At one point almost 20% of the people who bought my plans finished
them. The overall CNC thing is less then 1%. Lots of people bail after
a week. That's why I strived to keep things simple. The best design
would require a machine shop and lots of skill. I set certain
paramerters and then went for it.
The big money in CNC is motors and controllers. People get the motors
to spin and then they bail. MOTORSPINNERS.
Thousands signup for Yahoo groups. Some lurk while others post. I was
told by a blackbelt and aircraft pilot instructor that the 1% is a
typical figure. Millions buy threadmills but only a few use them.
Lets look at this group. How many people join and how many
actually make a circuit board?
--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "derekhawkins" <eldata@...> wrote:
>
> >There won't be any new designs (old ones according to you) coming
> >from me in the future.
>
> I'm not knocking your designs since you obviously leveraged the
> economy of scale concept whereby items produced in considerable bulk,
> intended for "fast" markets, are successfully utilized in another
> much "slower" market with commensurate savings. This concept is often
> at the heart of DIY and we see the same thing here quite often. No
> doubt, it, along with the savings are major attractions with
> aesthetics being of little concern especially for beginners. Seasoned
> CNCers would probably be more concerned with aesthetics.
>
> My concern is to do with the whole idea of selling plans of this
> nature on the internet. I also have a similar concern with mail-in
> rebates. While both are welcomed practices there is a veiled ruse
> associated with both IMO. Most companies who offer MIRs are aware of
> the statistics in that only about 20% of people who qualify for MIRs
> go on to claim them. In other words there's a dangling carrot that's
> soon forgotten after the purchase. Do you have any idea as to the
> percentage of plans sold that are actually used to make a finished
> working machine?
>
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "crankorgan" <john@> wrote:
> >
>