I suggest a CLOSE reading of the discontinuance notice all support was
dropped for equipment manufactured prior to 2003 so if you bought a 767
in 2001 you were SOL early model FT-2000's are in the same boat. I'm
primarily a Icom user and I have a few yaesu pieces. I sent my 767
back to yaesu factory support for a realignment/ECO install they sent
it back untouched with 'we no longer support this radio'. All
electronics have a finite life and spares availability which goes down
over time but when a 6 y/o multi-thousand dollar radio is no longer
supported by the factory something's wrong. If it were 10-15 y/o then
its my problem as at that point I am exceeding the design life of the
radio and efforts are more sentimental than rational
I have some Icom radios where factory spares are NLA but Icom did not
drop support entirely they still fix them with boneyard units. Another
example being the original 756 they ran out of display modules no one
would blame them if they said 'sorry all gone' no they went out and
produced more.
From a customer standpoint I am going to buy my equipment from a vendor
who protects MY investment rather than one who is only concerned about
next quarters numbers as Edward Deming said in the 50's if you manage
for the bottom line only soon you will not have a bottom line. In my
professional life I buy Cisco for the investment protection they never
leave the customer high and dry I have 10 y/o plus network gear which
they still support in a world where equipment 3 y/o is considered obsolete
/Rant Off
Roger wrote:
>
>
>
>> Well now Yaesu's dumping of repair support of everything they built
>> prior to 2003 back in March makes sense now did not want the repair
>
> It takes little searching through older Yaesu radio models on the net
> to find that they used many solid state components that were near the
> end of life cycle which would have made supporting them after new
> models came out problematic at best. The main complaints I read were
> people could not find replacement parts even if they were doing the
> fixing them selves, nor was Yaesu able to get them to do the repairs.
> Although many like the products, me included, this trend did not bode
> well for "the old stuff", or product life cycles.
>
> Now what was posted could be isolated incidents and certainly what
> gets posted on the net is far from typical for any gear. The hams who
> frequent the AMPs and TowerTalk groups are far from the typical ham
> (on average) so what shows up in these groups would also be considered
> atypical.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>> liability to derail the deal. By time this deal is done the only thing
>> Yaesu will be making is P25 radios for govt/public safety as it looks
>> like Motorola got tired of competing with Vertex for the same line of
>> business competition is bad for your quarterly results next up is
>> Kenwood who also builds P25 gear.
>>
>> Bill NY9H wrote:
>>> Heck it looks like the other 20% "ownership" is merely a payout to
>>> the CEO of YaesuVertex...who probably is a major stockholder anyway.
>>> But it certainly looks better ...certainly to those who are employed
>>> by Yaesu/Standard....
>>>
>>> Paul AC said: But after the wedding, the truth in organizational
>>> structure and
>>> long-term objectives always comes out.
>>>
>>>
>>> FORGET LONG TERM OBJECTIVES,,,,HOW ABOUT NEXT FEW FISCAL CYCLES !!!!!
>>>
>>> ouch.... "as another one bites the dust:"
>>>
>>> bill
>>>
>>>
>>> At 06:08 AM 11/6/2007, Paul Christensen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Motorola bought them with the usual flurry of press releases,
>>>>> promises
>>>>> etc. Storno (or 'Stornorola' as they got called) have disappeared,
>>>>> and
>>>>> few, if any employees are still employed by Motorola."
>>>>>
>>>> According to the press release, if the deal goes through, Motorola
>>>> will have
>>>> 80% controlling interest in VS (Yaesu). Here in the U.S., such
>>>> announced
>>>> deals are often referred to as mergers, joint-ventures (e.g., the
>>>> recent
>>>> press release), or an acquisition. These are all terms used to
>>>> soften the
>>>> blow to employees and vendors in the industry. But such a purchase
>>>> needs to
>>>> be called what it truly is: a take-over of VS.
>>>>
>>>> What has kept VS and Icom producing leading-edge equipment has been
>>>> a ham at
>>>> the helm of the company -- much the same way that Art Collins
>>>> stayed in the
>>>> ham business when for all intents and purposes he could have left the
>>>> amateur market with the execution of the first U.S. Government
>>>> contract in
>>>> the 1930s.
>>>>
>>>> I have lived through several take-overs in the telecom industry,
>>>> including
>>>> deals with AT&T, MediaOne, Comcast, and numerous buy-outs in the
>>>> broadcasting industry. The courtship is filled with many optimistic
>>>> promises and so many people (financial analysts, shareholders, and
>>>> employees) are all too gullible as they take these promises "hook,
>>>> line, and
>>>> sinker." But after the wedding, the truth in organizational
>>>> structure and
>>>> long-term objectives always comes out.
>>>>
>>>> Paul, W9AC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Amps mailing list
>>>> Amps@contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Amps mailing list
>>> Amps@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amps mailing list
>> Amps@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|