[TenTec] Public Opinion

Tue Feb 4 15:20:10 EST 2003

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 at att.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 1:09 PM
>To: tentec at 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 at blomand.net>
>To: <Tentec at 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 at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec