sbijou
Contributor
That's a great point.
I doubt Shearwater is swimming in piles of profits, but I suspect they are just profitable enough to be satisfied. Perhaps it is that which enables them to provide such reportedly amazing customer service and public relations (see all their candid, helpful posts here on SB). Try getting ahold of a a real person at one of those companies that produces $300 computers.
As much as it looks to us like these things are flying off the shelf, all dive computers are niche products. Shearwater's market share is likely pretty small. I suspect their R&D and other costs are high compared with costs of production. In other words, unless they could somehow substantially increase market share, reducing production costs might not save them enough to be able to reduce the retail price by as much as one thinks. They might not be able to offer the same quality product for $300 no matter what kind of re-engineering or thrifty parts sourcing they do.
As far as re-engineering, if they were to shave a few dollars off the production cost by, say, using a less expensive plastic or reduce the case thickness by still a few more millimeters, that would be fine until some diver somewhere cracks the case, and then in an instant Shearwater loses the reputation for ruggedness that they have worked so hard to achieve. If (just to pick some silly numbers) one in a million of their present products fails, but a hypothetical future low-cost product has a failure rate of one in 100,000, was it worth it? Low-end dive computer manufacturers seem to think it IS worth it. I think most of us who have bought Shearwater computers would rather pay a little more for an over-engineered product that can seemingly withstand a nuclear hit than a little less for something that still has a lower failure rate than comparably priced products. No, it doesn't make logical sense for consumers to desire an over-engineered product, but I guess it's a psychological thing. I have owned a lot of consumer electronics gadgets, and I'm tired of things that break and companies that don't communicate, don't stand behind their products, and are hard to get ahold of.
I'm sure they've done the metrics concerning the financial viability of different price point computers and have chosen their path. More market share doesn't always equate to greater profits. Time and time again much larger, more successful companies have pursued the greater sales numbers, only to be bankrupted a short time after. A business plan makes sence if it achieves the company's desired result, not the expectations of an outside party with limited knowledge. Also- consider the issue of branding. Shearwater's image is sterling. They know their consumer and exceed their expectations. Shearwater doesn't try to be all things , to all divers. In a limited market place such as scuba equipment, the downside of of reaching a wider audience could be greater than the potential benefits.