[arrl-odv:23180] Yaesu
You may hear that Yaesu is very unhappy with the QST Product Review in September QST and that the company is sharply reducing its QST advertising. This will be apparent with the October issue; the usual three pages of Yaesu ads on pages 6-8 will contain a photo spread about the National Centennial Convention instead. The inside back cover is also affected. If you have read the review you may well wonder why it has elicited such a strong reaction, since it is generally favorable. I am in direct communication with Yaesu President Jun Hasegawa with regard to the matter. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
While the review of Yaesu's actual product is indeed generally favorable, my guess is that Yaesu is hot under the collar because of the opinions and editorial content found with the review, or how a reader might take away that information whether it was intended that way or not. A few examples in the first few paragraphs before any actual review of product commences: "So now we have four incompatible digital voice modes..." (Potential takeaway: "Thank you for muddying the water further, Yaesu") "...D-STAR, APCO-25, and DMR have a significant number of users and repeaters. D-STAR and DMR have extensive, worldwide networks in operation." (Potential takeaway: The forthcoming review is about something that hardly has any users, repeaters, or worldwide networks in operation) Later in the article: "Yaesu's digital voice mode, C4FM, isn't compatible with any other digital voice systems in common use in Amateur Radio" (Potential takeaway: The forthcoming review is about something that isn't compatible with anything else out there) I don't even have any interest in this product, for what it's worth. While these statements (and others within the article) may indeed be true, they strike me as unnecessary, perhaps over the top, and risk being perceived as digs within what's supposed to be confined to an unbiased, objective, honest-broker review of a physical product and its actual vs. claimed performance and ease of use. ARRL shouldn't concern itself with how a product fits into the world from a philosophical standpoint. It should merely put the product on the bench, characterize it with lab gear, assess its user interface and operation, and state its findings. 73, Brian N5ZGT On Aug 19 2014 8:12 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
You may hear that Yaesu is very unhappy with the QST Product Review in September QST and that the company is sharply reducing its QST advertising. This will be apparent with the October issue; the usual three pages of Yaesu ads on pages 6-8 will contain a photo spread about the National Centennial Convention instead. The inside back cover is also affected.
If you have read the review you may well wonder why it has elicited such a strong reaction, since it is generally favorable.
I am in direct communication with Yaesu President Jun Hasegawa with regard to the matter.
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv [1] Links: ------ [1] http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Couldn't agree more Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 19, 2014, at 13:47, Brian Mileshosky <n5zgt@swcp.com> wrote:
While the review of Yaesu's actual product is indeed generally favorable, my guess is that Yaesu is hot under the collar because of the opinions and editorial content found with the review, or how a reader might take away that information whether it was intended that way or not.
A few examples in the first few paragraphs before any actual review of product commences:
"So now we have four incompatible digital voice modes..." (Potential takeaway: "Thank you for muddying the water further, Yaesu")
"...D-STAR, APCO-25, and DMR have a significant number of users and repeaters. D-STAR and DMR have extensive, worldwide networks in operation." (Potential takeaway: The forthcoming review is about something that hardly has any users, repeaters, or worldwide networks in operation)
Later in the article: "Yaesu's digital voice mode, C4FM, isn't compatible with any other digital voice systems in common use in Amateur Radio" (Potential takeaway: The forthcoming review is about something that isn't compatible with anything else out there)
I don't even have any interest in this product, for what it's worth. While these statements (and others within the article) may indeed be true, they strike me as unnecessary, perhaps over the top, and risk being perceived as digs within what's supposed to be confined to an unbiased, objective, honest-broker review of a physical product and its actual vs. claimed performance and ease of use. ARRL shouldn't concern itself with how a product fits into the world from a philosophical standpoint. It should merely put the product on the bench, characterize it with lab gear, assess its user interface and operation, and state its findings.
73,
Brian N5ZGT
On Aug 19 2014 8:12 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
You may hear that Yaesu is very unhappy with the QST Product Review in September QST and that the company is sharply reducing its QST advertising. This will be apparent with the October issue; the usual three pages of Yaesu ads on pages 6-8 will contain a photo spread about the National Centennial Convention instead. The inside back cover is also affected.
If you have read the review you may well wonder why it has elicited such a strong reaction, since it is generally favorable.
I am in direct communication with Yaesu President Jun Hasegawa with regard to the matter.
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
While it is arguable that the tone could have been different, it seems to me that interoperability is a very important question for evolving modes. Perhaps not all operators would be cognizant of this issue until they purchased a product and then found that they couldn't talk to their buddies who also had "digital" rigs. It seems to me that the statements quoted mention facts, not opinions. Furthermore, we've gone through a lot of turmoil recently about whether we should allow the "perception" of undue influence to exist for the lab and ARRL's equipment reviews. And now, we are faced with an advertiser apparently directly trying to pressure ARRL because it doesn't like the tone of a review. Gratuitously slamming a manufacturer's product would be one thing; but calling out a concrete issue that could affect potential purchasers is another. Perhaps the appropriate question is, "why weren't similar questions raised when D-Star (or whatever flavor you prefer) first appeared?" I don't think we serve members well if we just stick to a listing of spec's, without pointing out the issues that the equipment will encounter in actual operation. I hope Dave is successful in bringing Yaesu back into the fold, but I don't think we should pull our punches to avoid losing advertising revenue. 73, Greg, K0GW On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Michael Lee <mikelee0531@me.com> wrote:
Couldn't agree more
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 19, 2014, at 13:47, Brian Mileshosky <n5zgt@swcp.com> wrote:
While the review of Yaesu's actual product is indeed generally favorable, my guess is that Yaesu is hot under the collar because of the opinions and editorial content found with the review, or how a reader might take away that information whether it was intended that way or not.
A few examples in the first few paragraphs before any actual review of product commences:
"So now we have four incompatible digital voice modes..." (Potential takeaway: "Thank you for muddying the water further, Yaesu")
"...D-STAR, APCO-25, and DMR have a significant number of users and repeaters. D-STAR and DMR have extensive, worldwide networks in operation." (Potential takeaway: The forthcoming review is about something that hardly has any users, repeaters, or worldwide networks in operation)
Later in the article: "Yaesu's digital voice mode, C4FM, isn't compatible with any other digital voice systems in common use in Amateur Radio" (Potential takeaway: The forthcoming review is about something that isn't compatible with anything else out there)
I don't even have any interest in this product, for what it's worth. While these statements (and others within the article) may indeed be true, they strike me as unnecessary, perhaps over the top, and risk being perceived as digs within what's supposed to be confined to an unbiased, objective, honest-broker review of a physical product and its actual vs. claimed performance and ease of use. ARRL shouldn't concern itself with how a product fits into the world from a philosophical standpoint. It should merely put the product on the bench, characterize it with lab gear, assess its user interface and operation, and state its findings.
73,
Brian N5ZGT
On Aug 19 2014 8:12 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
You may hear that Yaesu is very unhappy with the QST Product Review in September QST and that the company is sharply reducing its QST advertising. This will be apparent with the October issue; the usual three pages of Yaesu ads on pages 6-8 will contain a photo spread about the National Centennial Convention instead. The inside back cover is also affected.
If you have read the review you may well wonder why it has elicited such a strong reaction, since it is generally favorable.
I am in direct communication with Yaesu President Jun Hasegawa with regard to the matter.
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing listarrl-odv@reflector.arrl.orghttp://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I agree with Dave. It's hard to see why the '400 review would be looked at unfavorably. The review is almost 7 pages long, which is more than any radio I can remember has received. And on the 8th page, there's an upbeat editorial moment about how good it is that Yaesu has hopped on the digital bandwagon. I hope Dave's conversation with Yaesu resolves whatever the difficulty is, but I can't see how it could be about the '400 review. GW On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org> wrote:
You may hear that Yaesu is very unhappy with the QST Product Review in September QST and that the company is sharply reducing its QST advertising. This will be apparent with the October issue; the usual three pages of Yaesu ads on pages 6-8 will contain a photo spread about the National Centennial Convention instead. The inside back cover is also affected.
If you have read the review you may well wonder why it has elicited such a strong reaction, since it is generally favorable.
I am in direct communication with Yaesu President Jun Hasegawa with regard to the matter.
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Hello Dave, Greg et al; I have just been forwarded the following email body by other groups, please excuse the colors and fonts - they are from the original email. The link to the youtube video is produced by Gary Pearce KN4AQ who was the reviewer of the Yeasu radio in the September issue of QST. After viewing the video I wonder if perhaps some of the issue with Yeasu might be Gary's comments on his installment #160 of his HamRadioNow. Of course, Gary's HamRadioNow video has nothing to do with the ARRL. In this video Gary performs a comparison of Yeasu C4FM, DStar, P25, Turbo, etc.; but some of hiscomments about Yeasu's "Fusion" might be interpreted as a bit more pointed than what was reported in QST. I do agree with Greg, the 8 pages of the September review seemedto have an overall positive tone and I hope that things can be resolved. 73, Kermit W9XA
>>>>>> forward below >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ham Radio Now Episode 161: "Yaesu's System (Con)Fusion" on YouTube at: http://youtu.be/C1ClH3R17m0
>>>>>>>end forward >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
________________________________ From: G Widin <gpwidin@comcast.net> To: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 3:43 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:23192] Re: Yaesu I agree with Dave. It's hard to see why the '400 review would be looked at unfavorably. The review is almost 7 pages long, which is more than any radio I can remember has received. And on the 8th page, there's an upbeat editorial moment about how good it is that Yaesu has hopped on the digital bandwagon. I hope Dave's conversation with Yaesu resolves whatever the difficulty is, but I can't see how it could be about the '400 review. GW On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org> wrote: You may hear that Yaesu is very unhappy with the QST Product Review in September QST and that the company is sharply reducing its QST advertising. This will be apparent with the October issue; the usual three pages of Yaesu ads on pages 6-8 will contain a photo spread about the National Centennial Convention instead. The inside back cover is also affected.
If you have read the review you may well wonder why it has elicited such a strong reaction, since it is generally favorable. I am in direct communication with Yaesu President Jun Hasegawa with regard to the matter. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (5)
-
Brian Mileshosky -
G Widin -
Kermit Carlson -
Michael Lee -
Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ