> K2 has greater market share for the same reason McDonalds does, money and
> marketing power. If you put up glossy ads in every magazine and wine and
Which means they are the more sucessful company, despite having a
inferior product... ok, still means K2 is a smart company in the
> Device was selling a great product at a low price and K2 wanted to take that
> chunk of market share so they simply bought them out. Why waste money on two
> seperate development and manufacturing companies, right? Device was probably
That doesn't make sense (the second part)... if K2 wants to keep
Device's market share, they would keep the line running. Otherwise,
discontinuing the line makes all former Devices users look for something
new... and while K2 does have a strong market share, why leave things up
> selling their bindings at a lower profit than K2 is accustomed to so they
> just made Device disappear so they'd have one less competitor to worry
> about -- one less company to be compared with. Why waste money improving
> your product when you can just eliminate the competition?
Again, once their own Device... it is no longer a "competitor." All the
money goes to K2 now. Unless you are suggesting that there are some
internal struggles going on within K2 (between clicker and device teams)
I don't see how you can say that K2 considers one of its own products to
be a competitor with another one of its products since that would
technically be true for all of its products (clickers vs. clicker hb vs.
Another thing, I think I also don't agree with your comment about the
Device line not making enough profit... If the Device line was making
any profit at all, I believe the K2 would have kept it. I believe that
the Device line was probably losing money and so they axed it. That's a
smart thing for any company to do, regardless of how technically sound
the product was.
> I was emphasizing the greedy corporate thing, not the foreign thing.
> Normally I couldn't care less where these things are made. But the fact that
> the company doing this *** little deed happens to be foreign just adds
> insult to injury. I would feel the same if it were an American company
> putting a small but popular Japanese company out of business.
While you say you were emphasizing the "greedy corporate thing, not the
foreign thing." You nevertheless believe that two are related in some
way don't you? When you say that
since "company doing this *** little deed happens to be foreign just
insult to injury." implies that it is some how worst to be a foreign
company... less why would it be more insulting than if a fellow America
company did it.
> If you can't see the sad reality of a big company swallowing up and
> destroying a very popular and successful smaller company who sold a better,
> cheaper product to a loyal customer base, then that's your problem. I guess
Again I find that it is funny that you don't equate "popular" with
market share. You say that it is very popular, but admit that it has a
smaller market share. How is it that Device can be more popular than K2
and have less people buying their product? Are the opinions of the
Device users some how more important?
Again, if a small company becomes successful it would a) have a big
market share b) become a big company...
How are you judging popularity and success?
> you wouldn't mind if K2 bought out Burton and took their products off the
> market as well.
It's funny that you mention Burton. Are you saying that you don't think
Burton is forcing out smaller companies (either intentionally or
unintentionally) with its dominate position in the market? Isn't Burton
a big corporation? How is Burton different from K2?