U2 (or any long anticipated product) thoughts

[RH]

Hi All,

In reading the posts about the U2 and some of the complaints (mismatched anodize, polymer parts, doughnut shape beams, etc) I can't help but compare it to another recently released product. The new Treo 650 smartphone was recently released to much fanfare. Now, it seems there is a memory issue that is causing some early adopters to be less than thrilled with their new toys. I think there are many potential reasons for this form of buyer's remorse including:

1) The item is expensive and so we demand a lot.
2) We've had plenty of time to build lofty expectations that no product can meet.
3) Companies are rushing these new products to market.

I think the answer could be a combination of all of the above. I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

Thanks,
Robert

 

[Kiessling]

Polymer parts are a necessity and better than metal in this case.

Anodize mismatch is normal in HAIII and it is much less than with the natural HA.

donut beams cannot be avoided with the LuxV if you want it properly focussed for throw.

beam shape is perfect.


In the end, the U2 is the perfect all-around-light at top-notch quality level. I did not hear any valid complaints other than the basic facts about modern LED lights that we all are aware of, or should be.

1) true
2) might be true
3) not in this case

bernhard

 

[McGizmo]

What Bernhard said.

 

[RH]

Hi guys,

Good points. I atually meant that it was a combination of 1 and 2. I went back and added the 3rd reason after I had completed the post and didn't update my cloising statement. Good catch...nobody else caught it!

 

[Deanster]

I spent a lot of time in product development and marketing, and have a few thoughts...

As a marketing guy, you often want to announce a product early, and make it sound perfect, to freeze the marketplace, get some buzz going, and have some pent-up demand to make a great launch.

As long as you plan well and launch on schedule, this is a great deal for everyone. Early adopters are excited about the new technology/features/whaterver, and willing to put up with inevitable flaws/normal design compromises, etc. in exchange for those features/benefits.

However, when the launch takes a long time, what happens is that those same early adopters need to rationalize why they've been so excited for so long, and why they're willing to wait so long for a product. The usual answer involves a move away from a focus on the new tech/features to the notion that it's a 'perfect' product, able to leap tall buildings, and deliver the features and benefits in a no-compromises way.

Since every product has trade-offs, compromises, cost-management aspects, etc., the 'perfect' moniker is awful hard to live up to, especially when all the super-nifty new features you announced a year ago aren't new anymore (cuz users have been thinking about them for a year), have been replicated in whole or in part in other products, and are generally no longer exciting enough to create excuses for your 'imperfections'.

This pattern is why companies like Apple try so hard to keep things really secret before launch - they don't get the 'market freeze' benefit, and the products need to create their own buzz, but you're always selling something 'new', and thus it has forgivable flaws.

Not sure one approach is better, but managing the process is pretty critical.

E - R = S (Expectations minus Reality equals Satisfaction). Real-world products are always imperfect, so ya gotta make sure that's included in Expections, or you'll always have UnSatisfied customers. Doubly so at high price points within the category.

U2 seems to have this problem in spades - a year ago (or whenever we first learned about a 'six-position dimming L5') a multi-level high-power LED seemed like a wonder device, even though expensive.

Since then we've all seen how great a PWM-dimming light can be, and dimming by reducing power leaves an ugly tint - we're unsatisified. We've seen some amzingly attractive cosmetic lights (Blackbird comes to mind), and the patchy black/purple HAIII looks cheap. We've seen a half-dozen different dimming/function control systems, and a exposed detent-free plastic ring seems a little cheesy. We've seen how a carefully managed beam can really make the 5-watt beam look great, and a donut hole seems like a big deal. At a price close to that of an M6, that seems like a lot of compromises, when a year ago, it seemed amazing. Surefire's a great company, and it may be that this product will sell amazingly well in the Military and LE community, but the early adopters have kinda moved on, and are a bit dissapointed.

My $.02...

 

[greg_in_canada]

Great analysis Deanster. Thanks.

Greg

 

[McGizmo]

Deanster,
By your equation up there it would seem that satisfaction will increase with expectations being greater than the reality. I propose the dynamics are just ths opposite.

I think the term realistic expectations may be a term for the "net" of the two and I have always felt that the community of CPF to some extent has had unrealistic expectations in regards to Luxeon based flashlights as offered by commercial sources. *We* are discriminatory in regards to parameters not even known or perceived by the casual or even serious user.

The U2 is in the spot light currently and being compared to other lights both in reasonable terms as well as unreasonable terms, IMHO. Comparing a 5W Luxeon light for instance with a Lux III light is not valid in many respects. When these comparisons are given credibility, resulting expectations will fall shy of the reality.

In many ways, the bottom line should be based on actual utility, function and dependability and perceived quality and yet numbers and perceptions of "specs" may sway one from the reality. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

 

[sithjedi333]

Deanster,

Thanks for that marketing lesson in a nutshell. Very interesting.

 

[RH]

Hi Deanster,

Yes, thanks for the geat analysis from a marketing standpoint. In my line of work, we define customer satisfaction as perception minus expectation (CS=P-E). I think this is very similar to what you're saying.

Thanks,
Robert

 

[Deanster]

Thanks all - I find the interaction between product, expectations and user to be an endlessly entertaining process. People often give a hard time to tech products that are 'obsolete', but one of my mantras is that 'it will always do what it did the day you bought it.' (barring breakage or malfunction).

Your percieved needs, or what you want to connect to, may change, but the machine still does what you bought it for. My 25Mhz 1993 Mac IIci still runs fine - runs MS Word version 4 and Pagemaker 4 and Photoshop 3 beautifully in 20Mb of RAM, and boots faster than my Pentium IV computer. Not its fault that modern cameras don't speak serial easily, or that drivers aren't up-to-date - it'll still do everything I bought it to do.

The U2 is still the same light it was when announced, and if it sounded good at the price then, and your needs haven't changed, it'll probably be a good light. For me, the M2/L5 form factor doesn't really work - I like small like L4 or big like M6, so I don't really have a dog in the U2 hunt - looks nice, but I'd rather carry a small light most of the time, and a big light occasionally than a medium light all the time.

 

[Steve C]

<<...I'd rather carry a small light most of time, and a big light occasionally, than a medium light all the time.>>

WELL said. That sums up my feelings exactly.

 

[Kiessling]

[ QUOTE ]
Since then we've all seen how great a PWM-dimming light can be, and dimming by reducing power leaves an ugly tint - we're unsatisified. We've seen some amzingly attractive cosmetic lights (Blackbird comes to mind), and the patchy black/purple HAIII looks cheap. We've seen a half-dozen different dimming/function control systems, and a exposed detent-free plastic ring seems a little cheesy. We've seen how a carefully managed beam can really make the 5-watt beam look great, and a donut hole seems like a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Show me a better LuxV beam than the U2
2. reduced power levels are a choice ... and tint is overrated
3. when you actually touch the HA it is no where cheap ... it is perfect with a little violett hue. So what? HA-NAT is far worse, I call this one progress.
4. this "plastic ring" is the best possible choice here! and I haven't seen a better dimming system that is regulated in all levels and follows the KISS principle ... actually this is the greatest asset of this light.

You may like it or not for your personal style or application, but the U2 is still the most advanced multi-purpose light in existence right now. And the most perfectly built.

bernhard

 

[Gandalf]

My opinion is that the U2 is too big for prctical EDC. It's so expensive it's almost a joke. (A bad joke, but still a joke).

The video I saw showed an ugly green color in the lower power levels. Really, really, really ugly green. And I'm fairly color-blind, so it must be REALLY ugly green!

If I had foolishly spent $280 for one of these, I'd be mightly pissed off, to say the least.

No detents on the adjusting ring?

WTF?

I think this pretty much equals no brains at SureFire.

The lack of detents, (and the color, of course)which I didn't know about until now, would keep me from buying one even if it was $150, and smaller.

But it's still too big to EDC.

And SF should have stuck to natural HA.

They really, really blew it on the U2, IMHO.

*Yawn* Now what was all the exitement about? A big, ugly looking light with an incredibly bad engineering flaw, with a really ugly looking beam.

Gosh, at $280, I'll take two...if I was freaking INSANE. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[chamenos]

the lack of detents might be a good thing, since that's one place less that wear and tear could take place with use. the standard surefire LOTCs don't have detents either, and i think they're more practical that way since LOTCs practically last forever. just MHO /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Klaus]

Chill out guys - this is getting better than ATI vs NVidia on the respective user boards with the fan club of each side trying to outdo the other side justifying flaws as features and features as flaws - I guess both Bernie and Gandalf don´t have one at hand (yet?) but are just picking their arguments from different postings - and the truth as most always seems to lie somewhere in between.

As for the facts as least how I see them:

A dimmable 5W LED light was unheard of 2 years ago - no longer so

A 5W with a good reflectored beam - same issue here

A KL5/M2 sized 5 Watter - nothing new or earthshattering

The dimmer UI - to each his own - plenty choices these days

HA anodizing match or missmatch - several companies show that you CAN so much better match the colors than some Surefire fanatics want to make us believe is "state of the art" or that a "better match is not possible" - this to me is just a very defensive line of BS - it can be done but it seems at some expense and additional resource not considered necessary at SF - this "it just can´t be done" is so ridiculous it really starts to bother me /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

I think the U2 is really behind in delivery shedule and being first shown to people on SHOT 2003 which is almost 2 years ago its easy to understand why its no longer the "Ultra" thing the "U" in U2 originally was meant to be - I think its still a nice light but for me personally I mentally cancelled my "virtually" ordered U2 as for this money I guess I have better uses. And with some nice DIY or modded dimmable 5W Surefires I think I covered this ground good enough - at least for today /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

As usual only me 2 €cents and YMMV

Klaus

 

[Gandalf]

[ QUOTE ]
Klaus said:
SNIP
I guess both Bernie and Gandalf don´t have one at hand (yet?) SNIP
Klaus

[/ QUOTE ]

I for one will NEVER own one. Even at a lower price. A *much* lower price.

A year late in delivery.

So overpriced... well, I've been there.

I don't think SureFire is going to sell very many of these at retail to the public. Certainly not anywhere near what they are likely expecting to.

If the military doesn't pick them up, SF will be SOL on the U2.

For such a 'highly desirable' light, within *days* of being shipped, they are on B/S/T.

To me, that speaks volumes.

Overpriced, and under performance, in several areas.

Arguably the worst value in a SF light in many years.

Oh yeah: and despite SF's fascist pricing and dealer policies, (in my opinion), I know of at least one major SF dealer who is flipping off SF and offering *substantial* discounts on the latest SF LED lights. I'll just call them 'the Resistance'. (And it's not Botox...)

 

[SilverFox]

Hello Gandalf,

I have had the total opposite experience with my exposure to the U2.

Everyone I have shown it to has been totally impressed with all of the features (including the price).

I use an 8NX for work, and the U2 is smaller and gives the 8NX a run for its money in light output. On top of that, it has the option of adjusting the light output when less light is needed. Both run on rechargeable batteries and I would not have to carry a spare bulb with the U2 as I do with the 8NX.

As for the size, I find the 8NX fits my gloved hands very well. The U2 is a bit on the small size /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif , but very manageable.

To me, detents on the dimming ring would be like asking Mr. Bulk for clicks on the LionHeart to adjust the light level. The U2 is simple to operate, turn it on and dial a brightness.

OK, those are my thoughts. I agree SureFire was very late in bringing this light to market, but I am very impressed with it.

I have a group of friends that I show the emerging technology of flashlights to and get their comments on. They are from a variety of walks of life. They were impressed with the machining of the light and had no idea the dimmer was Nitrolon. They could not believe the output and did notice the bit of null in the hot spot. No one commented on the tint change as the light was dimmed down. They did say that the tint at full power was very white.

All in all, they agreed that the U2 seemed to live up to the advertising claims.

The discussion then turned to the price... These people know that I am into higher end lights and when I asked what they thought it was worth, they were very generous with their guesses... but still way low. I told them the price and they commented that it was a very "high end" product and the discussion turned to question my sanity. They will not be beating down doors to get one.

I don't believe this light will be purchased as a work of art to grace the mantle, but as a working tool. Those of us that use lights on a daily basis in our work find the U2 a welcome option in our lighting needs.

Tom

 

[Haesslich]

One question - since PWM is used, IIRC, for direct-drive applications, how noticeable is the dimming after a bit in the highest or near-highest modes, versus a regulated light? I've seen complaints about how the U2 uses regulation and thus causes some tint-changes, but how much more efficient is regulated?

I'm still not sure that soliders or police are the primary targets for the U2, so price isn't as much of a consideration there... though it is always a factor. However, the versatility is nice, even if I can't justify the cost of it. And, being honest, I don't buy my lights to look good - if they do that's a bonus, but not a requirement. People who make complaints about the tint of the HA are, at least in my opinion, more concerned with appearance than performance and thus aren't likely using their lights that much. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Me? I want the damned thing to work when I turn it on, and to work well for my purposes, even if I'm not trusting my life to it. That being said, I'm still not buying the U2 since I don't have a pressing need for it that isn't covered by other lights. THere will, however, be people who find it useful and thus will shell out the premium for the light... and maybe what lessons were learned with the U2 can be applied to future lights with lower price-points.

 

[Kiessling]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess both Bernie and Gandalf don´t have one at hand (yet?) but are just picking their arguments from different postings - and the truth as most always seems to lie somewhere in between.


[/ QUOTE ]

Have one here on my desk, and it is my preferred light. I do not own any other light that has the versatility of the U2 together with the quality and performance.
So ... no speculation on my part.

The HA "issue" ... depending on the settings and inner magic of your digicam the purplish hue of some of the parts is grossly overrated ... in my U2 it is there, but only slightly visible at all.
And I have yet to see really constant HA in a production light ...

[ QUOTE ]
I think the U2 is really behind in delivery shedule and being first shown to people on SHOT 2003 which is almost 2 years ago its easy to understand why its no longer the "Ultra" thing the "U" in U2 originally was meant to be

[/ QUOTE ]

Better late and working than early and flawed. And SF is still earlier than the rest ...

Gandalf ... can't help you here, sorry. Just don't buy one.


You never can please everyone, true. But think of a light that, besides a top-notch build quality, has a choice of output between 2 and 100+ lm, runtimes of up to 2 days continous-on, accepts rechargeables AND CR123 and is so easy to figure out that grandma can use it, too.
Why would anyone refuse to accept that it is a great light? Even if it is not perfectly made for the person? Look elsewhere and you won't fins another one with those features yet. Even if it is years late, it is still too early to the party compared to other manufacturers.

bernhard

P.S:. no chilling needed, I just cannot understand the large amount of negative feelings here ...

 

[Frenchyled]

Bernhard,

If you send me yours, I can say here if it's a great light or not /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Seriously, I haven't one for the moment, but my guess that I'll have one later in January /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif