Oracle posts.. what happened??

[Stoned]

Me? I have enough lenses already. If I had to, I'd get a lens from the States direct.

It doesn't matter how many lenses you have, all this is simply theory. Cheaper prices definitely has the potential to benefit you, if you choose to receive the benefit. For instance, I could offer you $50, but you have to choice to take it or not. The issue is also not whether you would get lenses from the states or not, I'm not attacking how you decide to purchase your items, chill. Let's not OT and keep the discussion to whether Oracle's business should exist or not. It's not always all about you, just that I used you as a convenient example since I was quoting your post.

The dubious thing is the warranty/support service, do you expect ONE person to service the lens for you? Do you want to wait until something happens before you rethink... "oops, shouldn't have saved the two hundred off a 3K lens..."

Actually, i've never bought Oracle's items before, so I won't know how true his claim of international warranty is. However, assuming his claim is valid, Canon will be the one servicing the lens, not Oracle. Therefore I don't expect "ONE" person to service the lens for me, but rather I'd expect Canon to, as per Oracle's claim. I'd verify this carefully with Canon before making a purchase from Oracle. You would always want to protect yourself in terms of warranty claims, after all, the purpose of purchasing a new item is to have the warranty as a safeguard, no? If there is no real valid warranty, it wouldn't be the same item and therefore Oracle's goods wouldn't be cheaper than say, CP, for instance. Under that circumstance, Oracle's goods are no longer a good deal.

Then don't buy it yet. Financial silliness cannot be compared this way.

Practically, it naturally can't. However, I like using extreme examples to illustrate my point, because it makes the point very clear. If you actually look at the example, you will realise there's a very valid point therein, despite the extreme figures. In case you missed the point, the whole point is several hundreds may not represent a lot to you, but this is all relative and the value of money varies from person to person and hence when you say a few hundred isn't a lot of money, that is subjective. Under who's perspective are we viewing the money under? Shouldn't we consider the perspectives of others? Finally, wouldn't those that are less financially able but still want to purchase the same item want to save more money? Let's assume they are financially silly and cannot afford it but want to purchase it anyway(many people like this do exist as I'm sure you're well aware of, given the amount of credit card debt). I simply seek to explain why others feel this way with a hypothetical theory, not to challenge other points.

No. There are other lenses of similar focal lengths, only that the difference is in the aperture and quality, typically. Survive on what you have, before plonking cash down on a lens and end up asking, "How much is this lens worth if I resell it off?" and similar ways as posted recently.

There most certainly are! However, then the nature of the product changes and we are no longer comparing apples with apples(a favourite example on this forum). Telling people who want to save a few hundred bucks this is like telling them you can't afford the apple, so be content with an orange. Their demand was for the apple in the first place, the orange isn't going to provide them the same level of satisfaction. May I suggest to you that many would rather pay more for the apple that they want rather than the cheaper orange as a substitute to satisfy their craving for an apple. In reality, people often give in to wants to buy what they can't afford, through credit or otherwise.

So many people asking for this free, that free. How about these same people GIVE something for free too? I'm pretty sure that will shut people up. I did my fair share in the past via subscribing to the CS webhosting, has everyone else done so? If yes, I don't think there's a need to make online retailers PAY for their "good and free" services.

Definitely there isn't really a big issue with the amount CS charges for the MO subscription fee. However, I guess a big reason why some people might feel that way is because of the existence of other modes of conducting an online business, such as Ebay or Yahoo Auctions, which are highly successful free mediums of conducting business. As long as free alternatives exist, people will always complain about having to pay for something. People don't subscribe to CS webhosting because they have to, but most of them do it because it supports CS. Try not to ask people to bugger off CS if they feel that way, as much as you may be tempted to; it is a Singaporean forum after all , plus it won't really solve anything.

 

[sheltie_prince]

Hi Darren,

Thanks for your reply. At least now we know what happened.
I do agree that CS obviously needs some form of income to keep this forum running. Am definitely aware that the running cost of this forum needs subsidising via advertisers, sponsors and retailers etc. Actually, to learn that a running cost of $150 to market their services (which has good take up rate) is darn cheap. This is coming from a commercial/business point of view.

Don't get me wrong, I just am surprised why cannot find it thats all cos I needed to ask him something and cannot find his ID on the PM.

Appreciate you clearing this up. Hope to contact soon once he is back as an advertiser.

Oracle's active and sticky threads have been temporarily moved to a restricted section as he has not renewed his subscription for them. The subscriptions had expired 13 October and we allowed Oracle's threads to be displayed while waiting for the renewal payment, but since we have not heard from him since sending the reminders and payment information, we removed the threads.





You are exactly right that everything also need money - we need money to continue maintaining the servers and bandwidth for ClubSNAP. So ultimately, money has to come from somewhere, right?

In any case, the subscriptions for the sticky threads are only one avenue of revenue for us to maintain ClubSNAP, and just stickies alone are not sufficient.

Selling (as a commercial seller) on ClubSNAP should not be any different from selling in the real world. In the real world, you would need to maintain a presence (shop, signage, etc) to advertise your goods and sell, and these would cost money.

If a commercial seller is making money from this site that we have setup and maintain, is it wrong that we request for a small payment in return for using our site as an conduit to reach customers?

 

[Danntbt]

All these discussions are actually making Oracle more well known..hahaha.....I have bought a couple of items from him and find him to be as good as his words, perhaps he is having difficulties of some kind, or perhaps with the agressive price cutting by Canon, he is just lying low for a while to consolidate or to reassess his game plan.....we wouldn't know, unless he clarify it himself, let's not judge but be judged by what we do or say, I am guilty of such tendency to judge at times, but guess I am only human.......this forum is a great only because people find it useful, and worth their time to scan for stuffs and information. Any attempt to marginalize the less informed and novices, through unkind words would turn people off, and what would that leave us? I do wish we can all learn to be less judgemental...

 

[sehsuan]

Correct, I agreed as much in my initial post. However, the issue was over whether a business like Oracle's should exist in the first place, not so much over the fee.

Not really. How I deciphered the initial post was WHY the posts were "removed", which indicates the existence of the service was hidden away because fees weren't paid to CS.

The extreme example... let me try one. Retrenched mid-50's man, earning probably 1K a month wanting to buy a BMW 7-series. Doesn't make sense, does it?

There exists people who are nitpickers, and haven't had time to fully utilize a lens, before dissing it and claiming it to be a limitation to their um, photographic skills, or lack thereof. These people are probably the same ones who are constantly reappearing with a new lens every now and then. How they spend their money is not my problem, but that's what I meant by financial silliness. Money plonked in doesn't equate to good photos right away. But whether these people know... that's another story.

So long as Oracle wants to carry on with his Canon lenses trading, by all means, it doesn't affect me. But the joke that he created by posting something like "Canon lenses very good" after he posted that he was doing Mass Orders for Canon lenses was like what we call in Mandarin, "Lao Wang Mai Gua, Zi Mai Zi Kua" (old man selling melons, blowing his own trumpet). That's the only thing that I thought was really really silly.

 

[Stoned]

Not really. How I deciphered the initial post was WHY the posts were "removed", which indicates the existence of the service was hidden away because fees weren't paid to CS.

The extreme example... let me try one. Retrenched mid-50's man, earning probably 1K a month wanting to buy a BMW 7-series. Doesn't make sense, does it?

There exists people who are nitpickers, and haven't had time to fully utilize a lens, before dissing it and claiming it to be a limitation to their um, photographic skills, or lack thereof. These people are probably the same ones who are constantly reappearing with a new lens every now and then. How they spend their money is not my problem, but that's what I meant by financial silliness. Money plonked in doesn't equate to good photos right away. But whether these people know... that's another story.

So long as Oracle wants to carry on with his Canon lenses trading, by all means, it doesn't affect me. But the joke that he created by posting something like "Canon lenses very good" after he posted that he was doing Mass Orders for Canon lenses was like what we call in Mandarin, "Lao Wang Mai Gua, Zi Mai Zi Kua" (old man selling melons, blowing his own trumpet). That's the only thing that I thought was really really silly.

Well, then you deciphered it wrongly. It was WHY it should exist. Read it carefully again. I never said "bring it back please!". Oracle doesn't pay me anything to advertise for him, so I don't. I simply argue on the lines that such a service should exist, whether he pays for it or not is totally redundant to me.

I already got your point about financial silliness initially, but can you see how using an extreme example makes it crystal clear? I'm not sure if you read the post above, you seem to have conveniently skimmed by it. What I said in response to that was, you are right, definitely, but despite such actions being financially silly, it still happens. Suicide is stupid, but it still happens. Would you destroy all high rise buildings because they can be used for suicide(extreme example)? There will always be a demand for suicide, and buildings facilitate it, yes, but they also facilitate the housing of people and business activities, amongst other things. In the same way, the demand for gear exists independently of whether it is financially silly or not, which is why Oracle's service, as a competitor in the market, benefits consumers.

As for the blowing the trumpet part, yes, it is fantastically silly! However, so is every other advertisment. Why do adverts feature beautiful people and stunning scenery? Totally irrelevant and we all know it holds no bearing on the product! Having a particular product doesn't make you cool. Advertisments are meant to create an irrational belief that a product is better through any means necessary(just that perhaps Oracle's advert was less well thought out and of less persuasive ability)

 

[mckenzy]

this entire discussion somehow reminds me of what a blogger once said recently:

"get out of my elitist face" or something to that effect...

 

[plsoong]

Well, then you deciphered it wrongly. It was WHY it should exist. Read it carefully again. I never said "bring it back please!". Oracle doesn't pay me anything to advertise for him, so I don't. I simply argue on the lines that such a service should exist, whether he pays for it or not is totally redundant to me.

I already got your point about financial silliness initially, but can you see how using an extreme example makes it crystal clear? I'm not sure if you read the post above, you seem to have conveniently skimmed by it. What I said in response to that was, you are right, definitely, but despite such actions being financially silly, it still happens. Suicide is stupid, but it still happens. Would you destroy all high rise buildings because they can be used for suicide(extreme example)? There will always be a demand for suicide, and buildings facilitate it, yes, but they also facilitate the housing of people and business activities, amongst other things. In the same way, the demand for gear exists independently of whether it is financially silly or not, which is why Oracle's service, as a competitor in the market, benefits consumers.

As for the blowing the trumpet part, yes, it is fantastically silly! However, so is every other advertisment. Why do adverts feature beautiful people and stunning scenery? Totally irrelevant and we all know it holds no bearing on the product! Having a particular product doesn't make you cool. Advertisments are meant to create an irrational belief that a product is better through any means necessary(just that perhaps Oracle's advert was less well thought out and of less persuasive ability)

Stoned, i think you've mentioned heaps and MORE THAN ENOUGH practical points and TOTALLY agreeable issues. However, we all know that certain group of the population will not understand fully what it means to be thrifty, esp the younger generation in general

your points are strong and valid and i'm sure many other do appreciate that!

:thumbsup:

 

[Ecclesiasm]

"Canon lenses very good"

I do not know the context for this statement that Oracle made. However, it can be a valid opinion too if one is a Canon user.

The reason I sell Minolta lenses to others (another forum) is also because I am of the opinion that Minolta lens are very good.

"Minolta lens very good" even before I started selling them. :bsmilie:

 

[ConnorMcLeod]

If he is contributing, he's probably contributing to the growth of his own pocket via the loss of sales from the competitors he has who have to pay for rental, advertising etc. I still remember him posting a thread saying, "Canon very good" or something along those lines, where I asked pointblank... who would sell something and say it's not good?

What is wrong for him to earn money from the MOs? Do you work for free (or, do you work )? You can choose not to buy from Oracle if you do not agree with this business model.

I was already looking forward to such things being put to an end long ago. People want to do photography, but can't bear to spend a couple hundred dollars more for lenses that cost by the thousands. What kind of logic is that anyway?

What's your logic?
I never occured to me photography is a hobby for rich people only.
How about people who buy from 2nd hand market ? :dunno:

 

[ConnorMcLeod]

If he is contributing, he's probably contributing to the growth of his own pocket via the loss of sales from the competitors he has who have to pay for rental, advertising etc. I still remember him posting a thread saying, "Canon very good" or something along those lines, where I asked pointblank... who would sell something and say it's not good?

What's wrong if he makes money out of the MOs?
You may choose not to participate in the MOs if you do not agree with his business model.

I was already looking forward to such things being put to an end long ago. People want to do photography, but can't bear to spend a couple hundred dollars more for lenses that cost by the thousands. What kind of logic is that anyway?

It never occurred to me that photography is limited to rich people only.
There are people who go for 2nd hand market too. I don't see anything wrong with either choices.

 

[sehsuan]

I already got your point about financial silliness initially, but can you see how using an extreme example makes it crystal clear? I'm not sure if you read the post above, you seem to have conveniently skimmed by it. What I said in response to that was, you are right, definitely, but despite such actions being financially silly, it still happens. Suicide is stupid, but it still happens. Would you destroy all high rise buildings because they can be used for suicide(extreme example)? There will always be a demand for suicide, and buildings facilitate it, yes, but they also facilitate the housing of people and business activities, amongst other things. In the same way, the demand for gear exists independently of whether it is financially silly or not, which is why Oracle's service, as a competitor in the market, benefits consumers.

You said it yourself, it is really silly.

Demand for suicide? Are you sure? Got supply one ah? :bsmilie:

You are making a fool of yourself. Please stop going to really ridiculous "examples".

 

[sehsuan]

You said it yourself, it is really silly.

Demand for suicide? Are you sure? Got supply one ah? :bsmilie:

You are making a fool of yourself. Please stop going to really ridiculous "examples".

As for second hand items, I personally go for them. Why? Because I take things from those first hand buyers who have either buyers' regret or severe underusage and put it to good use... while the main bulk of depreciation is absorbed by the first guy. That's one way to save.

 

[Darren]

I think this thread has served its purpose thus I am closing it off. Oracle has renewed his subscription and his threads are reinstated.