BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CLRobles" data-source="post: 1540097" data-attributes="member: 76360">I personally am not happy about conditions in China's labor pool but I feel that they (the Chinese worker) has to step up and sort it out! And I think in time they will.... So I'll stay out of the political debate side of this....But on a purely optics stand point, well that is another thing. China is only making what the market will demand.. Right now the market is demanding a top level "alpha quality bin" at a lower price point to the consumer. If as stated in another thread, The alphas decide at some point not to produce sport optics anymore and move there production to other lines that they have where does that leave us? I strongly believe that the Optical renaissance that we have seen over the past twenty years will come to an end! There will be no more of the competition that comes from storied optical firms with uber pride involved... Instead we will be left with Chinese firms that only worry about sales and margins. They will have reached their goal of obtaining a bin that performs close to the alphas at a third of there price but with poorer craftsmanship and marginal service.... Sound like Walmart to anyone here? I'm not against Wally world but I prefer not to buy my optics like that.... So one has to justify to then selves which path they want the optics world to be lead down. Be careful because its a slippery slope when you demand everything for a lower price point and everything else be damnd! I for one am willing to pay the price for continued development and quality, however I am finding the recent 50% to 300% price increases by the alphas troubling, especially in the economic times in which we live..... I think a little consumer consciousness on there part would be prudent!</blockquote>

Verification