What follows is pure speculation, provided only for entertainment purposes. It is fiction, I make no claim to the truth of any of it.
Its fun to look at the NL, with its obvious physical change, promising different/better handling and a unique visual profile to set it apart from everyone else, and think about being a fly on the wall during product development meetings at Swarovski. What were they thinking? Here's a wild ass guess,
The boss leads it off.
"Its time to face facts, we all know the EL is getting a bit long in the tooth. Everyone is copying the look. Handling advantages of the dual hinge design are being neutralized. Zeiss SFs are threatening our market dominance, even if we doubt they possess true breakthrough performance advantages. They are getting too close and the Zeiss fanbase provides momentum. What can we do to regain momentum and stay ahead? The new improved better executed flat field design, we've got does not seem enough to set us apart again. The demand for wider FOV is back in style. Zeiss is hurting us there. We know how to fix that. The new coatings and glass upgrade seem subtle, maybe too subtle for some to notice. We need something more...."
Then consider this, what John Roberts found Jan 15, "Development Process for NL Pure" See here:
Development Process for NL Pure
Again, pure fiction...
The meeting continues, folks are processing. For 2, the light bulb goes off. Having talked off and on about an idea they had back in 2009, and anticipating the question, the 2 jump in.
"We need a new look, a new package to mix in with these small but important optical improvements we can offer. How about this?" At which point sketches of a new and improved wasp waisted binocular are projected on the overhead screen. "Think about it. By moving the prism from here to there, we can effect this fresh, modern look, that distinguishes a new binocular series visually. It promises a better more secure ergonomic grip for many, most of our customers. As well by moving the natural hand position back towards the eyes, away from the forward end, we effectively create our version of the rear balance thing Zeiss is touting, without messing with the optical performance from moving all those lens towards the eyes."
Then from the process engineer at the end of the table. "You guys have been talking about this for years. We've looked at it. We know this is going to be expensive. This radical a change to everything we do now, means costs will go up, how do we protect profit?"
They respond, "Well, we've done some market research. Here's the result of a study, we commissioned last year." Copies are passed around and summary comments are projected on the overheard. "We believe the market is ready for this. The package of improved optics, ergonomics, and styling will once again set us apart and restore our market dominance. Our customer's are affluent enough, passionate enough to be able to afford a higher price than we currently charge for the EL. We think, $3000.is a number that will fly. In fact we think the higher price will help convince customers this really is new and improved."
Then from, the VP sales, "I know you guys have been working on this. I agree it looks cool. But we've got a problem and I fear we need to deal with it less a negative myth spreads and starts to hurt sales. What're we to do about these folks over on Birdforum who keep talking about glare as if its something coming from the binocular, something we are ignoring? What do we have here that speaks to that?"
Its fun to look at the NL, with its obvious physical change, promising different/better handling and a unique visual profile to set it apart from everyone else, and think about being a fly on the wall during product development meetings at Swarovski. What were they thinking? Here's a wild ass guess,
The boss leads it off.
"Its time to face facts, we all know the EL is getting a bit long in the tooth. Everyone is copying the look. Handling advantages of the dual hinge design are being neutralized. Zeiss SFs are threatening our market dominance, even if we doubt they possess true breakthrough performance advantages. They are getting too close and the Zeiss fanbase provides momentum. What can we do to regain momentum and stay ahead? The new improved better executed flat field design, we've got does not seem enough to set us apart again. The demand for wider FOV is back in style. Zeiss is hurting us there. We know how to fix that. The new coatings and glass upgrade seem subtle, maybe too subtle for some to notice. We need something more...."
Then consider this, what John Roberts found Jan 15, "Development Process for NL Pure" See here:
Development Process for NL Pure
Again, pure fiction...
The meeting continues, folks are processing. For 2, the light bulb goes off. Having talked off and on about an idea they had back in 2009, and anticipating the question, the 2 jump in.
"We need a new look, a new package to mix in with these small but important optical improvements we can offer. How about this?" At which point sketches of a new and improved wasp waisted binocular are projected on the overhead screen. "Think about it. By moving the prism from here to there, we can effect this fresh, modern look, that distinguishes a new binocular series visually. It promises a better more secure ergonomic grip for many, most of our customers. As well by moving the natural hand position back towards the eyes, away from the forward end, we effectively create our version of the rear balance thing Zeiss is touting, without messing with the optical performance from moving all those lens towards the eyes."
Then from the process engineer at the end of the table. "You guys have been talking about this for years. We've looked at it. We know this is going to be expensive. This radical a change to everything we do now, means costs will go up, how do we protect profit?"
They respond, "Well, we've done some market research. Here's the result of a study, we commissioned last year." Copies are passed around and summary comments are projected on the overheard. "We believe the market is ready for this. The package of improved optics, ergonomics, and styling will once again set us apart and restore our market dominance. Our customer's are affluent enough, passionate enough to be able to afford a higher price than we currently charge for the EL. We think, $3000.is a number that will fly. In fact we think the higher price will help convince customers this really is new and improved."
Then from, the VP sales, "I know you guys have been working on this. I agree it looks cool. But we've got a problem and I fear we need to deal with it less a negative myth spreads and starts to hurt sales. What're we to do about these folks over on Birdforum who keep talking about glare as if its something coming from the binocular, something we are ignoring? What do we have here that speaks to that?"