Chicken or the Egg - Manufacturers or Players.

[PBX Ronin 23]

Discussion Topic: Who is the mother of Innovation in Paintball. Is it the Manufacturers who produce the products we hunger for? Or is it the Players, whose relentless search for a competitve edge, leads us to innovate.

[Chronobreak]

with the exception of a few companies/people arent most industry heads ex or current/former abllers and or players of the sport?


so technicaly players....manufacturing is how things get done

[WenULiVeUdiE]

Players create demand for new products, and manifacturers try to match their demands. But sometimes the manufacturers create the demand through advertising/hype.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Originally, it was all the players. Back in the days of 12gr's and stick feeders, it was players who worked out ways to use bigger air tanks, and bulk feeders (made from oil-cans!). Budd Orr was a player who decided he could make a better marker in his garage, and thus was born WGP. Today I think it is almost all done by the industry, who havwe hired players like manike to run their R&D.

[peewee]

Players in the past, they made stuff that they found that they needed thru experience.

[Lurker27]

I have a friend...Yalie actually, who is convinced that biological mirrors economics. Naturally I contend it's the other way around.but none of that is the point.

Manufacturers innovate, but the direction is controlled by dollars. It's evolutionary in the sense that manufacturers have created many a product that have become outdated, or have failed overall.

I would cite as an example, the q-loader. To my knowledge, quite the unique concept, but simply not effective enough to make an impact on the market place.

The manufacturers put out alot of ideas...what survives is patently up to the players. It's that simple.

[PBX Ronin 23]

The manufacturers put out alot of ideas...what survives is patently up to the players. It's that simple.

So what you're postulating then is that the source of innovation is inconsequential. What's more critical is how products are received by the market. Regardless of how innovative a product can be it's up to the players to make it a success or not. Interesting take.

[magman007]

i have to agree. take the epic for an example, almost garaunteed to stop chops, or the alien, same deal. what about xmags with level 10 and ace? impossible to chop, but did they sell very well? no. samw with the epic. it is up to the players to decide if the product will survive.


look at timmies. they didnt really sell till the gz came out, then the 02 etc etc. now they are hott

[B.A.M.]

players started the inovation but now companies are the invator with all the high tech stuff.

[luke]

So what you're postulating then is that the source of innovation is inconsequential. What's more critical is how products are received by the market. Regardless of how innovative a product can be it's up to the players to make it a success or not. Interesting take.

I think TK would second this! (sounds like a TK qoute )

To answer your question "Who is the mother of Innovation in Paintball" not sure who the mother is, but TK was the father.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Discussion Topic: Who is the mother of Innovation in Paintball. Is it the Manufacturers who produce the products we hunger for? Or is it the Players, whose relentless search for a competitve edge, leads us to innovate.

I think we all have a good idea of the answer to this, though maybe we don't recognize it. Who here knows even one player who has modified his own equipment for a competitive advantage? Personally modified, with something truly unique and custom-made, not purchased from a paintball company.

[abunkerer]

Hmmm, I think that it is the insaine, err, I mean genius R&D people (and not players) who mastermind some of the greatest paintball inventions such as the "firestorm Crank" and the poison arrow barrel system...or those full body protective paintball suits, that look like snowsuits. All very groundbreaking inventions...Im going with "the egg" here.

[PBX Ronin 23]

From what most of you are saying, a superior product design isn't as important as market perception.

Perfect example would be E-mag vis-a-vis Angel Speed. Speed sold more because of sex appeal regardless of whether or not the E-Mag is a more innovative design.

Is this the way it should be?

[teufelhunden]

Mel, innovation doesn't mean jack. It's about performance. I don't care how many man hours you put into your design, how different it is, or how unique I'll be if I have one. I care that my gun will shoot a lot of paint straight, fast, and with good efficiency.

You could come to me with some new car that has 50,000 man hours of engineering into it.. and if it doesn't work better than my 100+-year-old-design internal combustion engine, I don't care.

[manike]

I think we all have a good idea of the answer to this, though maybe we don't recognize it. Who here knows even one player who has modified his own equipment for a competitive advantage? Personally modified, with something truly unique and custom-made, not purchased from a paintball company.

I'm not sure that's a good way to look at it.

If I look at it from my work eyes, I can see that almost all of our new technology developments come from players who had an idea on how to make something better. There are some truely innovative things that came from elsewhere though and not directly from players.

But as pointed out, market perception is PHENOMENALLY important.

And however great something is, if the paying customer won't buy it or doesn't want it then it's not going to be a success. To get that to happen can be a factor of many issues.