he found a Japanese-style fix. how many times HAVE you cut off your fingers on your table saw, anyway? Never, but I have touched an alternating tip blade while it was running and not even received a scratch from it. You would have paid the price of a cartridge for that if it had a Sawstop. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:35:37 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote: In typed: ok, ted, your fingers are worth more than a couple hundred bucks. granted. what isn't known is the rate of false positives. that information *cannot* be known until the machine has been in use in actual workshop use for some time. how many times would you pay $180 for a cartridge and blade before you started thinking about either replacing the saw or just disabling the thing. a cabinet saw costs about $2000. that's about 11 false positives. if it does it once a month it's costing you something like 4 new saws a year. If I was worried about false alarms, I would like to find out what testing has been done to prove that it will not misfire. from rcooks post: 7) According to the power tool manufacturers, saw makers who tested SawStop reported an unacceptably large number of false responses -- both false positives (tripping unnecessarily) and false negatives (not tripping when it should. They also found a lot of other design issues and pointed out the SawStop would have particular problems with direct-drive or geared saws. I am quite positive that there are saws somewhere that have been in real woodshops being used in real working conditions since the day it was invented, not to mention possibly even some testing center that was hired to test it. Basically, I am saying that befoe I pursued purchasing the machine I would like to see evidence of testing, or some sort of proof that misfires are some very small percentage or even not possible. I would pay it at least once, and then I would have to figure out whether or not I actually touched the blade, before I pursued other avenues. If I did not touch the blade, I would be on the phone talking to Steve Gass. I am quite sure that he is a reasonable man, his behavior so far would seem to indicate the opposite. and could be convinced one way, cannot be the only way. The reason I know this is because of his invention of the very system we are debating. The system would not even exist if he thought that the possiblity for something that seemed impossible was in fact possible. how many times HAVE you cut off your fingers on your table saw, anyway? Never, but I have touched an alternating tip blade while it was running and not even received a scratch from it. like a fein multimaster? |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote: It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be a profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses occasionally. Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade. Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach. Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to make up the cost in consumables? I may be overly suspicious, but I think the saw manufacturers don't want to put it on their saws because in effect they would be admitting that their previous saws were unsafe. -- Hank Gillette |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:55:13 -0500, Hank Gillette
wrote: In article , "J. Clarke" wrote: It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be a profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses occasionally. Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade. Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach. Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to make up the cost in consumables? I may be overly suspicious, but I think the saw manufacturers don't want to put it on their saws because in effect they would be admitting that their previous saws were unsafe. Given today's litigatious climate, that's probably a real consideration. --RC Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:55:13 -0500, Hank Gillette
wrote: I may be overly suspicious, but I think the saw manufacturers don't want to put it on their saws because in effect they would be admitting that their previous saws were unsafe. Hank -- Assuming that the technology works, then I can see the saw companies coming to this very conclusion (with a number of twists and turns in the analysis) as a reason to not go that way. After all, they might have offered two lines -- one w/, one w/o. Certainly there is some substantial market out there for this feature. (Of course, as always, there are costing issues.) Actually, I would take a slightly different view than yours: Not so much that adding sawstop would say that past TSs were unsafe, but that a significant market would still want the less expensive saws w/o this dealie and that selling w/ and w/o versions would look bad -- that is what the companies may have concluded. While car companies have offered air bags as optional equipment on some cars, maybe from a jury perspective a "safe" saw and an "unsafe" saw could not be justified. People think they understand cars; even some of us who use TSs are still working out all the dynamics. Think about how various safety features of today's cars came to market, from collapsing steering columns, padded dashboards, and crumple zones, to airbags. Generally, there was industry opposition and eventually courts, Congress, or stockholders required them. At least until maybe 10-15 years ago, safety was not embraced; it was eventually accepted, IMO. Think about roll cages in minivans. They make huge sense in light of the fact that minivans are sold to families, yet Detroit did not rush to design them into minivans. IIRC, the feds eventually set a deadline. Sure, there have been some companies to jump on a new safety opportunity -- the Germans and the Japanese often are in this group. But base on looking at what US-based companies bring to market, the _general_ view is that "safety" only sells to a marginal group. There can be an irony in the law about such things. If the sawstop technology does work and it catches on, then if a company that does not sell sawstop is sued for its "plain" TS, the plaintiff can say, "They could have added this new technology but they refused." OTOH, if the same company had licensed sawstop and then was sued, the fact that it had added a sawstop line would not be admissible in court. YMMV, depending on your state, but that irony exists in many states. FWIW. -- Igor |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:49 GMT, igor wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:55:13 -0500, Hank Gillette wrote: I may be overly suspicious, but I think the saw manufacturers don't want to put it on their saws because in effect they would be admitting that their previous saws were unsafe. Hank -- Assuming that the technology works, then I can see the saw companies coming to this very conclusion (with a number of twists and turns in the analysis) as a reason to not go that way. A lawsuit may come from any direction. You can just as easily make the argument that a saw company may be sued because it *could* have installed Sawstop but didn't. So I don't believe that fear of lawsuits was the primary rationale for turning down Sawstop. I would bet on cost being the primary reason. ...... But base on looking at what US-based companies bring to market, the _general_ view is that "safety" only sells to a marginal group. Su just look at the reaction in this ng. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:17:40 -0500, GregP wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:49 GMT, igor wrote: ...... But base on looking at what US-based companies bring to market, the _general_ view is that "safety" only sells to a marginal group. Su just look at the reaction in this ng. How so? I drive Saab cars in part because they're so safe. I take safety precautions, often with extra expense, with many aspects of my life. But, my adverse reaction to SawStop is that (a) it doesn't exist as a product I can buy, and (b) they want to force me to buy an unworkable solution. Maybe in another 5 years they'll get their **** together and actually be able to sell 'em, and I'll think about buying one, but don't force me to buy something that doesn't work. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 16 Dec 2004 16:39:02 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:17:40 -0500, GregP wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:49 GMT, igor wrote: ...... But base on looking at what US-based companies bring to market, the _general_ view is that "safety" only sells to a marginal group. Su just look at the reaction in this ng. How so? I drive Saab cars in part because they're so safe. .... That makes sense. But a fair number of the objections here boiled down to I've never been hurt and I never will get hurt; only careless people have accidents; and exaggerating the negatives, such as you have to ship your saw back if the safety device "fires." |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:17:40 -0500, GregP wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:49 GMT, igor wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:55:13 -0500, Hank Gillette wrote: I may be overly suspicious, but I think the saw manufacturers don't want to put it on their saws because in effect they would be admitting that their previous saws were unsafe. Hank -- Assuming that the technology works, then I can see the saw companies coming to this very conclusion (with a number of twists and turns in the analysis) as a reason to not go that way. A lawsuit may come from any direction. You can just as easily make the argument that a saw company may be sued because it *could* have installed Sawstop but didn't. So I don't believe that fear of lawsuits was the primary rationale for turning down Sawstop. I would bet on cost being the primary reason. That is what I said later in my same post. Here it is: "There can be an irony in the law about such things. If the sawstop technology does work and it catches on, then if a company that does not sell sawstop is sued for its "plain" TS, the plaintiff can say, "They could have added this new technology but they refused." OTOH, if the same company had licensed sawstop and then was sued, the fact that it had added a sawstop line would not be admissible in court. YMMV, depending on your state, but that irony exists in many states." In my experience following such industry developments, in fact suits DO come from both directions, yet companies generally only predict those coming from the first direction -- i.e., that a "new safety technology" will suggest that their existing products are defective. If they can kill that new tech, then when a lawsuit comes they can say that the technology was "unproven", "too costly", etc. But if they do not kill it -- i.e., if their refusal to license it does not prevent it somehow coming to market eventually -- then they really can end up being hit harder in court. Please also note my initial caveat: "Assuming the technology works". -- Igor |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:51:30 GMT, igor wrote:
In my experience following such industry developments, in fact suits DO come from both directions, yet companies generally only predict those coming from the first direction -- i.e., that a "new safety technology" will suggest that their existing products are defective. If they can kill that new tech, then when a lawsuit comes they can say that the technology was "unproven", "too costly", etc. I can see that. Sounds a lot like stuff we've been hearing for years from the US auto industry. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Hank Gillette" wrote in message ... In article , "J. Clarke" wrote: It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be a profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses occasionally. Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade. Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach. Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to make up the cost in consumables? I may be overly suspicious, but I think the saw manufacturers don't want to put it on their saws because in effect they would be admitting that their previous saws were unsafe. Not unsafe - dangerous. There is a big difference. Table saws have always been acknowledged as being dangerous. I suspect it's more of a combination of a few things. 1) Cost - always the big decider. 2) They may like the idea but are now working on their own version so they are not subject to redesign just to accommodate a proprietary solution. 3) They may be resisting yet another government forced solution to a problem that is sensationalized by an individual who is trumpeting it for his own personal gain. -- -Mike- |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
... It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be a profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses occasionally. Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade. Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach. Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to make up the cost in consumables? Be interesting to see some market research on that. If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital visit every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a hospital visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year. So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws? -- --John If there were 300,000 saws that required re-activation and new blades every year (and you are talking US only) at a cost of several hundred dollars each, you would see the price of pre-sawstop saws go through the roof. You would also likely see a class action suit from users of expensive sawblades for damage due to false positives. I'm not sure how users on a remote site would take to having their saw shut down because someone screwed up and used it to cut a ham sandwich. Would you be willing to wait for either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center, fixed and returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for someone to come out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?. Or would you rather wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few layers of masking tape over it and get on with your work? Sure it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't have practicallity on it's side. Saw manufacturers want to sell saws. They do not want to have to deal with servicing saws. Saw buyers want to use saws. They do not want to wait for service which they can not perform themselves. -j |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:56:38 -0800, "J" wrote:
Sure it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't have practicallity on it's side. Saw manufacturers want to sell saws. They do not want to have to deal with servicing saws. Saw buyers want to use saws. They do not want to wait for service which they can not perform themselves. That is quite true, but the "idea" you are describing here has very little relationship to what Sawstop is supposedly selling. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
"GregP" wrote in message
... On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:56:38 -0800, "J" wrote: Sure it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't have practicallity on it's side. Saw manufacturers want to sell saws. They do not want to have to deal with servicing saws. Saw buyers want to use saws. They do not want to wait for service which they can not perform themselves. That is quite true, but the "idea" you are describing here has very little relationship to what Sawstop is supposedly selling. OK, so if it is self service, customers don't want to have to have a replacement module and extra saw blade if they don't need to. I'm not saying sawstop is a bad thing. I'm just trying to give some reasons why manufacturers might not want to include it. -j |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
In news:J typed:
OK, so if it is self service, customers don't want to have to have a replacement module and extra saw blade if they don't need to. I'm not saying sawstop is a bad thing. I'm just trying to give some reasons why manufacturers might not want to include it. -j Do you just like to hear yourself talk? Why don't you do some research before you perpetuate this crap? It is people like you that hold up the evolutionary process. Maybe manufacturers don't want to include it because they don't give a crap about whether or not you keep your limbs...ever think of that? -- Ted Harris http://www.tedharris.com |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ted harris" writes:
In news:J typed: OK, so if it is self service, customers don't want to have to have a replacement module and extra saw blade if they don't need to. I'm not saying sawstop is a bad thing. I'm just trying to give some reasons why manufacturers might not want to include it. -j Do you just like to hear yourself talk? Why don't you do some research before you perpetuate this crap? It is people like you that hold up the evolutionary process. Maybe manufacturers don't want to include it because they don't give a crap about whether or not you keep your limbs...ever think of that? Do you just like to hear yourself talk? It's the bottom line that drives the feature set of any product, including a tablesaw (and the bottom line is a calculation consisting of "what a customer will pay for a given set of features" minus "what it costs to produce a given set of features"). If Saw-stop can't create a market for their product, then it should be appropriately relegated to a niche - and if they can't survive in that niche, c'est la vie. They certainly should _not_ rely on OSHA or any federal or state regulation to create their market for them. scott |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , "ted harris" wrote:
Maybe manufacturers don't want to include it because they don't give a crap about whether or not you keep your limbs...ever think of that? If so, it's a peculiar business model, in that amputees are rather less likely than the general woodworking population to become repeat customers. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ted harris" wrote in message
... In news:J typed: OK, so if it is self service, customers don't want to have to have a replacement module and extra saw blade if they don't need to. I'm not saying sawstop is a bad thing. I'm just trying to give some reasons why manufacturers might not want to include it. -j Do you just like to hear yourself talk? I usually don't sound out the words when I'm typing or reading, so no. In fact I can even read without moving my lips. Why don't you do some research before you perpetuate this crap? Perpetuate what? I just mentioned some reasons which might explain why manufacturers rejected this product. Do you have another explanation? It is people like you that hold up the evolutionary process. I know you are patiently waiting for your turn to evolve into human form, but I can't help it that the guy in front of me is asking all sorts of dumb questions so stop pushing. Maybe manufacturers don't want to include it because they don't give a crap about whether or not you keep your limbs...ever think of that? Did I ever contend that they did? Are you trying to imply that the white hat Sawstop folks are doing battle against the evil saw manufacturers who design machinery specifically to maim and disfigure you? No, I think that the issue boils down to the fact that SawStop has been vaporware for a long time which makes me doubt it's feasibility and that requesting that the government legislate a monopoly for your product is a sleazy business practice. Maybe these are what are preventing it from becoming a hit product rather than my de-evolutionary rantings. I'm sorry, you just can't blame me for their failure to deliver. Go ahead and buy the damn thing if you want it. Support SawStop! Just don't bitch about it to me or make me buy one if I don't want to. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
J wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be a profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses occasionally. Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade. Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach. Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to make up the cost in consumables? Be interesting to see some market research on that. If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital visit every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a hospital visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year. So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws? -- --John If there were 300,000 saws that required re-activation and new blades every year (and you are talking US only) at a cost of several hundred dollars each, you would see the price of pre-sawstop saws go through the roof. You would also likely see a class action suit from users of expensive sawblades for damage due to false positives. If in fact the blade is damaged. Does the current version of the Sawstop damage the blade? I'm not sure how users on a remote site would take to having their saw shut down because someone screwed up and used it to cut a ham sandwich. Would you be willing to wait for either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center, fixed and returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for someone to come out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?. Uh, why would you not just have a replacement cartridge on the shelf? Who said that the saw has to be "shipped to an authorized service center" or that you had to "wait for someone to come out and fix it"? You don't do either of those when you blow a fuse do you? Or would you rather wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few layers of masking tape over it and get on with your work? I'm sorry, but I thought we were talking about a marketing strategy, not about my personal preferences. And if the site has a starbucks nearby then it wouldn't seem to be so remote that getting a tech to come out would be an insurmountable difficulty. Sure it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't have practicallity on it's side. Saw manufacturers want to sell saws. They do not want to have to deal with servicing saws. Saw buyers want to use saws. They do not want to wait for service which they can not perform themselves. So they put the in themselves. Nobody has said anything about "waiting for service". -j -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
If there were 300,000 saws that required re-activation and new blades
every year (and you are talking US only) at a cost of several hundred dollars each, you would see the price of pre-sawstop saws go through the roof. You would also likely see a class action suit from users of expensive sawblades for damage due to false positives. If in fact the blade is damaged. Does the current version of the Sawstop damage the blade? When I looked at it the answer was yes. I'm not sure how users on a remote site would take to having their saw shut down because someone screwed up and used it to cut a ham sandwich. Would you be willing to wait for either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center, fixed and returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for someone to come out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?. Uh, why would you not just have a replacement cartridge on the shelf? Who said that the saw has to be "shipped to an authorized service center" or that you had to "wait for someone to come out and fix it"? You don't do either of those when you blow a fuse do you? No, you just flip the breaker. If the breaker blows, then yes, it usually means a trip to the store plus some serious thought about why that happened. Some may want an electrician to do this. Or would you rather wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few layers of masking tape over it and get on with your work? I'm sorry, but I thought we were talking about a marketing strategy, not about my personal preferences. And if the site has a starbucks nearby then it wouldn't seem to be so remote that getting a tech to come out would be an insurmountable difficulty. The suggestion is that parts dealers would not be so numerous as starbucks. Sure it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't have practicallity on it's side. Saw manufacturers want to sell saws. They do not want to have to deal with servicing saws. Saw buyers want to use saws. They do not want to wait for service which they can not perform themselves. So they put the in themselves. Nobody has said anything about "waiting for service". You disagree with me. That is OK. I'm just glad I don't HAVE to buy one if I don't want one. -j |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Home Inspection Careers | Home Repair | |||
Hybrid Mode
