PDA

View Full Version : Why does Technology not produce results, but only promises?


antontd
01-07-2005, 09:25 PM
It’s interesting how much companies invest in R&D. Look at Wilson – they probably introduced that nJunk because it’s cheaper to produce – 2 times cheaper, 2 times more advertising = 22 times more money. Wilson has not invented something useful since the PWS. Their new Racquets are “designed”. What about Head? Their Total Sweet spot construction is theoretically impossible. Who are they kidding? Or Prince – nothing since the POG. It seams that only Babolat is trying to invent something. No, seriously, I’ve heard that their new Aero Control racquet is good.

greg280
01-07-2005, 09:45 PM
well, i will tell you why. they are relying on you to not watch the ball and complain,because as the ball is coming at you , you are wondering about some esoteric racquet comparision review that some techno geek wrote up pining and wining about how his rdx midplus might feel like his pog , or his rd-ti-50 ..or was is the long version with lead in the head to make it feel less headlight like the standard but still retain the purist feel of the standard ti-50 yonex... but wait that was a few years ago...uhm... i think its the mp-tour 1 mid, yes thats it, oh wait he might be playing with a paint job...hewit that is...ehrrrr...let me find a rd-tour 90 then my search is over cause i know he is really playing with that. this is so cool... its so much easier than watching the ball... bending the knees... hitting the weights..and taking lessons.. and oh my god no ... breaking a sweat and running stairs at your local track or jogging 15 miles a week?there has got to be a better way!!??? boy wait till spring time when all the new frames and shoes come out ..............

Deuce
01-08-2005, 12:58 AM
I believe that the reality of racquet company economics would reveal that they spend very little on Research & Development, and enormous amounts on marketing.

And where did you get the idea that 'PWS' was a useful invention? First of all, some have reported finding nothing but air inside those PWS bulges. Secondly, how does it accomplish anything more 'technologically advanced' than the primitive application of lead tape?

OnyxZ28
01-08-2005, 01:08 AM
Interestingly enough Deuce, the original PWS on the Ultra was simply metal weights attached to 3 and 9 o' clock positions on the racquet, a la the Ultra II. Now that you mention it, I think you're right. PWS doesn't seem to do anything lead tape doesn't.

b.
01-08-2005, 02:48 AM
Actually technology does produce results. It is completely different matter if someone likes results or not.

Besides aims are not that clearly defined.

And what is "technology"? First wooden racquet is produced by "technology". Only difference is that marketing was different, and that they didn't advertize every and each detail as "technology".

Gaines Hillix
01-08-2005, 07:00 AM
I think there's a fine line between innovation and planned obsolescense. IMO, there have been some major improvements in tennis racquets over the last 30 years, but there's also been a lot of worthless gimmickry too. Marketing/sales plays a big part in it. If a company has no new products to sell their sales are going to be lower because people will just stick with what they have. Lots of people buy new racquets when there's nothing wrong with their current racquets. Why do some people buy a new car every year?

rich s
01-08-2005, 07:09 AM
I think in the retail sector if you develop the "be all end all" you basically put yourself out of business. "A CEO is only as good has his last (previous) quarter" is the phrase I hear a lot. If a company invents some technology that is "THE" technology their initial sales will sky rocket and then residual sales will dry up.

Your string title should have been "Why does Marketing not produce results, but only promises?"

NoBadMojo
01-08-2005, 07:25 AM
Deuce is exactly right about the PWS on Wilsons....they are just bumps in the mold and really do nothing at all other than to look like there is weight there...there may be some more concentrated weight at those positions, but those would be in the composition, not the pws bumps..it's just marketing smoke and mirrors. to me, what technology has done for tennis is to allow racquets to be made lighter and larger headed (larger sweetspotted)...whether that is good, is the grand debate. i mean, nobody seems to brag that they can hit the ball off the back fence...lol. tennis isnt like golf where, your right to brag is about how far you hit it, so tennis purists and braggists seem to brag that they use a mid sized frame lead taped to 13.47 ounces and strung at 72 pounds. as far as the nCode stuff goes, well they are tauting that as nano technology...guess what nano tech comes from? silica..gues what slica comes from? sand...so what they are saying is they found a way to put even more crap in their layups (fillers which are less costly than graphite), deem it better, drive their costs down and price it higher..give me some useful technology that feels better like Volkl's pure fiber technology any time.

b.
01-08-2005, 08:15 AM
Gaines: I think there's a fine line between innovation and planned obsolescense...I beleive it to be the most important process. Nature's laws in industy. It finds most effective ways for surviving and growing.

Only few years ago, when I was a kid (ah - hahah hohoho) "build quality" was the main factor. While dissapointed with current developements, I decided to look at it on a brighter side.

This "new" approach seem to be more materialistic, leaned toward the objects. It is not necessarily so. Fifteen years ago, when we bought TV set we looked if it will going to last. Good or bad, it will last more if we are to take care of it. Don't let it be on too long, shut it down during the thunder storm, don't let it heat up, cool down to much... Now - who cares? It will be obsolete in a few years. There is a probabillity that the new model will have a bit beter picture, if not - next one will. And it doesn't belong to fammily heritage anymore...

Maybe it is for the best. (Maybe it is not - but noone asks for my opinion on that)

moosryan
01-08-2005, 08:51 AM
i think that a lot of the time though, we tend to dismiss things to quickly as technology. on my lm radical, i can certainly feel a pretty big sweetsport and wayy more stability. this may just be the stick itself, but anyway, its certainly my favorite racquet that i've ever hit with.

ej
01-08-2005, 09:58 AM
I truly think head should take the biggest fall on this criticism. Intellifibers? Smarter Racquet, Better Game. Liquid Metal? These are mostly hollow tubes.

In order to survive, tennis had to reach the masses. In order to reach the masses, some companies had to get big -- Head, Wilson, Prince. And once you get big, you must get fed, you must generate more sales -- sales of "newer" and "better" stuff. But since the stuff really isn't better, you must create large marketing divisions to convince the public that they're getting something different and magical. Oh -- and, well, these marketing people must get paid, so you must sell even more frames to support everybody, and you must keep re-inventing new, silly ideas to make the public keep buying the same thing over and over.

Tragically, the product itself never gets better, i.e., 1980's graphite was the apex of tennis technology. Sure you can tweak the specs and add some carbon or titanium, but these minor modifications certainly don't justify the insanely rapid rate at which product lines are created and abandoned.

These companies love the TW message board where people obsessively discuss all their creations. They don't really want product loyalty (brand loyalty yes), they don't want someone who buys a couple Prestiges and goes into hiding for 5 years. They want someone who is salivating over genration II or anticipating something even sweeter than NRG2. The Gear Heads at TW don't drive their sales, but they prove an essential point which drives the industry: all demographics, even "players", partake in the myth of "Newer" and "Better". Perhaps they don't believe in it all the time, but that doesn't concern the racquet companies, who just need them to believe long enough to buy a Wilson Tour 90.... only to discover that what they really needed was an RDX Mid. And then, one day soon, the player might get lazy-feet and start hitting their RDX a little high in the string bed, and that permanent, though often latent kernal of dissatisfaction grows once again... and their lead stained hands grasp their disappointed face as they watch another uncomfortable shot hit the top of the net. Slowly their eyes start to wander: maybe what I really needed was a Volkl, and that Slazenger seems interesting.

antontd
01-08-2005, 05:37 PM
I believe that the reality of racquet company economics would reveal that they spend very little on Research & Development, and enormous amounts on marketing.

And where did you get the idea that 'PWS' was a useful invention? First of all, some have reported finding nothing but air inside those PWS bulges. Secondly, how does it accomplish anything more 'technologically advanced' than the primitive application of lead tape?

So the PWS is not useful? Wilson has not invented anything? Their Famous PS Original Mid was simply a modified Oversize racquet. It is so GREAT by accident. And of course by advertising - Pete Sampras certainly made me buy 2 of them. The good thing is that I will not have to change soon, at least this year:)

USCfan
01-09-2005, 08:04 AM
[QUOTE=antontd...No, seriously, I’ve heard that their new Aero Control racquet is good.[/QUOTE]

It is.