If they can amortise the R&D costs over a longer production run the unit cost falls. Of course that doesn't necessairly speak weel about ongoing R&D for the replacement:)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172189\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am aware that capital cost can be further amortized. But would that make the camera drop by 25-30% virtually over night? Quite unlikely. Further, we don't even know what the amortization schedule/plan for the camera is/was, or to what extent the capital costs have already been amortized.
Finally, past R+D costs are sunk costs and do not affect current marketing/price decisions. Cash flow would not be changed at all by the amount of R&D costs they decide to amortize per unit. The point is, they cut the price not because they were able to because there is no replacement, but rather because they had to for competitive reasons. They decided to accept less revenue, and significantly lower margins, per camera, in order to not lose sales to competitive offerings from other manufacturers. Their statement is just pure BS spin.
Not having a replacement, just means they were not lowering the price in the previous months because they had to unload unsold stocks of cameras before the new camera arrived. (unless, of course they had so much unsold production that they had to dramatically cut prices a year or more before the new model arrives -- which is quite unlikely).
