seanrbaker wrote:
Luap wrote:
For what it's worth, it's been claimed on Model Mayhem that if my Chief Engineer's temporary absence causes a short delay in Einstein, that I must be a big fat liar for saying I designed Einstein. How very ignorant.
These armchair engineers apparently have no idea of the number of things I do in a day besides testing and debugging Einsteins . . . and yes, I spend a good percentage of each day doing this. Try measuring the color temperature, flash duration and f-output in 80 steps in two operating modes and compiling lookup tables for each parameter at each 1/10f step. Once you figure out no commercial color meter is accurate and that you have to shoot color targets in RAW, then open and measure in Bridge to find the real color temperature, you will gain insights into things that mere grumblers don't comprehend.
Indeed, I designed every aspect of Einstein (and of all our products) but it take a lot of highly competent technical help and expertise before a design becomes a bulletproof product.
The only part where I really rely on outside expertise is in the actual code programing . . . that is still done in Austin and remains the major source of delays. Same with CyberCommander coding.
Thank you all for your understanding and human compassion, and to pity the ultra ugly vocal minority that thrives on character assassination and self importance and smear.
Mike is doing OK, he is my friend, and I'm not going to stress him unnecessarily at this critical point.
Actually Paul, I
said that it was inconsistent for you to have been the chief engineer, for Mike to have been irreplaceable in its testing,
and (as was being implied by others on MM) that shipping the Einstein was your company's only priority - in which case the full diversion of your time to assuming Mike's role would have been reasonable. I was in no way questioning your role in the development - rather using conversational device to point out a fact (that you designed it) which clearly was not widely known by the community there. If you're offended by that mechanism, you have my apologies, but I never set out to question your role in your products' lifecycles. As to the question at hand, I personally feel that you have too many roles to fill within your company to completely dedicate yourself to such a testing protocol, but as so many others, will respect the decision you make.
Glad to hear Mike continues to recover, as well that the
real holdups are external and in Austin.
If my company was "consistent" we would be like all competitors - play follow the leader, never develop anything new, take no chances, relegate customer support to dealers and reps who know little and could care less, and put profits ahead of everything else.
As for Mike, he is not indispensable, rather, he is very important. As for who is the core engineer and who is responsible for the concepts, marketing and products, I think it is pretty well know among our customers that is my role. This is called old school and it works. How's the "new school" working out for everyone?
As a company, we are proud, united, dedicated and put our products and customers above everything else. That is not achievable by standard 2010 corporate methods and doesn't come without occasional errors, and always comes with slams and smears from business degree advocates, marketing school graduates and academics in general. We don't worry about them - we concentrate on our customers and products and try our level best to follow the Golden Rule (soon to be outlawed by Congress along with every other traditional American value.)
The proof is in the market share and incredible customer support we have enjoyed for 28 years.
Board index
» 
Top
