George's comments here are right to the point and I agree with him whole
heartedly! And on other issues he is brilliant and has been EXTREMELY generous
with his time in helping me on radio problems etc. To me he represents what
Elmering is all about. Regardless, there is no need to be insulting to him -
shame on you :-) 73/Tim NZ7C
>
> From: Jerry Harley <wa2tti@worldlynx.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Date: 2003/02/04 Tue PM 03:20:10 EST
> To: tentec@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [TenTec] Public Opinion
>
> AMEN AMEN AMEN
>
> At 02:15 PM 04/02/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >George...you are a tired, sick, OLD man. Take your old and tired comments to
> >the Icom reflector. I know better than to read your post because I know they
> >are going to infuriate me with your total lack of knowledge.
> >
> >To the rest of the reflector, please excuse my flame.
> >
> >Tom/W4BQF
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: George, W5YR [mailto:w5yr@att.net]
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 1:09 PM
> >To: tentec@contesting.com
> >Subject: Re: [TenTec] Public Opinion
> >
> >Bob, I think that you are beginning to sense the reservations that
> >Adam Farson and I have had for the past year over the ability of Ten
> >Tec to design and produce a product of the performance and complexity
> >level required to be "the world's best amateur radio transceiver."
> >
> >One need only compare the size, depth and track record of TT with such
> >competitors as Icom to see the incongruity of their goal of developing
> >the ORION with the reality of their decided lack of resource. TT has
> >one skilled, experienced DSP designer: Doug Smith, one of the best,
> >but still only one person. Icom has tens of Doug Smiths with
> >collectively hundreds of years spent successfully developing complex
> >computer-controlled transceivers for the amateur and
> >commercial/military markets.
> >
> >While I admire the chutzpah of TT for tackling such a monumental
> >project as the ORION, I cannot feel any confidence that they have the
> >resources to do the job properly in a timely manner. And time is now
> >their deadly enemy.
> >
> >Their amateur product line is now quite limited with no top-line
> >radio, such as the Omni series, to bring in serious sales dollars.
> >They have therefore suffered considerable reduction in cash flow for
> >quite some time now. Add to that the impact of the development costs
> >of the ORION. Every week that ORION shipments slip is one more week of
> >salaries and other development cost added to the ORION and one more
> >week of no income from ORION shipments. They are getting further and
> >further "behind the power curve" so to speak. Clearly, TT is reluctant
> >to focus on this thus they say little to their customer base. The real
> >reasons are hardly flattering.
> >
> >At some point, the cost of sales for the ORION plus the cost of
> >product plus the prorata share of development costs will inevitably
> >produce a situation in which the ORION simply could not be sold for
> >sufficient profit to justify continuing its existence without a major
> >increase in price or sales volume or both.
> >
> >The price is already near the top price of any amateur radio on the
> >market. Any increase in price would likely have a very negative impact
> >on sales volume. TT likes to present the ORION as a $3300 radio, which
> >it can be to the prior TT owner of an Omni, etc. but to the new non-TT
> >potential buyer, the radio takes on a higher overall price if the
> >optional filters and other system components are purchased.
> >Regardless, the ORION will represent a major radio purchase for the
> >majority of potential buyers. This high-end market is, of course, much
> >smaller than that for the low and mid-priced models such as the Argo V
> >and the Jupiter.
> >
> >As to the sales outlook, the ORION has thus far remained an almost
> >totally secret project to the amateur radio world in general. I have
> >seen no ads in the magazines, no previews, no publicity whatsoever
> >other than discussion on the TT reflector and the TT-sponsored
> >hamfest. On the other hand, a radio with this development cost
> >history cannot survive on the limited TT customer base alone,
> >considering as well that few TT customers are likely to discard their
> >current radios and spend $3K - $4K for a new ORION.
> >
> >All this tells me that TT has probably been forced by time, dollar and
> >talent constraints to design the ORION around the analog front end
> >and basic IF of the Omni series, together with the Omni final
> >amplifier, by emulating the architecture of the PRO and PRO2: a basic
> >IF DSP core transceiver with a receiving front end down-converter and
> >a transmitter up-converter and final amplifier.
> >
> >Faced with front-end performance of the Omni that is inadequate for
> >the goals of the ORION design, they have attempted to bandaid by using
> >additional narrow crystal roofing filters in the IF stages, a design
> >approach used by no other manufacturer because no other manufacturer
> >needs to do so.
> >
> >The TT RX-340 has an excellent front end, but evidently the design was
> >deemed too expensive for the ORION so the "best of both worlds"
> >marketing strategy dictated that prior TT customers be made to feel
> >comfortable and confident with this new IF DSP approach by
> >incorporating the old faithful and familiar conventional crystal
> >filters. Evidently still more comforting will be needed since I now
> >read postings questioning whether the ORION "sound" will be the "warm
> >analog sound of past TT radios" or the crass harsh sound of digital,
> >such as the CD (which only has a frequency response from around 20 Hz
> >to over 20 KHz with negligible distortion).
> >
> >This narrow roofing filter business, of course, adds further to the
> >cost of the radio and adds both design complexity and compromises
> >other aspects of performance. Since no other currently produced IF DSP
> >receivers for the commercial/military markets use any IF crystal
> >filters at all, the ORION stands alone and is almost by default
> >limited to the amateur market.
> >
> >Considering that the ORION thus far evidently is intended primarily
> >for the current TT user base - there being no other visible marketing
> >efforts - the question arises "How can such a small market support
> >enough sales of an expensive, high-end transceiver to justify the
> >product?" What can be done, and when will it be done, to bring the
> >ORION to the general amateur market and thereby capture the sale
> >volume required to continue the product?
> >
> >Add that to the daily increasing costs of the ORION and daily loss of
> >sales income, and it is very difficult not to extrapolate this to
> >either discontinuance of the product or if not, the ultimate failure
> >of the company or at the very least the management decision to leave
> >the amateur market. Sale of the amateur products division to a major
> >company with deep pockets like MFJ is not unthinkable if worse comes
> >to worse.
> >
> >Time clearly is the enemy here. The ORION must ship almost immediately
> >to stem the cash flow loss, and it must be as nearly perfect as it can
> >be to meet the announced design goals that have been represented as
> >measured specifications. Shipping a "V0.9" just to get some billings
> >activity with the aim of upgrading the bugs out of the system "later
> >on" will likely doom the product out of the starting gate. That first
> >ARRL Lab report will be the criterion that many purchasers will apply
> >first.
> >
> >So, to answer your request for comments, Bob, my concern is that TT
> >has bitten off far more than they can chew, are understaffed on the
> >project, possibly lack the required level of talent in either or both
> >the design engineering or software areas, and through this ongoing
> >delay in shipping product are slipping further and further behind the
> >power curve with less and less opportunity to play "catchup."
> >
> >On top of all this is the fact that the Icom president has for some
> >time personally led the development of what he claims will be amateur
> >radio's most sophisticated transceiver available at a reasonable price
> >to amateurs. This is the rumored "IC-785" which is known to be
> >designed around front-end technology licensed from R&S. It is viewed
> >as the classic IC-781 - used in the thousands by commercial and
> >military - upgraded by the DSP experience and technology now resident
> >in the PRO-series of Icom transceivers.
> >
> >If the ORION project continues to lag until the IC-785 becomes
> >available, then TT will face almost insurmountable competition both
> >in price and performance, not to mention that Icom radios in most eyes
> >are much more attractively packaged than the ORION appears to be.
> >Although mildly subjective, the impressive PRO2 color display when
> >compared one-on-one with the ORION mono display will gain many points
> >for the Icom.
> >
> >This has been a rambling description of my thoughts about the ORION,
> >Bob. I wish them the best, but find it difficult to equate what I see
> >with their aspirations and performance thus far. And the evident
> >hostility within TT and with their customer base and the continuing
> >silence is just making a difficult situation much worse.
> >
> >73/72, George
> >Amateur Radio W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
> >In the 57th year and it just keeps getting better!
> >Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe
> >K2 #489 IC-765 #2349 IC-756 PRO #2121 IC-756 PRO2 #3235
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX" <RMcGraw@blomand.net>
> >To: <Tentec@contesting.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:43 AM
> >Subject: [TenTec] Public Opinion
> >
> >
> > > It is my understanding the ORION was to start shipping from Tentec
> >in
> > > perhaps late December. Delays of unknown origin have caused the
> >product to
> > > still be retained and to my knowledge, nothing has shipped.
> > >
> > > I've asked Tentec for some answers and prior to now have gotten very
> >little
> > > solid information other than my order acknowledgement of Dec 6.
> >That
> > > acknowledgement indicated the radio that I've ordered is expected to
> >come
> > > from the 3rd production lot scheduled for early March. Ok, so be
> >it, I can
> > > understand that and patiently wait.
> > >
> > > To that end, it appears that December production moved to January
> >and then I
> > > presume February, and January production moved to February and then
> >I
> > > presume March, and February moved to March and then to April and
> >March moved
> > > to April and then May? Did I count this correctly?
> > >
> > > I must admit, it gets a bit, no no a lot, disconcerting when one has
> >some
> > > $3500 hanging in the balance (oh it's not charged to the credit card
> >but I
> > > do have funds allocated) an no information as to when one might get
> >a radio.
> > > There's been no reasons disclosed for the delays that I am aware of.
> >I just
> > > wonder how long the Tentec community will hang in the balance to get
> >a
> > > radio. I'm sure there are valid reasons for the delays. I just
> >can't think
> > > of any reasons for not keeping the buyers, those having placed
> >actual
> > > orders, informed. I guess it must have to do with "saving face" or
> >"not
> > > letting the cat out of the bag" so to speak. Frankly, in my case, I
> >think
> > > the cat is about to suffocate.
> > >
> > > Candidly, I am giving very serious consideration to sending a Notice
> >of
> > > Cancellation. Any other folks thinking this way? To that end, I'll
> >keep
> > > the Tentec's that I have or go buy (oh dread) another brand of
> >radio.
> > >
> > > Anyone have feelings or thoughts on this?
> > >
> > > Private responses via e-mail will be honored and most appreciated,
> >both on
> > > my part and so as not to embarrass Tentec publicly.
> > >
> > > 73
> > > Bob, K4TAX
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TenTec mailing list
> > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >TenTec mailing list
> >TenTec@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >_______________________________________________
> >TenTec mailing list
> >TenTec@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
|