Sawstop--the wrong marketing approach?

Page 6 of 13  
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:20:12 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@TAKEOUTmindspring.com wrote:

I don't like legislated seatbelt use and would prefer to have "off" switches for air bags - kinda help Darwin along - but the choice is *not* betw airbags causing harm vs not using them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sawstop, airbags... sawstop... airbags.... hmmm.... Am I the first to suggest that tablesaws be fitted with airbags which go off whenever a body part touches the blade? Boom! Your insert sprouts a big puffy bag and pushes your hand out of harms way in milliseconds. Don't forget to wear your face shield!
-j
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well... if you're wearing your full face helmet, your leather apron and your hearing protection, you don't need a face shield.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@sprintmail.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can see that. Sounds a lot like stuff we've been hearing for years from the US auto industry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

yup!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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-
snipped-for-privacy@sprintmail.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is quite true, but the "idea" you are describing here has very little relationship to what Sawstop is supposedly selling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In typed:

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In typed:

They are not relying on OSHA! No one is regualting anything to create their market. They are financing it themselves.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True. They're not relying on OSHA. That was a misstatement by Scott. They're actually relying on the CPSC.

False.
SawStop has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make their proprietary technology *mandatory*. How they finance it is irrelevant. The problem many of us have with their behavior is that having first failed in the marketplace, they are now attempting to use the government to force the adoption of a product that the free market decided it didn't want.
-- 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not quite true, but even if it was, so what? The "free market" would allow or reject many things that are not in the common good. If SawStop can make a buck by using existing government mechanism that are designed to protect the common good, what is the harm?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where is the "common good"? What is the "common good"?
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@sprintmail.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow responds:

Good question with the current hullabaloo about medicinal marijuana.
Charlie Self "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston Churchill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A silly question. That is why we elect a government and enact laws. They are an effort to both define and protect the common good. A perfect system? Of course not, and we sometimes err in defining it (or we would not be in Iraq). But in fact we do define the common good in thousands of ways daily from stop signs to antitrust regulation and from school crossings to money policy from the Fed.
You may disagree about a particular issue like SawStop and whether requiring it protects the common good, but it is disingenuous to pretend that we do not have a need to enact laws and regulation to define and protect the common good.
Mike Marlow wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tzipple wrote:

The fact that we have many laws does not mean that we _need_ many laws. That sound you hear is the Founders turning in their graves.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In typed:

Yeah, but now there are 6 billion people on this rock, and half of them have an IQ of 100 or less...
--
Ted Harris



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.