Survey

In the past, I know that I have posed these thoughts/questions in a informal fashion..... on this forum... in previous threads/posts. This time, there is much more breadth to it........ and will direct our future. ((( Yes, we have some control over destiny/future/fate ))). I will need help from you guys of whom are capable of recruiting other folks from other forums to participate in.... specifically..... this survey. For now.... try and keep your answers short/to-the-point. We shall expound on them to greater extent ... in another thread. Please read all questions first.

1. IF a DE (design engineer) ..... thru the course of time..... comes up with a tiny/minor concept/invention for an already existing detector..... Should he incorporate it into the production line?

2. Or should he 'hold' that concept/invention in reserve...........let more time pass........ until he comes up with several more concepts...... then release it (at a later date) as a entirely NEW unit (with a new name)?

3. Would you be frustrated if: Every couple/few months..... a new/mild upgrade is naturally incorporated into the existing production run..... when these concepts are discovered/invented?

Justification for these questions:
There exists a certain percentage of folks of whom become frustrated when a new mod is incorporated (and publically released) into a detector of which they just purchased/paid for a new (one-generation older) unit.
There exists a certain percentage of folks of whom applaud implementation of continuous progress.

Tom

1. IF a DE (design engineer) ..... thru the course of time..... comes up with a tiny/minor concept/invention for an already existing detector..... Should he incorporate it into the production line?
Yes............. I'm all for evolution of an already existing line, as long as it isnt earth shattering.


2. Or should he 'hold' that concept/invention in reserve...........let more time pass........ until he comes up with several more concepts...... then release it (at a later date) as a entirely NEW unit (with a new name)?

No. IMHO.......a whole new machine should encompass a whole different line of performance and feature set. Whats "new" about the same old core machine with a few new bells/whistles?
..

3. Would you be frustrated if: Every couple/few months..... a new/mild upgrade is naturally incorporated into the existing production run..... when these concepts are discovered/invented?

Not at all. Crap happens. I'd EXPECT to have improvements/alterations added to an existing line if it enhances that line..as a matter of course. The small improvements to the F75 come to mind here. It shows the manyfacturers are listening and trying to improve their product. I Would hope and expect however that when any given machine was sent in for warranty repair, that the "improvements" would/could be incorporated into the machine being repaired.

People who already owned the original would be upset; everyone else would be happy.

Ideally, when such an improvement occurs, the manufacturer should either offer to upgrade the original machines at minimal or no cost, or offer a discount or rebate for recent purchasers who want to purchase the upgrade (and thereby end up with two machines).

---Dan Hughes

A. The model designation indicates what the revision level is so that the used market knows what they are getting.

B. An explanation in laymans or semi technical terms is provided for the revision as I may pass on an upgrade that affects the machines performance for certain uses.

Tom

I would like to see the manufactures upgrade new machines as they become available and offer upgrades to customer machines on a schedule of once or twice a year and make it known what the upgrade is. Not every upgrade will help all detectoriests, but we would have a choice if we believe it is worth the expence.
Thanks
Bill Messer

1. IF a DE (design engineer) ..... thru the course of time..... comes up with a tiny/minor concept/invention for an already existing detector..... Should he incorporate it into the production line?
a.The DE's should be looking for improvements and they should be added to current production after all that wouldn't that be good additional testing!

2. Or should he 'hold' that concept/invention in reserve...........let more time pass........ until he comes up with several more concepts...... then release it (at a later date) as a entirely NEW unit (with a new name)?
a. Don't hold in reserve. I believe feedback from the field would be an improvement of the item and allow some users to enjoy the benefits.

3. Would you be frustrated if: Every couple/few months..... a new/mild upgrade is naturally incorporated into the existing production run..... when these concepts are discovered/invented?
a.This happens to all of us, not only with detectors, but other products also. We would all like the new and improved and if we could afford them it would be great but if not, start saving your finds towards making the purchase! No matter when you buy there will another new and improved coming along in the near future!

Wally

Justification for these questions:
There exists a certain percentage of folks of whom become frustrated when a new mod is incorporated (and publically released) into a detector of which they just purchased/paid for a new (one-generation older) unit.
There exists a certain percentage of folks of whom applaud implementation of continuous progress.

Hi NASA Tom,

1) Yes

2) No

3) No

I agree with Streak's remarks.

Jim.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 1. IF a DE (design engineer) ..... thru the course
> of time..... comes up with a tiny/minor
> concept/invention for an already existing
> detector..... Should he incorporate it into the
> production line?

Absolutely! All products evolve on an ongoing basis. Detector manufacturers need to break with some of their "traditions" and become more like the rest of the modern technology industries, look at computers and software as an example, how often do fixes, service packs, updates, etc get down loaded to your PC? New detectors should all incorporate remote service, software updates etc. It is the new millennium after all.
>
> 2. Or should he 'hold' that concept/invention in
> reserve...........let more time pass........ until
> he comes up with several more concepts...... then
> release it (at a later date) as a entirely NEW
> unit (with a new name)?

In a word, No!
>
> 3. Would you be frustrated if: Every couple/few
> months..... a new/mild upgrade is naturally
> incorporated into the existing production run.....
> when these concepts are discovered/invented?

Again No, I would have more respect for my detector company for their dedication to producing the best possible machine for their end users.
When you buy a 2009 car do you expect it to be the same as the 2010 model?
If you absolutely have to have that shiny new 2010 model you will trade up, Right?
>
> Justification for these questions:
> There exists a certain percentage of folks of whom
> become frustrated when a new mod is incorporated
> (and publically released) into a detector of which
> they just purchased/paid for a new (one-generation
> older) unit.
> There exists a certain percentage of folks of whom
> applaud implementation of continuous progress.
>
> Tom

Time, tide, and technology wait for no man, learn to accept it, go with it, enjoy the fruits of all the talented people's efforts as they improve your hobby.

Regards,

Drew.

1. Yes but only if they offer it also as a relatively inexpensive optional upgrade to the earlier versions AND the composite of these small singular improvements aren't the primary basis of the next new model. This helps minimize the negative impact on the used market and insure the next new model is hopefully significantly different.

2. Answered in #1

3. This depends on how many (and often) and of what significance the improvements are. As long as I ultimately have the opportunity to acquire the small improvements somehow without having to buy "the new version of the same detector" in order to get them, I wouldn't be frustrated.

Summary: I think adopting small improvements are good for the new buyer and the manufacturer by possibly help heating up interest in a slow economic market situation. However, care and consideration needs to be paid to current customers/owners. I would think there could be a consensus internally that creates a "threshold" where improvements above the threshold are relegated to a new model down the road and those below are or might be incorporated into current production.

Tom:

As I'm sure you are well aware of, the times are much different than before the computer/electronic age and it has caused many to expect the newest/latest/greatest thing in the shortest length of time. The more interested the consumer is in the product, whether it's computers, cell phones, metal detectors or what have you, the greater the desire to have the latest bells and whistles. Of course, these interested ones are the same ones who buy the products (not the uninterested ones), and so the designer/manufactor has to decide which pony to ride to keep the excitement going and bring in the most profits.

Normally, I would not wait for a newer model if it only had "tiny/minor concept/invention(s) for an already existing detector" unless this addition was something that I personally thought to be much more benifitial to me that the concept was thought to contain to the company that implimented it.

I once knew a musician whom would learn a piece of music just for the fact that it was a piece of music. He could play quite well, but never excelled in any of the pieces of music. I think metal detecting and many other things are the same way. Kind of like your remark to one member "beware the man who only owns one gun" thing. He very likely knows how to use it, and use it extremly well!

Maybe the companys should impliment the concept of designing processors for their detectors with the capabilities of consumer upgrades via computer or upgrade disc's. What would be more exciting than buying the latest detector magazine with an included disc for upgrading different machines? If the recipient tried the upgrade and didn't like it, take it out. Everyone seems to be interested in customizing everything they have today, so why not the metal detector?

If this is not possible, then introducing new models with a "tiny/minor concept/invention for an already existing detector" would only be concidered by me to be used as an instrument to keep the interest going for the "latest/greatest" group, and produce additional income for the company. The "latest/greatest" group will have something to feed their habit, the company will have made some additional profits to hopfully use for research into major concepts/inventions, and we who are satisfied with with what we have will wait for the major upgrades.

It use to bother me to see minor upgrades to things I purchased, but now I can see the benifits of the concept. I have come to realize that I will probably never really get the full potential out of the unit I presently have, and the newest release will very likely not make me any better. At my age, you come to realize that you don't really have time to become an expert in everything that you would like to be, so you make the best choice you can with the information you have at hand, and don't look back. None of this "If I had known that..." thing. If you did your research well, "If I had known that..." would not have been information available at the time you made your decision.

So,

1. Maybe!

2. a: If it's a "tiny/minor concept/invention", "No!"
b: If it's a major concept/invention, "Yes!"

3. "No!"

Clear as mud, n'est-ce pas?

Interesting watching this thread evolution take 'shape'. Priceless input..... with very valid comments/statements. Keep them coming!

I tried to ask the questions with minimum bias so as to ascertain max accuracy/validity.

Being a computer tech for 15+ years gives me a small insight.


1. Program adjustments (software) (not hardware) should be via internet etc. Simple usb/firewire etc. connection and needed software. This would not be a major project for any experienced programmer.
(Remember what Microsoft has done in the past 10 years)

Actually this is the answer for all the above questions. Hey, if Fisher could incorporate this in their design, they would jump in front of everyone in the field.

Being a computer tech for 15+ years gives me a small insight.


1. Program adjustments (software) (not hardware) should be via internet etc. Simple usb/firewire etc. connection and needed software. This would not be a major project for any experienced programmer.
(Remember what Microsoft has done in the past 10 years)

Actually this is the answer for all the above questions. Hey, if Fisher could incorporate this in their design, they would jump in front of everyone in the field.

Minelab does something simular, but not exact.

1. No
2. Yes - with a clear model name change (IE. F75b)
3. Yes. If the upgrades were significant and I had to pay for them, I would not purchase the detector until they were at a later modification stage (IE. F75D).

It has not been a succesful business model unless the OEM has a SIMPLE way to deliver the changes to the consumer free or at a low cost.

Tom are YOU doing some ground work for Fisher? I want depth that is stable the more depth the better. Whties new machine does not impress me with color. I want something that is different but works in getting the masking problem and the depth problem taken care of. I won't just buy a new machine less it can do a way better job then the F75

LowBoy

TAKE A LITTLE TIME KICKBACK AND WATCH SOME OF MY DETECTING VIDEO'S BELOW ON YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

If you don’t dig it, then how are you going to know what you’re missing!
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2009 03:16PM by Lawrenzo.

I loved because it was both realistic AND HONEST!!
there are those out there that no matter what kind of handstands the detector designer/manufacturers do....they will remain unsatisfied, and I've come to discover that those guys (whom are relatively few in numbers)are usually the least skilled detectorists.
I USED to detect with a guy that HAD to have the latest and greatest. He was of the mindset that it was ALL the equipment, and little experience/learning. He depended 100% on the machine....and 0% on things that could be gleaned in the field. In the three years I detected with him, his skills didnt improve a bit, and he got pasted every time we went out.
There was always "something wrong with his machine", and he wasnt adaptable at all.On top of all THAT...he always "knew it all"...and would'nt take the time to listen to others and maybe learn a thing or two on occasion.
His answers HERE would no doubt be No , yes, and yes. He would HAVE to have it all, at NO cost.....and RIGHT now! But even if he GOT that, he would still find something to whine about or have an "excuse" to fall back on. If everyone had YOUR attitude and wisdom......we would all be happier and more sucessful!
As I said.....loved your post. You have reaffirmed/restored my faith in humanity! Streak!

Depth,Stability,seperation,ease of use,accurancy,affordabillity at a good weight ratio...To me I use the F75 for the Fun and Challenge of the Hunt..I Have very limited time on my hands and I always need to make the Best of it..
Great post ....Its nice to read Different opinions Knowing The Experiance and Knowledge Thats here on this Site..A no bull Aproach to Finding anything and everything in the Ground..Been gone a while I'm back...james

1. IF a DE (design engineer) ..... thru the course of time..... comes up with a tiny/minor concept/invention for an already existing detector..... Should he incorporate it into the production line?

No! We as users are always trouble shooting our units. The only way we know our unit is working properly is to validate against other users. You see this all the time on all the detector forums. You can't validate your peach to someones else's nectarine. You also never know what you got or are getting when you purchase a unit. The Bounty Hunter Time Ranger is a perfect example of this. This one machine has gone through so many DE tinkerings that you really have no idea what you are going to receive when you purchase one, much less find a manual that fits your particualar machine.

2. Or should he 'hold' that concept/invention in reserve...........let more time pass........ until he comes up with several more concepts...... then release it (at a later date) as a entirely NEW unit (with a new name)?

Yes. The DE is always tinkering with his product perfomance or packaging. Rather than morphing the unit on the fly, leaving the user in the dark with both performance changes as well as all the documentation mismatches, it would be much better on the consumer to know what he's getting by introducing the changes with new model nomenclature. The user knows what he is getting, he can still validate his unit's perfomance against other owners units, and there is documentation that matches the unit.

3. Would you be frustrated if: Every couple/few months..... a new/mild upgrade is naturally incorporated into the existing production run..... when these concepts are discovered/invented?

Yes. See responses to questions 1 and 2.

HH

Mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2009 03:42PM by Mike Hillis.

I think that they should save the changes up and add them in all at once on a set schedule of once a year or two. If the changes are fairly minor they should rename the machine the F whatever version 2.1 and on . If the changes are major than they should rename the unit.

So far; the responses match expectations; however, the response ratio is NOT in accord w/my expectations. Fascinating. I wanted short, to-the-point answers; yet, it is in the 'technicals' (justifications) that presents pique interest.

Welcome back James.

LCPM = And then some.

Streak! = Yes, we & Mfr's have a tendency to appease to the 'exceptions' vs. the norm. And as wrongful as this is; squeakest wheel gets the most grease. One rotten apple...........theory.

I was (still am) hoping for approx 50 different (folks) inputs. Need aggregate. It's important.

Tom

OK Tom here we go...Yes they should allow updates as long as they are going to make the unit a better machine. Not so much for seals and stuff like that but software. When I got the F75 it took me awhile to get the machine to work for me in the Calif Gold County. I read your post and knowing we had different ground it was your info that let me move forward with what worked and didn't work.

If Fisher in the first had a major upgrade that maybe would add more depth or help with unmasking I would send it in. If they let me download if from the internet even better.

I am all for improvements that can be seen in the field. So having a plarform that would let you switch boards to upgrade would really give me more bang for the buck. They do it on my blue ray my camera even my SUV.

The thing would be that the designer would have to know that they were going to have changes in the near future that would make the detector better.

Say they had a way of switching a board so if you were relic hunting the machine would be set for that type of hunting. And would be set up to run full power and freq unmasking and so forth for that type of hunting. The new whites takes a lot of thought on how to program it. I think a lot of users will never get that machine working at its best.

LowBoy

TAKE A LITTLE TIME KICKBACK AND WATCH SOME OF MY DETECTING VIDEO'S BELOW ON YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

If you don’t dig it, then how are you going to know what you’re missing!
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!

"The new whites takes a lot of thought on how to program it. I think a lot of users will never get that machine working at its best."

You keep throwing this stuff in -- what's the basis? I've been hunting with two guys with these and all is good for them. Same controls as DFX just new names.

Interesting subject.
I believe that in order to answer the questions we have to look at the process that takes place before a unit is introduced.I'm going to make a bit of an assumption that we are talking about flagship units,eg. Vision, explorer, f70.
As an example of process I would point to the fisher CZ-6. I think that the DE, marketing people and the company did it right, and the platform has stood the test of time. still one of the deepest,very stable in tuff ground and great on salt water beaches. Have had some minor problems with bad 4 pin connectors and such but the electronics(which are much more labor intensive)have seen very little change other than the CZ3D.
Oh yeh! They didn't get Chuck in shipping to write the user manual.Sorry,couldn't resist.
Question 1- no
" 2- New model, should have a little!!! WOW!!! factor.
" 3- Only if we could down load the changes. I have a 6 week
turnaround were I live.

P.S I don't think we should look at detectors the same as computers.

Thanks for your time.

1. IF a DE (design engineer) ..... thru the course of time..... comes up with a tiny/minor concept/invention for an already existing detector..... Should he incorporate it into the production line?

[FROM A CONSUMER STANDPOINT, IF IT IMPROVES THE MACHINE, GO FOR IT. IT'S NOT THE SAME AS A CAR RECALL/FIX, BUT WE'RE GLAD THAT AUTOMAKERS TRY TO IMPROVE THINGS ON THE FLY.]

2. Or should he 'hold' that concept/invention in reserve...........let more time pass........ until he comes up with several more concepts...... then release it (at a later date) as a entirely NEW unit (with a new name)?

[ONLY IF THE NEW MACHINE WILL LOOK AND BEHAVE APPRECIABLY DIFFERENT.]

3. Would you be frustrated if: Every couple/few months..... a new/mild upgrade is naturally incorporated into the existing production run..... when these concepts are discovered/invented?

[NO, ASSUMING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INNOVATIONS, NOT 'FIXES'. WHEN FISHER CALLED THEIR BATTERY COMPARTMENT SPRING FIX AN 'UPGRADE', THAT WAS FRUSTRATING. IT WAS A 'FIX' TO ADDRESS FAULTY ENGINEERING].

Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the poll. - Jim

Thanks Tom....I have Missed a Bunch of Info I have some Catching up to do..
I almost forgot..the bigest Issue to me For an Improvement machine..Is to Build a 2 into 1 Machine..Maybe by just Pluggin in a SD like card...I live in Central NC, Its often my Travels might Take me from the Mtns to the Oceans..In a short periad of time..I know We need to be realistic Due to weight and Cost..But Dreams never Hurt...Great info folks..james

IMHO the F5 has the BEST user interface I've ever seen on any machine hands down, easy to program, GREAT visual display with large numbers and meaningful real time information on the screen. If FRL would keep the F5 user interface/display, combined with dual (or triple) frequency technology (with the ability to select a single freq or a combination of freqs), and the high performance of the T2/F70/75/CZ with modern updates such as better stability then the current crop of hi-end FT machines (which the multifreq would address), keep the trigger, better ergonomics (sorry I don't feel the ergonomics of the F70 are good, it's light yes, but not so comfortable to swing for hours), they would have a BIG winner on their hands. Also don't make us wait so long for accessory coils, it's not rocket science to make a coil, bring a variety out along with a new machine so we can have the tools required for the job at hand.

1. IF a DE (design engineer) ..... thru the course of time..... comes up with a tiny/minor concept/invention for an already existing detector..... Should he incorporate it into the production line?

Yes

2. Or should he 'hold' that concept/invention in reserve...........let more time pass........ until he comes up with several more concepts...... then release it (at a later date) as a entirely NEW unit (with a new name)?

Depends on the features :-) If a major invention then it may merit a new machine, difficult to answer as it's a very big what-if scenario.

3. Would you be frustrated if: Every couple/few months..... a new/mild upgrade is naturally incorporated into the existing production run..... when these concepts are discovered/invented?

No, I believe this is the current direction all modern electronics have taken. FRL/FT would simply be joining the 21st century by allowing the machines to be USER software/firmware upgradable. They should also allow the user to select which firmware/sw version they want to choose, as many times we've seen reports where users send their machines into FRL for a repair and while it's there FRL "updates" the firmware and the machine returns with inferior performance then it started with.

hh,
Brian

Pirating has always been a fear of many detector Mfr's..... especially when it's performed external of the factory. And most TRUE electronic upgrades to a detector ... involves component/hardware change-out....,,,,,.....NOT just a program/code change.

VERY good inputs thus far. Still need quite a few more inputs from different folks.

--Thanks.

I work for the largest network equipment manufacturer in the world, so I definitely understand the pirating issue as we had to deal with this issue as well. There's ways to prevent that issue though, such as encrypting the software/firmware. The other concern would be users botching the upgrade and creating an unnecessary RMA for FRL. If the upgrade software is robust enough (and easy enough to use) it shouldn't cause too many problems.

I would just like to make a slight correction to my earlier post were I referred to the F70 as the Fisher flagship, Should have read F75.
Thanks Tom.

Streak:

Thank you for the very nice compliment. Being a new member here, I hesitated at first to add my thoughts to the mix, but finally gave in hoping to be of at least some help in the survey. I have witnessed the same behavior you wrote of in a few people. Thankfully, not many. I have also learned that there are only a few really mean, dirty, nasty people in life.

...they just move around a lot :-)


Mike Hillis:

You may very well be on to something here. I have a habit of tinkering/modifying about everything I have and forget what this type of behavior would be like for those who have learned to work with what's given them. Software updates could develope into a nightmare for many that have little interest in "getting in deep" if not implimented very wisely.

liquid1: I liked your thoughts on possibably utilizing simm/sd type cards for ugrades. Something that would leave the original software untouched should you remove the upgrade card. That way, if we who are habitual tinkers get in real trouble, just pull the chip :-)

But then, as NASA-Tom said, "...most TRUE electronic upgrades to a detector ... involves component/hardware change-out....,,,,,.....NOT just a program/code change". Improvements that would really make a difference to most of us may not be possible with software only, and so would necessarily require a completely revamped detector. It would be nice if it weren't always so, but I can live with it.

So Tom, with these thoughts in mind, I would add to my first answers:

1. a: If it's a minor software upgrade improvement, impliment some way for owners to add/include it safely into their present machine.
b: If it's only possible through hardware redesign/replacement, let it be saved for the next new model.

2. Only hold out for including the minor upgrades into a newer model if it's hardware related, or something so important (if it's software related) that it would better profit the company (and our hobby) by releasing a new model.

3. Same as before, No!